Why a NASA satellite that scientists and farmers rely on may be destroyed on purpose

Trump's wants to bring down 2 satellites that are critical to climate change study... by having them crash into Antarctic... but hey at least big corpo are launching their own satellites

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 scientist 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 Oct. 1. The employees asked to remain anonymous, because they were told they would be fired if they revealed the request.

Screenshot_20250805_120150_Chrome.webp

Congress funded the missions and may fund them again

Presidential budget proposals are wish lists that often bear little resemblance to final congressional budgets. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory missions have already received funding from Congress through the end of the 2025 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Draft budgets that Congress is currently considering for next year keep NASA funding basically flat. But it's not clear whether these specific missions will receive funding again, or if Congress will pass a budget before current funding expires on Sept. 30.

Last week, NASA announced it will consider proposals from private companies and universities that are willing to take on the cost of maintaining the device that is attached to the International Space Station, as well as another device that measures ozone in the atmosphere.

NASA did not respond to questions from NPR about whether other missions will also be privatized, or about why the agency is making plans to potentially terminate projects that may receive funding in Congress' next budget.

In July, congressional Democrats sent a letter to acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy warning his agency not to terminate missions that Congress has funded, and arguing that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and its director, Russ Vought, are overstepping by directing NASA and other agencies to stop spending money that Congress has already appropriated.

"Congress has the power of the purse, not Trump or Vought," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D- Calif., one of the authors of the letter and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in an email to NPR. "Eliminating funds or scaling down the operations of Earth-observing satellites would be catastrophic and would severely impair our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters. The Trump administration is forcing the proposed cuts in its FY26 budget request on already appropriated FY25 funds. This is

illegal."

A spokesperson for OMB told NPR via email that "OMB had nothing to do with NASA Earth Science leadership's request for termination plans." The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not respond to questions from NPR.

In the past, Vought has been vocal about cutting what he sees as inappropriate spending on projects related to climate change. Before he joined the Trump administration, Vought authored sections of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 roadmap for remaking the federal government. In that document, Vought wrote that "the Biden Administration's climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding" and argued that federal regulators should make it easier for commercial satellites to be launched.

The data from these missions is even more valuable than intended

The missions are called Orbiting Carbon Observatories because they were originally designed to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But soon after they launched, scientists realized that they were also accidentally measuring plant growth on Earth.

Basically, when plants are growing, photosynthesis is happening in their cells. And that photosynthesis gives off a very specific wavelength of light. The OCO instruments in space measure that light all over the planet.

"NASA and others have turned this happy accident into an incredibly valuable set of maps of plant photosynthesis around the world," explains Scott Denning, a longtime climate scientist at Colorado State University who worked on the OCO missions and is now retired. "Lo and behold, we also get these lovely, high resolution maps of plant growth," he says. "And that's useful to farmers, useful to rangeland and grazing and drought monitoring and forest mapping and all kinds of things, in addition to the CO2
measurements.


Screenshot_20250805_120838_Chrome.webp

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many private agricultural consulting companies use the data to forecast and track crop yield, drought conditions and more.

The information can also help predict future political instability, since crop failures are a major driver of mass migration all over the world. For example, persistent drought in Honduras is one factor that has led many farmers there to migrate north, NPR reporting found. And damage to crops and livestock from extreme weather in Northern Africa has contributed to migration from that region. "This is a national security issue, for sure," Crisp says.

Carbon-monitoring satellites have revolutionized climate science

The carbon dioxide data that the instruments were originally designed to collect has revolutionized scientists' understanding of how quickly carbon dioxide is collecting in the atmosphere.

That's because measuring carbon dioxide with instruments in various locations on the Earth's surface, as scientists have been doing since the 1950s, doesn't provide information about the whole planet. Satellite data, on the other hand, covers the entire Earth.

And that data showed some surprising things. "Fifty years ago we thought the tropical forests were like a huge vacuum cleaner, sucking up carbon dioxide,' Denning explains. "Now we know they're not."

Instead, boreal forests in the northern latitudes suck up a significant amount of carbon dioxide, the satellite data shows. And the patterns of which areas absorb the planet-warming gas, and how much they absorb, are continuously changing as the climate changes.

"The value of these observations is just increasing over time," explains Anna Michalak, a climate researcher at Carnegie Science and Stanford University who has worked extensively on greenhouse gas monitoring from space. "These are missions that are still providing critical information."

It is expensive to end satellite missions

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 scientist, 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.

NASA's recent call for universities and companies to potentially take over the cost of maintaining the OCO instrument attached to the International Space Station suggests the agency is also considering privatizing NASA science missions. Such partnerships raise a host of thorny questions, says Michalak, who has worked with private companies, nonprofit groups, universities and the federal government on greenhouse gas monitoring satellite projects

"On the one hand the private sector is really starting to have a role," Michalak says. In recent years, multiple private groups in the U.S. have launched satellites that measure methane, a potent planet-warming gas that is poorly monitored compared to carbon dioxide.

"Looking at it from the outside, it can look like the private sector is really picking up some of what the federal agencies were doing in terms of Earth observations," she explains. "And it's true that they're contributing." But, she says, "Those efforts would not be possible without this underlying investment from public funding."

Trump administration takes aim at satellite that measures carbon dioxide and crops : NPR https://share.google/iOIaFXngDsVBdfkRO
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: PhoBingas
I ain't reading all that. The actual reason is so elon has more real estate to pollute with his own satellites under the guise of delivering internet, but will actually be part of his fully autonomous killer drone swarm project that you (yes you! 🫵) are currently training for him while you're driving around in your overpriced tesla mobile.
Ahem, I think you mean "fully autonomous vote-rigging system".
 
I’m sure it’s for a good reason. Only those with TDS are critical of President Trump. :)
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory
Source:
OCO-2 launched from Vandenburg Air Force Base on Wednesday, July 2, 2014.
...
OCO-2 is designed to have a nominal mission time frame of at least two years, but the spacecraft could continue to fly well beyond its prime mission.
So Trump is trying to get rid of a satellite that has surpassed its service life by almost a decade...

I can argue that he is getting rid of a piece of aging piece of space junk.
 
Source:

So Trump is trying to get rid of a satellite that has surpassed its service life by almost a decade...

I can argue that he is getting rid of a piece of aging piece of space junk.
I mean, Voyager 1/2 wasn’t meant to last as long as they did either. Unless there is a significant improvement available or cost reason to kill it I don’t see the issue there.

Then again Trump wants NASA to build a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 so realistic outcomes seems to be on the backburner.
 
There are an awful lot of anonymous sources in here. But that's fine. It's not as if the "anonymous source" tactic has ever been used to attack evil Orange Man and subsequently turned out to be horseshit before. Plus it's perfectly fair that anonymity is needed for fear of being fired by the vengeful irrational tyrant. Why on earth would any employer not instead praise and reward employees who conspire to subvert, undermine and frustrate his instructions relating to their employment.

It's good though that these two satellites are so important and useful to farmers and scientists (and in assessing migration patterns). So useful and so important that I'm fairly confident that their existence was known to a smaller percentage of the general population than are genuine troons.

I don't doubt that the average farmer took data feeds on a daily basis before deciding what to do that day. After all, it's well known that before the data from these satellites existed farming was at least 50% less efficient if it even existed as a commercial activity. Or maybe not.

I also don't doubt that climate scientists rely on their data though given their track record on being wrong about virtually everything that would seem to an argument for shutting them down immediately.

And as for taking credit for migration assessment..... well what a wonderful success that has been!

The fact it's from NPR is a big enough red flag but why do people keep taking this shit seriously despite having seen the same deceitful techniques play out over and over again? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me is one thing but how much of a 'tard do you have to be to fall for the same old game a dozen or more times.
 
There are an awful lot of anonymous sources in here. But that's fine. It's not as if the "anonymous source" tactic has ever been used to attack evil Orange Man and subsequently turned out to be horseshit before. Plus it's perfectly fair that anonymity is needed for fear of being fired by the vengeful irrational tyrant. Why on earth would any employer not instead praise and reward employees who conspire to subvert, undermine and frustrate his instructions relating to their employment.
Here you go, straight from the White House:


Earth Science -$1,161 million

The Budget eliminates funding for low-priority climate monitoring satellites and restructures the gold-plated, two-billion-dollar Landsat mission while NASA studies more affordable ways to maintain the continuity of Landsat imagery, which is used by natural resource managers, States, and industry.

Landsats aren't gold-plated, by the way. It would be too hard to electroplate a satellite that big, and prior to Trump there would be no reason to do so. It's more like a gold-colored blanket.

1754434747235.webp

 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Milkshake Sniffer
I mean, Voyager 1/2 wasn’t meant to last as long as they did either. Unless there is a significant improvement available or cost reason to kill it I don’t see the issue there.

Then again Trump wants NASA to build a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 so realistic outcomes seems to be on the backburner.
Say whatever about Trump but comparing the Voyager missions to this 'mission Earth' is very disingenuous and gay. Your comparing a dime store LEO sniffing gas and overstaying it's mission by 8 years to 2 deep space probes that we set to pasture the moment they launched and the mission length was how long we assumed we could keep contact with them. The OCO-2 wishes it was built a third as well as either of the Voyager craft.

My non-political hypothesis. The OCO-2 is low on fuel(Hydrazine) and it's either too low to risk having a Shepard satellite refuel it or it's just not worth refueling. Low fuel means the window for a controlled re-entry is closing. Add that the OCO-2 is also outdated(the original design was from the early 2000's. The OCO-1 was launched in 2007 but it failed to deploy). Conclusion, it's just time for the OCO-2 to be replaced, it's a 10 year old back up craft that was built using a 25 year old design/parts and it has massively outlived its intended mission window(props to the guys that built it). It will get replaced but when that happens I don't expect to see an article about it.
 
overstaying it's mission by 8 years
See I may be gay as you say but I just don’t see it that way. If a thing lasts past it’s expected lifespan that’s usually a GOOD thing, in my experience. I definitely wasn’t implying it was as amazing as the Voyager probes but still considering the uncontrolled environment it works in, having it stay useful is a benefit.

Now if it is low on hydrazine and about to die out anyway sure, end the mission no biggie. But to infer just because it lasted longer than it was supposed to is the reason just sticks in my craw. Planned obsolescence is dumb.
 
See I may be gay as you say but I just don’t see it that way. If a thing lasts past it’s expected lifespan that’s usually a GOOD thing, in my experience. I definitely wasn’t implying it was as amazing as the Voyager probes but still considering the uncontrolled environment it works in, having it stay useful is a benefit.

Now if it is low on hydrazine and about to die out anyway sure, end the mission no biggie. But to infer just because it lasted longer than it was supposed to is the reason just sticks in my craw. Planned obsolescence is dumb.
If you're looking at it from that perspective I can understand. But these things aren't like consumer electronics or home appliances. They aren't really designed to last and planned obsolescence isn't a reason.

NASA and the military follow a similar doctrine when it comes to making things and that means only building something to support the 'mission' whatever it is. So if the 'mission' is to collect atmospheric data for 2+/- years then you build something that survives that long at minimum and as cheelply as you can(while also sticking to parts that we know work so they are 10 years behind the latest stuff most of the time.). It just so happens that cheap for NASA is typically 100's of millions of dollars.

Outside of fuel and overall integrity of the solar panels and main module this extended mission is now going to start running into other issues. Let's just take a simple problem that are facing. The OCO-2 is outfitted with many sensors and sensitive equipment that has to be hardened to survive and function in the vacuum of space. These hardened systems are always on and taking a beating from being exposed to the many hazards of space. As they age the protection this hardening offers weakens. More exposure to haxards from weakened systems means that you may be getting foul or incorrect data from your sensors due to interference. So should we still just trust the data it gives us even if we know the sensors were not rated for a 10 year mission? What's the point of having it in space if we cannot guarantee that the data it's sending isn't being fouled by over exposure. If the tires on your car are rated to 70,000 miles is it a good idea to drive in them 5 times that?

Thats why I gave you a non-political answer the first time. Because in any other year this wouldn't be getting an article. Just like how you don't want to see us taking down satellites potentially because of trump/doge cuts. I don't want us maintaining something that has outlived its usefulness or worse just to 'own' the current administration. Space as a field needs to be gate kept from tabloid writers and retards alike, it's way too complicated and nuisance for them. Like I said before when the OCO-3 is deployed there's not going to be an article and no one besides weirdos like me will care.
 
I don't want us maintaining something that has outlived its usefulness or worse just to 'own' the current administration.
well is there a replacement? if not just let it run till it breaks.
The costs to use them till they break are extremly small and even flawed data can be useful.
 
well is there a replacement? if not just let it run till it breaks.
Yes, COC-3 already is in orbit. So this article didn't even need to exist but here we are. COC-2 isn't some special golden age technology that needs to be persevered. This is a fucking CO2 sniffing LEO vehicle we're talking about. It's not critical to any industry and the ISS has a redundant module that performs the same task as the COC-2. So even without a replacement we can still measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere and provide that data to relevant parties.
The costs to use them till they break are extremly small
Its North of $20 million dollars to refuel and restabilize a satellite(due to the risks of losing the Shepard). This article provides little on the actual status of the actual module so I'm going to assume it's worse case because it's 10 years into it's 2 year mission.
flawed data can be useful.
Flawed data leads to making flawed conclusions which leads to making poor decisions. Flawed data is only ever useful in a do or die scenario when you have nothing else, which this is not.

Like I said twice before this issue isn't political and retards who don't understand the mechanics of operating sensitive equipment in hazardous environments(like tabloid news writers) shouldn't comment.

Edit: if you want to know more about the EOS's and mission earth here's the Link.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RCRA/CERCLA/GOONER
Back