海角大神

Soon, NASA will be observing plants from a space-bound satellite. That is, unless the Trump administration puts a stop to it.

On Tuesday, the space agency announced its first new earth science mission since the 2016 election: the , or GeoCARB. The observatory, which will be led by Berrien Moore of the University of Oklahoma, plans to monitor vegetation stress in the Americas from a distance of about 22,000 miles. It also intends to observe how greenhouse gases 鈥� carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane 鈥� are processed in those environments.

Basically, it鈥檚 the kind of mission that climate scientists rely on, demonstrating big-picture trends that are nearly impossible to track from Earth. It鈥檚 also the kind of mission that Robert S. Walker, space policy advisor聽to Mr. Trump, has promised to slash. Could this be push-back聽from an agency anticipating cuts? And could the Trump administration dismantle GeoCARB?

鈥淚t鈥檚 definitely not a last-ditch response,鈥� John O鈥橫eara, a professor of physics at St. Michael鈥檚 College, in Colchester, Vt., tells 海角大神 in a phone interview. 鈥淭he process for this program would have taken many years, 15 proposals down-selected to one. The money has already been budgeted within NASA for it. It鈥檚 going to be harder to dismantle something like that.鈥�

In theory, Trump could undo GeoCARB, or even NASA鈥檚 entire earth science division. Since NASA is an agency of the executive branch, its direction is often determined by the president鈥檚 scientific priorities. The agency鈥檚 highest-ranked official, the administrator of NASA, is named by presidential appointment.

An autocratic president could cancel virtually any mission without input from his advisory boards, notes former NASA chief technologist Mason Peck.

鈥淚n that case, it would still take some time and a drawn-out budget process to make that decision real,鈥� Dr. Peck, a professor of aerospace engineering at Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., tells the Monitor in an email. 鈥淧ractically, though, there are so many state-level and national stakeholders in the important work NASA does that traditional congressional advocates are unlikely to go along with dismantling NASA in a significant way.鈥�

It can be politically difficult to stop ongoing missions, particularly because canceled missions mean voided contracts. And contractors often require payment, whether or not the mission is completed.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a mistake to think that canceling a NASA mission saves money,鈥� Peck says. 鈥淚n fact, it wastes money in the short term.鈥�

Missions like GeoCARB can also funnel money back into local economies by facilitating research grants. And the economic benefits may go beyond the academic world.

鈥淕eoCARB mission certainly continues the campaign of successful Earth science that has proven how humans impact Earth鈥檚 environment,鈥� Peck says. 鈥淏ut there鈥檚 more to this mission than further improving our understanding of climate-change mechanisms. This data will directly benefit US companies with a stake in global agriculture, open new areas of research, and advance technology with broad relevance right here on Earth.鈥�

While NASA's budget is proposed by the president鈥檚 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congress is ultimately responsible for adjusting and allocating funding. That鈥檚 not necessarily good news for NASA鈥檚 earth science division either 鈥� the agency鈥檚 budget has shrunk nearly every year since 1966, where it of the federal budget, according to the OMB.聽Today, NASA consumes around 0.5 percent of national funding.

That said, NASA鈥檚 total funding for GeoCARB is just $166 million 鈥� less than 1 percent of the agency鈥檚 yearly budget spread out over five years.

But while frugality could work for GeoCARB, it could also work against it. It鈥檚 generally easier to cancel smaller projects, notes Dr. O鈥橫eara, because they don鈥檛 rely as heavily on external contracts. However, the mission鈥檚 budget, which would have seemed conservative to Congress, has already been passed.

鈥淎s with everything in the Trump administration, I would be negligent to say it is impossible for this thing to be canceled,鈥� O鈥橫eara says. 鈥淲e know so very little about what the actual policy direction is.鈥�

Either way, it won鈥檛 be the first time a president has redirected NASA鈥檚 efforts. A major goal of the Obama administration was to beef up the agency鈥檚 earth science division. In order to do so, O鈥橫eara says, the president and OMB consistently pressed Congress with high budget proposals.

鈥淎s a result, earth science flourished through the years at the expense of some other missions,鈥� O鈥橫eara says. 鈥淏ut Congress has pushed back on that, expanding deep space initiatives like Orion. It鈥檚 a push and pull that I expect will happen with earth science, but potentially on a much more dramatic scale.鈥�