this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
161 points (99.4% liked)

Space

1663 readers
30 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  2. Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.


Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 68 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

Oh fuck you NPR

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 week ago

What do you expect the article to say?
Realistically?

I mean, if you’re going to be mad at them for not explicitly spelling out what you wanted them to say, I want to know what you expected them to say here.

Because if they had said that this is being done so in an effort by the Trump Administration to conceal greenhouse gas data from the public, a claim for which they have no official source on record backing up, you know the media circus that would have occurred.
The fascists in this administration would have absolutely used this as an excuse to minimally draw them into expensive lawsuits, or to potentially target the nationwide broadcast licenses of both public TV and public radio via the FCC.

Sometimes people or organizations have to fight the battles they are capable of fighting. NPR can only cast so much light in these dark times.
And without an ounce of nuance, here you are, bitching that they aren’t throwing themselves into the fire to make more light.

Noo, lets be mad the messenger isn’t shooting themselves.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not really. Any news agency worth their salt leaves opinion and speculation to an editorial column / opinion piece, separate from news piece, which presents only facts that they discovered through evidence. It's unlikely they have any evidence for this specific event.

They could list other climate unfriendly, shoot the messenger, type of actions to put this in context, but that's not entirely kosher, especially for a state funded agency.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I would have loved for them to just contextualize it. This is imho what's wrong with most news today, just reporting, no contextualising.

There's too much to know about, simply reporting the news leaves people desiring context and every shouty asshole gets to peddle their framing without a contextualising media.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I agree, but I understand why NPR specifically didn't do it. They're walking a very fine line.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What is Trump gonna do, defund them again?

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago

WhAt iS TrUmP GoNnA Do, DeFuNd tHeM AgAiN?

Use the FCC to revoke their broadcast licenses or even engender claims they violated their existing licenses to draw them into expensive litigation so their residual funds are sapped. Use the IRS to take away their tax exempt status and audit them to empty their coffers. Target their employees and donors with the IRS, FBI, DHS, and who else fucking knows?
Maybe the EPA will claim their buildings are on protected or environmentally sensitive land and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to drag them to endless hearings. Maybe the FTC will threaten payment processors and banks so that NPR will be prevented from receiving donations from anyone.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Send them to a gulag in the worst case scenario. Defunding was really a warning shot.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The article would have made just as much sense without that sentence and stating outright that there isn’t a known reason is, arguably, presenting an opinion not a fact. If they wanted to keep the sentiment while remaining editorially neutral they could have gone with something like “The administration has given no official reason…”.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

I agree your last sentence would be better.

But I don't think they should simply remove the statement entirely. Shining a light on it is a way to instigate the reader to think about the (rather obvious) reasons he'd have to ax these programs.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I think the rest of the article, especially the quotes, make it clear the administration is not even admitting they're cutting/dismantling this program, in fact they're trying to keep it secret. So "unclear" opens the question, "why do you think they're doing this?" And it prods the administration to respond, which would bring it further into the light.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

Right? This is exactly how I read it.

NPR: covering for conservatives for thirty years without anyone noticing

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 36 points 1 week 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 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The US government was paid by oil tycoons to get rid of the data. They don't actually think the data is useless. But they know it is damaging to their puppeteers

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

The Dipshit publicly asked for a billion dollar campaign donation from the oil industry, promising whatever they wanted. It's not just "plausible".

[–] notsure@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago

...this, this is why we can't have anything nice...

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago

hopefully this ROM burns too.