Rockets add weight and complexity. Better to stay with parachutes?
You have to take into account the mass of the payload to figure out which design is better. For a Soyuz size (about 3 tonnes) parachutes are indisputably best.
For something wieghing more than 20 tonnes, adequate parachute systems become too awkward and unreliable; in addition, retro rockets are necessary nevertheless for the final meters deceleration, especially if there are any people inside. Here's the picture of an air-dropped 13 tonnes capable parachute system:
The projected mass of the ACTS' return vehicle is about 8 tonnes, which puts it into the uncertainty margin where different solutions might be applicable, ranging from parachutes to wings and paved runway landing.
A different note here: the project has got a new acronym designation: instead of PPTS (Advanced Crew Transport System) it is now PTK NP (ПТК НП, пилотируемый транспортный корабль нового поколения) which stands for New Generation Crew Transport Spaceship (NG CTS).
And one more note on my
personal preference on the public name proposal for the discussed spaceship. The idea was not mine, but I think that
Kedr (Cedar) is a better name than Rus'. Defence follows:
1. Kedr was Gagarin's callsign.
2. It's not even slightly pretentious.
3. It's irrelevant to politics.
4. Trees called Kedr in Russian are ubiquitous in Siberia (where the ship will be launched from).
5. Sounds good in Russian.
6. Easily translated in other languages, at least, European: Cedar, Zeder, Сèdre, Cedro, add your own spelling.
7. These species of trees are long living.
8. The name should please the greens and reflects relative environmental friendliness of the project.
9. The return vehicle looks very much like a pine cone (not yet opened) if you turn it upside down.
)
