Hurricane forecasters are losing key satellites. What to know
The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.
Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.
On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy's Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA's Earth Science Division.
I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.
Looking inside the clouds
At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.
These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane's structure, but only during daylight hours.
Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.
But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It's like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.
For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.
The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm's low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.
Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm's future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.
Hurricane track forecasts have improved by up to 75% since 1990. However, forecasting rapid intensification is still difficult, so the ability of DMPS data to identify signs of intensification is important.
About 80% of major hurricanes—those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour)— rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.
Where are the defense satellites going?
NOAA's Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate ' a significant cybersecurity risk.'
The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.
The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.
Are there replacements for the DMSP satellites?
Three other satellites in orbit—NOAA-20, NOAA-21 and Suomi NPP—have a microwave instrument known as the advanced technology microwave sounder.
The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm's location or estimating its intensity.
The U.S. Space Force began using data from a new defense meteorology satellite, ML-1A, in late April 2025.
ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites' capabilities. However, the government hasn't announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.
Why are satellite replacements last-minute?
Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.
Similarly, plans for replacing the DMSP satellites have been underway since the early 2000s.
Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.
The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.
A busy season remains
The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, is forecast to be above average, with six to 10 hurricanes. The most active part of the season runs from the middle of August to the middle of October, after the DMSP satellite data is set to be turned off.
Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with , could ultimately put more lives at risk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who is Sean Duffy? What to know about Trump's pick for interim head of NASA
News of Duffy's appointment comes during a turbulent period in NASA's history, as the U.S. space agency faces potentially steep budget cuts and has grappled with workforce reductions Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is about to perform double duty after President Donald Trump named him to lead NASA on an interim basis. News of Duffy's appointment comes during a turbulent period in NASA's history, as the U.S. space agency faces potentially steep budget cuts and has grappled with workforce reductions. What's more, NASA has found itself without a full-time administrator since Bill Nelson stepped down on Jan. 20, the day of Trump's inauguration. Trump, though, gave Duffy a glowing vote of confidence when announcing his new appointment. 'He will be a fantastic leader of the ever more important Space Agency, even if only for a short period of time,' Trump said in a Truth Social post Wednesday, July 9. NASA funding: Dozens of NASA space missions could be axed under Trump's budget Here's everything to know about Duffy, the former Wisconsin Republican Congressman and reality TV star who will lead the world's largest space agency. Trump picks transportation secretary Sean Duffy for NASA acting administrator Duffy will serve as the interim administrator of NASA as the Trump administration continues to search for a candidate to formally take over the post for the rest of the president's term. 'Sean is doing a TREMENDOUS job in handling our Country's Transportation Affairs, including creating a state-of-the-art Air Traffic Control systems, while at the same time rebuilding our roads and bridges, making them efficient, and beautiful, again," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "Congratulations, and thank you, Sean." In his own post on X shortly after the president's announcement, Duffy said he is 'honored to accept this mission. Time to take over space. Let's launch. Who is Sean Duffy? What to know about NASA's new head Duffy, 53, was confirmed Jan. 28 by the Senate as U.S. transportation secretary. His tenure was immediately marked by tragedy after a fatal aviation crash near the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67 people At his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, Duffy said he would prioritize adding more air traffic controllers to improve aviation safety while promising to work with Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates Boeing, to restore international confidence in the plane manufacturer after fatal crashes overseas. Prior to serving in the Trump Administration, Duffy represented Wisconsin in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2019. But long before his political career, Duffy was a reality television star. He began his television career on MTV's "The Real World: Boston" during its sixth season and even met his wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, who hosts 'Fox & Friends Weekend," while filming for an MTV show. Duffy to replace Janet Petro Since Trump's inauguration, NASA has been led by Acting Administrator Janet Petro. A veteran NASA executive, Petro will step down from her role to make way for Duffy, the New York Times reported. Why did Trump drop Jared Isaacman as NASA nominee? Billionaire Jared Isaacman, who has been to space twice under missions he bankrolled with SpaceX, had been Trump's first pick to lead NASA. Isaacman's nomination was well-received by most of the space community and members of Congress. But at a critical time when the U.S. space agency is preparing to return humans to the moon and send the first astronauts to Mars, Trump suddenly pulled Isaacman's bid in late-May. The decision came after Isaacman had cleared the Senate Commerce Committee in April and appeared on track for a full Senate vote. Trump discussed Isaacman's nomination July 6 in a long social media post bashing his former ally and advisor Elon Musk, saying he thought it would have been 'inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon … run NASA.' Trump further said of Isaacman that he "was surprised to learn that he was a blue-blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before." Isaacman pushed back against Trump's claims in a post Monday, July 7 on X, describing himself as an apolitical "right-leaning moderate." Could more than 2,000 senior employees quit at NASA? Duffy is set to take over an agency that has undergone workforce reductions and is preparing for a potential massive looming budget cut. Trump's proposed budget for the next fiscal year would slash NASA funding by nearly 25% – from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion – mostly by eliminating a significant portion of the agency's science portfolio. And on July 10, news broke that around 2,145 senior-ranking employees at NASA are set to leave under a push to shed staff, Politico reported, citing documents obtained by the news outlet. Most employees leaving are in senior-level government positions, the report said, adding that the agency has offered staff early retirement, buyouts and deferred resignations. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump taps transportation secretary Sean Duffy as acting NASA chief
Amidst unprecedented budget cuts and looming layoffs, U.S. President Donald Trump has appointed Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as acting NASA Administrator. The appointment is temporary, and Duffy will continue leading the Department of Transportation while assuming the NASA role, Trump said in a post on his social media site, Truth Social. 'Sean is doing a TREMENDOUS job in handling our Country's Transportation Affairs, including creating a state-of-the-art Air Traffic Control systems, while at the same time rebuilding our roads and bridges, making them efficient, and beautiful, again,' Trump said. The appointment is highly unusual. There is no precedent for an acting DOT chief also leading NASA, even on an interim basis. Historically, NASA Administrators have generally been former astronauts, long-time NASA bureaucrats, former congresspeople or military veterans. Duffy has no formal background in science or space, though the DOT does oversee the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees commercial space transportation and air traffic control. As he will perform both leadership roles simultaneously, it's likely that his NASA tenure will be focused on implementing Trump's near-term policy goals. Those goals include wide-ranging cuts to NASA's budget that will likely slash many science initiatives and steeply reduce its workforce. The cuts, as spelled out in the White House's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' would reduce the agency's funding by 25% and decrease headcount by 5,000. Duffy's appointment comes just weeks after Trump abruptly withdrew his nomination of billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman to NASA Administrator. Isaacman, who made his fortune from his company Shift4 Payments, has flown to space twice on private SpaceX missions. Trump said he rescinded support following a 'thorough review of prior associations,' citing Isaacman's donations to Democratic candidates and the billionaire's close ties to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Trump's reversal on Isaacman reportedly led to the souring of relations between the president and Musk. 'I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon's corporate life,' Trump said in a separate Truth Social post. Duffy replaces Kennedy Space Center director Janet Petro, a long-time NASA bureaucrat. It's unclear how long he will remain in the position. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
Attacks on Higher Education Are Attacks on All Americans
Grant cancellations and budget reductions at the National Institutes of Health have put millions of dollars in research for promising new cancer treatments, tuberculosis therapies, and much more in jeopardy. Our elected officials could intervene if all Americans, not just academics, were to send a clear signal that they should. Instead much of the public has shrugged its shoulders. Since January the U.S. government has frozen billions of dollars in federal research funding to institutions such as Harvard University, Columbia University and Princeton University. The Department of Education has opened investigations into 60 universities over allegations of antisemitism, using these inquiries to justify funding cuts and impose policy mandates. The administration has also placed international students under scrutiny, threatening visa revocations and deportations for those participating in campus protests deemed hostile to government interests. The administration has detained foreign-born academics such as Kseniia Petrova, a researcher at Harvard, who was recently released after she was placed in criminal custody for failing to declare research materials at customs. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Collectively, we're witnessing unprecedented attempts to bully academic institutions with the administration's ideological aims. These attempts challenge long-standing norms of academic freedom—that is, the ability of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss subjects without fear of political interference. Our elected officials should stand up for scientific research and those who produce it in the face of politically motivated attacks. But public apathy is making it easier for legislators to ignore the problem. In late March, we worked with YouGov to conduct a nationally representative online survey of 1,500 U.S. adults. We found that while few Americans actively support the president's attacks on science, many more are unbothered by them. For example, 65 percent of Americans either have no position (31 percent) or outright support (34 percent) the possibility that the Trump administration might revoke federal funding to universities that support 'pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protests'. That possibility became very real on April 21, when the NIH suggested making grant awards conditional on compliance with anti-boycott provisions regarding Israeli companies . Similarly, a majority (67 percent) either take no issue with or outright support revoking funding to universities (like the White House did to the University of Pennsylvania) that allow transgender athletes to compete. According to our survey, a majority of Americans either support or do not oppose politically motivated grant funding cancellations—including efforts to study differences in health outcomes attributable to race and gender (54 percent) or research about LGBT populations (64 percent)—mass firings (51 percent) and even forbidding foreign academics from entering the U.S. if they hold opinions at odds with the Trump administration (51 percent). Although there is a lack of polling on these exact issues, publicly available data suggest that our findings mirror those found by pollsters and other public opinion researchers. Many of our colleagues initially believed that attacks on academic freedom and scientific research would cause public outcry. After all, U.S. academic research institutions are behind the country's global leadership in innovation, medicine and technological development. American universities host most of the world's top-ranked research programs, serve as engines of regional economic growth and train future leaders in fields such as medicine, public health and technology—in other words, they provide real jobs for people in and outside of academia. That's why France has already accepted some ' scientific refugees ' from the United States and other countries, such as China, are trying to poach scientists from top American universities. More urgently, defunding and censoring science could have dramatically negative consequences for all Americans. Canceling research on vaccine communication hinders not just our preparedness for future pandemics, but also our response to seasonal flu and COVID. Curtailing studies of health disparities weakens efforts to improve maternal mortality rates, particularly in communities of color, people who have low income and gender-diverse communities. Cutting international academic exchange isolates the U.S. from global scientific collaboration, including partnerships with entities, such as the World Health Organization, that are trying to promote access to lifesaving medical treatments and preventatives. The costs of academic repression, in other words, are not confined to elite institutions—they are borne by everyone. Yet very few Americans seem to be concerned. Why is that so? Politically motivated distrust in academic institutions, particularly on the ideological right, may help explain the attitude and why the Trump administration is taking these actions. Decades of polling demonstrate that perceptions of science increasingly align with political identity. Trust in science across the American political spectrum has undergone a dramatic reversal. In the 1970s conservative Americans reported the highest confidence in scientific institutions. By 2010, however, this relationship had inverted, with conservatives expressing the lowest levels of trust in science. This partisan divide accelerated significantly in 2018 and widened further during the COVID pandemic. The administration's attacks on science demand a response from Congress, especially when political appointees try to circumvent the law. For example, efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated grant funds for scientific research may run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president is legally required to spend money authorized by Congress. Members of Congress could, in theory, amend the act to make it clear that efforts to claw back grants from university researchers is a violation of the law. They could also introduce legislation to forbid grant-making agencies from denying funding to universities that house diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Our congressional leaders can also stand up for science in the process of assembling a new budget for the coming year. Massive proposed cuts to the NIH threaten jobs and billions of dollars of government investment in cities and college towns across the country. But if Americans of all stripes do not send their congressional representatives a clear message that they need to fight against cuts to academic science and research, our elected officials may not be motivated to do so. Politicians, after all, want to win reelection and may feel the need to cater to public opinion to do it. Right now the Republican-majority Congress seems to fear Trump more than the voters, perhaps no surprise given the voter disinterest seen in our poll. What can turn public apathy into outrage? One potential answer comes from people who have changed their mind about what science is and can do for them. Think of celebrity physician Mehmet Oz, now administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, embracing the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine on his television program The Dr. Oz Show in 2019 despite his past doubts. Skeptics are powerful communicators because they establish trust with audiences who share their previously held beliefs while nonetheless challenging those views. Another example of this is Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, a supporter of the current administration who nonetheless voiced concerns over the effects that NIH budget cuts might have on the University of Alabama at Birmingham health care system, one of the largest employers in the state. Trump's supporters may find Senator Britt credible, and her doubts may help those supporters change their mind and convince her to fight on behalf of her constituents to save one of her state's economic powerhouses. Her defense of science could trickle across to other conservative legislators who also think of the interests of their constituents and reelection prospects. Institutions such as the Ohio State University (OSU)—one of our own—demonstrate what's at stake. OSU contributes more than $19 billion annually to the state's economy, supports nearly 117,000 jobs and generates more than $650 billion in tax revenue for state and local governments. These are not abstract stakes—they are material, local and immediate. If voters, especially in politically conservative areas such as Ohio, make clear that dismantling science and academia undermines their communities, Congress may yet act. But without that pressure, the cost of inaction could be catastrophic and long lasting and will affect people far beyond the walls of higher education.
