
NASA budget would cut Earth science and education - jskinger
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-budget-would-cut-earth-science-and-education/2017/03/15/c08e1e2c-0997-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html
======
Mythanar
I am professionally involved in space tech. Have to say, I like Trump's
administration stance on NASA (quote):

"We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," Bob Walker, a
senior Trump adviser, told the Guardian newspaper. "Earth-centric science is
better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."

...much more then I liked the previous administrator (Charles Bolden) mission:

"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three
things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted
me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted
me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost,
he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much
more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their
historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

Why were Muslim national relationships a NASA mission? Thought we had State
Department for that.

~~~
bhhaskin
It makes perfect sense to move earth sciences to other agencies. NOAA should
be taking point.

~~~
knz
Are NOAA getting that additional responsibility and associated funding?

Also, NASA's charter is much more broad than just space exploration.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act)

"The original 1958 act charged the new Agency with conducting the aeronautical
and space activities of the United States "so as to contribute materially to
one or more of the following objectives:"

\- The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

\- The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and
efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

\- The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments,
equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

\- The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be
gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the
utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific
purposes.

\- The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in
aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof
to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

\- The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses
of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by
such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control
nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to
discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

\- Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations
in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the
results, thereof; and

\- The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources
of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of
the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort,
facilities, and equipment.

In 2012, a ninth objective was added: "The preservation of the United States
preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology
development related to associated manufacturing processes."

------
saltenhav
"Also on the chopping block: the entire NASA Education office, which ...
provides internships and scholarships for young scientists"

I was an intern last year working on one of the listed missions (now slated to
be cut), and was planning on returning again this summer. I knew this was
coming from Trump, but not this quickly or this hard. It's difficult to
describe in concrete terms how I feel - I don't mean to be a sad sack; it's
just a surreal situation. This means that many months of my work on my first
real job were all for naught. Do you ever get personally attached to your
work? I felt like my effort there was making an impact; it wasn't a boring
sort-a-filing-cabinet internship. And it just disappeared for good, since I
don't think there will be funding for a reboot later. I feel listless, which
is also helped by the fact that it doesn't sound like I have a career in the
near-term. Kinda pulled out from under me. And I only just found out about
this from this news article; at least the concrete specifics.

Is anyone still taking applications for an undergrad intern, with intern-level
experience in aerospace controls engineering (rising senior CS major)? I don't
want to limit myself to that specifically either; anything with a decent
cross-section of either math, software, or robotics is my jam. Sorry to put
this out here like this, but I'm wary that I'm running out of time to find
something since aerospace intern hiring seems to conclude all the way back in
early Fall.

~~~
mordant
> It's difficult to describe in concrete terms how I feel

I can tell you how I feel.

I feel _great_ that I'm not being forced to subsidize your career with my tax
dollars.

~~~
piva00
Can't really tell if the italics are sarcasm or not.

------
fmap
The most alarming thing is that they are explicitly cutting anything to do
with climate change (there's a more comprehensive overview here:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-
presi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presidential-
budget-2018-proposal/)). That's also a large part of what the NASA budget cut
is aimed at...

~~~
finid
I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he
believes, or does not believe. And he was explicit about it. If you recall, he
said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he
> believes, or does not believe.

Hitler (hypothetically, not I recreated a I discussing whether or not this was
his belief) genuinely believing Jews were a dangerous threat that could be
dealt with by no means short of extermination does not reduce the degree to
which his action on that belief would rightly be seen as alarming.

> If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a
> Chinese fairy tale.

OTOH, I also remember his official campaign staff and unofficial campaign
surrogates repeatedly saying that his statements on most policy issues should
not be taken literally. A position that Co tinted to be uswd, in various
forms, by his White House staff (e.g., in claiming that his statements
explicitly referencing wiretapping are not literally about wiretapping but
other activities.)

If one is alarmed at Trump's explicit statements, the response is "calm down,
stop taking him literally".

If one is later alarmed that Trump acts in accord with such a statement, the
response is "calm down, he's just doing what he explicitly said."

Aside from the obvious game being played here, doing what you previously said
doesn't make an action less alarming, in much the same way that acting in
accord with your own genuine (if unjustified) belief does not.

~~~
finid
I think you and @SamPhillips missed my point.

My point is, he said he was going to do all these things, but he was still
voted in anyway.

The only thing that surprises me about Trump is this: He's from New York City.
I'm not even talking New State, NYC! How did a guy like this come out of NYC?

~~~
dragonwriter
I think you misunderstand "alarming" to mean "surprising" (or, otherwise, the
point you now describe is simply a non-sequitur where you presented it.)

------
hackuser
The Dept of Education budget also is proposed to be cut significantly,
including deep cuts in financial aid to college students.

NIH research also is proposed to suffer large cuts.

And while I'm at it, the National Endowment for the Arts and National
Endowment for the Humanities are proposed to be eliminated entirely.

~~~
Finnucane
Yeah, basically, if it doesn't involve killing people or the police state,
it's getting a cut. Unfortunately, the language I would use to describe my
feelings about this is probably not considered appropriate for HN.

~~~
Arizhel
Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American
people. They voted for this; they voted for this Administration, and they
voted for this Congress.

~~~
knz
The popular vote would disagree with this sentiment in regards to voting for
this administration....

If the will of the people was a consideration then we would see a more
balanced proposal without such severe cuts to agencies and programs that Trump
associates with "liberals". Abolishing the NEA or destroying the ability of
the EPA to regulate pollution is pure political ideology. Reducing the ability
of our government to study climate change isn't based upon scientific fact -
it's done because it doesn't fit within the worldview of our current
administration.

~~~
Arizhel
The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would
have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in
smaller states, but only so much.

That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this _Congress_ , not just
this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate
too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". They even voted
GOP for governorships and local elections. The bottom line: outside of a few
particular places (namely California), the people of this country _want_ the
GOP and its policies.

As for your "balanced proposal" idea, things don't work like that. When one
party has total power in both Congress and the White House, they can do pretty
much whatever they want. If the people had wanted more balance, they would
have voted for a more balanced Congress. They didn't. They overwhelmingly
filled the seats with GOP candidates.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The popular vote wasn't that far away;

Yes, it was

> it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way.

The electoral college can, in principle, support very radical differences from
the popular vote; the actual difference in 2016 was mild compared to what is
theoretically possible in that regard, but still a pretty extreme far outlier
compare to historical norms.

> That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just
> this Administration.

But numerous prominent _Republicans in Congress_ have dismissed the Trump
budget as unacceptable. You can't say "the American people voted for this" and
then defend that by pointing to—even if completely accuratelt—thr American
people voting for a set of politicians that don't clearly support the thing
you claim the American people voted for by voting for those politicians.

------
ocschwar
One of those gadgets is designed to measure refraction and radiance from
greenhouse gasses. I.e. to confirm or correct the only assumptions in climate
modeling that are even remotely controversial.

Gee, I wonder why they want to cancel it.

------
ntaylor
It's worth noting that the actual impact to NASA's budget is relatively small.
Down to 19.1bn from 19.3bn.

~~~
donpdonp
Yes, -1% for NASA in the proposal. The EPA is what gets hit hard - listed as
-31%.

Also worth noting: "Discretionary spending limits, addressed by this proposal,
are set by congressional budget resolutions. Congress typically makes changes
to the president’s proposal — last year, lawmakers disregarded Obama’s budget
altogether. "

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-
presi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presidential-
budget-2018-proposal/)

------
DoodleBuggy
Who needs science and education?

~~~
simonh
Not hotel and casino operators, apparently.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I guess the theory is you can't be too poor to gamble?

------
tbomb
On the bright side, that's much less of a budget cut than what I was
expecting!

~~~
finid
So how deep of a cut were you expecting?

------
heifetz
Since Bannon is preparing for a nuclear winter, anything other than defense
and military spending is non-essential.

