White House Halts NASA Climate Missions: Is America Retreating from Space?
The White House has issued directives to NASA to terminate two key satellite missions centered on climate change. These two missions are known as "Orbiting Carbon Observatories," and they have been collecting crucial data, providing the oil and gas sectors and farmers with detailed information on carbon dioxide distribution and its direct impact on crop health.
To clarify, these observatories consist of two primary missions: Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), an independent satellite launched in 2014, and Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3), an advanced instrument installed on the International Space Station since 2019. These two missions aim to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels with unprecedented accuracy, enabling scientists to identify "sources" of emissions and natural carbon "sinks," which is vital for understanding the global carbon cycle and the impact of human activities on it, according to information published on the official website of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
One of these observatories is directly connected to the International Space Station, while the other operates as an independent satellite. Should the decision to terminate the mission be implemented, the independent satellite will face an inevitable fate of burning up in Earth's atmosphere.
Although the exact reasons behind this directive remain speculative, the well-known stance of former President Donald Trump's administration on climate change and its efforts to cut NASA's Science Mission Directorate budget provide a potential context for this decision.
What's more concerning is the affirmation by scientists working on both projects that the observatories were expected to continue operating for many years to come. A NASA assessment in 2023 concluded that the data they provide is of exceptional quality. These observatories offer precise measurements of carbon dioxide distribution across various geographical areas, giving scientists a detailed insight into how human activities impact greenhouse gas emissions.
David Crisp, a former NASA employee who worked on developing the Orbiting Carbon Observatory instruments, confirmed that current staff had contacted him regarding these developments. He stated, "They were asking me extremely sharp questions. The only motive that would drive them to ask such questions is that some entity asked them to prepare a plan to terminate the mission."
Crisp added that "there is no economic rationale for terminating NASA missions that provide invaluable data," pointing out that the cost of operating and maintaining the two observatories does not exceed $15 million annually, a minuscule amount compared to the agency's total budget of $25.4 billion. Similar questions have also been directed to other scientists who rely on data from these missions for their research.
These two observatories are just one example of dozens of space missions facing existential threats within the administration's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026. A large number of scientists have expressed their dismay at this proposal, warning that it could undermine US leadership in space exploration.
In contrast, lawmakers presented a counter-offer aimed at maintaining NASA's budget at roughly its current levels. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), a senior appropriations official, stated in a July statement quoted by Bloomberg: "We rejected cuts that would have decimated NASA's science programs by 47 percent and ended 55 existing and planned missions."
Lawmakers emphasize that terminating Earth observation missions simply to serve an anti-science agenda is not only a grave mistake but could also constitute a violation of laws by exceeding currently approved budgets. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-California), a member of the leading Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, told NPR: "Defunding or scaling back Earth observation satellite operations would be catastrophic, severely harming our ability to predict, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters." She added: "The Trump administration is attempting to impose the proposed cuts in the 2026 budget on funds already appropriated for 2025. This is an illegal action."
myhome
https://www.aymany.com/
