Title: A Foggy Forecast for the Next Generation of Weather Satellites Description: The U.S. government uses a group of satellites to monitor weather events, including extreme weather events like hurricanes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is working with NASA to replace them. But these plans have recently changed. We find out more from GAO's Kevin Walsh. Related work: GAO-26-107739, Geostationary Weather Satellites: Next Generation Program Challenges Put Vital Observations at Risk Released: October 2026 {Music} [Kevin Walsh:] We need weather data. These satellites are critical to the United States. [Holly Hobbs:] Welcome to GAO's Watchdog Report, your source for fact-based, nonpartisan news and information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office--I'm your host, Holly Hobbs. The U.S. uses a group of satellites to monitor weather events, including extreme weather events like hurricanes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking to replace these satellites but recently, there's been changes to these plans. Here to tell us more is GAO's Kevin Walsh. Kevin, thanks for joining us. [Kevin Walsh:] Thank you for having me. [Holly Hobbs:] What can you tell us about these satellites. Why are they important? [Kevin Walsh:] Basically, whenever you look at a weather app or see the weatherman on T.V. or read that in the paper, that comes from these satellites that we're looking at. These are the satellites that watch the oceans, the atmosphere, the land. And they take images of clouds. They measure temperatures and humidity at different altitudes. They track storms, they spot wildfires and volcanic ash. They monitor snow cover, ice cover, measure ocean winds and surface temperatures. So these are critical to the monitoring of how our planet is reacting and the weather that we experience day-to-day. There are two main types, and it's based on the orbit. So, the first is geostationary. So, if you picture the Earth, these geostationary satellites orbit about two Earths out. And, from there, they stay in line with the Earth--as the Earth rotates--and they have a continuous view of the same spot on the globe. So that's one type. The second type is polar orbiting, and they orbit much closer, and they go around the poles instead of over the equator. So, for this work, we looked at the government's plans for the next set of geostationary weather satellites--those ones that orbit directly over the equator, focusing down, in this case on the eastern and western parts of the United States. [Holly Hobbs:] NOAA is working with NASA to replace these satellites. Why do they need replacing? [Kevin Walsh:] So geostationary satellites are expected to last about 10 to 15 years. And, in part, that's because to maintain those orbits, they need to use fuel. So, eventually, they run out of fuel. They also are sitting up there getting bombarded by the sun's rays and radiation. So, eventually, some of the sensors or even the solar panels degrade over time. So they need to be replaced. And since none of us want to lose weather coverage, these are important. And if one fails, one of those two satellites that I talked about before, east and west, generally the government keeps one spare up there on orbit, that can move into either of the positions, east and west, just in case. So, this next batch of weather satellites, NOAA began planning to replace them and started working on it in 2021 for an expected launch in 2032. These are complex instruments, a mix of hardware and software. And so they do require years of planning to incorporate new technology and also to make sure that things are going to be working right because the last thing you want is something that you just spent billions of dollars on to get up into orbit and then fail and have to do it all over again. [Holly Hobbs:] NOAA's original plans to replace these satellites has changed. What all changed? [Kevin Walsh:] So the original plan for this next batch of satellites was to add a third location, central. So in addition to east and west, you'd have a central location. And that central location was going to look down over the middle parts of the U.S. and have different instruments and different sensors. Now that all kind of hit a speed bump last year in 2025. The administration put a pause on that. They were concerned about life cycle costs, and they cut the total budget from $19.6 billion down to about $13 billion. They also, as part of that, removed the central satellite. So now it's just back to east, west. And they were originally planning to have five instruments: two of the old instruments, carried over from the current gen[eration], and three new ones. What they're doing now is they're keeping one of the old and one of the new, and that means they're getting rid of one of the original instruments. That instrument is the lightning mapper that helps to track severe weather and alerts for citizens across the country when storms are coming. So that's, kind of, what's changing. Now, those planned instruments would have allowed things like better nighttime imagery, better understanding of the layers of our atmosphere, and observations of atmospheric and oceanic conditions. So the new satellites won't have the full suite of new capabilities, but this is a decision that they're making based on costs and saving money. [Holly Hobbs:] So it sounds like we're gaining some, we're losing some. Are we losing capabilities? [Kevin Walsh:] Yes, that's correct. We are losing that lightning mapping functionality. But the other two planned instruments, that we're not going to get any more, were going to track things like water quality, oil spills, algal blooms for those in the Gulf, air quality and emissions. That said, again, this is not purely a regression. The hyperspectral infrared sounder which, again, is Star Trek like in nature, sounds like it's going to provide incredible data that could help with replacing some of what's lost. So it's a mixed bag. [Holly Hobbs:] Do we know why they made these changes? What's the goal? [Kevin Walsh:] So, in 2025, the administration determined that this program, the GeoXO program, had unsustainable costs. So that's the goal--get these costs under control. And they then directed NOAA to reduce life cycle costs by $7 billion. But life cycle costs has, again, crept up a little bit by approximately a billion due to those scope and schedule changes. They're really trying to accelerate that sounder to get it done in time for the first launch in 2032. [Holly Hobbs:] We also looked at the status of NOAA's plans. What can you tell us about that status and how have the changes impacted their goals? [Kevin Walsh:] The program is aiming, again, for the first launch in 2032. They're optimistic about hitting that goal. That's when NOAA thinks one of the three satellites that we currently have, the east, the west and the spare, will reach the end of its life. It'll either run out of fuel or its sensors will be degraded to the point where we can't really use it anymore. And the first possible replacement that we've been talking about will launch in 2032, but it won't become operational until early-2033. It's got to get, you know, launched and then they do testing and calibration. So it doesn't just get launched and immediately it's go time, it takes a little bit to get it up and functional. So that means there might be a period of a few months at the end of 2032, until this thing gets operational, when the U.S. doesn't have an operational spare. And if something were to happen to the two that we do have in orbit, we'd lose weather data. [Holly Hobbs:] Is there something we think NOAA should be doing about this? [Kevin Walsh:] So we took a look and we have two things that we really want them to focus on. The first is their contingency plans. We took a look at them and found that their contingency plans didn't really look at the impacts of failures. So, if they have a failure, we want them to fully incorporate the impacts of what that failure might mean to the United States and the weather data. That's one. The second thing is to fully document their cost estimate. So their cost estimate is from 2022. It's outdated and also overcome by events. There's been a lot that's happened to this program in the past 18 months. But the issues that we flagged, if NOAA and NASA address them, it will help when they try to redo these calculations and update their next cost estimate. [Holly Hobbs:] Last question, what's the bottom line of your report? [Kevin Walsh:] Uncertainty. These satellites are critical to the United States. We need weather data. Our farmers need it. You and I need it for our day-to-day. The people at sea need it. Everybody in air traffic control and in airplanes needs it to make sure they have smooth flights. This is not trivial data. But the uncertainty is in three pockets. First, can they meet their schedule? Is this going to be done in time to replace the satellites that we have up there? And these changes that we're making right now add uncertainty to that schedule. The second thing is, is it still reasonable and achievable to do with a $7 billion hit to their budget? And the third thing is related to the hyperspectral infrared sounder, whether that can be accelerated and finished in time to get on that first satellite in 2032. {Music} [Holly Hobbs:] Kevin, thanks for your time. [Kevin Walsh:] Thank you for having me. [Holly Hobbs:] And thank you for listening to the Watchdog Report. To hear more podcasts, subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. And make sure to leave a rating and review to let others know about the work we're doing. For more from the congressional watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, visit us at GAO.gov.