It was possible. Like others have commented already, it's much more affordable to do that today, given sensors, computing and advances on our understanding of t

It was possible. Like others have commented already, it's much more affordable to do that today, given sensors, computing and advances on our understanding of the whole field. But given large enough pockets, I'm pretty sure by the time we had the capability to build Space Shuttles, we could do reusable rockets instead. There's one point I would like to add. This is something that's very difficult to do for well established companies. They tend to have their workhorse rockets - which were NOT designed with reusability in mind. Modifying these rockets is not feasible in many cases. Even when it is, it may not be cost effective. So the usual solution is to design a new "reusable rocket program". Now, the problem with such a program is: the success criteria is reusability. If the new rocket cannot be put into service quickly enough and demonstrates reusability successfully, it will be scrapped. If it delivers payloads just fine but can't land (or can land but refurbishment is costly), it will be a failure. After all, on one hand you have a working system, which is generating revenue. On the other, you have a problematic R&D program that's draining resources and engineering cycles for the promise of potential savings. They end up getting scrapped on the first resource crunch. SpaceX was developing their rocket. Their success criteria was that it would deliver payloads into orbit. Given that they started from scratch and had no existing workhorse, they also added reusability as a goal and designed the rocket to allow for that. If it achieved reusability, great! If not, it's just another single-use rocket. They also got "early" adopters, companies that were willing to launch their payloads on SpaceX, on new rocket designs, that only had a handful of flights. So they were, by definition, a little less risk-averse. On every flight, SpaceX got closer and closer to the reusability goal. But that didn't matter to most customers (they would pay for new boosters anyway), because that part of the mission happened after their payload was already on its way by the second stage, so who cares what happens to the first. All the while cementing their reputation. In essence, SpaceX got companies to finance the R&D for the reusable boosters, because they only had one rocket. If they tried to start with a single-use rocket, and then created a "Falcon 9-reuse" version, they would have faced the same difficulties. Namely, who would fly on the untested new design? Rocketlabs might be able to pull it off still, because - while it's a new booster - it's also one that's intended to increase their capabilities (much like Spaceship), it's not just a "reusable rocket program". If it can't be reused, then it's a more expensive rocket, but one that still adds value.