Possible Defense Department options for developing its next generation weather satellites could range between $4.4 billion and $6.1 billion, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) working paper.
The options for the program, called Weather Satellite Follow-On (WSF), run through 2037 and feature satellites with a range of capabilities, from those comparable to the current generation of weather satellites to those equipped with more modern, state-of-the-art instruments. CBO also discusses alternative options, including fielding single instruments on several small satellites instead of several instruments on a single satellite, continuing to field satellites in both the AM and mid-AM orbits and possibly forgoing a new generation of military weather satellites altogether and instead relying on other sources for weather data.
WSF follows DoD’s previous effort to replace its weather satellites. Known as the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS), it was terminated by Congress during the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process due to cost overruns.
CBO broke down three possible scenarios DoD might pursue by high capability, medium capability and low capability options. Each option is built around a core set of three types of instruments: a visual/infrared imager, a microwave imager/sounder and a space environment sensor. A visual/infrared imager is used, among other things, to determine the presence and properties of clouds and the temperature of the earth’s surface. A microwave imager/sounder is primarily used to determine the atmospheric humidity and temperature as a function of altitude while a space environment sensor is used to determine conditions in space that affect satellite operations.
Option 1, which would provide the most capable, and most expensive, satellite, would cost $6.1 billion, including production, acquisition and launch, launch preparation, storage and on-orbit operations. Option 1 is the most similar to the satellite DoD was planning before the cancellation of the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS), which FWS replaces.
Option 2 would reduce the cost by replacing a more capable visual/infrared instrument with the version carried on the current generation of Polar-Orbiting Operational Environment Satellites (POES), which is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program. CBO estimated Option 2 at $4.9 billion.
Option 3 would reduce the cost even further by using both the visual/infrared imager and the microwave imager/sounder carried on current generation satellites. Option 3 would cost $4.4 billion.
An advantage of fielding single instruments on several small satellites instead of several instruments on a single satellite is that smaller satellites are easier to build and having instruments distributed among multiple satellite would offer greater flexibility in deploying and replacing satellites. CBO said the primary disadvantage of this approach is that it might cost more than the single-satellite approach, depending on the specific configuration of the satellites.
The second alternative option, continuing to field satellites in both the AM and mid-AM orbits, would force DoD to rely on data from European satellites in that orbit. CBO said this would likely have little to no effect on the mission of providing data for weather forecasts.
The third alternative option, not fielding new DoD weather satellites, could save the Pentagon several billion dollars in development and fielding costs. But this approach would also cost DoD operationally as it would be dependent on geostationary satellites with lower spatial resolution than polar satellites because of their further distance from earth.
CBO did not produce cost estimates for the alternative options.
View the document here: http://1.usa.gov/RGaTFx