Which is why I linked directly to a NY Times peace that gives a fairly balanced discussion of the same.<p>And it is not fair to claim that it was, &quot;only loosely disguised as reasons of science.&quot;  The reasons given, in both the Inspector General&#x27;s report and in the article that I linked to are political reasons of _budget_.<p>It is not unsubstantiated as I substantiate it via link.  I&#x27;m also a person that opposed the launch.  As others point out, it wasn&#x27;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&#x27;s (very literal) dream.  That isn&#x27;t science so much as something bordering on dictatorial whim.<p>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&#x27;t resort to slurs.