[mucker]

Which is why I linked directly to a NY Times peace that gives a fairly balanced discussion of the same.

And it is not fair to claim that it was, "only loosely disguised as reasons of science." The reasons given, in both the Inspector General's report and in the article that I linked to are political reasons of _budget_.

It is not unsubstantiated as I substantiate it via link. I'm also a person that opposed the launch. As others point out, it wasn't _fabulously_ expensive in comparative scale, but in a very stretched NASA budget I would prefer all the pennies thrown at a mars exploration, a permanent moon base, a better space station, or a new shuttle program over a really cool camcorder inspired by a VP's (very literal) dream. That isn't science so much as something bordering on dictatorial whim.

Nor, _anywhere_ do I claim the NYT should somehow not report on science funding. I link directly to it to refute _your_ comments. The NYT article does not support your claim, instead it gives a much more reasonable account of the funding issue. It mentions the dream, the funding, and doesn't resort to slurs.