[dkbrk]

> like everyone else does

Nobody else does this. I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be referring to. SpaceX lands on land preferably when it is an option.

> I don't understand why they won't keep landing them on the ground ... It's not like there's not enough space on Earth

As a general rule, you not understanding the reason for something does not mean there is not a good reason. For reference, see the Dunning-Kruger effect. Furthermore, I honestly do not understand how you could even contemplate "SpaceX does not think there is enough space on land" as a serious argument and treat its dismissal as legitimate support for your beliefs. This is some of the most egregiously lazy reasoning I have ever seen on the internet.

SpaceX launches rockets in the direction of water so that an accident won't threaten property or people on land. To return to land after staging the first stage of the Falcon 9 must perform a burn—the "boost back"—to point its lateral velocity back to land; this is the first of three burns required for landing and the most expensive in fuel by a considerable margin. If the first stage is travelling too quickly (greater than approximately 1.6 km/s lateral velocity) it does not physically have enough fuel to return to the launch site and perform the landing. In this case, a far more mild burn can put the booster on a re-entry trajectory and it can land on an autonomous barge in the ocean. As the rocket trajectory is chosen to put the ground path well away from land, the choice is between either returning to the launch site or landing in the ocean. If a return to the launch site is prohibited by the rocket's capabilites and physics then an ocean landing is the only option.

In the case of Jason-3 a barge landing was the only option as SpaceX does not yet have permission to use their landing facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In the future, the central core of the Falcon Heavy will almost certainly have to land in the ocean due to its velocity at separation.

[Grue3]

>Nobody else does this. I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be referring to.

Believe it or not, we've been landing spacecraft for decades. Does "space shuttle" ring a bell?

[benjaminl]

The Space Shuttle was a space craft, not a rocket. The SpaceX equivalent to the Space Shuttle is the Dragon spacecraft. Dragon V2 does land exclusively on the ground.

[anarazel]

In addition to all that (spacecraft, srbrs, atmosphere), a space shuttle launch literally cost more than a billion.

[Dylan16807]

The shuttle throws its lower stages into the ocean.

[joegaudet]

Which were recovered and refurbished to keep cost down.

[mikeash]

OK, that's one orbital rocket that's recovered on land. You said "everybody else" which implies at least several, so what other examples are there? (Hint: none.)

[Grue3]

Buran. It only flew once, but it did work!

Apollo Lunar Module, if Moon counts.

[mikeash]

Buran, fair.

Lunar module doesn't count, the reduced gravity makes everything a hundred times simpler.

[rkallos]

The space shuttle couldn't land and take off on a planet whose atmosphere doesn't support it, hence why SpaceX is trying to do the same via rocket propulsion.