Re: Reality versus spin
As has been pointed out repeatedly:
1: First stage doesn't go anywhere near orbital velocities (and it only goes 30-70 miles downrange)
2: The cost of the fuel is virtually nothing compared to the cost of the first stage.
3: First stage makes up the bulk of the stack's cost.
4: The amount of fuel needed to bring the thing back is 1-2% of the total tankage
5: All you need to do is slow the things down to zero horizontal velocity. Earth's rotation will bring the landing point to the rocket and heating effects from falling straight down are negligable.
Therefore if the engines are reusable, it makes financial sense to lose a few points off launch capability to get the thing back.
Back in Shuttle days when Nasa was looking at liquid fuelled boosters they intended to fly them back to Florida for horizontal landing. Congressional pork didcated that they use solids - and solids built so far from Florida that their capacity was dictated by the railroad tunnels which they needed to fit through. (Yes, I know Elon's doing the same thing right now, but bigger rockets built in California can be shipped via the Panama Canal.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
