I think it has strong potential.
But how much it will actually be used, especially for exploration specifically, really boils down to the math. Energy usage, cost, and time spent ascending or descending, compared to pure rocket- propelled craft.
And even if you look at that math right now, based on current technology, it's a really tough call for the future of space exploration because we have no idea what kind of propulsion or hovercraft or anti-gravity breakthroughs we may discover.
But, at the core, I always wondered why we haven't seen this more. I would think that any space faring spacecraft should ideally be able to travel in an atmosphere, as well. The huge advantage of having an airfoil (wings) on approach to an atmospheric planet Is that you can run out of fuel or energy and still safely land. But I imagine the logic of not putting wings on most spacecraft in science fiction and in real life is that such a vast majority of its lifespan is spent outside of an atmosphere, and wings add a significant amount of mass to the spacecraft, which means it takes more energy for the spacecraft to travel through space. Space takes a hell of a lot less energy to travel through than an atmosphere, especially when you have humans aboard who can't tolerate more than a couple g's of acceleration at a time, but there's a hell of a lot more traveling done in space than on a planet or in an atmosphere. Probably 99% or more for most spacecraft during a space exploration era.
I think we will mostly see these kinds of things on smaller craft, and probably mostly on the consumer side, in an early post-scarcity society. I just can't imagine flying a rocket being at satisfying as flying a plane.
But I can certainly see some advantages for early missions to other planets. The ones where we would set up an orbiting space station and a planetside base. It might be a whole lot easier and safer for quick trips in between the two, but again, I think it all depends on the math and the details of the mission.