Never isn&#x27;t from a policy but a physics standpoint.  If the chutes are already there, then it makes sense to use them.  They are lighter&#x2F;cheaper than hauling a full backup rocket system.<p>From what I&#x27;ve seen, it looks like SpaceX plans on using the rockets to cushion a landing already under chutes, like the russians do today.  That allows for much smaller chutes and faster landing.  If the rockets fail then the landing with be rough but still survivable, with the re-usability of the craft being written off.<p>The propulsive landing of booster stages makes sense only because you already have giant engine&#x2F;fuel reserves, which aren&#x27;t going to orbit.  And since there are no humans around you don&#x27;t need any sort of abort option.<p>Also, if you are going to have a potentially rough landing, would you rather do so sitting 6&quot; from a box containing a parachute, or 6&quot; from a tank of rocket fuel?