Re: Hopefully the helicopter is unmanned
@rh587:
One the other hand, although you have recovered your expensive engines, you still have to manufacture a new first stage. Does that cost more or less than the additional fuel?
Most of the expense, probably 90%, is in the engines.
The rest of the first stage is just some fuel/oxidiser tanks, streamlining/environmental protection, and mounting for the engines and 2nd stage. Engines the size of the ones on the proposed ULA, the BE-4s, would be millions, if not tens of millions, each.
And the fuel cost is pretty much irrelevant, as a cost of the overall launch, the fuel/oxidizer is minuscule, think of it like a nuclear reactor in that the expense is in the construction and equipment, the fuel cost is trivial.
However, while the direct cost of fuel is trivial, the more fuel you reserve for landing means less cargo launch capacity. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9, the payload reduction in a reusable launch to GTO is 2,800kg (payload of 5500kg vs expendable payload of 8300kg, a 33% reduction), which translates to several (possibly 10's) millions of dollars in lost launch payload revenue.
The cost for a helicopter to intercept the engines would be in the $10's of thousands, just look at helicopter lease rates for a guide.
I am not supporting ULAs attitude here with regards to engine capture vs entire stage 1 return, nor rejecting it. The proof is in the pudding when (if) ULA ever implement the Vulcan, then we'll have a direct economic comparison with SpaceX's (and BTW Blue Origin who I believe will be using the reusable stage 1 vs just the engines approach) vs ULAs system. It's called competition, and we are finally getting some in the space industry!