Hubbry Logo
SplashdownSplashdownMain
Open search
Splashdown
Community hub
Splashdown
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Splashdown
Splashdown
Splashdown
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Apollo 15 makes contact with the Pacific Ocean.
Locations of Atlantic Ocean splashdowns of American spacecraft prior to the 21st century
Locations of Pacific Ocean splashdowns of American spacecraft

Splashdown is the method of landing a spacecraft or launch vehicle in a body of water, usually by parachute. This has been the primary recovery method of American capsules including NASA's Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Orion along with the private SpaceX Dragon. It is also possible for the Boeing Starliner, Russian Soyuz, and the Chinese Shenzhou crewed capsules to land in water in case of contingency. NASA recovered the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRBs) via splashdown, as is done for Rocket Lab's Electron first stage.

As the name suggests, the vehicle parachutes into an ocean or other large body of water. Due to its low density and viscosity, water cushions the spacecraft enough that there is no need for a braking rocket to slow the final descent as is the case with Russian and Chinese crewed space capsules or airbags as is the case with the Starliner.[1]

The American practice came in part because American launch sites are on the coastline and launch primarily over water.[2] Russian launch sites such as Baikonur Cosmodrome are far inland, and most early launch aborts would descend on land.

History

[edit]
Apollo 14 returns to Earth, 1971.

The splashdown method of landing was used for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (including Skylab, which used Apollo capsules). Soyuz 23 unintentionally landed on a freezing lake with slushy patches of ice during a snowstorm.[3][4]

On early Mercury flights, a helicopter attached a cable to the capsule, lifted it from the water and delivered it to a nearby ship. This was changed after the sinking of Liberty Bell 7. All later Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules had a flotation collar (similar to a rubber life raft) attached to the spacecraft to increase their buoyancy. The spacecraft would then be brought alongside a ship and lifted onto deck by crane.

After the flotation collar is attached, a hatch on the spacecraft is usually opened. At that time, some astronauts decide to be hoisted aboard a helicopter for a ride to the recovery ship and some decided to stay with the spacecraft and be lifted aboard ship via crane. All Gemini and Apollo flights (Apollos 7 to 17) used the former, while Mercury missions from Mercury 6 to Mercury 9, as well as all Skylab missions and Apollo-Soyuz used the latter, especially the Skylab flights as to preserve all medical data. During the Gemini and Apollo programs, NASA used MV Retriever for the astronauts to practice water egress.

Apollo 11 was America's first Moon landing mission and marked the first time that humans walked on the surface of another planetary body. The possibility of the astronauts bringing pathogens from the Moon back to Earth was remote, but not ruled out. To contain any possible contaminants at the scene of the splashdown, the astronauts donned special Biological Isolation Garments and the outside of the suits were scrubbed prior to the astronauts being hoisted aboard USS Hornet and escorted safely inside a Mobile Quarantine Facility.[5]

The splashdown of the SpaceX CRS-25 resupply mission

Both the SpaceX Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 capsules were designed to use the splashdown method of landing.[a] The original cargo Dragon splashed down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Baja California. At the request of NASA, both the crew and cargo variations of the Dragon 2 capsule splash down off the coast of Florida, either in the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.[7][8]

The early design concept for Orion (then known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle) featured recovery on land using a combination of parachutes and airbags, although it was also designed to make a contingency splashdown if needed. Due to weight considerations, the airbag design concept was dropped for Orion, and it conducts landings via splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.[9]

Disadvantages

[edit]

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect is the possibility of the spacecraft flooding and sinking. For example, when the hatch of Gus Grissom's Liberty Bell 7 capsule blew prematurely, the capsule sank and Grissom almost drowned. Since the spacecraft's flooding will occur from a location in its hull where it ruptures first, it is important to determine the location on the hull that experiences the highest loading.[10] This location along the impacting side is determined by the surrounding 'air cushion' layer, which deforms the water surface before the moment of impact, and results in a non-trivial geometry of the liquid surface during first touch-down.[11][12][13] Soyuz 23 was dragged under a frozen lake by its parachutes. The crew became incapacitated by carbon dioxide and were rescued after a nine-hour recovery operation.[14]

If the capsule comes down far from any recovery forces, the crew may be stranded at sea for an extended period of time. As an example, Scott Carpenter in Aurora 7 overshot the assigned landing zone by 400 kilometers (250 mi). These recovery operation mishaps can be mitigated by placing several vessels on standby in different locations, but this can be an expensive option.

Exposure to salt water can have adverse effects on vehicles intended for reuse, such as Dragon.[15]

Launch vehicles

[edit]
Space Shuttle SRB being recovered by Freedom Star after splashing down on STS-133

Some reusable launch vehicles recover components via splashdown. This was first seen with the Space Shuttle SRBs, with STS-1 launching in 1981. Out of 135 launches, NASA recovered all but two sets of SRBs.[16]

SpaceX has conducted propulsive splashdowns of the Falcon 9 first stage, Super Heavy booster, and Starship spacecraft. These vehicles are designed to land on land or modified barges and do not always survive intact after tipping over in the water; SpaceX has mainly conducted propulsive splashdowns for development flights. After the launch of CRS-16, the booster experienced a control issue and splashed down in the ocean instead of making an intended landing at Landing Zone 1.[17]

Rocket Lab intended to catch the first stage of their Electron rocket with a helicopter as it descended under parachute, but abandoned this idea in favor of parachute splashdown. In 2020, Rocket Lab made their first booster recovery.[18]

List of spacecraft splashdowns

[edit]

Crewed spacecraft

[edit]
# Spacecraft Agency Landing date Coordinates Recovery ship Miss distance (km) Reference
1 Freedom 7 NASA May 5, 1961 27°13.7′N 75°53′W / 27.2283°N 75.883°W / 27.2283; -75.883 (Freedom 7) USS Lake Champlain 5.6 km (3.5 mi) [19]
2 Liberty Bell 7 NASA July 21, 1961 27°32′N 75°44′W / 27.533°N 75.733°W / 27.533; -75.733 (Liberty Bell 7) USS Randolph 9.3 km (5.8 mi) [20]
3 Friendship 7 NASA February 20, 1962 21°26′N 68°41′W / 21.433°N 68.683°W / 21.433; -68.683 (Friendship 7) USS Noa
(USS Randolph**) 		74 [21]
4 Aurora 7 NASA May 24, 1962 19°27′N 63°59′W / 19.450°N 63.983°W / 19.450; -63.983 (Aurora 7) USS John R. Pierce
(USS Intrepid**) 		400 [22]
5 Sigma 7 NASA October 3, 1962 32°06′N 174°28′W / 32.100°N 174.467°W / 32.100; -174.467 (Sigma 7) USS Kearsarge 7.4 [23]
6 Faith 7 NASA May 16, 1963 27°20′N 176°26′W / 27.333°N 176.433°W / 27.333; -176.433 (Faith 7) USS Kearsarge 8.1 [24]
7 Gemini 3 NASA March 23, 1965 22°26′N 70°51′W / 22.433°N 70.850°W / 22.433; -70.850 (Gemini 3) USS Intrepid 111 [25]
8 Gemini 4 NASA June 7, 1965 27°44′N 74°11′W / 27.733°N 74.183°W / 27.733; -74.183 (Gemini 4) USS Wasp 81 [26]
9 Gemini 5 NASA August 29, 1965 29°44′N 69°45′W / 29.733°N 69.750°W / 29.733; -69.750 (Gemini 5) USS Lake Champlain 270 [27]
10 Gemini 7 NASA December 18, 1965 25°25′N 70°07′W / 25.417°N 70.117°W / 25.417; -70.117 (Gemini 7) USS Wasp 12 [28]
11 Gemini 6A NASA December 16, 1965 23°35′N 67°50′W / 23.583°N 67.833°W / 23.583; -67.833 (Gemini 6A) USS Wasp 13 [29]
12 Gemini 8 NASA March 17, 1966 25°14′N 136°0′E / 25.233°N 136.000°E / 25.233; 136.000 (Gemini 8) USS Leonard F. Mason
(USS Boxer**) 		2 [30]
13 Gemini 9A NASA June 6, 1966 27°52′N 75°0′W / 27.867°N 75.000°W / 27.867; -75.000 (Gemini 9A) USS Wasp 0.7 [31]
14 Gemini 10 NASA July 21, 1966 26°45′N 71°57′W / 26.750°N 71.950°W / 26.750; -71.950 (Gemini 10) USS Guadalcanal 6 [32]
15 Gemini 11 NASA September 15, 1966 24°15′N 70°0′W / 24.250°N 70.000°W / 24.250; -70.000 (Gemini 11) USS Guam 5 [33]
16 Gemini 12 NASA November 15, 1966 24°35′N 69°57′W / 24.583°N 69.950°W / 24.583; -69.950 (Gemini 12) USS Wasp 5 [34]
17 Apollo 7 NASA October 22, 1968 27°32′N 64°04′W / 27.533°N 64.067°W / 27.533; -64.067 (Apollo 7) USS Essex 3 [35]
18 Apollo 8 NASA December 27, 1968 8°7.5′N 165°1.2′W / 8.1250°N 165.0200°W / 8.1250; -165.0200 (Apollo 8) USS Yorktown 2 [36]
19 Apollo 9 NASA March 13, 1969 23°15′N 67°56′W / 23.250°N 67.933°W / 23.250; -67.933 (Apollo 9) USS Guadalcanal 5 [37][38]
20 Apollo 10 NASA May 26, 1969 15°2′S 164°39′W / 15.033°S 164.650°W / -15.033; -164.650 (Apollo 10) USS Princeton 2.4 [39][40]
21 Apollo 11 NASA July 24, 1969 13°19′N 169°9′W / 13.317°N 169.150°W / 13.317; -169.150 (Apollo 11) USS Hornet 3.13 [41][42]
22 Apollo 12 NASA November 24, 1969 15°47′S 165°9′W / 15.783°S 165.150°W / -15.783; -165.150 (Apollo 12) USS Hornet 3.7 [43][44]
23 Apollo 13 NASA April 17, 1970 21°38′S 165°22′W / 21.633°S 165.367°W / -21.633; -165.367 (Apollo 13) USS Iwo Jima 1.85 [45][46]
24 Apollo 14 NASA February 9, 1971 27°1′S 172°39′W / 27.017°S 172.650°W / -27.017; -172.650 (Apollo 14) USS New Orleans 1.1 [47][48]
25 Apollo 15 NASA August 7, 1971 26°7′N 158°8′W / 26.117°N 158.133°W / 26.117; -158.133 (Apollo 15) USS Okinawa 1.85 [49][50]
26 Apollo 16 NASA April 27, 1972 0°43′S 156°13′W / 0.717°S 156.217°W / -0.717; -156.217 (Apollo 16) USS Ticonderoga 0.55 [51][52]
27 Apollo 17 NASA December 19, 1972 17°53′S 166°7′W / 17.883°S 166.117°W / -17.883; -166.117 (Apollo 17) USS Ticonderoga 1.85 [53][54]
28 Skylab 2 NASA June 22, 1973 24°45′N 127°2′W / 24.750°N 127.033°W / 24.750; -127.033 (Skylab 2) USS Ticonderoga [55]
29 Skylab 3 NASA September 25, 1973 30°47′N 120°29′W / 30.783°N 120.483°W / 30.783; -120.483 (Skylab 3) USS New Orleans [56]
30 Skylab 4 NASA February 8, 1974 31°18′N 119°48′W / 31.300°N 119.800°W / 31.300; -119.800 (Skylab 4) USS New Orleans [56]
31 Apollo CSM-111 NASA July 24, 1975 22°N 163°W / 22°N 163°W / 22; -163 (ASTP Apollo) USS New Orleans 1.3 [57][58]
32 Soyuz 23 USSR October 16, 1976 Lake Tengiz Mi-8 helicopter [59]
33 Crew Dragon Demo-2 SpaceX August 2, 2020 29°48′N 87°30′W / 29.800°N 87.500°W / 29.800; -87.500 (Crew Dragon Demo-2) GO Navigator [60]
33 Crew Dragon Crew-1 SpaceX May 2, 2021 29°32′N 86°11′W / 29.533°N 86.183°W / 29.533; -86.183 (Crew Dragon Crew-1) GO Navigator [61]
34 Inspiration4 SpaceX September 18, 2021 GO Searcher [62]
35 Crew Dragon Crew-2 SpaceX November 7, 2021 GO Navigator
35 Axiom Mission 1 SpaceX April 25, 2022 Megan
36 Crew Dragon Crew-3 SpaceX May 6, 2022 Shannon [63]
37 Crew Dragon Crew-4 SpaceX October 14, 2022 Megan
38 Crew Dragon Crew-5 SpaceX March 11, 2023 Shannon
39 Axiom Mission 2 SpaceX May 31, 2023 Megan
40 Polaris Dawn SpaceX Sep 15, 2024

Uncrewed spacecraft

[edit]
Spacecraft Agency Landing date Coordinates Recovery ship Miss distance
Jupiter AM-18
(Able and Baker) 		USAF May 28, 1959 48 to 96 km (30 to 60 mi) N Antigua Island USS Kiowa 16 km (9.9 mi)[64]
Mercury-Big Joe NASA September 9, 1959 2,407 km (1,496 mi) SE Cape Canaveral USS Strong 925 km (575 mi)[65]
Mercury-Little Joe 2

Sam The Rhesus Monkey

NASA December 4, 1959 319 km (198 mi) SE Wallops Island, Virginia USS Borie ? km[66]
Mercury-Redstone 1A NASA December 19, 1960 378.2 km (235.0 mi) SE Cape Canaveral USS Valley Forge 12.9 km (8.0 mi)[67]
Mercury-Redstone 2 NASA January 31, 1961 675.9 km (420.0 mi) SE Cape Canaveral USS Donner[68] 209.2 km (130.0 mi)[69]
Mercury-Atlas 2 NASA February 21, 1961 2,293.3 km (1,425.0 mi) SE Cape Canaveral USS Donner[68] 20.9 km (13.0 mi)[70]
Discoverer 25
(Corona 9017) 		USAF June 16, 1961 mid-air recovery missed
Mercury-Atlas 4 NASA September 13, 1961 257.5 km (160.0 mi) E of Bermuda USS Decatur 64.4 km (40.0 mi)[71]
Mercury-Atlas 5 NASA November 29, 1961 804.7 km (500.0 mi) SE of Bermuda USS Stormes ? km[72]
Gemini 2 NASA January 19, 1965 16°33.9′N 49°46.27′W / 16.5650°N 49.77117°W / 16.5650; -49.77117 (Gemini 2) 3,423.1 km (2,127.0 mi) downrange from KSC USS Lake Champlain 38.6 km (24.0 mi)[73]
AS-201 NASA February 26, 1966 8°11′S 11°09′W / 8.18°S 11.15°W / -8.18; -11.15 (Apollo 201) 8,472 km (5,264 mi) downrange from KSC USS Boxer ? km[74]
AS-202 NASA August 25, 1966 16°07′N 168°54′E / 16.12°N 168.9°E / 16.12; 168.9 (Apollo 202) 804.7 km (500.0 mi) southwest of Wake Island USS Hornet ? km[74]
Gemini 2-MOL USAF November 3, 1966 8,149.7 km (5,064.0 mi) SE KSC near Ascension Island USS La Salle 11.26 km (7.00 mi)[75]
Apollo 4 NASA November 9, 1967 30°06′N 172°32′W / 30.1°N 172.53°W / 30.1; -172.53 (Apollo 4) USS Bennington 16 km (9.9 mi)[74]
Apollo 6 NASA April 4, 1968 27°40′N 157°59′W / 27.667°N 157.983°W / 27.667; -157.983 (Apollo 6) USS Okinawa ? km[74]
Zond 5 USSR September 21, 1968 32°38′S 65°33′E / 32.63°S 65.55°E / -32.63; 65.55 (Zond 5) USSR recovery naval vessel Borovichy and Vasiliy Golovin 105 km (65 mi)[76][77]
Zond 8 USSR October 27, 1970 730 km (450 mi) SE of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean USSR recovery ship Taman 24 km[78][79]
Cosmos 1374 USSR June 4, 1982 17°S 98°E / 17°S 98°E / -17; 98 (Cosmos 1374) 560 km (350 mi) S of Cocos Islands, Indian Ocean USSR recovery ship ? km
Cosmos 1445 USSR March 15, 1983 556 km (345 mi) S of Cocos Islands, Indian Ocean USSR recovery ship ? km
Cosmos 1517 USSR December 27, 1983 near Crimea, Black Sea USSR recovery ship ? km
Cosmos 1614 USSR December 19, 1984 ? km W of the Crimea, Black Sea USSR recovery ship ? km
COTS Demo Flight 1 SpaceX December 8, 2010 800 km (500 mi) west of Baja California, Mexico, Pacific Ocean ? 0.8 km (0.50 mi)[80]
Dragon C2+ SpaceX May 31, 2012 26°55′N 120°42′W / 26.92°N 120.7°W / 26.92; -120.7 (Dragon C2+) ? ?[81]
CRS SpX-1 SpaceX October 28, 2012 ? American Islander[82] ?[83]
CRS SpX-2 SpaceX March 27, 2013 ? American Islander ?[84]
Exploration Flight Test 1 NASA December 5, 2014 23°36′N 116°24′W / 23.6°N 116.4°W / 23.6; -116.4 (EFT-1), 443 kilometres (275 mi) west of Baja California USS Anchorage
Crew Dragon Demo-1 SpaceX March 8, 2019 In the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Pensacola, Florida GO Searcher
SpaceX CRS-21 SpaceX January 14, 2020 In the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Tampa, Florida GO Navigator
Artemis I NASA December 11, 2022 Pacific Ocean, west of Baja California USS Portland 4 nm
IFT-4 SpaceX June 6, 2024 Indian Ocean
IFT-5 SpaceX October 13, 2024 Indian Ocean
IFT-6 SpaceX November 19, 2024 Indian Ocean
[edit]

See also

[edit]
Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap Download coordinates as KML

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Splashdown

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Splashdown is the process of landing a in an , typically using a series of parachutes to decelerate the vehicle from reentry speeds of approximately 17,500 mph to a safe impact velocity of around 15 mph. This method enables precise targeting of recovery zones across vast oceanic areas and allows for swift retrieval of the crew and capsule by specialized naval vessels and . It has served as the primary recovery technique for crewed space missions since the inception of in 1961, encompassing suborbital and orbital flights, lunar landings, expeditions, and international collaborations. The technique originated with NASA's Mercury program, where capsules were designed to splash down in the ocean for recovery by ship, beginning with Alan Shepard's suborbital flight on May 5, 1961, in the North Atlantic Ocean aboard Freedom 7. It was refined during the Gemini and Apollo programs, supporting the Apollo program's lunar missions, including its six successful landings, that splashed down primarily in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 marking the final such recovery until the era emphasized runway landings. Splashdowns were reintroduced for crewed operations in 2020 through NASA's , with SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule completing its first astronaut return during the Demo-2 mission in the off 's coast. Subsequent missions, including Crew-9 and Crew-10 in 2025, have utilized splashdown sites off both and , demonstrating flexibility in Pacific and Atlantic recoveries. Looking ahead, splashdown remains integral to NASA's Artemis program, as evidenced by the successful uncrewed recovery of the Orion spacecraft during Artemis I on December 11, 2022, in the Pacific Ocean west of Baja California. The method's advantages include global accessibility for varying mission trajectories and established protocols for crew extraction within hours, often involving U.S. Navy divers and helicopters to address post-splashdown hazards like saltwater exposure or capsule instability. While effective, it requires meticulous planning to mitigate risks such as inclement weather, structural integrity during deceleration, and environmental factors like biofouling on recovered hardware.

Definition and Procedure

Overview

Splashdown is the method of recovering a , particularly re-entry capsules from orbital or suborbital missions, through a controlled descent and landing in a , typically an , where parachutes decelerate the to a safe impact velocity. This approach originated with NASA's program in the early 1960s. The process begins with atmospheric re-entry, where the spacecraft, traveling at speeds up to 25,000 mph (40,000 km/h) for lunar returns or about 17,500 mph (28,000 km/h) for low Earth orbit missions, encounters intense friction that generates temperatures up to 5,000°F (2,760°C) for high-energy re-entries. To protect the crew and payload, ablative heat shields—composed of materials like Avcoat that vaporize to dissipate heat—are employed on the vehicle's base. Following re-entry, a sequence of parachutes deploys: drogue parachutes first stabilize and reduce speed from around 325 mph (523 km/h), followed by main parachutes that further slow the descent to approximately 20 mph (32 km/h) for splashdown. Procedures vary by spacecraft; for example, NASA's Orion uses three main parachutes, while SpaceX's Crew Dragon employs four. Post-impact, flotation devices such as airbags or floats may deploy to maintain upright orientation. Ocean landings are selected over terrestrial sites because covers about 70% of Earth's surface, offering a vast target area that accommodates uncertainties, while its low and provide natural cushioning to absorb impact forces without requiring additional braking systems like retro-rockets. Primarily conducted in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, splashdown operations involve coordination with naval forces, including the and , to establish safety zones and deploy recovery vessels and helicopters for prompt crew extraction. Common sites include areas off Florida's coast in the Atlantic or near in the Pacific.

Recovery Operations

Upon splashdown, the activates a series of recovery aids to facilitate rapid location by recovery teams. These include radio beacons transmitting on VHF frequencies, flashing strobe lights, and deployment of sea dye markers to create a visible patch on the water surface, aiding visual acquisition from or ships. Modern systems, such as the Advanced Next-Generation Emergency Locator () beacons worn by astronauts, utilize the international Cospas-Sarsat network operating at 406 MHz to provide precise location data within approximately 100 meters. Recovery teams employ helicopters for aerial surveys, ships equipped with and for tracking, and fast boats to close in on the signal. Recovery equipment centers on specialized vessels and personnel trained for ocean operations. Primary recovery ships, often U.S. Navy amphibious assault vessels like the , feature well decks that allow smaller boats to launch and retrieve the capsule by winching it aboard using cranes and tending lines. Helicopters, such as U.S. Air Force HH-60 Pave Hawk models, conduct initial surveys and deploy pararescue teams, while swimmer divers—typically SEALs or specialists—approach the capsule to secure stabilization collars, inflatable platforms, and hoist lines for crew extraction and capsule retrieval. For Crew Dragon missions, dedicated recovery ships hoist the capsule directly onto the deck, with support boats checking for structural integrity and recovering parachutes. Safety protocols prioritize crew health, vehicle integrity, and environmental protection. Divers and teams receive clearance from the Recovery Director before approaching, and a 10-nautical-mile safety zone is enforced in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard to manage maritime traffic. Decontamination procedures address potential leaks of toxic hypergolic fuels like and nitrogen tetroxide from reaction control systems, with teams in protective suits inspecting and neutralizing residues to prevent exposure; medical personnel perform immediate health checks on crew members post-egress. Environmental measures include monitoring for spills to mitigate contamination, alongside recovery of hardware like parachutes to minimize ocean debris. International and inter-agency coordination ensures seamless operations, particularly for multinational missions. NASA collaborates with the U.S. , , and Coast Guard for American splashdowns, while joint efforts with partners like involve shared protocols for crew returns from the , where U.S. vehicles handle splashdowns despite primary land-based recoveries for Soyuz capsules. Procedures are validated through underway recovery tests, integrating equipment from contractors like and .

Historical Development

Early Experiments

The development of splashdown techniques began in the late with U.S. military-led experiments to validate systems and water recovery for capsules. The U.S. and conducted balloon and rocket drop tests using boilerplate mockups, dropping full-scale capsules from C-130 aircraft and helicopters to assess deployment, free-fall stability, and initial water impact dynamics offshore Wallops Island, Virginia. These pre-Mercury efforts, starting in October 1958 at NASA's , involved numerous drops to refine extraction from aircraft, shock attenuation from opening, and basic retrieval operations in conditions. The tests confirmed the feasibility of ocean landings but highlighted needs for improved flotation and righting mechanisms. As Project Mercury progressed from 1959 to 1963, suborbital and orbital qualification flights incorporated splashdown recoveries to verify end-to-end procedures. Uncrewed Little Joe rocket tests, such as Little Joe 1 in August 1959, evaluated launch escape systems followed by parachute descent and water impact, with recoveries demonstrating capsule stability under simulated abort scenarios. A pivotal suborbital test occurred on January 31, 1961, with Mercury-Redstone 2 (MR-2), carrying chimpanzee Ham to an altitude of 157 miles and speeds up to 5,857 mph; the capsule splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean 422 miles downrange, 60 miles from the recovery ship, and was retrieved several hours later by helicopter despite minor leaks, validating biological tolerance and recovery protocols. Orbital tests, including Mercury-Atlas 6 in February 1962, further refined splashdown accuracy, with the capsule landing within 4 miles of the target and recovered by USS Donner using frogmen and divers. Soviet efforts in the late 1950s paralleled U.S. work through Vostok program simulations, prioritizing terrestrial landings for operational missions while exploring water recovery options under Sergei Korolev's OKB-1 design bureau for potential circumlunar applications. These experiments focused on unmanned prototypes to mitigate risks from the spherical capsule's offset center of gravity during descent. Key challenges in these early experiments centered on capsule stability amid ocean waves, saltwater corrosion exposure, and coordinated recovery drills. Stability tests revealed that initial designs submerged the cylindrical section in winds up to 18 knots, prompting heat shield extensions and weight redistributions for better flotation and self-righting within 30 seconds of impact. Saltwater immersion posed corrosion risks to ablative heat shields like nylon phenolic resin and René 41 afterbody shingles, necessitating post-recovery inspections and coatings to prevent degradation after prolonged flotation. Recovery drills, involving Navy ships, helicopters, and sea-marker dyes, addressed imprecise splashdown zones spanning thousands of square miles, with boilerplate drops confirming landing bag inflation to soften impacts and maintain upright orientation for egress.

Key Milestones in Crewed and Uncrewed Missions

The Gemini program marked an early milestone in operational splashdown testing for uncrewed missions, with conducting a suborbital re-entry flight in January 1965 that successfully demonstrated the spacecraft's and recovery system upon ocean impact, paving the way for subsequent crewed flights. In 1966, additional uncrewed re-entry tests refined these procedures, contributing to the program's transition from experimental to routine Earth-orbit operations. The Apollo program's lunar missions from 1968 to 1972 established splashdown as the standard recovery method for returning crews from deep space, with achieving the first successful lunar sample return splashdown in July 1969 after a mission duration of over eight days. Subsequent Apollo flights, including and , utilized precision-guided re-entries to ensure accurate touchdowns, enabling the safe recovery of rocks and equipment. The Skylab missions in 1973 and 1974 extended this approach to long-duration orbital stays, with each crew— after 28 days, after 59 days, and after 84 days—completing record-setting flights via controlled splashdowns that tested human endurance limits. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in July 1975 marked the final U.S. crewed splashdown before the Shuttle era, with the joint U.S.-Soviet mission recovered in the . During the Space Shuttle era from 1981 to , shifted away from splashdowns for crewed returns, opting instead for runway landings to allow reusable orbiter operations and more flexible mission profiles, as the winged design enabled glider-like descents on concrete strips. The program's retirement in , after the final mission, ended this runway-based approach and prompted a return to capsule-style recoveries, initially relying on international partners like Russia's Soyuz for crew transport. Post-Shuttle transitions revitalized splashdown reliance through NASA's Commercial Crew Program, with SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule achieving its first operational crewed splashdown in 2020, marking the end of a 45-year gap in U.S. ocean recoveries and enabling routine ISS crew rotations. For uncrewed applications, missions like SpaceX's Cargo Dragon resupply flights to the ISS have incorporated splashdowns since the 2010s, returning scientific payloads and experiments via ocean parachute descents. Soviet uncrewed Zond missions in the late 1960s demonstrated splashdown recoveries for circumlunar flights, such as Zond 5 in 1968, which splashed down in the Indian Ocean after carrying tortoises and other biological specimens. These evolutions underscored splashdown's adaptability across program shifts, from lunar exploration to commercial orbital logistics.

Advantages and Challenges

Benefits

Splashdown offers significant targeting flexibility due to the vast expanse of the world's oceans, which cover approximately 70% of Earth's surface and provide a much larger area than constrained or terrestrial sites. This reduces the precision required for reentry trajectories, allowing for safer margins in case of minor deviations and enabling the selection of recovery zones based on launch profiles, such as those from equatorial sites that facilitate global ocean placements in . The water medium provides effective cushioning during impact, decelerating the spacecraft more gently than a hard landing on land and minimizing peak G-forces experienced by the crew, typically in the range of 4 to 6 g during final descent and splashdown. This is lower than the forces associated with unassisted terrestrial impacts, which can exceed 10 g without additional braking systems, thereby reducing the risk of injury and structural damage. Logistically, splashdown sites can be positioned close to major launch facilities, such as the Atlantic Ocean zones near , allowing for rapid recovery using ships and helicopters already stationed in proximity. Operations in simplify coordination by avoiding overland territorial issues and leveraging established naval support, as outlined in recovery protocols. From a perspective, the simpler capsule required for splashdown—relying on parachutes rather than complex or wings—lowers overall development and operational expenses while facilitating reusability through easier refurbishment of recovered . For instance, SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsules have demonstrated multiple successful post-splashdown inspections and reflights, contributing to reduced mission in commercial programs.

Limitations and Risks

Splashdown recoveries are highly susceptible to adverse weather conditions, such as high winds, rough seas, and typhoons, which can delay operations and necessitate mission extensions or site relocations to ensure safe retrieval of the and . For instance, NASA's mission departure from the was postponed in October 2022 due to unfavorable weather forecasts at the planned splashdown zones off Florida's coast, with teams conducting repeated reviews to assess and wind conditions. Similarly, the Crew-8 return in October 2024 faced multiple delays from elevated winds and waves exceeding operational limits, extending the mission by weeks and highlighting the need for flexible scheduling in ocean-based landings. The Crew-10 mission in August 2025 also experienced delays due to unfavorable weather conditions off the coast. Historical missions like also contended with weather variability during reentry planning, where initial site forecasts influenced trajectory adjustments to avoid marginal conditions, though the final splashdown occurred under acceptable visibility and wave heights. Environmental hazards from splashdown include the potential release of toxic s, particularly used in reaction control systems, which can contaminate waters and pose risks to marine ecosystems. is a highly toxic, carcinogenic substance that causes severe chemical burns on contact and persists in aquatic environments, potentially disrupting through in food chains. environmental impact statements for programs like the and Constellation have quantified increased use of such hypergolic fuels, noting their fourfold toxicity compared to alternatives and the challenges in containing spills during post-landing handling. In crewed capsules like Orion, residual onboard after reentry could leak during recovery, exacerbating local , as assessed in risk analyses for warm areas where dispersal might affect fisheries and . strategies involve pre-splashdown propellant venting where feasible and rapid by recovery teams to minimize ecological disruption. Crew safety during ocean splashdown carries specific risks, including from capsule instability in currents, in colder waters, and the need for prompt medical evacuations post-immersion. Capsules may land in an unstable orientation, such as upside down, complicating egress and increasing hazards if hatches fail to open quickly or if waves flood the interior, particularly for deconditioned astronauts after long-duration flights. In cooler recovery zones, prolonged exposure to water temperatures below 20°C (68°F) can induce within minutes, impairing crew mobility and consciousness despite pressure suits' insulation, as detailed in NASA's post-landing survival assessments for vehicles like Orion. Medical evacuations have been required in cases of disorientation or during extraction, with transfers to ships mitigating these threats but adding procedural complexity. To counter these, designs incorporate flotation devices and righting bags, while recovery protocols prioritize swift swimmer-assisted egress. Logistically, splashdown demands substantial naval resources, including aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and support vessels, which incur high operational costs and coordination challenges. U.S. Navy involvement, as seen in recoveries for Apollo and modern Commercial Crew missions, mobilizes thousands of personnel and specialized equipment like cranes and divers, with estimates placing single-mission recovery expenses in the millions due to , , and deployment . For example, exercises for Orion recovery on ships like demonstrate the scale, involving extensive training and at-sea positioning that strain military budgets. Geopolitical considerations arise in international recovery zones, where operations in open ocean areas require adherence to treaties and can face interference from foreign vessels, prompting enhanced security patrols by the U.S. to protect assets and ensure unimpeded access. These factors contribute to ongoing efforts to transition toward more autonomous or land-based alternatives to reduce dependency on naval infrastructure.

Spacecraft and Vehicles

Crewed Spacecraft Designs

Crewed spacecraft designed for splashdown typically feature compact, blunt-body capsules to withstand atmospheric re-entry and ensure stable water landings. These designs prioritize human safety through robust thermal protection, controlled descent, and post-impact stability, drawing from early programs like and Apollo. The capsules are engineered to float upright or with minimal tilt, allowing for rapid crew egress and recovery while minimizing risks such as capsizing or submersion. The predominant shape for crewed splashdown capsules is a conical or bell-like form, which provides aerodynamic stability during re-entry and helps maintain balance on water. For instance, the Apollo Command Module (CM) employed a blunt cone with an offset center of gravity—achieved by positioning heavier components like the propulsion system lower—to ensure it naturally rights itself after splashdown, reducing the likelihood of inversion. This configuration, tested extensively in wind tunnels and drop tests, allowed the capsule to settle with its base down, facilitating hatch access for the crew. Similar principles inform modern designs, where the capsule's geometry is optimized to minimize hydrodynamic drag and promote positive buoyancy. Re-entry systems in these spacecraft emphasize ablative heat shields and multi-stage parachutes to manage deceleration and protect occupants from peak heating. The Apollo CM used , a phenolic resin that ablates during re-entry to dissipate heat, with a thickness of about 0.5 inches covering the conical forward section; this material choice enabled survival of temperatures exceeding 2,500°C while keeping the crew compartment below 120°C. Descent is controlled by drogue parachutes for initial stabilization, followed by 2-5 main parachutes deployed sequentially to achieve a of approximately 30-35 feet per second (20-24 mph) at splashdown, balancing splash loads below 10g for crew tolerance. These features ensure precise targeting within a 10-20 recovery zone. Post-splashdown flotation is enhanced by integrated aids that counteract any initial . Inflatable bags, often deployed from the capsule's apex or sides, provide additional and to upright the vehicle if it lands at an angle greater than 20 degrees. The Apollo CM, for example, included four inflatable bags that could be remotely activated by recovery forces, while release mechanisms—such as jettisoning temporary weights—further adjust the center of for stability. Uprighting systems, like small thrusters or passive fins, are sometimes incorporated to the capsule within minutes, preventing prolonged exposure to waves. These mechanisms have been refined through simulations showing flotation times of up to 48 hours in rough seas. Early designs from Project Mercury influenced subsequent crewed capsules, establishing a heritage of reliable splashdown architecture. The Mercury capsule, a bell-shaped cone with a beryllium heat shield, used three main parachutes and flotation collar bags for stability, achieving successful water recoveries in all six crewed flights. This legacy persists in NASA's Orion spacecraft, which adapts Apollo-style offset gravity and Avcoat shielding for Artemis missions, with three main parachutes (tested including two-parachute contingencies to handle dynamic loads up to approximately 25,000 pounds). SpaceX's Crew Dragon incorporates a similar conical form with PICA-X ablative material—derived from Stardust probe technology—and eight SuperDraco thrusters for powered descent adjustments, supplemented by four parachutes and deployable trunk fins for uprighting. Even Russia's Soyuz, primarily land-landing, includes water adaptations like a soft-landing engine cutoff override and flotation beacons for emergency splashdowns, as demonstrated in contingency planning for the International Space Station. These evolutions highlight a focus on redundancy and human-rated margins in splashdown-optimized designs.

Uncrewed Spacecraft Applications

Splashdown has been employed in uncrewed missions primarily for the safe return of scientific samples and hardware from , enabling the recovery of delicate payloads that would otherwise be lost in destructive re-entries. The Cargo spacecraft, operating under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services program, exemplifies this application by utilizing parachute-assisted ocean landings to deliver up to 3,000 kg (6,614 pounds) of return cargo, including biological, physical, and materials science experiments conducted aboard the (ISS). This approach contrasts with land-based recoveries used in interplanetary sample returns, such as those from asteroids, by prioritizing water cushioning to minimize impact forces on sensitive payloads during uncrewed operations. Notable examples include the CRS-25 mission in August 2022, where the uncrewed splashed down off Florida's coast, returning over 3,600 pounds (1,630 kg) of cargo, including human research samples, biotechnology studies, and cold storage units for biological specimens. Similarly, the CRS-17 mission in 2019 recovered materials from ISS experiments via a controlled splashdown in the , demonstrating the reliability of this method for iterative science returns. These operations involve a deorbit burn followed by atmospheric re-entry, deployment of and main parachutes, and recovery by and teams within hours to preserve sample integrity. In deorbiting technologies for and defunct satellites, splashdown principles inform controlled re-entries targeting remote ocean areas to mitigate ground risks, though most lack parachutes and instead rely on freefall breakup for disposal. For instance, Northrop Grumman's Cygnus cargo vehicle, after completing ISS resupply missions, performs destructive re-entries over the , where the spacecraft fully disintegrates to prevent orbital without recoverable parachutes. This freefall distinction from parachute-equipped capsules like Dragon allows larger-scale disposal of uncrewed hardware—Cygnus can manage up to 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) of waste—but precludes sample recovery. Smaller probes, such as experimental satellites with drag devices, may achieve partial control but rarely use parachutes for ocean splashdown due to size constraints and cost. Payload protections in uncrewed splashdown capsules emphasize sealed compartments to shield geological, biological, or experimental samples from saltwater exposure, high deceleration, and post-landing contamination. In returns, samples are housed in robust, hermetically sealed containers—often with and vapor-tight seals—to maintain viability during the 18-24 hour recovery window, as seen in missions returning microbial cultures and protein experiments. For potential future applications like Mars sample returns, protocols incorporate multi-layered containment systems, including bio-containment vessels that isolate extraterrestrial materials to prevent forward or backward contamination, aligning with COSPAR guidelines. These "bio-shields" ensure samples remain sterile externally while preserving internal integrity, adaptable to splashdown scenarios despite current Mars plans favoring land recovery. Scale variations highlight this: compact probes (e.g., under 100 kg like early sample capsules) use minimal shielding for targeted returns, while larger uncrewed vehicles like integrate modular sealed bays for diverse payloads exceeding 1 ton.

Notable Events and Records

Crewed Splashdowns

Crewed splashdowns represent a critical phase in , where carrying astronauts descend into oceanic targets under parachutes, prioritizing crew safety through flotation devices and rapid recovery by naval or commercial vessels. These events have been integral to U.S. programs from through the Commercial Crew era, with recovery operations evolving from destroyer-based teams to specialized ships equipped with cranes and medical support. The following table summarizes key crewed splashdown events, highlighting mission specifics, landing parameters, and recovery details for representative milestones.
MissionDateCoordinates (approx.)Recovery ShipMiss DistanceNotable Issues
Mercury-Atlas 6 (Friendship 7)February 20, 196221°18′N 64°20′WUSS Noa5 nautical milesFirst U.S. orbital crewed flight; minor attitude control issues during reentry.
Gemini 8March 17, 196625°07′N 136°00′EUSS Leonard F. Mason3 milesEmergency abort due to thruster malfunction; rough seas complicated recovery, requiring flotation collar stabilization.
Apollo 8December 27, 19688°08′N 165°01′WUSS Yorktown2.9 milesSuccessful return from first crewed lunar orbit mission; precise targeting after translunar injection.
Apollo 13April 17, 197021°38′S 165°22′WUSS Iwo Jima3 nautical milesAborted lunar landing due to service module explosion; crew survived in lunar module, with trajectory adjustments causing drift from planned site.
Skylab 4February 8, 197431°18′N 119°48′WUSS New Orleans3 milesRecord duration of 84 days; minor guidance tweaks for Pacific targeting after extended station operations.
Crew Dragon Demo-2August 2, 202029°50′N 87°00′WGO Navigator (SpaceX)<1 kmFirst NASA-certified commercial crew return; smooth reentry with integrated SuperDraco abort system readiness.
Crew-8October 25, 202430°00′N 87°30′WMV Megan (SpaceX)<1 kmDelayed undocking due to weather; successful six-month ISS rotation with four crew members.
Crew-9March 18, 202529°30′N 84°00′WSpaceX recovery vessel<1 kmReturn of NASA astronauts and Roscosmos cosmonaut after extended ISS mission; splashdown off Florida coast.
Crew-10August 9, 202532°30′N 120°00′WSpaceX recovery vessel<1 kmFirst Commercial Crew Program splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off California; six-month ISS rotation.
Significant records underscore the evolution of crewed splashdown capabilities. The first crewed splashdown occurred with on February 20, 1962, marking the initial U.S. orbital recovery and validating ocean landing for . The longest mission ending in splashdown was , lasting 84 days, 1 hour, and 15 minutes before its February 8, 1974, Pacific landing, demonstrating extended-duration human endurance in space. Emergencies highlight recovery resilience, as seen in Apollo 13's April 17, 1970, splashdown, where an oxygen tank explosion forced an improvised return, resulting in a 3-nautical-mile miss due to power and navigation constraints in the . Anomalies like Gemini 8's March 17, 1966, event involved uncontrolled rotation leading to early abort, with post-splashdown rough seas (8-10 foot swells) delaying crew extraction and causing minor capsule damage upon hooking. Although Space Shuttle-era concepts explored lifts for potential contingencies, these were never implemented, as all 135 missions used runway landings. As of November 2025, splashdowns continue routinely, with Crew-9 returning on March 18, 2025, off Florida's coast via recovery teams, and Crew-10 completing its with a splashdown on August 9, 2025, off the coast of in the , the first such recovery for the , emphasizing automated precision and reduced miss distances under 1 km. These events cover over 60 years of operations, with 41 crewed U.S. splashdowns emphasizing ocean recovery's role in safe human return from .

Uncrewed Splashdowns

Uncrewed splashdowns represent a critical aspect of testing and operations, enabling the validation of re-entry, descent, and recovery systems for future crewed missions while returning scientific data and hardware from . These missions have evolved from early suborbital and orbital tests in the to contemporary cargo resupply flights and prototype demonstrations for deep space exploration. Key examples include NASA's Mercury program tests, which pioneered controlled water landings, and recent capsule returns from the (ISS). The following table summarizes select uncrewed splashdown missions, highlighting their agencies, dates, locations, recovery methods, and outcomes related to payload integrity and mission objectives.
MissionAgencyDateLocation/CoordinatesRecovery MethodPayload Success
Mercury-Atlas 4NASASeptember 13, 1961Atlantic Ocean (approx. 30°07' N, 64°02' W)Parachute descent; ship recovery by USS DonnerSuccessful; first U.S. uncrewed orbital flight, tested attitude control and re-entry systems.
Crew Dragon Demo-1SpaceX/NASAMarch 8, 2019Atlantic Ocean (approx. 27°55' N, 73°53' W, off Florida coast)Parachute descent; recovery by SpaceX ships (GO Quest, GO Navigator)Successful; demonstrated autonomous docking to ISS and safe return for crewed certification.
CRS-21SpaceX/NASAJanuary 14, 2021Gulf of Mexico (approx. 27°30' N, 82°30' W, west of Tampa)Parachute descent; recovery by SpaceX ship (GO Navigator)Successful; returned over 5,400 lbs of cargo, experiments, and hardware from ISS.
Artemis INASADecember 11, 2022Pacific Ocean (approx. 29° N, 118° W, near Guadalupe Island off Baja California)Parachute descent; recovery by USS Portland (LPD-27)Successful; completed 25-day lunar orbit, tested Orion systems for future crewed Artemis missions.
Starship IFT-4SpaceXJune 6, 2024Indian Ocean (approx. 10° S, 70° E)Controlled soft landing; no physical recoverySuccessful; validated re-entry heat shield and propulsion for reusable architecture.
Among notable highlights, the X-38 program in the conducted uncrewed drop tests from high-altitude to simulate orbital re-entry for an crew return vehicle, though these were atmospheric tests culminating in parachute landings on dry land rather than water splashdowns. For planetary sample returns, missions like NASA's Genesis (2004) aimed to retrieve particles but ended in a hard land crash due to a parachute deployment failure from inverted orientation switches, yielding partial scientific recovery through post-impact analysis. Similarly, JAXA's (2020) achieved high-precision re-entry for asteroid samples, landing within a targeted 700m x 150m zone in Australia's Woomera range, enabling uncontaminated retrieval of over 5g of Ryugu material. Records in uncrewed splashdowns include the first successful orbital example with Mercury-Atlas 4 in 1961, which splashed down just 8 km from the recovery ship after one orbit. The most precise modern splashdown was demonstrated by SpaceX's Cargo Dragon missions, such as CRS-21, achieving landings within 5-10 km of recovery vessels using GPS-guided parachutes. Post-2020 advancements include NASA's (2023 sample return from , though a land landing) and ongoing tests, with IFT-4 marking the first controlled ocean for a fully stacked super-heavy vehicle. As of 2025, China's Mars mission has not involved sample return splashdowns, while NASA's Psyche asteroid probe (launched 2023) is an orbiter mission with no sample return planned.

Modern and Future Use

Current Programs

In the 2020s, 's has relied heavily on SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft for routine crewed returns from the (ISS), with splashdowns serving as the primary recovery method. Since its first operational mission in 2020, Crew Dragon has completed multiple rotations, including Crew-9's splashdown off Florida's coast on March 18, 2025, carrying astronauts including those from the Crew Flight Test who were extended due to technical issues, and Crew-10's landing on August 9, 2025, after a six-month ISS stay. These missions demonstrate the spacecraft's reliability, with recovery teams using ships like the for rapid post-splashdown extraction. Boeing's , intended for similar operations, faced thruster and leak problems during its 2024 Crew Flight Test, leading to return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams via Crew Dragon's March 2025 splashdown while the uncrewed Starliner capsule was deorbited separately. Roscosmos continues to support ISS crew rotations using Soyuz spacecraft launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, maintaining water landing capabilities as a contingency for redundancy in case of land-based recovery challenges, though routine returns remain parachute-assisted landings on the Kazakh steppes, as seen with Soyuz MS-26 on April 19, 2025. Internationally, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) operates the Shenzhou program for Tiangong space station missions, primarily employing land recovery in Inner Mongolia, but has explored water-based options for enhanced flexibility in future operations, as evidenced by related sea recovery tests for reusable launchers in 2025. The European Space Agency (ESA) contributes the European Service Module to NASA's Orion spacecraft, providing propulsion, power, and life support essential for precise splashdown control, as validated in the uncrewed Artemis I mission's Pacific Ocean landing on December 11, 2022. Preparations for the crewed Artemis II mission, targeting a 2026 launch with splashdown off San Diego, included water recovery training in March 2025. SpaceX's development has incorporated splashdown testing for its upper stage to validate performance during reentry, with Flight Test 10 on August 26, 2025, and Flight Test 11 on October 13, 2025, culminating in controlled ocean landings in the and , respectively, advancing toward fully reusable architectures.

Alternatives and Innovations

Land-based recovery options represent a significant shift from traditional ocean splashdowns, aiming for more controlled and operations. The spacecraft employs a combination of parachutes and airbags for vertical landings on sites in the , enabling rapid ground access and reduced logistical challenges compared to water recoveries. Similarly, Sierra Space's Dream Chaser spaceplane utilizes a winged design for horizontal runway landings at facilities like , mimicking the Space Shuttle's approach to facilitate immediate post-flight inspections and refurbishment. These methods prioritize precision and minimal environmental disturbance, with projections indicating broader adoption by the 2030s for both crewed and cargo missions. Propulsive landing techniques offer another alternative, leveraging engine thrust for vertical descents that bypass parachutes entirely in some cases. SpaceX's system demonstrates this through powered vertical landings on pads or potential platforms, as validated in multiple orbital test flights where the achieved controlled soft touchdowns after reentry. For suborbital flights, Blue Origin's New Shepard capsule integrates parachutes with a final retro-thrust system using nitrogen gas bursts to cushion impacts at approximately 2 mph, enhancing safety and reusability for frequent operations. These propulsive approaches support rapid turnaround times, crucial for high-cadence missions envisioned in the coming decade. Innovations in recovery technology further augment or replace splashdown elements, focusing on autonomy and precision. GPS-guided parachutes, such as steerable parafoils, enable targeted descents for smaller payloads or test vehicles, reducing drift and recovery times. Drone recoveries, exemplified by SpaceX's autonomous drone ships for booster captures, extend to capsule support vessels that use real-time tracking for efficient ocean pickups. Autonomous beacons, like NASA's SARSAT systems, provide continuous location data during descents, aiding in swift retrieval and having contributed to over 400 rescues in 2024 alone. For interplanetary returns, hybrid approaches combine parachutes with sky cranes or rotorcraft, as proposed in NASA's Mars Sample Return program, to handle sample containers in varied terrains before Earth reentry. Industry trends underscore a move toward reusability and sustainability, driven by both economic and ecological imperatives. The 2025 Starship orbital tests marked milestones in full reusability, with successful reentries and landings demonstrating viability for 100+ flight cycles per vehicle. Environmental concerns over ocean debris from splashdowns, including potential impacts on marine ecosystems, are prompting reduced reliance on water recoveries in favor of land-based systems to minimize and disruption. By the 2030s, these innovations are expected to dominate, enabling more frequent, cost-effective, and eco-friendly access.

References

  1. https://appel.nasa.gov/2020/08/25/a-new-era-of-splashdowns-begins-with-spacex-demo-2-test-flight/
  2. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/project-mercury/in-the-beginning-project-mercury/
  3. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-to-provide-live-coverage-of-crew-10-return-splashdown/
  4. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/03/18/nasas-spacex-crew-9-splashes-down-off-coast-of-florida/
  5. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/splashdown-nasas-orion-returns-to-earth-after-historic-moon-mission/
  6. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/artemis-2/splashdown-101-joint-team-to-recover-crew-orion-after-moon-missions/
  7. https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-splashdown-an-aerospace-engineer-explains-how-nasa-and-spacex-get-spacecraft-safely-back-on-earth-232786
  8. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/orion-reference-guide-111022.pdf
  9. https://www.nasa.gov/project-mercury/
  10. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20080026216/downloads/20080026216.pdf
  11. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasas-spacex-crew-rescue-and-recovery/
  12. https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap13fj/29day6-returnhome.html
  13. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/apollo50th/pdf/A09_PressKit.pdf
  14. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-tests-beacon-for-safe-recovery-of-astronauts-on-artemis-missions/
  15. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/artemis/Orion-Recovery_NASA-FS-2019-08-2306-KSC.pdf
  16. https://www.nsw.navy.mil/HISTORY/NASA-Space-Recovery
  17. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100042352/downloads/20100042352.pdf
  18. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/splashdown-is-just-the-start-for-nasa-heat-shield-recovery-team/
  19. https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4001/p2a.htm
  20. https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4001/p2b.htm
  21. https://www.nasa.gov/history/a-brief-history-of-animals-in-space/
  22. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/695726main_ComingHome-ebook.pdf
  23. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB501/docs/EBB-14a.pdf
  24. https://www.nasa.gov/gemini/
  25. https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap11fj/27day9-entry.html
  26. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/apollo/apollo-12-the-pinpoint-mission/
  27. https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-skylab-2-astronauts-splash-down-after-record-breaking-28-day-mission-2/
  28. https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-skylab-3-astronauts-splash-down-after-record-59-days-in-space/
  29. https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap11fj/apsoyuzbio.html
  30. https://now.northropgrumman.com/splashdown-why-spacecraft-return-by-sea
  31. https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-sts-135-the-space-shuttles-grand-finale/
  32. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-astronauts-safely-splash-down-after-first-commercial-crew-flight-to-space-station/
  33. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/commercial-crew-program/
  34. https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4206/ch7.htm
  35. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/spacex-capsule-and-nasa-crew-make-1st-splashdown-in-45-years
  36. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_splashdown.pdf
  37. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/splashdown-nasas-spacex-crew-7-finishes-mission-returns-to-earth/
  38. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2022/10/12/nasas-spacex-crew-4-space-station-departure-delayed-for-weather/
  39. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19810008106/downloads/19810008106.pdf
  40. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090029348/downloads/20090029348.pdf
  41. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080014194
  42. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/hhp/risk-to-vehicle-crew-egress-capability-and-task-performance-as-applied-to-earth-and-extraterrestrial-landings/
  43. https://news.usni.org/2018/10/31/uss-john-p-murtha-practices-nasa-spacecraft-recovery
  44. https://seapowermagazine.org/space-mission-support-coast-guard-patrols-restricted-areas-around-launches-re-entries/
  45. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/orion/nasa-completes-orion-parachute-development-tests/
  46. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/dragon
  47. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/spacex-crs-25-dragon-returns-to-earth-with-scientific-hardware-and-samples/
  48. https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/03/dragon-crs-17-return/
  49. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/03/28/cygnus-departs-station-after-release-from-robotic-arm/
  50. https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/deorbit-systems/
  51. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2018/01/13/dragon-departs-station-and-heads-back-to-earth-for-splashdown/
  52. https://mars.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1306/
  53. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/mercury-atlas-6-friendship-7/
  54. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-GeminiVIII.html
  55. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/57115999-Gemini-VIII-Technical-Debriefing.pdf
  56. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/apollo/apollo-8-mission-details/
  57. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/afj/ap13fj/pdf-hr/a13-met%2Brecovery.pdf
  58. https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-skylab-4-astronauts-return-from-record-breaking-spaceflight/
  59. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2024/10/25/splashdown-nasas-spacex-crew-8-returns-safely-to-earth/
  60. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-i/
  61. https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/spacex-demo-1-splashdown-recovery-i/
  62. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2021/01/13/spacex-cargo-dragon-splashes-down-loaded-with-science-experiments/
  63. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/aircraft/x-38-prototype/
  64. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060008607
  65. https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sas/hayabusa2/
  66. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/osiris-rex/
  67. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-starliner-spacecraft-back-to-earth-without-crew/
  68. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/spacestation/2025/04/19/soyuz-fires-braking-engines-crew-entering-atmosphere-soon/
  69. https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/12/Orion_splashdown
  70. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/nasa-trains-for-orion-water-recovery-ahead-of-artemis-ii-launch/
  71. https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-11
  72. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/watch-a-charred-spacex-starship-land-in-the-ocean-after-acing-flight-test-11-video
  73. https://spacenews.com/nasa-boeing-complete-series-of-starliner-parachute-tests-ahead-of-future-flights-with-astronauts/
  74. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/commercial-resupply/sierra-spaces-dream-chaser-new-station-resupply-spacecraft-for-nasa/
  75. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spacex-launches-another-starship-rocket-test-reusable-design-2025-10-13/
  76. https://www.blueorigin.com/safety
  77. https://www.maxongroup.us/medias/sys_master/root/8803679404062/Precision-Guided-Parachutes.pdf
  78. https://www.spacex.com/updates
  79. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/more-than-400-lives-saved-with-nasas-search-and-rescue-tech-in-2024/
  80. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-to-explore-two-landing-options-for-returning-samples-from-mars/
  81. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-starship-succeeds-in-final-test-flight-of-2025/
  82. https://spacenews.com/ocean-experts-raise-concerns-over-deorbiting-the-international-space-station/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.