{"id":43340,"date":"2026-03-24T19:21:18","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T11:21:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/a-mission-nasa-might-kill-is-still-returning-fascinating-science-from-jupiter\/"},"modified":"2026-03-24T19:21:18","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T11:21:18","slug":"a-mission-nasa-might-kill-is-still-returning-fascinating-science-from-jupiter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/a-mission-nasa-might-kill-is-still-returning-fascinating-science-from-jupiter\/","title":{"rendered":"A mission NASA might kill is still returning fascinating science from Jupiter"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jupiter\u2019s colossal storms generate lightning flashes at least 100 times more powerful than those on Earth, according to scientists analyzing data from NASA\u2019s Juno spacecraft.<\/p>\n

The findings were published March 20 in the journal AGU Advances and were based on data recorded by Juno in 2021 and 2022, after NASA granted an extension to the spacecraft\u2019s operations upon completing a five-year science campaign at Jupiter. Juno remains in good health, but NASA officials have not said if they will approve another extension for the mission. The issue is money.<\/p>\n

Questions about the future of Juno and more than a dozen other robotic science missions began swirling nearly a year ago, when the Trump administration asked mission leaders to submit \u201ccloseout\u201d plans for how to turn off their spacecraft. Ars first reported the news soon after the White House released a budget request that called for slashing NASA\u2019s science budget by nearly half.<\/p>\n

Some of NASA\u2019s Solar System exploration missions on the list have received NASA approval to continue operations. These include the OSIRIS-APEX mission, which brought asteroid samples back to Earth in 2023 and is now using leftover fuel to chase down another asteroid in 2029; and NASA\u2019s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the agency\u2019s only active spacecraft at the Moon, which will be funded for at least three more years.<\/p>\n

Congress rejected most of the Trump administration\u2019s proposed NASA cuts. Lawmakers passed a fiscal-year 2026 budget with $2.54 billion for NASA\u2019s planetary science division, far above the White House\u2019s request, but about $220 million shy of last year\u2019s funding.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Artist\u2019s illustration of the Juno spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

NASA can\u2019t afford everything<\/h2>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t quite afford to support everything that we have done in the past,\u201d Louise Prockter, director of NASA\u2019s planetary science division, said on Monday in a meeting of the National Academies\u2019 Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences. The budget cut is forcing NASA officials to make \u201ctough decisions,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

One of these decisions is what to do with Juno, humanity\u2019s only spacecraft currently operating between the orbits of Jupiter and Pluto. Its future remains uncertain, along with four missions at Mars. NASA lost contact with one of the Mars probes last year, and its mission is likely over anyway. Another one, Odyssey, is about to run out of fuel. The other two Mars missions up for a decision are the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Curiosity rover, neither of which will be fully replaced any time soon. These two are also the most expensive to operate.<\/p>\n

Prockter said Monday the agency will announce its decision on these five missions when it submits its annual \u201coperating plan\u201d to Congress. The document is undergoing review by senior agency leadership and White House budget officials.<\/p>\n

It is unusual for NASA to turn off a still-functioning planetary science probe as long as it has fuel, remains healthy, and still makes useful scientific observations. All of the missions still awaiting a decision from NASA were \u201cranked highly for science\u201d by independent reviewers, Prockter said. But they come at a cost.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no doubt we\u2019re still getting really great science from these missions,\u201d Prockter said. \u201cWe\u2019re spending about 10 percent [of NASA\u2019s planetary science budget] on them. That doesn\u2019t sound like a lot. It sounds like maybe it\u2019s a reasonable amount. It was about $260 million\u2026 in \u201925.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prockter is herself a planetary scientist. She is not a political appointee. Part of her job is finding the right balance between NASA\u2019s multibillion-dollar flagship science missions, like Europa Clipper, and more focused, less expensive projects, such as the Psyche probe on the way to explore a metal asteroid. Even the cheaper missions in NASA\u2019s planetary science portfolio usually cost hundreds of millions of dollars.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

NASA must also balance its budget between building new missions, which infuse emerging technologies and seek to answer big science questions, and keeping alive successful spacecraft that taxpayers have already paid for. Questions about the future of NASA\u2019s aging research satellites are not limited to planetary science. Budget limitations nearly caused NASA to shut down the Chandra X-ray Observatory, but Congress specifically directed NASA to continue operating Chandra.<\/p>\n

Prockter said NASA wants to \u201cstart a conversation\u201d within the space science community about the agency\u2019s priorities, particularly with regard to extended missions. \u201cWhen we say yes to something, we say no to something else.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Louise Prockter, director of NASA\u2019s planetary science division, presented this chart showing the agency\u2019s oldest Solar System exploration missions and their cost to operate each year.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA\/Louise Prockter<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

NASA\u2019s cadence of Solar System missions has declined since reaching a peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the agency launched 11 Discovery-class robotic missions in a little more than 15 years. NASA has launched just three Discovery missions in the 15 years since then, and the next one won\u2019t fly before 2030. A program for more expensive missions, called New Frontiers, has launched three missions over the last 20 years. The next New Frontiers mission is Dragonfly, a rotorcraft set to launch to Saturn\u2019s moon Titan in 2028.<\/p>\n

NASA selects Discovery and New Frontiers missions in periodic competitions, when scientists submit proposals to send probes to other planets, asteroids, or comets. These missions have a cost cap. The most recent Discovery competition limited proposals to a development cost of less than $500 million.<\/p>\n

Killing off NASA\u2019s long-lived planetary science missions would open opportunities for new exploration, Prockter said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we had an extra $260 million a year, that is the equivalent of about two Discovery missions over the next decade. I think, when we are looking at extended missions, we are starting to have more serious conversations about the value of the science compared to the value of future science that we are not doing,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re just starting to have the conversations,\u201d Prockter said. \u201cThe administrator [Jared Isaacman] has expressed his desire for us to get to science faster and look for ways that we can get more bang for the buck out of the program.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a bang<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s not easy to measure return on investment in scientific discovery, but there is an opportunity cost to ending a science mission too soon. For example, NASA\u2019s Curiosity rover, one of the missions waiting for a possible renewal, collected data in 2022 and 2023 that led to a significant discovery about the carbon cycle on ancient Mars, with potential implications for past life. Curiosity made the measurements after NASA extended the rover\u2019s operations a third time.<\/p>\n

Farther into the Solar System, Juno is still returning interesting science results from Jupiter, where enormous cyclones and anticyclones spin through the atmosphere for years. The Great Red Spot, the most famous of Jupiter\u2019s storms, has persisted for at least 190 years.<\/p>\n

NASA\u2019s Voyager 1 spacecraft first revealed the inner workings of Jupiter\u2019s storms when it zoomed by the giant planet in 1979. Voyager\u2019s discoveries included the first observations of lightning in Jupiter\u2019s atmosphere.<\/p>\n

For decades, scientists struggled to measure the power unleashed with Jovian lightning bolts. It is no surprise Jupiter produces more potent lightning than Earth, but clouds often obscure the full power of the flashes from optical cameras. NASA\u2019s Juno mission, in orbit around Jupiter since 2016, carries an instrument that can detect microwave emissions from deep inside Jupiter\u2019s atmosphere.<\/p>\n

Jupiter\u2019s storms are concentrated in belts that encircle the planet. Their close proximity to one another makes it difficult to pinpoint the sources of signals collected by Juno\u2019s microwave radiometer instrument. A lull in storms in 2021 and 2022 allowed scientists to focus on one storm at a time.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Over the course of 12 passes, Juno detected 613 microwave pulses from lightning, with power ranging from about the same as a lightning bolt on Earth to at least 100 times more. There is uncertainty in the interplanetary comparison, so it\u2019s possible Jupiter\u2019s lightning flashes could have been a million times more powerful than those on Earth.<\/p>\n

Lightning on Jupiter is likely sparked by a mechanism similar to what happens inside Earth\u2019s atmosphere, where ice crystals within clouds obtain an electrical charge, and voltage differentials lead to cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-ground lightning strikes.<\/p>\n

There are notable differences between the planets, too. There is no true surface on Jupiter, and ice crystals inside the Jovian atmosphere contain water and ammonia. On Earth, it\u2019s just water. Atmospheric convection also works differently at Jupiter, where moist air wants to sink because it is heavier than the surrounding hydrogen rich-atmosphere. Nitrogen, heavier than water, dominates Earth\u2019s atmosphere, so moist air rises.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is not only Jupiter\u2019s immense size than leads to such large and powerful storms. It requires much more energy to propel moist air upward, resulting in stronger winds and more intense cloud-to-cloud lightning. There is still a mystery about what drives lightning to be so extreme on Jupiter.<\/p>\n

\u201cCould the key difference be hydrogen versus nitrogen atmospheres, or could it be that the storms are taller on Jupiter and so there\u2019s greater distances involved?\u201d Michael Wong, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Berkeley\u2019s Space Sciences Laboratory, asked in a press release. Wong is the lead author on the Jupiter lightning study.<\/p>\n

\u201cOr could it be that greater energy is available because with moist convection on Jupiter, you have a bigger buildup of heat needed before you can generate the storm to create lightning? It\u2019s an active area of research,\u201d Wong said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jupiter\u2019s colossal storms generate lightning flashes at least 100 times more powerful than those on Earth, according to scientists analyzing data from NASA\u2019s Juno spacecraft. The findings were published March 20 in the journal AGU Advances and were based on data recorded by Juno in 2021 and 2022, after NASA granted an extension to the spacecraft\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":42795,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43340"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43340\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}