DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus US should put nuclear reactors on moon before other countries do, acting NASA administrator says

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.

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."

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."

I think what bothers me about this is that a lot of us have had our power bills increase substantially due to increased demand that we've experienced here, in addition to what are likely shenanigans from the energy companies. This administration has focused on "America first" so why not increase our own production capacity here in the US and then focus on a place like the moon?

Can we put Trump on the moon?

I don't disagree...the problem is many don't like coal, oil, or nuclear. If people think windmills, hydro and solar farms are the solution, you are wrong.

They can supplement at best.

I would go nuclear.

I think what bothers me about this is that a lot of us have had our power bills increase substantially due to increased demand that we've experienced here, in addition to what are likely shenanigans from the energy companies. This administration has focused on "America first" so why not increase our own production capacity here in the US and then focus on a place like the moon?

I’m fine with nuclear, but build it here for crying out loud.

I don't disagree...the problem is many don't like coal, oil, or nuclear. If people think windmills, hydro and solar farms are the solution, you are wrong.

They can supplement at best.

I would go nuclear.

So your source says nothing of the kind.

China has 1,416,096,094 people.

India has 1.464 billion people.

You sound like a child when their parent asks them why they did something bad. "But Johnny did it." Then the parent asks the obvious question in response. "So if Johnny jumped off a cliff would you jump off the cliff too?"

The problem we're dealing with there is even though the scientific evidence is abundantly clear on the state of climate change and it's causes, we are usually dealing with people that deny all of the science. You can beat that drum until hell freezes over and they either won't believe it, don't care or some of both. Take your pick.

That's why I kept it restricted to the economic portion. Even when it's proven that natural gas is cheaper than coal they will beat the drum continuously. I have no idea why they would do that, but they do.

It is garbage used to destroy the economy. There is no real science behind climate change and global warming. Every winter when it snows and gets down to zero I start to wish global warming would get here and it never does.

I don't disagree...the problem is many don't like coal, oil, or nuclear. If people think windmills, hydro and solar farms are the solution, you are wrong.

They can supplement at best.

I would go nuclear.

See mgh 888? There it is in print. Denial of the obvious. Those who have no idea of the difference between weather and climate change. "But it always snows during the winter at my house!" crowd. Rather an odd coincidence one of them showed up right on cue that way.

I believe the climate is changing. I just don't believe we are targeting the real problem. The problem isn't burning coal, oil, or anything else. Those are just symptoms.

The problem is the human population.

The problem is the human population. We are like a cancer that grows or a deadly virus. I am just throwing out numbers here, but if human population dropped maybe 30%...40% again, just tossing out numbers...everything else would fall in to place.

If you want my opinion on the quickest way to help alleviate the problem is to focus on deforestation. Trees help eliminate co2 and produce oxygen.

We can monkey around with talking about power production and whatever else, it will never work. All of the basic technologies of today are based on oil and coal. All of those ramped up as demand ramped up. You can't legislate those out because there is nothing that works as well or has the ability to ramp up fast enough to meet demand...at least based on todays population levels.

So that's because of restricting coal use? Come on man. Coal, isn't even the cheapest fossil fuel energy source anymore. I don't see how anything in your post is related to economic issues when coal is actually more expensive than natural gas. Can you connect those dots?

IMHO, it's both.
As population increases, so do the demands upon the planet that sustains them.

I believe the climate is changing. I just don't believe we are targeting the real problem. The problem isn't burning coal, oil, or anything else. Those are just symptoms.

The problem is the human population. We are like a cancer that grows or a deadly virus. I am just throwing out numbers here, but if human population dropped maybe 30%...40% again, just tossing out numbers...everything else would fall in to place.

If you want my opinion on the quickest way to help alleviate the problem is to focus on deforestation. Trees help eliminate co2 and produce oxygen.

The problem we're dealing with there is even though the scientific evidence is abundantly clear on the state of climate change and it's causes, we are usually dealing with people that deny all of the science. You can beat that drum until hell freezes over and they either won't believe it, don't care or some of both. Take your pick.

I've been all over in this thread...just an observation....at least to me, it seems that the people least capable of raising children are the ones breeding the most children?