NSF is getting a 50% budget cut, at some point, you cut enough budget, it doesn't work.
>They will be... getting rid of green/climate research and general management.
Sing it with me, now!
One of these things is not like the other...
One of these things is ... like the other.
My original comment could have been clearer but the point stands, nothing is happening to NASA. The organization will continue to exist. They will continue to operate as the US's space program, with a larger emphasis on human space flight, these are just budget cuts.
Are you insinuating that I was being disingenuous by using them? The ellipsis simply removed a part of the sentence that was irrelevant to the point, but doesn't actually change what you said. You said nothing is happening to their work, and then immediately pointed out work that's going away. Not that complicated.
/shrug
Which has been lampooned by Robert Zubrin as "the ISS going in circles for decades in order to collect blood and urine samples". Robotic research has gotten more bang for our buck (You can explore an entire world via an orbiter (Cassini, Juno (on the budget chopping block), Osiris-Rex (the extended mission to Apophis is on the budget chopping block), Mars Observer, Messenger, etc to name a few missions) for ~$1B all in , far less than it costs to run the ISS ($3B / year)
> getting rid of green/climate research
Which is basically just a political attack, silencing research you don't want to hear about. It's about as effective as sticking your head in the sand to avoid the consequences of your life choices. It makes about as much logical sense, too.
> getting rid of general management
Possibly the only thing I find useful about the proposed budget cuts. Even then, I'd prefer targeted cuts, rather than throwing out entire department because you don't want to hear about how the Earth is changing, or how the Sun works, or learn enough about asteroids to adequately deflect them.