In article ,
says...

What are the pros and cons of the two. From here, apart from the fact that
there is more sea than land, it seems to me that landing in the sea could be
far more problematical from the reuse point of view than a land landing,

This is true. Salt water and aerospace grade structures and electronics
don't mix well.

and also historically its only been used for US landings presumably as it
was convenient when targeting was not that good. Maybe its just that the
need for a wilderness area is too great for other countries to achieve when
land is being considered.

We've done it that way because we've always done it that way. Dragon
came down very close to its intended landing location. Add in
propulsive landing, which they plan to do, and it could make pinpoint
landings just about anywhere you want.

But if you're paranoid, there are large, flat, areas in the US which are
sparsely populated. I believe that Henry Spencer mentioned the Great
Plains as a possibility. Sure you might flatten a few crops, but paying
a farmer for that sort of damage ought to be cheaper than the ships
necessary for a recovery at sea.

However, I'd have thought nowadays a land landing should be possible with
much better understanding of the problems.

It is. It's just never been done in the US before. Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker