Many people have suggested as much. The issue then is finding a large enough volume of customers / missions to make use of frequent flights. I've also heard (

Many people have suggested as much. The issue then is finding a large enough volume of customers / missions to make use of frequent flights. I've also heard (tho I don't have a link ready) that past 50 - 100 flights per year on a given vehicle, some more exotic methods of flight into orbit (that have been impractical to date) become cost effective compared to expendables. Not a few studies have suggested reusable chemical rockets are cheaper than expendables, if you can fit at least 50 flights a year on them. I once read that number as around 70 a year for the Shuttle (possibly from Antonio Elias, maybe someone else). If you can manage hundreds, some of the really nifty / whacky launch concepts might become viable, like cannon launch, laser launch etc. etc. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html (I think Antonio Elias, on NSF made the argument that Kistler's now defunct K1 (COTS contract, along side SpaceX) rocket would have been viable at nearly the lowest possible launch rate for a reuseable, far sooner than the Shuttle.)