Actually, you're ALL wrong (about the shuttle, anyway). The shuttle has about three major propulsion systems. The main engines (which are used to get into orbit, and ONLY to get into orbit) require a huge massive liquid oxygen/hydrogen tank to get into orbit, along with the two solid rocket boosters which use some sort of aluminum-based rubbery compound (I forget exactly which, but I'm sure a quick Google would turn it up). So much for requiring piddling amounts of fuel to get into/out of orbit.
To manuever, the shuttle mainly uses nitrogen gas. It's inert and safe, and good enough to change orientation. Space walkers also use nitrogen gas in their manuevering units. The gas is basically just blown out under pressure, which makes it quite reliable.
For major manuevers (like deorbit), the space shuttle uses a hypergolic fuel (hydrazine, I think) in the OMS (orbital manuevering units), those two bulbous pods in the back, near the vertical stabilizer (rudder fin). Basically, hydrazine is a self-igniting fuel, which is why it's useful for the deorbiting stage: it eliminates the possibility that the ignition system might fail. It's not as safe as nitrogen gas, however.
Now, the OMS doesn't produce thrust equal to that to get the shuttle into orbit; that's just ridiculous. The purpose of the OMS is to slow down the shuttle enough that shuttle loses enough energy to drop into the upper atmosphere, which then slows the shuttle down the rest of the way to the ground (I suppose you could call this the "fourth" propulsion system).
If the shuttle did have enough fuel for powered flight both ways, it wouldn't need a sophisticated thermal protection sytem, because it could simply fly down in a reverse course to the lift-off (Buck Rogers-style). However, it wouldn't simply require double the fuel, but many times more, because you'd have to lift all that fuel into orbit, along with the fuel tank, and whatever else. The main engines aren't even designed to fire twice--they have to be overhauled after each mission.
I think an experimental spacecraft, DC-X, might have been capable of vertical ascent/descent, but it was only a prototype. It worked fairly well, but fell over and caught fire because somebody skimped on the landing leg design. I don't know what the fuel numbers were like; the idea behind vertical ascent/descent is mainly one of convenience (same reason why helicopters are more appropriate than airplanes in certain applications).
To return to blackfuel, I think we must be talking about oil. It is a fuel, and it is black. Ergo, black fuel. Holy smokes, fossil fuel-powered fighters, Batman.
Oops my mistake, sorry.... at least I was kinda close.... time to commit suicide again.... 
