NASA cancels climate change satellite to monitor greenhouse gases

News
By
published

The agency still maintains its commitment to studying climate change.

An artist's representation of GeoCarb studying carbon gases above the Earth.
An artist's representation of GeoCarb studying carbon gases above the Earth. (Image credit: NASA/Lockheed Martin/University of Oklahoma)

All good things must come to an end, and in the case of NASA's GeoCarb mission, some good things must end before they really begin.

NASA has canceled the GeoCarb mission, which was a collaboration with the University of Oklahoma and Lockheed Martin that intended to put a greenhouse gas–monitoring satellite into geostationary orbit. GeoCarb would have measured levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane in the atmosphere about 4 million times per day. The mission was selected by NASA in 2016.

"Decisions like this are difficult, but NASA is dedicated to making careful choices with the resources provided by the people of the United States," Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's associate administrator for science, said in a statement. "We look forward to accomplishing our commitment to state-of-the-art climate observation in a more efficient and cost-effective way."

Related: 10 devastating signs of climate change satellites can see from space

According to NASA's statement, the decision to end GeoCarb was due to "technical concerns, cost performance and availability of new alternative data sources." The most recent anticipated cost of GeoCarb was $600 million, much higher than the mission's original $170.9 million estimate. 

As for those new data sources, they include the new Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) instrument that arrived at the International Space Station (ISS) in July, as well as the mission extension of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 instrument that began work in 2019 also aboard the ISS.

Related stories:

— Greenhouse gas monitoring from space to get a boost with SpaceX launch
— Cow burps measured from space, revealing contribution to climate change
— Pandemic lockdowns reduced greenhouse gas levels in some areas, satellite views show 

NASA is also working on the Earth System Observatory, a series of Earth-focused satellites due to launch by 2030. The satellites will study aerosols, clouds, surface biology and geology, and surface deformation and change, among other areas of research.

"NASA prioritizes understanding how our home planet is changing — and greenhouse gasses play a central role in that understanding," Karen St. Germain, NASA Earth Science division director, said in a statement. "We are committed to making key methane and carbon dioxide observations, integrating them with measurements collected by other national, international and private sector missions, and making actionable information available to communities and organizations who need it to inform their decisions."

Follow Stefanie Waldek on Twitter @StefanieWaldek. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook. 

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Stefanie Waldek
Stefanie Waldek
Contributing writer

Space.com contributing writer Stefanie Waldek is a self-taught space nerd and aviation geek who is passionate about all things spaceflight and astronomy. With a background in travel and design journalism, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree from New York University, she specializes in the budding space tourism industry and Earth-based astrotourism. In her free time, you can find her watching rocket launches or looking up at the stars, wondering what is out there. Learn more about her work at www.stefaniewaldek.com.

9 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Broadlands
    It's nice to see some attempts to lower the cost of monitoring greenhouse gases,. The Mauna Loa Observatory has been doing that for CO2 since 1959. It's hard to see what another very expensive project could do to add to that. What seems needed are more efforts to explain to the public why the small amount of warming that CO2 has produced is worth eliminating to zero emissions all of the energy that got us here. Urgent lowering of our CO2 emissions takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere but does create shortages and higher costs for the fuels needed for the conventional vehicles to continue the transition to renewables and electric transportation.
    Reply
  • JRL the Objective Reality
    Thanks for providing evidence of the very lack of public understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming that you complain about. The thing is, even if that information is available (which it is), there's no mechanism for overcoming public desire to remain ignorant.
    Your comment conveys the somewhat more moderate flavor of denialism that classic AGW Denialism has evolved into as the truth of AGW has become increasingly difficult to deny. Only 10 years ago, denialists is we're still denying that any warming was occurring at all. Now the argument has shifted to the tiny amount of warming, and why it's even worth bothering about, especially since we'll have to destroy modern civilization to reach net zero carbon emissions. (How does it feel to be strawmanned? Pretty frustrating isn't it?)

    The fundamental underlying premise, however, that climate science experts are incompetent, hysterical, or otherwise don't know what they're doing, is still there. Also present is the reliance on logical fallacies such as, in your example, the venerable strawman. Thus, I am neither deceived nor impressed by your comment. I suspect, however, that you are.
    Reply
  • JRL the Objective Reality
    The cancellation of this project seems suspect to me. My impressions are speculative at this point, but I can think of other plausible explanations why the project has been canceled, and before accepting NASA's explanation that it was simply a matter of budgetary priorities and (purported) redundancies in GHG monitoring, I would like to feel more confident that this decision was NOT a result of political pressure applied by groups or entities who were not keen on there being more precise detailed monitoring of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
    The story indicates the satellite was to be in geostationary orbit. Exactly what areas of the Earth was the satellite intended to monitor? May I presume it was the United States, one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world?
    One of the very popular red herring arguments raised by AGW Denialists is pointing to China and India as the real problem in greenhouse gas emissions. I certainly understand the argument, but I also see it as a red herring when it comes to reducing US carbon emissions.
    Just wondering.
    Reply
  • Steve& Nordquist
    Cool savings happy pivoting.
    Reply
  • Broadlands
    JRL the Objective Reality said:
    Thanks for providing evidence of the very lack of public understanding of Anthropogenic Global Warming that you complain about. The thing is, even if that information is available (which it is), there's no mechanism for overcoming public desire to remain ignorant.
    Your comment conveys the somewhat more moderate flavor of denialism that classic AGW Denialism has evolved into as the truth of AGW has become increasingly difficult to deny. Only 10 years ago, denialists is we're still denying that any warming was occurring at all. Now the argument has shifted to the tiny amount of warming, and why it's even worth bothering about, especially since we'll have to destroy modern civilization to reach net zero carbon emissions. (How does it feel to be strawmanned? Pretty frustrating isn't it?)

    The fundamental underlying premise, however, that climate science experts are incompetent, hysterical, or otherwise don't know what they're doing, is still there. Also present is the reliance on logical fallacies such as, in your example, the venerable strawman. Thus, I am neither deceived nor impressed by your comment. I suspect, however, that you are.
    Yes, it is frustrating when alarmists continue to use words and phrases like denialism and straw men when the information on the amount of AGW global warming is widely available. What's more frustrating is the urge, the protests and demands we attempt to prevent or mitigate it. Do the math.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I have to admit I am a little suspicious that there could be some politics involved in this decision.
    In a geosynchronous orbit, probably over the Americas, it would not have gathered detailed emissions data from Asia, Europe or Africa. Since the majority of increases in CO2 emissions are predicted to come from other than the Americas in the next few decades, it does seem politically unwise to gather data on our own compliance with emission reduction pledges while not having similar data on what others are doing. There is plenty of politicking in the "You owe us money because . . . " game, especially that associated with global warming.

    What we do need is global assessment of emissions, and not just for materials with warming implications like CO2, methane and nitrogen oxides. There are also apparently sources of ozone-depleting gases that are not meeting expectations, for instance.

    So, what I favor is satellite data that can access and assess emissions over the entire globe. That should include polar regions, now that we are thinking that thawing permafrost and maybe decomposing ocean bed hydrates can be releasing methane as well as CO2.

    Because Russia's involvement in the ISS resulted in it having a high oblique orbit, sensors on that can provide a lot of coverage, at least until about 2030. But, I think we are going to need better coverage with real data, at very detailed location levels, to really cut through the politics and get reality on the table for frank discussions.
    Reply
  • Broadlands
    "it does seem politically unwise to gather data on our own compliance with emission reduction pledges."
    We have already compromised our pledges for compliance when oil was taken from strategic reserves to make transportation fuels more available and less costly. The reality is we are a big part of the global energy crisis and we need oil to continue the transition to renewables and electric transportation. Better satellite coverage to monitor global emissions will add to emissions unnecessarily.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Broadlands said:
    Better satellite coverage to monitor global emissions will add to emissions unnecessarily.

    Wow, that is the lamest reason I have ever heard for avoiding data collection on a high priority issue. The amount of "extra" CO2 emitted by the additional SpaceX launches (and their infrastructure supports) to put those satellites into orbit is eclipsed by the tourist travel industry, and many other "non-essential" energy uses. (I put "non-essential" in quptes because some "poor" countires depend on tourism from "rich" countries to support their own over-populated nations.)

    That said, the point about the U.S. President drawing on the country's strategic petroleum reserve just to lower the price of commercial gasoline in the United States is a great example of how the leadership needs to satisfy the short-term (and short sighted) desires of the masses that elect them. The strategic reserve is not there for that political purpose. (It is intended to be a safe resource in the event of a war, so that our military has the fuel to fight.) But, politicians do what they think will keep them in power for the short term. And that reflects the fact that most people are too stressed with the short-term threats to their well-being to make more sacrifices to address longer-term problems. Just looking at the amount of savings in the bank for most families gives a pretty good measure of the short-term vs long-term perspectives of a population.
    Reply
  • Broadlands
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Wow, that is the lamest reason I have ever heard for avoiding data collection on a high priority issue. The amount of "extra" CO2 emitted by the additional SpaceX launches (and their infrastructure supports) to put those satellites into orbit is eclipsed by the tourist travel industry, and many other "non-essential" energy uses. (I put "non-essential" in quptes because some "poor" countires depend on tourism from "rich" countries to support their own over-populated nations.)

    That said, the point about the U.S. President drawing on the country's strategic petroleum reserve just to lower the price of commercial gasoline in the United States is a great example of how the leadership needs to satisfy the short-term (and short sighted) desires of the masses that elect them. The strategic reserve is not there for that political purpose. (It is intended to be a safe resource in the event of a war, so that our military has the fuel to fight.) But, politicians do what they think will keep them in power for the short term. And that reflects the fact that most people are too stressed with the short-term threats to their well-being to make more sacrifices to address longer-term problems. Just looking at the amount of savings in the bank for most families gives a pretty good measure of the short-term vs long-term perspectives of a population.
    Sorry to be unclear. Perhaps it should have said adding extra CO2 emissions... if the issue is already a high priority. Those short-sighted desires of the masses are what is keeping us on the path to renewables and electric transportation...conventional vehicles are doing the work during the transition.
    Reply