3 ms·

Why did NASA prefer landing in sea rather than over landmasses like Soviets did? I think there could be factors that makes landing on dry land safer than on wat

Why did NASA prefer landing in sea rather than over landmasses like Soviets did? I think there could be factors that makes landing on dry land safer than on water.

busterarm 5y ago
More equipment is involved in a land landing. That's more that can fail. you also have to consider where they're going to have an abort landing. The Soviet's launch locations weren't exactly surrounded by oceans. I'm sure landing in the Caspian Sea was undesirable to them for other reasons.
sparker72678 5y ago
A few of the pros: * It's a big, flat surface (relative to uneven dry land) * Safe to land a heavier craft with only parachutes (no retro-rockets required to soften landing) * There's a lot of ocean all around the US, so lots of possible landing zones * Large margin for error that still has a safe touchdown
VLM 5y ago
Earths surface is 70% water so if there's an incident then there's a 70% chance you'll be landing in water. Its possible to build a land lander that would not survive an ocean landing. So if for safety reasons you have to modify the design for water landing, may as well just make a water lander. (edited to add, speed at splashdown for Apollo capsules was about 15 MPH, so accidentally crashing an Apollo into a flat cornfield would feel about like falling off a bicycle... there would be some damage but its rather unlikely to kill the astronauts, so most water landers can safely-ish land on land with an extremely high odds of survival) Also helps that with the implosion of the English Empire the USA ruled the seas. Yes we had/have air force bases everywhere also, but there's just more surface area controlled. If the Soviets had tried ocean recovery it would have been extremely awkward. Very handwavy the Soviets had an enormous number of low quality attack subs and extremely limited surface ships, whereas the USA had/has a huge dominating surface fleet. For better or worse the USA has enormous experience fishing aerospace vehicles out of the water, the USSR simply could not do ocean recovery like we did.
vikingerik 5y ago
Well, the splashdown was only a temporary stage of NASA's space flight history. They switched to land landings with the Shuttle. Only a couple dozen Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions splashed down, compared to a hundred-plus Shuttle missions on land.
dogorman 5y ago
The Soviet system injured a number of people quite seriously. It gave Sigmund Jahn a permanent spinal injury in 1978, and in 1969 it broke Boris Voylnov's teeth. Water landings weren't without incident, but I don't think there were ever any injuries as severe as those.

Why did NASA prefer landing in sea rather than over landmasses like Soviets did? I think there could be factors that makes landing on dry land safer than on water.

busterarm 5y ago

More equipment is involved in a land landing. That's more that can fail. you also have to consider where they're going to have an abort landing. The Soviet's launch locations weren't exactly surrounded by oceans. I'm sure landing in the Caspian Sea was undesirable to them for other reasons.

sparker72678 5y ago

A few of the pros: * It's a big, flat surface (relative to uneven dry land) * Safe to land a heavier craft with only parachutes (no retro-rockets required to soften landing) * There's a lot of ocean all around the US, so lots of possible landing zones * Large margin for error that still has a safe touchdown

VLM 5y ago

Earths surface is 70% water so if there's an incident then there's a 70% chance you'll be landing in water. Its possible to build a land lander that would not survive an ocean landing. So if for safety reasons you have to modify the design for water landing, may as well just make a water lander. (edited to add, speed at splashdown for Apollo capsules was about 15 MPH, so accidentally crashing an Apollo into a flat cornfield would feel about like falling off a bicycle... there would be some damage but its rather unlikely to kill the astronauts, so most water landers can safely-ish land on land with an extremely high odds of survival) Also helps that with the implosion of the English Empire the USA ruled the seas. Yes we had/have air force bases everywhere also, but there's just more surface area controlled. If the Soviets had tried ocean recovery it would have been extremely awkward. Very handwavy the Soviets had an enormous number of low quality attack subs and extremely limited surface ships, whereas the USA had/has a huge dominating surface fleet. For better or worse the USA has enormous experience fishing aerospace vehicles out of the water, the USSR simply could not do ocean recovery like we did.

vikingerik 5y ago

Well, the splashdown was only a temporary stage of NASA's space flight history. They switched to land landings with the Shuttle. Only a couple dozen Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions splashed down, compared to a hundred-plus Shuttle missions on land.

dogorman 5y ago

The Soviet system injured a number of people quite seriously. It gave Sigmund Jahn a permanent spinal injury in 1978, and in 1969 it broke Boris Voylnov's teeth. Water landings weren't without incident, but I don't think there were ever any injuries as severe as those.