cutting the cheaper launchers

>
> Has it occurred to anyone else that putting the possibility of
solar
> power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure
money for
> the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget
was cut
> by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
> I wonder?
>
> Hardly anyone gets more passionate about SPS (or more impatient for
it) than
> I do. But still, I tend to be very skeptical of these kind of
> conspiracy-type notions. A few decades back, one might have used
the same
> kind of logic to argue that the makers of home movie film might try
to
> suppress the advancement of magnetic video tape for the consumer
market.
> But the reality is that we buy VHS cassettes that have names like
Polaroid
> and Kodak on them. And by the same token, if we ever do move into
an era of
> SPS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them weren't funded
and
> constructed by Exxon or Chevron.
>
> I think the only problem with SPS is that it's outside the
imagination of so
> many. Or alternately, that people's imagination concerning it are
charged
> with fear.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

I tend to agree with Mike, it would be useful to persuade the oil
companies themselves to invest in SPS. If in-orbit manafacturing
facilities were made available andSPS was demonstrated as cheap and
viable it might catch their interest.

Mark