(David Shannon) :

but in general, which of these approaches requires you to carry more
extra
weight on launch?

For a given payload, a winged spacecraft weighs a minimum 15% more, and
typically 50-250% more.

(see http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld017.htm )

A capsule/DC-X vehicle has all acceleration loads in the same direction,
and the CoG in a favourable location.

But there is no free lunch.

A capsule with a parachute (the absolute lightest) gives up the option of

landing if weather is bad.
If returning to runway it needs wheels, if simple ones.
If splashing down it requires flotation gear (and a retrieval ship).

The DC-X is better off (retro fuel proabably weighs about the same as a
parachute), but the heat shielding becomes more complex. For a mature
technology and Return-on-demand missions the DC-X comes out as the
lightest.
It does require nerves of steel - if the ship fluffs the retro burn at
5000'
AGL and 300kts, in 10 seconds you go splat!

Extra data point, Armadillo AeroSpace is now considering using powered
landing instead of a parachute because of the smaller landing footprint. The
footprint size is affecting getting insurance, the smaller the footprint the
more confident the insuring company is that you will not land accidentally on
top of someone at random.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp