Skip to comments.
'Operation Overlord' Cancelled
Associated Content ^
| March 2nd, 2010
| Mark R. Whittington
Posted on 03/03/2010 2:47:08 PM PST by Marcus
Recently President Obama canceled Project Constellation that would return Americans to the Moon by 2020. Some maintain that Constellation was over budget, behind schedule and needed cancellation. What if we had approached another project the same way?
Amalgamated Press. January 26th, 1944. General George C. Marshall today announced that the planned invasion of Europe has been canceled. There have long been rumors of cost overruns and other problems plaguing the planned invasion, which was designated 'Operation Overlord', which General Marshall referred to in his announcement and subsequent press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
TOPICS: Government; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; bhonasa; constellation; moonbase; nasa; obama; operationoverlord
1
posted on
03/03/2010 2:47:08 PM PST
by
Marcus
To: Marcus
I've got to post and run, but this is a ridiculous comparison. When we invaded Europe, we had a clear and concise goal to defeat Nazi Germany. Why do we want to go to the moon? Get more rocks? If there is anything economically attractive there, get the government out of the way and let the entrepreneurs handle it.
2
posted on
03/03/2010 2:51:41 PM PST
by
In veno, veritas
(Please identify my Ad Hominem attacks. I should be debating ideas.)
To: In veno, veritas
Not only that, but Eisenhower had a sound plan for the invasion. Even if getting to the moon was important, Constellation was a horrifically expensive and ineffective way to do it, relative to alternatives. It was more like Dieppe than Normandy.
To: In veno, veritas
Not only that, but Eisenhower had a sound plan for the invasion. Even if getting to the moon was important, Constellation was a horrifically expensive and ineffective way to do it, relative to alternatives. It was more like Dieppe than Normandy.
To: Marcus
5
posted on
03/03/2010 4:31:54 PM PST
by
Bean Counter
(I keeps mah feathers numbered, for just such an emergency...)
To: NonZeroSum
Constellation was a horrifically expensive and ineffective way to do it, relative to alternatives.
Alternatives?
Care to elaborate?
6
posted on
03/03/2010 4:35:04 PM PST
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: In veno, veritas
We want to go back to the moon because it is an excellent place to start deep space exploration from. Most Americans have no idea that so many of our common medical treatments came from the space program. Take for example DNA recombinate insulin which is commonly used today instead of the old animal based that attacked the body.
To: tet68
Alternatives? Care to elaborate?Read this.
To: chris_bdba
Again, you're answer doesn't have any clear goal behind it. Although I'll agree that we've had many benefits from the space program, the overall objectives are unclear (unlike Normandy). And this problem is an economic problem; with so many potential benefits to explore, how do we choose which ones to pursue? With a government agency, it's arbitrary and can lack the necessary incentives to be efficient. However, if it is worth the government going to space to provide benefits to people, then it must also be worth a private industry to do it too. And with competition, it provides the incentive to be efficient at it.
9
posted on
03/04/2010 7:34:35 AM PST
by
In veno, veritas
(Please identify my Ad Hominem attacks. I should be debating ideas.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson