White House Threatens to End Climate Monitoring Missions: Is America Losing its Space Leadership?
In a move that could stir controversy, the White House instructed the U.S. space agency NASA to end two pivotal missions focusing on the study of climate change.
Reports indicate that officials in the current U.S. administration asked the space agency to prepare plans to terminate the two Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) missions. These observatories collect precise and vital climate data, providing detailed information to diverse sectors such as oil and gas companies and farmers regarding the distribution of carbon dioxide emissions and their direct impact on crop health.
One of these observatories, known as OCO-3, is mounted on the International Space Station, while the other, OCO-2, operates as an independent satellite in its own orbit. Should the decision to end the mission be implemented, the independent satellite will face its inevitable fate of burning up upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
One can only speculate on the reasons that led the current administration to seek the termination of these two missions. However, considering the President's well-known stance on climate change, and his administration's efforts to reduce the budget of NASA's Earth Science Directorate, the motivations seem clear to some.
Even more concerning is that project scientists reported that the agency was planning for the observatories to continue operating for many years to come. In an assessment conducted by NASA in 2023, the data provided by the observatories was described as "of exceptional high quality," underscoring their significant scientific value.
These observatories provide accurate measurements of carbon dioxide levels in different geographical locations, giving scientists a comprehensive understanding of how various human activities impact greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.
And David Crisp, a former scientist at NASA who worked on developing the carbon observatory instruments, said that current employees contacted him about the matter, stating: "They were asking me very precise technical questions. The only motivation for such questions is that someone asked them to come up with a plan to end the mission."
Crisp affirmed that "there is no economic rationale for ending NASA missions that provide invaluable data," explaining that the annual cost to operate and maintain the two observatories does not exceed $15 million, a very small amount compared to the agency's total budget of $25.4 billion.
Similar questions were also raised regarding the termination of the mission to other scientists who rely on data from these observatories for their research.
These two observatories are among dozens of space missions facing an existential threat due to the budget proposed by the administration for fiscal year 2026. A large number of scientists have expressed their anger at this proposal, warning that it could lead to a decline in U.S. leadership in space.
Fortunately, congressional lawmakers presented a counter-proposal aiming to maintain the budget of NASA at its current levels approximately. In a statement released in July, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a prominent member of the Appropriations Committee, as reported by Bloomberg, said: "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA's science programs by 47 percent, and ended 55 existing and planned missions."
Lawmakers assert that ending vital Earth observation missions to serve an anti-science agenda is not only a grave mistake, but could also constitute a violation of laws by exceeding currently allocated and approved budgets.
In this context, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a leading member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told NPR that "defunding or curtailing operations of Earth observation satellites would have catastrophic consequences, and would significantly weaken our ability to predict weather disasters and extreme climate events, manage them, and respond effectively." She added that "the Trump administration is trying to impose the proposed 2026 budget cuts on funds already allocated for 2025. This is an illegal act."
myhome
https://www.aymany.com/
