As impressive as the landing is, it won&#x27;t yet make as dramatic a cost difference as people think.  The problem is that there are a bunch of cost and performance multipliers that are easy to overlook.<p>1. Only a portion of the rocket is reusable, you still pay full price for the upper stage.<p>2. The part that is reusable has to be built better to survive multiple uses and needs to have extra equipment for recovery, so it&#x27;s more expensive.<p>3. The performance of the reusable pieces is compromised due to the extra weight of the fuel and equipment for recovery.<p>4. There are still refurbishment costs after every flight, presumably we will know soon how significant these are.<p>5. You lose economies of scale in making the boosters since you make fewer of them.<p>Overall I would expect that with all of these together you&#x27;ll see maybe a 30% total cost reduction.  A lot of these same arguments were made about shuttle costs and reusability, and it didn&#x27;t pan out.  SpaceX certainly can and has learned from that failure, but many of the basic mathematical realities still apply.