Me:<br /> />>And IIRCC the allowed 'failure' rate for cargo chutes<br /> />>is less than 10% while manned chutes are less than<br /> />>1%." <br /><br />gunsandrockets:<br /> />Ahem. You are not helping the case for reusable<br /> />chutes.<br /><br />I seem to be, you had seemed unaware of a current market, infrastructure and inspection/maintenance/repacking industry for large parachutes. I informed you that there is in place such a system.<br /><br /> />Somehow I don't think the crew of the space capsule<br /> />would feel too comfortable knowing their reusable<br /> />chutes would have a failure rate of 10%! Even the<br /> />smaller manned chutes with a failure rate of 1% is<br /> />backed up with a reserve chute.<br /><br />Again you seem to be reading into my statement more than was given. Unmanned cargo chutes have a MAXIMUM failure rate allowed DURING inspection, (not use) of 10%, the same for manned chutes. If 10/1% of a lot number of parachutes fail inspection, then the whole lot is recalled and remanufactured.<br />The failure rate of parachutes is much less than 1% overall in ALL catagories.<br /><br />Your 'question' was on the inspection criteria IIRCC, not the failure rate in-use.<br /><br />Point of fact the military inspection/packing and use system has a 'use' fail rate of less than, (IIRCC from my last discussion of this) .01% for cargo chutes and less than .001% for manned chutes over the last 10 years. And THEY use each chute up to 100 times!<br /><br /> />A space capsule does not have a reserve chute<br /> />(though an Apollo style 3-chute system may have<br /> />reserve capacity such that one of the three chutes<br /> />could fail and the capsule still survive).<br /><br />Actually that was a primary reason for three chutes. Even one chute only was survivable on landing. But the chances of more than one parachute failing was pretty small.<br />I'd also point out that just because no capsule AS OF YET has had reserves does not in any way rule them out.