No Plan B

[tw]

This has repeatedly been exampled as good money wasted on bad science. It sucks up about 90% of the money and does about 0% of the science. It was only suppose to cost $8billion. It caused the destruction of real science - the Super Collider. Now it again is causing problems.
From The Economist of 12 Mar 2005

No plan B for outer space
Spend $40 billion building a big tin can in orbit round the Earth, in order -at least in part - to keep the rocket scientists of your former enemy from going to work for your current enemies. Then find that a law intended to stop the current enemies getting their hands on such rocket scientists' knowledge means you can no longer use this expensive tin can. Confused? You are not the only one. Because that, in a nutshell, is what is about to happen to American space policy unless the law is amended. Indeed, it looks likely that if the law is not changed, America's entire manned-spaceflight effort, and another $50 billion of spending with it, could come to nothing.