The Nation’s leading scientists have issued a stark warning: America’s ability to monitor the environment is rapidly diminishing. And if we don’t properly fund our satellite capabilities, the country could lose three quarters of its Earth observation systems by 2020.
That alarming conclusion comes from the National Research Council in a new report assessing the progress of the nation’s Earth observation programs. In short: our leading scientific institutions aren’t actually making much progress.
Rather, a lack of funding and infrastructure will result in “a rapid decline” in our ability to monitor extreme weather and changes to the climate.
The committee found that the number of NASA and NOAA Earth observing instruments in space is likely to decline to as little as 25 percent of the current number by 2020…. The U.S. system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse.
The projected loss of observing capability could have significant adverse consequences for science and society. The loss of observations of key Earth system components and processes will weaken the ability to understand and forecast changes arising from interactions and feedbacks within the Earth system and limit the data and information available to users and decision makers. Consequences are likely to include slowing or even reversal of the steady gains in weather forecast accuracy over many years and degradation of the ability to assess and respond to natural hazards and to measure and understand changes in Earth’s climate and life support systems.
The report is a mid-term update of the NSA’s 2007 decadal survey — a proposed 10-year plan for improving earth sciences programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NSA assessment did find that NASA was able to launch new satellites into space and work on international partnerships to make up for shortfalls in money; however, those won’t be enough to meet needed technology improvements.
There are three major factors contributing to this unprecedented decline in Earth monitoring capabilities: budget cuts, a rapidly aging fleet of satellites, and a lack of launch capabilities.
The budgetary issues have been ongoing. According to the NSA progress report, NASA’s Earth science program still hasn’t been funded to the requested $2 billion to meet future objectives.
And as Climate Progress reported last year, Republican lawmakers proposed slashing $1.2 billion from NOAA’s funding levels, cutting into satellite programs. The satellite programs were eventually funded to requested levels, but future funding is uncertain. Senate lawmakers have proposed moving NOAA’s satellite program over to NASA where operational efficiencies could potentially save money.
Officials at these agencies say that more money is needed to replace the fleet of aging satellites that will inevitably fail in the coming years. According to the NSA report, there’s also a severe lack of launch vehicles for Earth satellites that “directly threatens programmatic robustness.”
After all, satellites aren’t much good without a way to launch them.
What’s the solution? Increasing the budget for new satellite infrastructure is the most obvious. But a major boost in funding for these programs is unlikely. So the NSA report recommends establishing new partnerships and “balancing costs with science objectives and priorities” by focusing on a more diverse range of projects rather than a few high-profile missions.
Programmatic efficiency is key. But it still doesn’t fully address what could become a national crisis. As our planet overheats — making extreme weather more intense, deadly and expensive — our ability to monitor the health of planet is collapsing.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Reduced ability to monitor reality: exactly what the reality-deniers want.
The new missile gap and satellite gap. It is easier to keep your head in the sand on climate disruption without all that pesky data.
No money for weather prediction but if you want to invade Iran well that would be no problem.
The austerity fad (part of the “pretend there is no future” mentality) carries costs. Efficiently administered temporally indefinite programs require a stable political environment and scrupulous attention to continuity; short-wavelength political hacking of societal infrastructure in order to avoid paying now for what is obviously necessary in the future is lethal to such things as dependable weather satellite coverage.
The cost of one week’s worth of involvement in Afghanistan is also $2B.
Gawdammit! Afghanistan is all about ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’-amongst the words most perverted by Orwellian usage in the English language.
Someone once suggested using a spacecraft whose job it is to reposition satellites. Such could easily be public and private endeavor. Don’t know how many satellites are still deemed wanted but those needing a little orbit boost could be a long list.
Then someone mentioned that the orbit boost craft could be completely automated and with solar power someone else said it could be mostly care free for energy.
As there are support pointe on satellites for manufacture maybe it could be lifted from below.
Solar would probably require much less maintenance for the orbital boost craft, but it might make it slower in repositioning so many satellites.
Someone else said if it could take a satellite to the space station and back additions and adjustments could be made.
Just thinking.
Not as simple as that Raul. I think a lot has to do with equipment failure and antiquated equipment. Much of the technology that goes into the satellites is old tech even before lift-off. because of the build phase and the tendency to use already proven technology at that time. Most people cannot live with a cell phone more than a couple of years before wanting an upgrade.
Oh, that makes things easier in a way.
Then there are maybe only a couple dozen satellites of special interest to prolong service and possibly upgrade.
Crisis by design – the Koch’s have worked long and hard to exert influence and control of the GOP on certain issues and this is one. Earth viewing satellite programs support climate change research and therefor is something to be eliminated.
Over the last several years the GOP has been consistently trying to defund, kill and reduce earth satellite coverage (no matter the purpose as NOAA’s problems have shown) obviously because it’ll be better for their denial if you can reduce the amount of annoying facts that scientists are grabbing.
Hopefully we can keep the data needed coming no matter what – truly a disgraceful situation.
I’m not sure what to think about the comment on launch vehicles – while McDonnell Douglas dropped the Delta 3 there are still plenty of other vehicles to use although the satellites will have to be designed appropriately (Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Delta 4, Atlas 5, Pegasus, Minotaur, Taurus etc.) although maybe its a lack of polar orbit launch facilities for the small vehicles that is the problem.
One might assume that China and others would be pleased by such anti-rational developments in a not necessarily friendly power. I doubt it though, because a mighty and still immensely powerful society that has lost the plot and been taken over by lunatics is a worry for all humanity.
Yep, the sane still worry about the whole rather than the adversarial positions of the parts – imagine that! As Ronnie Laing was fond of saying, the maddies are running the asylum with all the sane ones safely locked up inside, ME
Yes, back in the seventies there was a long discussion about the fact that satellites lost orbit height over time and would plunge back into the Earths atmosphere.
Due to advances in space vehicle capabilities, I think that there are new options available to view the concept of adding orbital height to existing orbiting satellites.
Like to emntion that: “In early February 2006, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. Now, the agency’s mission is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.””
Pres. Obama has not reinstated that comitment to mankind’s future. (A rather simple thing to do). He is consistent with previous’s administration.