2 ms·

The point is that it didn't have an efficient (and therefore cost effective) shot at full reusability. That's always been the key issue. There were plenty of d

The point is that it didn't have an efficient (and therefore cost effective) shot at full reusability. That's always been the key issue. There were plenty of designs for partially or fully reusable spacecraft, none were done in a way to be cost effective. The space shuttle being the poster child for this sort of thing, so expensive to refurbish that being reusable was almost meaningless. As an SSTO, VentureStar's payload would've been very limited compared to a two stage rocket of the same fuel capacity. The X-33 prototype that was being built was a scaled down suborbital version which doesn't even list a payload amount.

cubefox 3y ago
The VentureStar was explicitly designed for low refurbishmemt demands given the failures of the Space Shuttle. The latter was developed by NASA using contractors, which pretty much always results in extremely high costs, e.g. recently with the cancelled NASA space suits or SLS. Even with Hydrogen, I think the full reusability of the VentureStar could have outweighed its high fuel cost, compared to other rockets at the time. They estimated 20 tons to LEO, which would have been more than e.g. Atlas, which wasn't even designed to fly humans, and would have required a capsule that reduces effective payload.