Flight Rates

> It's really bugged me that he seemed the principal
> negator of the High Frontier.

At most, we can only say he canceled Apollos 18 - 20, or that hedeclined to pursue post-Apollo lunar programs.

I think there were two principle negators of High Frontier:
1. The Shuttle not living up to its initialpromise, which meant that the original costs estimates and schedules were too optimistic.
2. The sudden resumption of cheap oil from the Middle East, which undercut SPS which was the principle economic foundation for High Frontier.

Now, any current causes for optimism on these two fronts? Consider:
1. There is a plethora of new space companies working onspacecraft for tourist applications. While these vehicles are suborbital, they might advance to orbital in gradual increments, bringing airliner-like development and operations to spacecraft for the first time in aviation history.
2. In addition to concerns about enrichingnations which support terrorism, we're also increasingly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. SPS is the only potential replacement for fossil fuels which doesn't have an attendant waste disposal problem.

Regards,
Mike Combs