NASA budget would cut Earth science and education

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space...

"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."

The other agencies that have related missions to which one might plausibly argue that NASA's earth science mission might reasonably be transferred are also (including NOAA) being massively cut, in those specific areas, by the proposed Trump budget.

So, while there might be a hypothetical budget which included massive cuts to NASA's earth-focussed science which was not alarming because the mission was merely being moved to a more appropriate agency, the proposed Trump budget is not that hypothetical budget.

Sorry, but if your nation doesn't prioritize space exploration and have any capability there, that's not NASA's fault, and I don't think it should be NASA's responsibility to try to fix that.

edit: Note, personally I'm extremely worried about the near future under this administration and Congress, and I'm a big supporter of space exploration. But Obama's directives to NASA were IMO ridiculous and a distraction from the serious science work that the agency should be focusing on (both in space and in the atmosphere, as per the name). The Muslim world hasn't done anything useful in science and technology for centuries now. To be sure, some people from that area are very bright and have been very productive, but only when they've left that place and come to societies where their work is appreciated and not oppressed. But those people didn't need scientific agencies to set aside their serious work and pander to them to get them to step up and get involved. If you want more encouragement of people to get into this work, that's the job of the Education department, and perhaps the State department if it involves foreign relations. This doesn't mean NASA couldn't do a little outreach here and there (a big agency like that has all kinds of things it's doing all the time), but it shouldn't be made out to be a serious mission requirement, just like when tech companies send an engineer to schools to brainwash^Wshow kids how great STEM careers are, that's just a small extra job, not the company's main mission or even something they publicize as highly important to them.

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.