Having read about the Space X booster landing, I remain skeptical of the cost benefit, especially since for this particular mode of recovery, a substantial sacrifice in payload weight must be made. They said they launched 11 satellites, but they never said what the payload weight to orbit was, in the articles I read.
It would seem to me that the STS method of parachute recovery would remain the best bet, but of course just locating and recovering the booster at sea remains an expensive propostion. But what does that tell you? It tells me that all imagined benefits are marginal, and it would be wiser to reduce the per unit cost of the booster, and turn them out like hot cakes.
From what I have previously read about Space X, they intend to have every stage including the payload capsule return back to a landing area under it's own power. Every component will be recovered for reuse, except for fuel. They are intending to build ever larger delivery vehicles that can send 100 persons at one time, and return it to a landing area, similar to that of a commercial aircraft. Can you imagine the cost of an airplane ticket cross-country if the airplane was only used once? It's all about getting the cost way down.
They have increased the size of the booster to compensate. They have to pay extra for extra fuel for their larger booster, but paying an extra two hundred thousand in fuel in order to recover a 50 million dollar first stage is worth it.
It would seem to me that the STS method of parachute recovery would remain the best bet,
Spacex aready tried parachute recovery and finally rejected it. Ocean recovery was used by the space shuttle program and refurbishing the solid rocket boosters corroded by salt water cost as much as making new ones.