The Trump administration has asked NASA employees to draw up plans to end at least two major satellite missions, according to current and former NASA staffers. If the plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated, because the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere.

The data the two missions collect is widely used, including by scientists, oil and gas companies and farmers who need detailed information about carbon dioxide and crop health. They are the only two federal satellite missions that were designed and built specifically to monitor planet-warming greenhouse gases.

It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions. The equipment in space is state-of-the-art and is expected to function for many more years, according to scientists who worked on the missions. An official review by NASA in 2023 found that “the data are of exceptionally high quality,” and recommended continuing the mission for at least three years.

Both missions, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, measure carbon dioxide and plant growth around the globe. They use identical measurement devices, but one device is attached to a stand-alone satellite while the other is attached to the International Space Station. The standalone satellite would burn up in the atmosphere, if NASA pursued plans to terminate the mission.

NASA employees who work on the two missions are making what the agency calls Phase F plans for both carbon-monitoring missions, according to David Crisp, a longtime NASA engineer who designed the instruments and managed the missions until he retired in 2022. Phase F plans lay out options for terminating NASA missions.

Crisp says NASA employees making those termination plans have reached out to him for his technical expertise. “What I have heard is direct communications from people who were making those plans, who weren’t allowed to tell me that that’s what they were told to do. But they were allowed to ask me questions,” Crisp says. “They were asking me very sharp questions. The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan.”

Three other academic scientists who use data from the missions confirmed that they, too, have been contacted with questions related to mission termination. All three asked for anonymity because they are concerned that speaking about the mission termination plans publicly could endanger the jobs of the NASA employees who contacted them.

Two current NASA employees also confirmed that NASA mission leaders were told to make termination plans for projects that would lose funding under President Trump’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, or FY 2026, which begins October 1. The employees asked to remain anonymous, because they were told they would be fired if they revealed the request.

  • BlahajByte@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Unclear why they seek to end the mission. Either because the data can be used to support climate science which effects the bottom line of shitty corps order so shitty corps can sell data that use to be free whatever makes them more money, that’s the goal.

  • TachyonTele@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    17 hours ago

    …were designed and built specifically to monitor planet-warming greenhouse gases.

    It is unclear why the Trump administration seeks to end the missions.

    … right. Totally unclear.

  • Hirom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    If the goal is to save money, sell the satellites to Canada, ESA, or India.

    We’ll make good use of it.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I know you’re making a point about how this isn’t actually about the cost of the program.

      But to put this in further context, it will cost more to deorbit and waste these missions prematurely than to see the mission through.

      The cost of maintaining the two OCO satellite missions up in space is a small fraction of the amount of money taxpayers already spent to design and launch the instruments. The two missions cost about $750 million to design, build and launch, according to David Crisp, the retired NASA engineer, and that number is even higher if you include the cost of an initial failed rocket launch that sent an identical carbon dioxide measuring instrument into the ocean in 2009.

      By comparison, maintaining both OCO missions in orbit costs about $15 million per year, Crisp says. That money covers the cost of downloading the data, maintaining a network of calibration sensors on the ground and making sure the stand-alone satellite isn’t hit by space debris, according to Crisp.

      “Just from an economic standpoint, it makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data,” Crisp says.

      Losing this data (and therefore the ability to coordinate and handle crop failure, forest fires, etc) is going to be a lot more than $15m/yr

      • Hirom@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I know. But the US government doesn’t think the data is valuable, so they might be willing to sell it for a good price

        We could always sell the data or satellite back if they change their mind.