An increase in the amount of launched satellites can be seen in the last decade. And it is expected that even more satellites will be launched in the upcoming years. Most of these small satellites are launched as piggy back together with a large spacecraft. The location and time of launch and orbit will therefore be determined by another mission. A dedicated launcher for small satellites will contribute to the success of small satellites by bringing the satellite at the right time in the right orbit.

Fourteen European companies and institutes are working together in a European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 project called “SMall Innovative Launcher for Europe” (SMILE). The project aims at designing a launcher for satellites up to 70 kg and a European-based launch facility at Andøya. To make this project a success the launch cost must be below the " 50 000 per kg and a total launch cost of 3.5 "M. One of the ways to cut the costs of the launcher is by the re-use of the first stage.

This research will answer the question if recovering of the first stage will be cost-beneficial, answering the following research question; What is the performance gain in terms of cost when reusing the first stage of the launcher within the SMILE project? To answer this question, three different steps are taken.

The first step is to investigate the boundaries of the recovery of the first stage. The impact region, velocity and maximum altitude and loads are investigated to understand the recovery mechanisms needed. It is found that the impact region of the first stage is between the coast of Norway and Jan Mayen. This means that the first stage needs to land on water. Using the information found, seven different recovery options are designed.

During the second phase the different designs are optimised to the minimumtake-off weight. This optimisation is done by first making use of Monte Carlo simulations to find the region were the minimal is found. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation are used in a genetic algorithm the find the minimum system weight. After this evaluation two different options remained; retro-propulsion option and a parachute system option.

The last step is to evaluate these two options in more detail with a six degrees of freedom simulation. After the evaluation of the two options, the options are designed in more detail. Three different landing techniques are
discussed; resulting in three different options. The first option found is the retro-propulsion with an airbag landing. The second option considered is the parachute system with an air bed landing. The last option found is the parachute system with a mid air capture performed by a helicopter. The different options are re-designed and the extra weight and volume needed is computed. The cost of the different options is calculated and compared. It is shown that if the first stage is used four times of more per year, recovering is cost-beneficial for all options.