All well and good, but few have performed an honest costing on the cost of actually recovering and rehabbing the hardware. When you do, you find out why most of the proposals never went beyond the paper stage.
There is an up front cost in recovering a booster and a fixed cost for the recovery infrastructure and a recurring cost for each unit recovered.
The extra mass required for booster recovery and extra propellant for the recovery mission reduces the payload capacity to orbit capacity by 30% (Space-X numbers not mine) so it raises the price of each launch by a minimum of the propellant cost not to mention the additional cost in materials and labor to make and transport a larger booster....
The cost of a Falcon-9 launch is ~$62M. That's the cost of the booster, propellant,and launch.
What is frequently forgotten is the fixed cost of the recovery system. Space-X has their floating recovery barge. It probably cost $10M-$20M to have it built and outfitted, and it needs to be brought out by a large manned tug, and maintained and repaired after each use, successful or unsuccessful.
Assuming a booster is successfully recovered it must be transported to a land based facility, inspected, repaired and requalified. Disassembly and reassembly is required. The only cost savings may be the manufacturing of the parts that can be reused, however all the old parts need to be inspected and requalified so what is the real savings. Certainly if you use all new parts, they are cleaned after manufacturing and are easy to QC. The recycled motor must be taken apart, cleaned, inspected, reassembled and tested. The taking apart must be cheaper than the cost to manufacture or reuse is a loose which was proven by the Shuttle program.
Where Space-X is different is that they ultimately want to launch from TX and fly the booster back to the launch site. If they can succeed, they may stand a chance of saving a few million per launch, if they recover each booster safely. I wish them well, but it will be difficult. If anyone can make it work, it's Space-X, but no one has yet to show a positive cash flow from a reusable launch system, including shuttle.
Bob