

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
I wonder how dual boots show up in these stats