GEOSTATIONARY 

WEATHER 

SATELLITES

Progress Made, but 

Weaknesses in 

Scheduling, 

Contingency Planning, 

and Communicating 

with Users Need to Be 

Addressed

Report to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, House of 

Representatives

September 2013

GAO-13-597

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-597, a report to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, House of Representatives

September 2013

GEOSTATIONARY WEATHER SATELLITES

Progress Made, but Weaknesses in Scheduling, 

Contingency Planning, and Communicating with 

Users Need to Be Addressed 

Why GAO Did This Study

NOAA, with the aid of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), is procuring the next 

generation of geostationary weather 

satellites. The GOES-R series is to 

replace the current series of satellites

(called GOES-13, -14, and -15), which 

will likely begin to reach the end of 

their useful lives in 2015. This new 

series is considered critical to the 

United States’ ability to maintain the 

continuity of satellite data required for 

weather forecasting through 2036. 

GAO was asked to evaluate GOES-R. 

GAO’s objectives were to (1) assess 

GOES-R progress and efforts to 

address key cost and schedule risks; 

(2) evaluate efforts to manage changes 

in requirements and whether any 

significant changes have recently 

occurred; and (3) evaluate the 

adequacy of GOES-R contingency 

plans. To do so, GAO analyzed 

program and contractor data, 

compared GOES-R schedules, 

requirements changes, and 

contingency plans to best practices by 

leading organizations, and interviewed 

officials at NOAA, NASA, and at other 

federal agencies that rely on GOES. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that NOAA 

address weaknesses in managing 

reserves and scheduling, improve 

communications with satellite data 

users, and address shortfalls in 

contingency planning. NOAA 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations and identified steps 

it is taking to implement them. 

What GAO Found

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has completed 

the design of its Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R (GOES-R) 

series and made progress in building flight and ground components. While the 

program reports that it is on track to stay within its $10.9 billion life cycle cost 

estimate, it has not reported key information on reserve funds to senior 

management. Also, the program has delayed interim milestones, is experiencing 

technical issues, and continues to demonstrate weaknesses in the development 

of component schedules. These factors have the potential to affect the expected 

October 2015 launch date of the first GOES-R satellite, and program officials 

now acknowledge that the launch date may be delayed by 6 months. A launch 

delay would increase the time that NOAA is without an on-orbit backup satellite. 

It would also increase the potential for a gap in GOES satellite coverage should 

one of the two operational satellites (GOES-14 or -15) fail prematurely (see 

graphic)—a scenario given a 36 percent likelihood of occurring by an

independent review team. 

Potential Gap in GOES Coverage 

While the GOES-R program has established a process for managing 

requirements changes, it has not effectively involved key satellite data users. 

Since 2007, the GOES-R program decided not to develop 31 of the original set of 

GOES products and modified specifications on 20 remaining products. For 

example, NOAA decreased the accuracy requirement for the hurricane intensity 

product and decreased the timeliness of the lightning detection product. 

However, key satellite data users were not fully informed about changes and did 

not have a chance to communicate their concerns about the impact of these

changes on their operations. Until NOAA improves its communication with 

external satellite data users, obtains input from the users, and addresses user 

concerns when considering product changes, its changes could cause an 

unexpected impact on critical user operations. 

NOAA has established contingency plans for the loss of its GOES satellites and 

ground systems that are generally in accordance with best practices; however, 

these plans are missing key elements. For example, NOAA did not work with the 

user community to address potential reductions in capability under contingency

scenarios or identify alternative solutions for preventing a delay in the GOES-R 

launch date. Until NOAA addresses the shortfalls in its contingency plans and 

procedures, the plans may not work as intended in an emergency and satellite 

data users may not obtain the information they need to perform their missions. 

View GAO-13-597. For more information, 

contact David Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Letter 1 

Background 3

NOAA Has Made Progress in Developing GOES-R, but Continues to 

Face Challenges that Could Increase the Risk of a Satellite Data 

Gap 14

NOAA Has a Process for Managing Changes in GOES-R 

Requirements, but Changes Could Affect Some Users 30

NOAA Developed GOES-R Contingency Plans, but Weaknesses 

Increase the Impact of a Potential Coverage Gap 39

Conclusions 45

Recommendations for Executive Action 47

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 53

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables

Table 1: Summary of the Procurement History of the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites 5

Table 2: Key Changes to the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Program over Time 8

Table 3: Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R 

Series Instruments 9

Table 4: Key Components of the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Ground Project 10

Table 5: Major Development Reviews for the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series 15

Table 6: Development Status of Flight Project Components for the 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R 

Satellite, as of August 2013 17

Table 7: Development Status of the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Ground Project 

Components, as of August 2013 18

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 8: Reserve Levels for the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Program, as of March 

2013 20

Table 9: Delays in Milestones for the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Program 22

Table 10: Description of Scheduling Best Practices 25

Table 11: Assessment of Selected Schedules Use of Best Practices 

over Time 26

Table 12: Best Practices in Managing Requirements Changes 30

Table 13: Assessment of Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite-R Series Program Practices in Managing Changes 

in Requirements 32

Table 14: Summary of Key Changes in Product and Program 

Requirements between 2007 and 2012 34

Table 15: User Concerns about Key Changes or Deviations in 

Requirements 36

Table 16: Guidelines for Developing a Sound Contingency Plan 40

Table 17: Implementation of Key Contingency Planning Elements 

for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites 41

Figures

Figure 1: Approximate Geographic Coverage of the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites 4

Figure 2: Generic Data Relay Pattern for the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites 6

Figure 3: Organizational Structure and Staffing of the 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R 

Series Program 11

Figure 4: NASA’s Life Cycle for Flight Systems 15

Figure 5: Potential Gap in Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite Coverage 29
Page iii GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Abbreviations

CDR critical design review

FOR flight operations review

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

GOES-R Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R series

KDP key decision point

MDR mission definition review

MOR mission operations review

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

 Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSOF NOAA Satellite Operations Facility

ORR operational readiness review

PDR preliminary design review

SDR system definition review

SIR system integration review

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 9, 2013

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith

Chairman

The Honorable Ralph Hall

Chairman Emeritus

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Member

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

Geostationary environmental satellites play a critical role in our nation’s 

weather forecasting. These satellites—which are managed by the 

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)—provide information on atmospheric, oceanic, 

climatic, and solar conditions that help meteorologists observe and 

predict regional and local weather events. They also provide a means of 

identifying the large-scale evolution of severe storms, such as forecasting 

a hurricane’s path and intensity.

NOAA, through collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), is procuring the next generation of geostationary 

weather satellites, called the Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite–R (GOES-R) series. The GOES-R series consists of four 

satellites and is to replace the current series of geostationary 

environmental satellites as they reach the end of their useful lives. This 

new series is expected to provide the first major improvement in the 

technology of GOES instruments since 1994 and, as such, is considered 

critical to the United States’ ability to maintain the continuity of data 

required for weather forecasting through the year 2036.

This report responds to your request that we review NOAA’s GOES-R 

series program (GOES-R program). Specifically, our objectives were to

(1) assess GOES-R progress and efforts to address key cost and 

schedule risks that we identified in our prior report, (2) evaluate efforts to 

manage changes in requirements and whether any significant changes 

have recently occurred, and (3) evaluate the adequacy of GOES-R 

contingency plans. To assess NOAA’s progress in developing GOES-R 

and addressing key risks, we compared estimated and actual program 

deliverables and analyzed monthly program status briefings to identify

current status and recent development challenges. We also followed up 

on our prior concerns regarding reserve funds and scheduling practices 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

by comparing the program’s current level of reserve funding and two 

component schedules to best practices.1 By recalculating reserve 

percentages based on supporting data and examining schedule 

anomalies through use of a standard template, we determined data in 

both areas to be reliable for the purposes of this audit. To assess NOAA’s 

efforts to manage changes in requirements, we compared the agency’s 

policies and practices to best practices identified by leading 

organizations2 and identified major changes to the program over time. To 

evaluate the adequacy of the GOES-R contingency plan, we compared 

the GOES-R contingency plan to best practices in contingency planning 

identified by leading organizations.3 We also interviewed program officials 

as well as key internal and external satellite data users.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for a 

complete description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

 

1 GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2009); NOAA, 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites—R Series Management Control Plan 

(Silver Spring, Md.: January 2013).

2

 NASA, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (Washington, D.C.: December 2007), 

Software Engineering Institute, CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: 

November 2010); Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management 

Body of Knowledge (Newtown Square, Pa.: 2004); GAO, Federal Information System 

Controls Audit Manual, GAO-09-232G (Washington, D.C.: February 2009); IT Governance 

Institute, Control Objectives for Information and related Technology 4.1 (Rolling Meadows, 

Ill.: 2007).

3 GAO, Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning, 

GAO/AIMD-10.1.19 (Washington, D.C.: August 1998); National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems, NIST 800-34

(Gaithersburg, Md.: May 2010); Software Engineering Institute, CMMI® for Acquisition, 

Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Since the 1970s, geostationary satellites have been used by the United 

States to provide meteorological data for weather observation, research, 

and forecasting. NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service is responsible for managing the civilian operational 

geostationary satellite system, called GOES. Geostationary satellites can 

maintain a constant view of the earth from a high orbit of about 22,300 

miles in space.

NOAA operates GOES as a two-satellite system that is primarily focused 

on the United States (see fig. 1). These satellites provide timely 

environmental data about the earth’s atmosphere, surface, cloud cover, 

and the space environment to meteorologists and their audiences. They 

also observe the development of hazardous weather, such as hurricanes 

and severe thunderstorms, and track their movement and intensity to 

reduce or avoid major losses of property and life. The ability of the 

satellites to provide broad, continuously updated coverage of atmospheric 

conditions over land and oceans is important to NOAA’s weather 

forecasting operations.

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Figure 1: Approximate Geographic Coverage of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites

To provide continuous satellite coverage, NOAA acquires several 

satellites at a time as part of a series and launches new satellites every 

few years (see table 1). NOAA’s policy is to have two operational 

satellites and one backup satellite in orbit at all times.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 1: Summary of the Procurement History of the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellites 

Series name Procurement durationa Satellitesb

Original GOESc 1970-1987 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

GOES I-M 1985-2001 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

GOES N 1998-2010 13, 14, 15, Qd

GOES-R 2008-2024 R, S, T, U

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.

a

Duration includes time from contract award to final satellite launch.

b

Satellites in a series are identified by letters of the alphabet when they are on the ground (before 

launch) and by numbers once they are in orbit.

c

The procurement of these satellites consisted of four separate contracts for (1) two early prototype 

satellites and GOES-1, (2) GOES-2 and -3, (3) GOES-4 through -6, and (4) GOES-G (failed on 

launch) and GOES-7.

d

NOAA decided not to exercise the option for this satellite.

Four GOES satellites–GOES-12, GOES-13, GOES-14, and GOES-15–

are currently in orbit. Both GOES-13 and GOES-15 are operational 

satellites with GOES-13 covering the eastern United States and GOES15 in the western United States (see fig. 1). GOES-14 is currently in an 

on-orbit storage mode and available as a backup for the other two 

satellites should they experience any degradation in service. GOES-12 is 

at the end of its service life, but it is being used to provide limited 

coverage of South America. The GOES-R series is the next generation of 

satellites that NOAA is planning. The first two satellites in the series 

(called GOES-R and GOES-S) are planned for launch in October 2015 

and February 2017, respectively.4

Each of the operational geostationary satellites continuously transmits 

raw environmental data to NOAA ground stations. The data are 

processed at these ground stations and transmitted back to the satellite 

for broadcast to primary weather services and the global research 

community in the United States and abroad. Raw and processed data are 

also distributed to users via ground stations through other communication 

channels, such as dedicated private communication lines and the 

 

4 While our report was in final processing, NOAA announced that it would delay the launch 

dates for its GOES-R and GOES-S satellites to the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 and 

the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, respectively.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Internet. Figure 2 depicts a generic data relay pattern from a 

geostationary satellite to the ground stations and commercial terminals.

Figure 2: Generic Data Relay Pattern for the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellites

NOAA established the GOES-R program to develop and launch the next 

series of geostationary satellites and to ensure the continuity of 

geostationary satellite observations. Since its inception, the GOES-R 

program has undergone several changes in cost and scope. As originally 

envisioned, GOES-R was to encompass four satellites hosting a variety of 

advanced technology instruments and providing 81 environmental 

products. The first two satellites in the series were expected to launch in 

September 2012 and April 2014. However, in September 2006, NOAA 

decided to reduce the scope and technical complexity of the GOES-R 

program because of expectations that total costs, which were originally 

estimated to be $6.2 billion, could reach $11.4 billion. Specifically, NOAA 

reduced the minimum number of satellites from four to two, cancelled 

plans for developing an advanced instrument (which reduced the number 

Overview of the GOES-R 

Program
 

Page 7 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

of planned satellite products from 81 to 68), and divided another 

instrument into two separate acquisitions. The agency estimated that the 

revised program would cost $7 billion and kept the planned launch dates 

unchanged.

Subsequently, NOAA made several other important decisions about the 

cost and scope of the GOES-R program. In May 2007, NOAA had an 

independent cost estimate completed for the GOES-R program. After 

reconciling the program office’s cost estimate of $7 billion with the 

independent cost estimate of about $9 billion, the agency established a 

new program cost estimate of $7.67 billion. This was an increase of $670 

million from the previous estimate. The program also moved the launch 

dates for the first two satellites to December 2014 and April 2016. 

Further, in November 2007, to mitigate the risk that costs would rise, 

program officials decided to remove selected program requirements from 

the baseline program and treat them as contract options that could be 

exercised if funds allowed. These requirements included the number of 

products to be distributed, the time to deliver the remaining products 

(product latency), and how often these products would be updated with 

new satellite data (refresh rate). For example, program officials eliminated 

the requirement to develop and distribute 34 of the 68 envisioned 

products, including low cloud and fog, sulfur dioxide detection, and cloud 

liquid water. Program officials included the restoration of the requirements 

for the products, latency times, and refresh rates as options in the ground 

system contract that could be acquired at a later time. Program officials 

later reduced the number of products that could be restored as a contract 

option (called option 2) from 34 to 31 because they determined that two 

products were no longer feasible and two others could be combined into a 

single product.

In late 2009, NOAA changed the launch dates for the first two satellites to 

October 2015 and February 2017, in part due to a bid protest related to 

award of the spacecraft contract. More recently, NOAA restored two 

satellites to the program’s baseline, making GOES-R a four-satellite 

program once again. In February 2011, as part of its fiscal year 2012 

budget request, NOAA requested funding to begin development for two 

additional satellites in the GOES-R series—GOES-T and GOES-U. The 

program estimates that the development for all four satellites in the 

GOES-R series—GOES-R, GOES-S, GOES-T, and GOES-U—is to cost 

$10.9 billion through 2036, an increase of $3.2 billion over its prior life 

cycle cost estimate of $7.67 billion for the two-satellite program. See table 

2 for an overview of key changes to the GOES-R program.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 2: Key Changes to the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Program over Time 

August 2006

(baseline program) September 2006 November 2007 February 2011

Number of 

satellites

4 2 2 4 

Instruments or 

instrument 

changes

• Advanced Baseline Imager

• Geostationary Lightning Mapper

• Magnetometer

• Space Environmental In-Situ 

Suite 

• Solar Imaging Suite (which 

included the Solar Ultraviolet 

Imager, and Extreme 

Ultraviolet/X-Ray Irradiance 

Sensor)

• Hyperspectral Environmental 

Suite 

• Advanced Baseline Imager

• Geostationary Lightning Mapper

• Magnetometer

• Space Environmental In-Situ 

Suite 

• Solar Ultraviolet Imager

• Extreme Ultraviolet/X-Ray 

Irradiance Sensor 

No change No change

Number of 

satellite 

products

81 68 34 baseline

34 optional

34 baseline

31 optional

Life cycle cost 

estimate (in 

then- year 

dollars)

$6.2 billion—$11.4 billion (through 

2034)

$7 billion (through 2028) $7.67 billion 

(through 2028)

$10.9 billion 

(through 2036)a

Estimated 

launch dates for 

GOES-R and S

GOES-R: September 2012

GOES-S: April 2014

GOES-R: September 2012

GOES-S: April 2014

GOES-R: 

December 2014

GOES-S: 

April 2016

GOES-R: 

October 2015 

GOES-S: 

February 2017

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.

a

Based on NOAA’s fiscal year 2012 budget baseline, $7.64 billion of this cost estimate was for the 

first two satellites in the series, GOES-R and GOES-S. The cost for the remaining two satellites—

GOES-T and GOES-U—was estimated at $3.22 billion.

The GOES-R program is divided into flight and ground projects that have 

separate areas of responsibility and oversee different sets of contracts.

The flight project, which is managed by NASA, includes instruments, 

spacecraft, launch services, satellite integration, and on-orbit satellite 

initialization. Table 3 summarizes the GOES-R instruments and their 

planned capabilities.

Program and Program Office 

Structure
 

Page 9 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 3: Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Instruments

Planned instrument Description

Advanced Baseline Imager Expected to provide variable area imagery and radiometric information of the earth’s surface, 

atmosphere, and cloud cover. Key features include

• monitoring and tracking severe weather;

• providing images of clouds to support forecasts; and

• providing higher resolution, faster coverage, and broader coverage simultaneously.

Geostationary Lightning 

Mapper

Expected to continuously monitor total lightning (in-cloud and cloud-to-ground) activity over the 

United States and adjacent oceans and to provide a more complete dataset than previously 

possible. Key features include

• detecting lightning activity as an indicator of severe storms and convective weather hazard 

impacts to aviation; and

• providing a new capability to GOES for long-term mapping of total lightning that only 

previously existed on NASA low-earth-orbiting research satellites.

Magnetometer Expected to provide information on the general level of geomagnetic activity, monitor current 

systems in space, and permit detection of magnetopause crossings, sudden storm 

commencements, and substorms.

Space Environmental In-Situ 

Suite 

Expected to provide information on space weather to aid in the prediction of particle precipitation, 

which causes disturbance and disruption of radio communications and navigation systems. Key 

features include

• measuring magnetic fields and charged particles;

• providing improved heavy ion detection, adding low-energy electrons and protons; and

• enabling early warnings for satellite and power grid operation, telecom services, astronauts, 

and airlines.

Solar Ultraviolet Imager Expected to provide coverage of the entire dynamic range of solar X-ray features, from coronal 

holes to X-class flares, and will provide quantitative estimates of the physical conditions in the 

Sun’s atmosphere. Key features include

• providing information used for geomagnetic storm forecasts, and power grid performance;

and

• providing observations of solar energetic particle events related to flares.

Extreme Ultraviolet/X-Ray 

Irradiance Sensor

Expected to detect solar soft X-ray irradiance and solar extreme ultraviolet spectral irradiance. 

Key features include

• monitoring solar flares that can disrupt communications and degrade navigational accuracy, 

affecting satellites, astronauts, high latitude airline passengers; and

• monitoring solar variations that directly affect satellite drag/tracking and ionospheric changes, 

which impact communications and navigation operations.

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.

The ground project is directed by NOAA and is made up of three main 

components: the core ground system, an infrastructure of antennas, and 

a product access subsystem. In turn, the core ground system comprises 

four functional modules supporting operations, product generation, 

product distribution, and configuration control. Key components of the 

ground project are described in table 4.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 4: Key Components of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Ground Project

Component Description

Core Ground System Expected to (1) provide command of operational functions of the spacecraft and instruments, 

(2) receive and process information from the instruments and spacecraft, (3) distribute satellite 

data products to users, and (4) provide configuration control and a common infrastructure and 

set of services for the satellite and instruments.

Antennas Expected to provide six new antenna stations and modify four existing antennas to receive 

GOES-R data. The antenna contract is also expected to include the construction of related 

infrastructure, software development for control systems, and maintenance. 

Product Distribution and Access 

System

Expected to provide ingestion of data and distribution for GOES-R products and data to 

authorized users. When completed, this system will be integrated into the core ground system. 

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.

NOAA is responsible for GOES-R program funding and overall mission 

success. The NOAA Program Management Council, which is chaired by 

NOAA’s Deputy Undersecretary, is the oversight body for the GOES-R 

program. However, since it relies on NASA’s acquisition experience and 

technical expertise to help ensure the success of its programs, NOAA 

implemented an integrated program management structure with NASA for 

the GOES-R program (see fig. 3). NOAA also located the program office 

at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Figure 3: Organizational Structure and Staffing of the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series Program
 

Page 12 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

In recent years, we issued a series of reports aimed at addressing 

weaknesses in the GOES-R program.5 Key areas of focus included (1) 

improving communications with external data users, (2) developing 

contingency plans, and (3) addressing key cost and schedule risks.

• Improving communications with external users. In September 

2010, we reported that while NOAA had identified GOES data users 

and involved internal NOAA users in developing and prioritizing

GOES-R requirements, it had not adequately involved other federal 

users who rely on GOES data by documenting their input and 

communicating major changes to the program.6 We recommended 

that the program establish processes for satellite data requirements 

definition and prioritization that include documented input from 

external users, as well as processes to notify these non-NOAA 

agencies of GOES-R program status and changes. In February 2012, 

the GOES-R program developed a communications plan that 

described how external stakeholders would be notified of GOES-R 

progress, status changes, and other relevant activities. However, 

NOAA has not yet fully implemented the plan, as demonstrated by the 

communication shortfalls discussed later in this report.

• Developing contingency plans. In September 2010, we reported 

that while there was a potential gap in backup coverage due to 

 

5

GAO, Environmental Satellites: Focused Attention Needed to Mitigate Program Risks, 

GAO-12-841T, (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2012); GAO, Geostationary Weather 

Satellites: Design Progress Made, but Schedule Uncertainty Needs to be Addressed, 

GAO-12-576, (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2012); GAO, Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellites: Improvements Needed in Continuity Planning and Involvement 

of Key Users, GAO-10-799 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 2010); GAO, Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites: Acquisition Has Increased Costs, Reduced 

Capabilities, and Delayed Schedules, GAO-09-596T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2009); 

GAO, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites: Acquisition Is Under Way, but 

Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight, GAO-09-323 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 2, 2009); GAO, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites: Further Actions 

Needed to Effectively Manage Risks, GAO-08-183T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2007); 

GAO, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites: Progress Has Been Made, but 

Improvements Are Needed to Effectively Manage Risks, GAO-08-18 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 23, 2007); GAO, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites: Additional 

Action Needed to Incorporate Lessons Learned from Other Satellite Programs, 

GAO-06-1129T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2006); and GAO, Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellites: Steps Remain in Incorporating Lessons Learned from Other 

Satellite Programs, GAO-06-993 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2006).

6 GAO-10-799. 

Prior Reports Made 

Recommendations to 

Address Program 

Weaknesses
 

Page 13 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

satellite launch delays, NOAA had not established adequate continuity 

plans for its geostationary satellites.7 We recommended that the 

program’s plan include implementation procedures, resources, staff 

roles, and timetables needed to transition to a single satellite, a 

foreign satellite, or other solution. In December 2012, NOAA finalized 

a contingency plan that generally included these elements. However, 

more work remains to ensure that the plan is viable.

More recently, in February 2013, we added the potential gaps in 

weather satellite data to our biennial High-Risk list.8 In that report, we 

noted that NOAA had established a contingency plan for a potential 

gap in the GOES program, but it needed to demonstrate its progress 

in coordinating with the user community to determine their most 

critical requirements, conducting training and simulations for 

contingency operations scenarios, evaluating the status of viable 

foreign satellites, and working with the user community to account for 

differences in product coverage under contingency operations 

scenarios. We also stated that NOAA should update its contingency 

plan to provide more details on its contingency scenarios, associated 

time frames, and any preventative actions it is taking to minimize the 

possibility of a gap.

• Addressing key cost and schedule risks. In June 2012, we 

reported that the GOES-R program might not be able to ensure that it 

had adequate resources to cover unexpected problems in remaining 

development, and that unresolved schedule deficiencies existed in its 

integrated master schedule and contractor schedules. We also 

reported that the program estimated a 48 percent chance that the 

planned GOES-R launch date of October 2015 would be reached.9

We recommended that the program assess and report on the 

reserves needed for completing remaining development for each 

satellite in the series, and address shortfalls in the schedule 

management practices we identified such as eliminating unnecessary 

constraints and creating a realistic allocation of resources, in order to 

minimize the likelihood of a potential gap. The agency agreed with 

 

7 GAO-10-799. 

8 GAO, 2013 High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-359T (Washington, D.C.: February 

14, 2013).

9 GAO-12-756. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

these recommendations and took steps to address them by identifying 

needed reserve levels and refining program schedules.

NOAA has completed its design of the GOES-R program, and has made 

progress in building components of the flight and ground segments. 

Program officials also report that the program is operating within its 

estimated budget of $10.9 billion. However, key information on reserves 

has not been reported to management. Further, both the flight and ground 

segments have experienced delays in achieving major milestones due to 

technical challenges, and weaknesses in the development of master 

schedules could cause further delays. Program officials stated that they 

have made improvements on how they manage cost reserves and 

schedules, but acknowledged that there will always be opportunities for 

improvement because the reserves and schedules are so dynamic on a 

big program like GOES-R. These challenges have the potential to impact 

the expected launch date of the first GOES-R satellite, which would delay 

the availability of an on-orbit backup and increase the potential for a gap 

in GOES satellite coverage should either of the two operational satellites 

fail prematurely.

NASA and NOAA are following NASA’s standard space system life cycle 

on the GOES-R program. This life cycle includes distinct phases, 

including concept and technology development; preliminary design and 

technology completion; final design and fabrication; system assembly, 

integration and testing, launch and checkout; and operations and 

sustainment. There are key program reviews throughout each of the 

phases, including preliminary design review, critical design review, and 

system integration review. NOAA and NASA jointly conduct key reviews 

on the flight and ground segments individually as well as for the program 

as a whole, and then make decisions on whether to proceed to the next 

phase. Figure 4 provides an overview of the life cycle phases, key 

program reviews, and associated decision milestones. In addition, the key 

reviews are described in table 5.

NOAA Has Made 

Progress in 

Developing GOES-R, 

but Continues to Face 

Challenges that Could 

Increase the Risk of a 

Satellite Data Gap

Program Has Completed 

Design and Begun Building 

Components of the First 

Satellite 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Figure 4: NASA’s Life Cycle for Flight Systems

Note: According to a NASA official, the MOR and FOR are considered lower-level reviews and are 

not mandated by NASA’s primary procedural requirements. They are, however, key mission reviews 

required by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

Table 5: Major Development Reviews for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series 

Review Description

System Definition

Review

Performed on the flight and ground segments individually, and then on the program as a whole, 

this review is to examine the proposed system architecture/design and demonstrate that a system 

that fulfills the mission objectives can be built within existing constraints. 

Preliminary Design Review Performed on the flight and ground segments individually, and then on the program as a whole, 

this review is to demonstrate that the preliminary design meets all system requirements with 

acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints and to establish the basis for 

proceeding with detailed design.

Critical Design Review Performed on the flight and ground segments individually, and then on the program as a whole, 

this review is to evaluate the completed detailed design of the element and subsystem products in 

sufficient detail to provide approval for a production stage.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Review Description

Mission Operations Review Performed programwide, this review is to establish the adequacy of plans and schedules for 

ground systems and flight operations preparation, and to justify readiness to proceed with 

implementation of the remaining required activities. It is typically held subsequent to completion of 

detail design and fabrication activity, but prior to initiation of major integration activities of flight or 

ground-system elements.

System Integration Review Performed programwide, this review is to evaluate the readiness of the project to start system 

assembly, test, and launch operations. The objectives of the review include ensuring that planning 

is adequate for all remaining system activities and that available cost and schedule resources 

support completion of all necessary remaining activities with adequate margin. 

Flight Operations Review This review is to present the results of mission operations activities and show that the program has 

verified compliance with all requirements and demonstrated the ability to execute all phases and 

modes of mission operations, data processing, and analysis. 

Operational Readiness Review This review is to examine characteristics and procedures used in the system’s operation and 

ensures that all system and support hardware, software, personnel, and procedures are ready for 

operations and that user documentation accurately reflects the deployed state of the system. It is 

typically held near the completion of pre-launch testing between the flight segment and the ground 

system.

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation.

The GOES-R program has completed final design and begun building 

components of the flight and ground systems. Specifically, the program 

completed critical design reviews for the flight and ground projects and for 

the overall program between April and November 2012. In its evaluation 

of the program as part of the critical design review, an independent 

review board complimented the program on several recent achievements, 

stating that the program was beyond the level of maturity expected at that 

phase, and that the program’s planning was a major factor in the launch 

date of the first satellite remaining October 2015.

As the spacecraft and instruments are developed, NASA conducts 

several interim reviews and tests before proceeding to the next major 

program-level review, the system integration review. These include a preenvironmental review, which represents the conclusion of an initial round 

of testing before exposing the instrument to testing under adverse 

environmental conditions; environmental testing of key functions under 

adverse conditions; and a pre-shipment review, which is conducted on 

each instrument to ensure it is ready to be shipped for integration and 

testing on the spacecraft.

The GOES-R flight components are in various stages leading up to the 

system integration review. Of the six GOES-R instruments, one has 

completed environmental testing and its pre-shipment review; four 

instruments are in the midst of these reviews and tests; and one 

instrument has not yet passed its pre-environmental review. In addition, 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

the program began building the spacecraft in February 2013. Table 6 

provides more information on progress made on the key flight project 

components.

Table 6: Development Status of Flight Project Components for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R 

Satellite, as of August 2013 

Key component Recent progress 

Advanced Baseline Imager • Pre-environmental review completed in November 2012

• Environmental testing completed 

Extreme Ultraviolet/X-Ray Irradiance 

Sensor

• Instrument fully assembled and tested

• Pre-environmental review conducted in July 2012

• Pre-ship review conducted in April 2013

Geostationary Lightning Mapper • Assembly of some subcomponents completed, others continuing

• Subcomponent testing is under way 

Magnetometer • Selected components have completed readiness reviews and tests

• Environmental testing is under way

Solar Ultraviolet Imager • Pre-environmental review completed in November 2012

• Environmental testing is under way

• Pre-ship review scheduled for October 2013 

Space Environmental In-Situ Suite • Individual component testing completed

• Pre-environmental review conducted in May 2013 

Spacecraft • Core structure testing completed; multiple components delivered

• Integration of subsystems under way

• Construction of the system module that will host instruments is under way

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation.

Similar to the flight project, major ground system milestones are focused 

on building and testing components and the program has made progress 

in this area. Specifically, on the core ground system, a prototype for the 

operations module was delivered in late 2012 and used for initial testing 

and training.10 In July 2013, the ground project delivered the iteration of

the operations module that will be used to support the first satellite. In 

addition, the program has installed antenna dishes at NOAA’s primary 

satellite communications site, and completed two key reviews of antennas 

at the GOES remote backup site. The Product Distribution and Access 

System recently completed a review that will allow testing to begin on its 

first release. An integration review for ground components is also 

 

10 This module is called the Mission Management function. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

expected to take place in January 2014. More detail on the progress of 

the ground project can be seen in table 7.

Table 7: Development Status of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Ground Project Components, 

as of August 2013 

Key component Recent progress 

Core Ground Segment • Critical design review completed in April 2012

• Completed readiness review for receipt of GOES-R antennas

• Delivery and installation of a prototype of the mission operations module completed; next iteration of 

the module delivered in July 2013

Antenna System • Contractor demonstrated ability to produce 8 of 13 components; remainder due by the end of 2013

• Installation of the first two antenna structures has been completed; the third antenna structure is 

scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2014

• Supporting infrastructure built, and two key reviews completed, for remote back-up antenna site 

Product Distribution and 

Access System

• Testing begun on first increment/release 

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation. 

The program’s next major milestone is a programwide system integration 

review, which is scheduled for March 2014. Based on the results of that 

review, NOAA and NASA will decide whether to move the program to the 

next phase: the system assembly, integration and test, and launch and 

checkout phase.

The GOES-R program is estimated to cost $10.9 billion. As of February 

2013, the program estimated that this amount was divided into four 

categories, with $6.0 billion for the flight project, $1.7 billion for the ground 

project, $2.0 billion for other program costs (including, among other 

things, program/project support and formulation) and $1.2 billion for 

operations and support. Program officials reported that the program is 

currently operating without cost overruns on any of its main components, 

but noted that the program life cycle costs may increase by $150 to $300 

million if full funding in the current fiscal year is not received.

A portion of the amounts planned for the flight project and ground project 

are allocated to contingency reserves (also called management reserve). 

The program also keeps a programwide contingency allocation separate 

from those of the flight and ground projects. A contingency reserve 

provides program managers ready access to funding in order to resolve 

problems as they occur and may be necessary to cover increased costs 

resulting from unexpected design complexity, incomplete requirements, or 

Contingency Reserves Are 

Generally in Line with 

Goals for Overall Program 

Development; Reporting 

on Reserve Values 

Remains Limited
 

Page 19 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

other uncertainties.11 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center requires its 

flight projects, including GOES-R, to maintain contingency reserves 

during system development, at a level of 25 percent of development 

costs.12 The GOES-R program requires its flight and ground projects to 

maintain 20 percent of planned remaining development costs as reserve 

funding.13 The program office also maintains contingency reserves equal 

to 10 percent of planned remaining development costs to cover program 

support costs and to supplement the flight and ground projects’ reserves 

if necessary. According to a NOAA program official, the GOES-R program 

is able to meet NASA’s requirement through the combination of the 20 

percent flight and ground project requirements and the supplemental 10 

percent program-level reserve. An official also stated that the method of 

keeping separate reserves at the program and project levels was chosen 

as it was successful on past projects.

The GOES-R flight project, ground project, and program office are at or 

above the amount of reserves they are required to carry. Specifically, as 

of March 2013, the overall contingency reserve percentages for the flight 

and ground projects were at 20 and 28 percent, respectively, which are at 

or above the required level of 20 percent. The program reserves were at 

11 percent, slightly above the required level of 10 percent. Reserve 

values and percentages are provided in table 8.

 

11 GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2009). 

12 While NOAA has ultimate responsibility for GOES-R, NOAA shares program 

management responsibilities with NASA, and the program office is located at NASA’s 

Goddard Space Flight Center.

13 Until late 2012, NOAA required the ground project to maintain 30 percent of its 

development cost as a reserve. However, program officials recently revised the 

requirement down to 20 percent to reflect the shorter amount of development time before 

launch and the retirement of some risks.
 

Page 20 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 8: Reserve Levels for the Geostationary Operational Environmental SatelliteR Series Program, as of March 2013 

Component Required reserve Remaining reserveb

Flight 20% 20%

Ground 20% 28%

Program 10% 11%

Total 25%a 29%

Source: NOAA data and GAO analysis of NOAA data.

Notes:

a

NASA and NOAA officials stated that the allocation of reserves among flight, ground, and program 

components meets NASA’s requirement of 25 percent because the program category includes 

reserve funds that can be used to supplement the flight and ground components.

b

A series of adjustments are made to the flight, ground, and program budget amounts before the 

reserve percentage is calculated; thus the reserve percentage cannot be reached by dividing 

contingency reserves by total budget authority.

We previously reported that, in order to oversee GOES-R contingency 

funding, senior managers should have insight into the amount of reserves 

set aside for each satellite in the program and detailed information on 

how reserves are being used on both the flight and ground components. 

While the GOES-R program continues to regularly report on contingency 

funds, it does not report key information on the status of its reserve 

funding to senior level management.14

At monthly program management council meetings, the program reports 

summary information, such as the total value of contingency reserves and 

reserve percentage held for each fiscal year. Reserve totals are given for 

the flight and ground projects as well as for the program overall. However, 

the program does not report on the reserves needed for completing 

remaining development for each satellite in the series or provide detailed 

information on how reserves are being used. Thus, for example, if the 

later satellites in the series have a high level of reserves, they could mask 

low reserve values for earlier satellites in the series. Further, in its 

monthly presentations to senior managers and NOAA executives, the 

program does not include information on the cause of any changes in 

reserve values from the prior month or the assumptions it makes when 

calculating reserves. For example, the flight reserve value recently went 

up by 2 percentage points because the program decided to include 

 

14 GAO-12-576. 

Reporting on Reserves Is Not 

Sufficiently Detailed or 

Transparent 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

reserve funding for the GOES-T satellite in 2018, and the ground reserve 

values went down by 10 percentage points because the program shifted 

reserve funding from the ground to the flight projects. Neither of these 

changes was identified or explained in the monthly presentations. The 

lack of insight on how the reserves are calculated and modified could lead 

executives to misinterpret the size of the remaining reserves. Program 

officials noted that they took steps after our previous report to clarify what 

they report about reserves, but noted that the amount of information 

needed to fully explain reserve calculations and changes could be too 

much information for an executive-level briefing. Without regularly 

providing sufficiently detailed budget information, it may be more difficult 

for program management to have the information they need to make the 

best decisions possible regarding the program’s future funding.

The GOES-R program established programwide milestones, including the 

mission operations review and flight operations review, to determine the 

program’s ability to proceed to system integration and to complete 

mission operations, respectively. It also established five end-to-end 

system tests to validate compatibility between the space and ground 

segments before the launch of the first satellite.

However, over the past year, the program delayed many of these key 

milestones and tests. Delays in the mission operations review means that 

the large-scale integration of flight and ground components will not occur 

until 21 months prior to launch. Similarly, delaying end-to-end tests until 

17 months prior to launch will allow the program less time to respond to 

any problems that occur. Table 9 highlights key milestones and the extent 

of recent delays.

Recent and Potential 

Milestone Delays and 

Continued Weaknesses in 

Scheduling Practices 

Increase the Potential for a 

Delayed Launch
 

Page 22 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 9: Delays in Milestones for the Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite-R Series Program

Program milestone

Date planned

(as of Apr 2012)

Date completed

or planned

(as of Mar 2013) Delay 

Mission operations review January 2013 January 2014 12 monthsa

End-to-end test #1 February 2014 May 2014 3 months

End-to-end test #2 May 2014 August 2014 3 months

End-to-end test #3 August 2014 December 2014 4 months

Flight operations review September 2014 January 2015 4 months

End-to-end test #4 December 2014 March 2015 3 months

End-to-end test #5 July 2015 July 2015 No change

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.

a

Program officials stated that they had erroneously scheduled the mission operations review too 

soon, and moved the date by 9 months to better reflect when the review was needed. Therefore, only 

3 of the 12 months were attributable to a delay.

The GOES-R program is also experiencing technical issues on the flight 

and ground projects that could cause further schedule delays.

• The original supplier for a key component on the spacecraft moved to 

a different facility, introducing risk due to the loss of experienced 

personnel and the impact on schedule. This led the program to find an 

alternative supplier. While a design review was performed to confirm 

resolution of the issue in April 2013, this change may lead to a delay 

of up to 6 months in integrating the component on the spacecraft. 

Program officials noted that this delay is not expected to impact the 

program’s critical path or major milestones.

• The Geostationary Lightning Mapper’s electronics unit experienced 

problems during testing, which led the program office to delay the 

tests.15 The program is considering several options to address this 

issue, including using the electronics unit being developed for a later 

GOES satellite to allow key components to proceed with testing. If the 

issue cannot be resolved, it would affect the instrument’s 

performance. As a result, the program is also considering excluding 

 

15 Under testing, the electronics board emitted unexpectedly high levels of radiation, which 

would cause a high number of false alarms and hinder the program’s ability to assess the 

instrument’s observations.

Continued Technical Issues 

Could Cause Further Delays
 

Page 23 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

the Geostationary Lightning Mapper from the first GOES satellite. The 

program plans to make its decision on whether or not to include the 

instrument in late 2013. The removal of this instrument would cause a 

significant reduction in the satellite’s functionality. Key GOES users 

have stated that they would prefer that NOAA delay launching the 

GOES-R satellite rather than launch it without the Geostationary 

Lightning Mapper.

• The program delayed the start of work on the ground system at the 

NOAA satellite operations facility by three months, from a planned 

date of October 2012 to January 2013, following a bid protest of the 

award of a contract to upgrade the facility. This delay compressed an 

already tight schedule for testing the ground system.

• Testing for a number of ground system requirements has been 

postponed until future releases and builds, potentially causing 

modification to the schedule for these future products.

• Power amplifiers for the antenna systems experienced higher than 

expected failure rates, which could lead to schedule delays and 

decreases in operational availability.

Given that fewer than 3 years remain before GOES-R’s expected launch 

in October 2015, continued delays in key milestones and reviews 

decrease the likelihood that the launch date will be met. Program officials 

recently acknowledged that the GOES-R launch date may be delayed by 

about 6 months, and attributed the cause of the delay to a shortfall of $54 

million in anticipated funding in fiscal year 2013.16

Delays in the program’s remaining schedule are also at risk of further 

growth due to weaknesses in the program’s scheduling methods. 

Program schedules not only provide a road map for systematic program 

execution, but also provide the means by which to gauge progress, 

identify and address potential problems, and promote accountability. 

Achieving success in managing large-scale programs depends in part on 

having an integrated and reliable schedule that defines, among other 

things, when work activities and milestone events will occur, how long 

 

16 While our report was in final processing, NOAA announced that it would delay the 

launch date for its GOES-R satellite from October 2015 to the second quarter of fiscal 

year 2016.

Scheduling Practices Improved, 

but Weaknesses Remain 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

they will take, and how they are related to one another. Without such a 

reliable schedule, program milestones may slip.

In June 2012, we reported on weaknesses in program schedules that 

comprised portions of the program’s Integrated Master Schedule, 

including subordinate schedules for the spacecraft and core ground 

system. At that time, our work identified nine best practices associated 

with developing and maintaining a reliable schedule.17 These are (1) 

capturing all activities, (2) sequencing all activities, (3) assigning 

resources to all activities, (4) establishing the duration of all activities, (5) 

integrating schedule activities horizontally and vertically, (6) establishing 

the critical path for all activities, (7) identifying reasonable float time 

between activities, (8) conducting a schedule risk analysis, and (9) 

updating the schedule using logic and durations. See table 10 for a 

description of each of these best practices.

 

17 See GAO-09-3SP. In May 2012, we published updated guidance on scheduling best 

practices. See GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules—

Exposure Draft, GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2012). The updated guidance 

identifies 10 best practices. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 10: Description of Scheduling Best Practices 

Practice Description 

Capturing all activities The schedule should reflect all activities (steps, events, outcomes, etc.) as defined in the 

program’s work breakdown structure to include activities to be performed by both the 

government and its contractors. 

Sequencing all activities The schedule should sequence activities in the order that they are to be implemented. In 

particular, activities that must finish prior to the start of other activities (i.e., predecessor 

activities), as well as activities that cannot begin until other activities have been completed 

(i.e., successor activities) should be identified. 

Assigning resources to all activities The schedule should reflect who will do the work activities, whether all required resources will 

be available when they are needed, and whether there are any funding or time constraints. 

Establishing the duration of all 

activities 

The schedule should reflect the duration of each activity. These durations should be as short 

as possible and have specific start and end dates. 

Integrating schedule activities 

horizontally and vertically 

The schedule should be horizontally integrated, meaning that it should link the products and 

outcomes associated with sequenced activities. The schedule should also be vertically 

integrated, meaning that there is traceability among varying levels of activities and supporting 

tasks and subtasks. 

Establishing the critical path for all 

activities 

The critical path represents the chain of dependent activities with the longest total duration in 

the schedule. 

Identifying reasonable float time 

between activities 

The schedule should identify a reasonable amount of float—the time that an activity can slip 

before the delay affects the finish milestone—so that schedule flexibility can be determined. 

As a general rule, activities along the critical path typically have the least amount of float. 

Conducting a schedule risk analysis A schedule risk analysis is used to predict the level of confidence in the schedule, determine 

the amount of time contingency needed, and identify high-priority schedule risks.

Updating the schedule using logic and 

durations to determine the dates

The schedule should use logic and durations in order to reflect realistic start and completion 

dates, be continually monitored to determine differences between forecasted completion 

dates and planned dates, and avoid logic overrides and artificial constraint dates.

Source: GAO analysis of government and industry practices in GAO-09-3SP. 

In a previous report, we observed that important schedule components in 

GOES-R related schedules had not been included or completed, and 

recommended that these shortfalls be addressed.18 NOAA has since 

improved selected practices on its spacecraft and core ground schedules, 

but other practices stayed the same or worsened. Specifically, for the 

spacecraft, 2 practices were improved, 5 stayed the same, and 2 became 

weaker. For the core ground system, 4 practices were improved, 3 stayed 

the same, and 2 became weaker. Table 11 compares our assessments of 

the spacecraft and core ground system schedules in July 2011 and 

November 2012.

 

18 GAO-12-576. 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 11: Assessment of Selected Schedules Use of Best Practices over Time 

Scheduling best practice

Spacecraft schedules Core ground schedules

July 2011 November 2012 July 2011 November 2012

Best practice 1: Capturing all activities ◕ ● ◑ ◕

Best practice 2: Sequencing all activities ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑

Best practice 3: Assigning resources to all activities ◔ ◑ ◑ ◔

Best practice 4: Establishing the duration of all activities ◕ ◕ ◕ ◕

Best practice 5: Integrating schedule activities horizontally and 

vertically

◕ ◑ ◑ ◔

Best practice 6: Establishing the critical path for all activities ◕ ◕ ◔ ◑

Best practice 7: Identifying float on activities and paths ◑ ◑ ◔ ◔

Best practice 8: Conducting a schedule risk analysis ◔ ◔ ◔ ◑

Best practice 9: Updating the schedule using logic and 

durations to determine the dates ● ◕ ◕ ●

Source: GAO analysis of schedules provided by GOES-R, documents and information received from GOES-R officials.

Key

● The agency/contractor has fully met the criteria for this best practice

◕ The agency/contractor has substantially met the criteria for this best practice

◑ The agency/contractor has partially met the criteria for this best practice

◔ The agency/contractor has minimally met the criteria for this best practice

○ The agency/contractor has not met the criteria for this best practice

NOAA has improved elements of the schedules for both components. 

Specifically, the spacecraft schedule has eliminated level of effort 

activities19 and has assigned resources for a greater percentage of 

activities. The core ground schedule now has an automated process by 

which all subcontractor records are combined to create an integrated 

schedule. It has a series of connected activities that lead to what 

contractor officials consider its main milestone delivery, and has 

implemented a detailed schedule risk analysis for a key upcoming 

release.

However, scheduling issues remain on the schedules for both 

components. For example, both schedules have issues with sequencing 

 

19 Level-of-effort activities represent work that has no measurable output and cannot be 

associated with a physical product or defined deliverable. These activities are typically 

related to management and other oversight that continues until the detailed activities they 

support have been completed. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

remaining activities and integration between activities. Regarding the 

spacecraft schedule, there is a small subset of activities with incomplete 

links between activities, and more than 20 percent of remaining detail 

activities have lags, or a set number of days between an activity and its 

successor. In the core ground schedule, a number of activities are 

missing either predecessor or successor activities, and there are several 

activities representing the end of the project on or about the same date. 

Without the right linkages, activities that slip early in the schedule do not 

transmit delays to activities that should depend on them. When this 

happens, the schedule will not provide a sufficient basis for understanding 

the program as a whole, and users of the schedule will lack confidence in 

the dates and the critical path.

Both schedules also have a very high average of total float time for 

detailed activities.20 Specifically, total float time is greater than two months 

for nearly two-thirds of remaining detailed activities in the spacecraft 

schedule, and at least a year for more than 10 percent of remaining detail 

activities in the core ground schedule. In the case of spacecraft, officials 

stated that high levels of float time were often due to activities that had 

been completed at one time for several satellites, only one of which was 

immediately needed. Officials also provided detailed information on the 

activities with the highest amount of float. In the case of the core ground 

schedule, officials stated that many activities occurring after the main

milestone date, which occurs nearly five years prior to the end of the 

schedule, do not have a true successor, and therefore are calculated only 

to the end of the contract. Officials also stated that values and trends in 

float time are monitored regularly for both schedules. Such high values of 

total float time can falsely depict true project status, making it difficult to 

determine which activities drive key milestone dates. Without reasonable 

values of total float time, it cannot be used to identify activities that could 

be permitted to slip and thus release and reallocate resources to activities 

that require more resources to be completed on time.

In addition, the project’s critical path does not match up with activities that 

make up the driving path21 on the core ground schedule. Contractors 

 

20 Total float time is the amount of time an activity can be delayed or extended before the 

delay affects its successors or the program’s finish date. 

21 A driving path is the longest path of successive activities that drives the finish date for a 

key milestone. The driving path often corresponds to a schedule’s critical path. 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

monitor a driving path monthly to both major and minor milestone 

deliveries. However, until the schedule can produce a true critical path, it 

will be more difficult for the program office to provide reliable time line

estimates or identify when problems or changes may occur and their 

effect on downstream work. Also, without a valid critical path to the end of 

the schedule, management cannot focus on activities that will have a 

detrimental effect on the key project milestones and deliveries if they slip.

Further, neither schedule file has fully integrated resources with schedule 

activities. As of November 2012, contractor officials stated that the ground 

system schedule was not feasible given available resources and that they 

were in the process of revising their immediate schedules to make them 

feasible. The spacecraft schedule contains major resource categories that 

correspond to contractor sites and work phases. However, thresholds for 

overruns of resource allocations are functionally disabled within the 

schedules through the setting of an arbitrarily high value for maximum 

resources per category. In response, contractor officials stated that 

account managers are responsible for monitoring resource levels and that 

weekly meetings are held to ensure that resource issues are discussed. 

Information on resource needs and availability in each work period assists 

the program office in forecasting the likelihood that activities will be 

completed as scheduled. If the current schedule does not allow insight 

into current or project allocation of resources, then the risk of delays in 

the program’s schedule is significantly increased.

Deficiencies in scheduling practices such as the ones outlined here could 

increase the likelihood of launch date delays, because decision making 

would be based on data that does not accurately depict current status, 

thus impeding management’s ability to conduct meaningful oversight on 

the program’s schedules. Program officials noted that they have made 

improvements in scheduling practices, but explained that because the 

schedules are so dynamic there are always areas for improvement. Lack 

of the proper understanding of current program status due to schedules 

that are not fully reliable undercuts the ability of the program office to 

manage a high-risk program like GOES-R.

Potential delays in the launch date of the first GOES-R satellite would 

increase the risk of a gap in GOES satellite coverage. NOAA’s policy is to 

have two operational satellites and one backup satellite in orbit at all 

times. This policy proved useful in December 2008 and again in 

September 2012, when the agency experienced problems with one of its 

Delays in the GOES-R 

Launch Date Could 

Increase the Risk of a 

Satellite Data Gap
 

Page 29 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

operational satellites, but was able to move its backup satellite into place 

until the problems had been resolved.

NOAA is facing a period of at least a year when it will not have a backup 

satellite in orbit. Specifically, in April 2015, NOAA expects to retire one of 

its operational satellites (GOES-13) and move its backup satellite (GOES14) into operation. Thus, the agency will have only two operational 

satellites in orbit—and no backup satellite—until GOES-R is launched 

and completes an estimated 6-month post-launch test period. If GOES-R 

is launched in October 2015, the soonest it could be available for 

operational use would be April 2016. Any delay to the GOES-R launch 

would extend the time without a backup to more than one year. Figure 5 

shows anticipated operational and test periods for the two most recent 

series of GOES satellites.

Figure 5: Potential Gap in Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 

Coverage

In addition to the year or more during which no back-up satellite would be 

available, there is a chance that NOAA would have to operate with a 

single operational satellite. In December 2012, an independent review 

board estimated that there is a 36 percent chance that the GOES 

constellation would have only one operational satellite at the expected

date of GOES-R’s launch. Thus, if NOAA were to experience a problem 

with either of its operational satellites before GOES-R is in orbit and 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

operational, it would need to rely on older satellites that are beyond their 

expected operational lives and may not be fully functional. Without a full 

complement of operational GOES satellites, the nation’s ability to 

maintain the continuity of data required for effective weather forecasting 

could be compromised. This, in turn, could put the public, property, and 

the economy at risk.

System requirements describe the functionality needed to meet user 

needs and perform as intended in an operational environment. According

to leading industry, academic, and government entities, a disciplined 

process for developing and managing requirements can help reduce the 

risks of developing or acquiring a system.22 One key aspect of effective 

requirements management involves managing changes to requirements 

through a standardized process. Table 12 outlines best practices of a 

sound change management process and key questions for evaluating the 

process.

Table 12: Best Practices in Managing Requirements Changes 

Practice Key questions

Manage changes to 

requirements throughout the life 

cycle using a standard process

Does the program (or project) have a requirements management plan?

Does the program maintain a current and approved set of requirements?

Does the program have an approved set of baseline requirements?

Does the program’s change management process provide guidance for the identification, review, 

and management of all requirements changes?

Do change management processes apply throughout the program’s life cycle?

Does change management documentation, such as meeting notes or change records, indicate that 

the organization is following its change management policies and procedures?

Document changes to 

requirements

Does the organization maintain records for all changes?

Are all approved requirements changes documented according to a standard process?

Are other work products in consistent alignment with requirements changes?

 

22 Leading industry and governments sources—including the Software Engineering 

Institute’s Capability Maturity Model®–Integration, the Project Management Institute’s 

Project Management Body of Knowledge, the Federal Information Security Controls Audit 

Manual, the IT Governance Institute’s Control Objectives for Information and related

Technology governance framework, and NASA system development policies—provide 

extensive guidance on managing requirements.

NOAA Has a Process 

for Managing Changes 

in GOES-R 

Requirements, but 

Changes Could Affect 

Some Users
 

Page 31 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Practice Key questions

Document rationale for change 

and analyze impact

Does the program document rationales for proposed changes? 

Does the program maintain a history of these rationales?

Do they analyze the impact of a proposed change to the project and to users in impact 

assessments?

Do these assessments address impacts to cost, schedule, risk, and project capabilities?

Have an approval body with 

appropriate representation 

review and approve all 

requirements changes

Has the program established an approval body for requirements changes and defined its 

responsibilities?

Do change management policies require appropriate representation on the approval body?

Do change management policies require that the approval body review and approve all changes?

Does documentation show that the approval body reviewed and approved program requirements 

changes?

Ensure that requirements 

changes are aligned with user 

needs

Are requirements analyzed according to a standard process to determine if they continue to meet 

user needs?

Do impact assessments show that the requirements remain in alignment with user needs?

Has the program traced the changed requirements back to user needs?

Has the program verified and validated that changed requirements align with user needs?

Communicate requirements 

changes to users

When requirements changes occur, are they communicated to end users?

Is change information disseminated as part of a standard process?

Source: GAO analysis of government and industry practices.

The GOES-R program has a change management process that satisfied 

three practices, partially satisfied two practices, and did not satisfy one 

practice. Specifically, GOES-R has established a change management 

process that tracks and documents changes in requirements, documents 

the rationale for the changes as well as the potential impact of the change 

on cost and schedule, and ensures that changes are reviewed and 

approved by a change control board. In addition, the program has 

evaluated the impact of key changes on selected users and 

communicated with those users. However, as we first reported in 2010, 

the program is still weak in evaluating the impact of changes on external 

users who rely on GOES data products and in effectively communicating 

changes to those satellite data users.23 Specifically, table 13 outlines how 

the GOES-R program performed on each of the best practices for 

managing changes in requirements, and is followed by a more detailed 

discussion of key shortfalls.

 

23 GAO-10-799. 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 13: Assessment of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Program Practices in Managing 

Changes in Requirements 

Practice Assessment Discussion 

Manage changes to 

requirements 

throughout the life 

cycle using a standard 

process

Satisfied The GOES-R program has a requirements management plan and has established a 

change management process to apply throughout the project’s life cycle. In order to 

change a high-level requirement, the program must follow a detailed process that begins 

with proposing a change request, evaluating it, and obtaining approval or rejection of the 

request. The program also maintains an approved set of high-level baseline requirements 

and updates them regularly in response to requirements changes. 

Document changes to 

requirements

Satisfied The GOES-R program documents requirements changes in a public change log associated 

with its high-level requirements document. More detailed information on the changes is 

tracked in an internal database. The changes documented in the change log align with 

those documented in the internal tracking database. 

Document rationale for 

change and analyze 

impact

Partially 

satisfied

The GOES-R program documented the rationale for individual requirements changes as 

well as the cost and schedule impact of selected changes. In addition, the program has 

assessed the impact of key changes on selected users within NOAA. However, the 

program has not assessed the cost and schedule impact of all changes, and has not 

assessed the impact of key changes on external users who rely on GOES satellite data. 

Program officials noted that they assessed the cost and schedule impact of changes that 

were expected to negatively impact the program’s cost or schedule, and that they focus 

their impact assessments on users within NOAA because they are considered the primary 

users. 

Have an approval body 

with appropriate 

representation review 

and approve all 

changes

Satisfied The GOES-R program has a configuration change board with representation from key 

NOAA and NASA officials. The board’s responsibilities are formalized in program 

documentation. Further, the board members review and approve requirements changes.

Ensure that 

requirements changes 

are aligned with user 

needs

Not 

satisfied

The program’s change management process does not require taking steps to ensure that 

changes in requirements are aligned with user needs. Specifically, the process does not 

require officials to trace applicable changes to user needs or to test or simulate whether the 

change still meets user needs. Moreover, for seven selected changes we reviewed, the 

program did not demonstrate the steps it took to test or validate the changes to ensure 

they were aligned with user needs. Program officials noted that they utilize a user working 

group to communicate changes to users and elevate concerns raised by users. 

Communicate 

requirements changes 

to users

Partially 

satisfied

The GOES-R program generally communicates requirements changes to key users within 

NOAA and NOAA’s National Weather Service through mechanisms such as e-mail 

correspondence and working groups, while it communicates changes to external users 

through periodic conferences, such as the GOES users’ conferences. However, it does not 

alert external users who rely on GOES data to perform their missions about specific 

changes in requirements that will likely affect their operations. These external users include 

the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 

Department of the Navy. Officials at all three agencies reported that they were not informed 

about key changes in requirements that could affect their operations. Program officials 

stated that they work through a variety of working groups to try to communicate changes 

with those who utilize the satellite data.

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

While the program generally communicates requirements changes to key 

users within NOAA’s National Weather Service community, it does not 

communicate as well with satellite data users external to NOAA. Many 

such users are dependent on GOES satellite data for their respective 

missions. Officials responsible for working with satellite weather 

observations at three agencies were unaware of selected changes in 

GOES-R requirements. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration 

uses the satellites’ data and images to manage air traffic across the 

country, and the Navy uses the data for oceanic weather forecasting, as 

well as tactical ocean analysis of regions of interest. They stated that 

NOAA had not reached out to them to alert them to these changes or ask 

if the changes would impact them. Similarly, Forest Service officials were 

concerned that potential changes in spectrum allocations could affect 

their ability to obtain data from their own ground-based weather 

observation systems because they currently rely on GOES-R 

communication channels to obtain this data.

GOES-R program officials noted that they provide regular briefings to the 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, an interagency council 

with membership from fifteen federal departments and agencies involved 

in meteorological activities (including the Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, and Transportation) and that the Air Force represents the 

Department of Defense community on the GOES-R Series Independent 

Advisory Committee. However, they acknowledged that they cannot 

ensure that the information they provide is disseminated within the 

agencies. Further, GOES officials explained that one reason for the 

distinction between the internal and external users is that the internal 

users belong to formal working groups and receive regular updates from 

the GOES-R program, while the other users generally have more informal 

or indirect connections with the program. Instead of direct 

communications such as e-mails, the other users may receive information 

about GOES-R requirements changes from publically available 

information or through other meteorological partnerships with NOAA. 

Without consistent and direct communication, users may be unaware of 

changes to program requirements that are critical to their respective 

missions. Because GOES-R users across the country have missions that 

preserve and protect property and life, it is critical that these organizations 

are made aware of any changes as soon as they are made, so that they 

can assess and mitigate any significant impacts.
 

Page 34 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Since 2007, NOAA has changed multiple system requirements on the 

GOES-R program. These changes involved strengthening or relaxing 

specifications on selected products, finalizing a decision not to develop 31 

products, and modifying programmatic requirements not tied to any 

individual product. For example, NOAA strengthened specifications for 

the geographic coverage, image resolution, and refresh rate on a product 

depicting total precipitable water, and strengthened accuracy 

specifications for a product depicting cloud layers and heights. NOAA 

also relaxed specifications to provide less measurement accuracy on a 

product depicting hurricane intensity, less geographic coverage on a 

product depicting sea surface temperatures, less resolution on a product 

that tracks the motion of clouds through the atmosphere, and less timely 

updates on a product depicting lightning detection. The GOES-R program 

also documented NOAA’s earlier decision not to develop or provide 31 

products that it labeled as optional, noting that the products will only be 

developed if funding becomes available. In addition, programmatic 

changes include the elimination of 97 percent mission availability as a 

measure of minimum performance success and the decision not to 

transmit raw satellite data to users. Table 14 provides an overview of key 

changes in product and program requirements since 2007.

Table 14: Summary of Key Changes in Product and Program Requirements between 2007 and 2012 

Type of 

Change November 2007 October 2012

Product 34 products, each with specifications for accuracy, 

geographic coverage, resolution, and timeliness

34 products, of which:

20 (59%) were modified

• 14 had changes in accuracy measurement

• 7 had changes in geographic coverage

• 3 had changes in horizontal resolution

• 8 had changes in refresh rate/latency

34 optional products 2 optional products were eliminated

1 optional product was combined with another optional 

product

31 optional products are not being developed

Program The satellites shall be capable of being configured to 

accommodate additional instrumentation with minimal 

redesign of the spacecraft. 

Requirement removed

The GOES-R series is required to meet or exceed the 

level of capability of the prior series of satellites (GOESN,O,P) for system continuity.

Requirement removed 

The GOES-R satellites are required to acquire and 

transmit the raw environmental data to ground stations 

to allow for the timely and accurate processing of data.

While the program is still required to relay GOES-R sensor 

data, the requirement to acquire and transmit raw data has 

been removed. 

GOES-R Program Has 

Undergone Multiple Changes in 

Requirements; Selected 

Changes Could Affect User 

Operations
 

Page 35 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Type of 

Change November 2007 October 2012

GOES-R is required to meet or exceed the prior series 

of satellites’ capabilities for storage of environmental 

data.

The program is required to make products available to 

NOAA Archival Data Centers, but capabilities for storing the 

data are not specified.

The GOES-R system need date is specified as 

December 2014.

Requirement removed

GOES-R is required to achieve “full operational 

capability,” which is defined, in part, as full coverage of 

the east and west positions.

The requirement for full operational capability was 

strengthened to include the production and availability of the 

full product set of satellite data to users.

Minimum performance success is defined as 97 percent 

mission availability for collecting, generating, and 

distributing key products over a defined central 

coverage zone.

Minimum performance success is redefined as the 

successful generation and availability of key functions to 

users. The availability percentage has been removed.

The operational lifetime of the GOES-R series shall 

extend through 2028.

The individual GOES-R satellites’ lifetimes shall be 5 years 

in on-orbit storage plus 10 years in operation.

Requirements for a remote backup facility not specified Addition of requirements for a remote backup facility

Failover time to backup satellite or backup ground 

facility not mentioned

This information is now included.

Requirements do not specify the locations of the 

satellites in on-orbit storage

Added requirements that specify the satellites’ checkout 

location and the location of on-orbit satellite storage

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation.

While NOAA officials stated that they believe that only one of the changes 

that were made since 2007 was significant,24 internal and external users 

noted that they found many of the changes to be significant. In addition, 

selected satellite data users noted concern at the loss of 17 of the 

optional products that are no longer being developed. The changes that 

users found significant, along with user reasoning for why these changes 

are significant, are listed in table 15. GOES-R program officials 

acknowledged that the National Weather Service and other users will 

have impacts from the loss or degradation of products, but that it is not 

always accurate to assume that GOES-R could have met the original 

requirements. In 2011, an algorithm development executive board 

reported that several original requirements could not have been met 

because, among other reasons, they relied on a hyperspectral instrument 

that was removed from the program, the requirements were poorly stated 

and it only became evident later that GOES could not support them, and 

 

24 NOAA officials stated that the sole significant change was a reduction in the accuracy 

requirement for the magnetometer, and demonstrated that they had obtained approval 

from the most pertinent user community, the National Weather Service’s Space Weather 

Prediction Center, before making the change. 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

there were scientific limitations on the development of the products that 

only became evident after development had started. Program officials 

stated that they have identified alternative methods for obtaining certain 

products (some outside the scope of GOES-R) and that they are 

proactively trying to develop alternative products in coordination with 

users and other development organizations.

Table 15: User Concerns about Key Changes or Deviations in Requirements 

Product Change User concerns

Cloud top height Relaxation of accuracy 

requirements

Navy officials reported that this change will likely cause significant errors, which will 

reduce the utility of the cloud top height measurements. 

Downward 

shortwave 

radiation

Relaxation of accuracy 

requirements

Navy officials reported that the larger accuracy ranges might make this product difficult 

to use in a statistically significant way.

Reflected 

shortwave 

radiation

Relaxation of accuracy 

requirements

Navy officials reported that the larger accuracy ranges might make this product difficult 

to use in a statistically significant way.

Derived stability 

indices

Relaxation of resolution 

requirements

Officials from both the Navy and the Federal Aviation Administration expressed 

concern about this change. The Federal Aviation Administration reported that the 

reduction in horizontal resolution might result in reduced forecast accuracy and a 

reduced ability to verify convection, which is useful for predicting severe storms. 

Lightning 

detection

Reduction in product 

timeliness

Officials from the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about this 

change. They reported that a delay in refresh times could be significant for aviation 

operations, especially over water areas that rely on satellite data for coverage. In 

these areas, lightning will be used as an indicator of storm formation and delays in 

detection and transmission could impact situational awareness. 

Magnetometer 

(geomagnetic 

field)

Reduction of magnetic 

field accuracy 

requirements

The National Weather Service’s Space Weather Prediction Center found this change 

acceptable for the purposes of GOES-R data, but determined that the reduction of the 

accuracy requirements would noticeably increase error in the instrument’s readings of 

solar energy and the geomagnetic field. 

Aerosol particle 

size

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Navy expressed 

concern about not receiving this product. The Forest Service reported that this product 

would help them monitor and manage air quality.

Aircraft icing 

threat

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that this product would be useful 

because icing is a major hazard for safe air travel.

Cloud layers / 

heights

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center and the Navy 

expressed concern about not receiving this product. The Aviation Weather Center 

reported that this product would help prevent aviation accidents caused by low 

visibility. Low cloud ceiling and visibility was associated with about 20 percent of all 

aviation accidents from 1994 to 2003. 

Cloud liquid water An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center and the Navy 

expressed concern about not receiving this product. The Aviation Weather Center 

reported that this product might help identify regions with low visibility. Because low 

visibility is associated with airline accidents, this product would help prevent aviation 

accidents.
 

Page 37 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Product Change User concerns

Cloud type An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that, as it is related to the icing threat, 

this product would help air traffic controllers know if a cloud was made of ice, water, or 

a mixture of the two. 

Convective 

initiation

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center expressed 

concern about not receiving this product because new convection is critical to air traffic 

flow management, and convection is a major hazard for safe and efficient flight. In 

addition, officials from the Navy, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the 

Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service were concerned by the loss of this product. 

The Forest Service officials reported that the loss of this product could impact its ability 

to locate potential ignition areas for wildland fires. The National Weather Service’s 

Storm Prediction Center also stated that this product was likely to have had a positive 

impact on its mission, which is to predict and monitor high impact weather events such 

as tornadoes.

Enhanced “V”/ 

overshooting top 

detection

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that this product would indicate the 

location of turbulence and convection, thereby helping to improve the safety and 

efficiency of air travel. The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center also 

stated that this product was likely to have had a positive impact on its mission.

Flood/standing 

water

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Navy expressed 

concern about not receiving this product. Forest Service officials are concerned that 

the removal of this product would impact their management of and response to 

hazards and disasters. 

Ice cover An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Environmental Modeling Center and the 

Navy expressed concern about not receiving this product. The Environmental 

Modeling Center reported that ice cover data would help assimilate data received from 

the sounding sensors.

Low cloud and 

fog

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that this product would help prevent 

aviation accidents caused by low visibility. Low ceiling and visibility accounted for 

about 20 percent of all aviation accidents from 1994 to 2003. 

Ozone total An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service are concerned that the 

removal of this product would impact its ability to monitor and manage air quality.

Probability of 

rainfall 

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that the loss of this product is 

significant because heavy rainfall relates to air traffic planning and the efficiency of 

airport operations, and heavy rainfall is correlated with low ceiling and low visibility 

and/or convection. Officials from the Department of Agriculture were also concerned 

that the loss of this product would impact their predictive services. 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Product Change User concerns

Rainfall potential An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that the loss of this product is 

significant because heavy rainfall relates to air traffic planning and the efficiency of 

airport operations, and heavy rainfall is correlated with low ceiling and low visibility 

and/or convection. Officials from the Department of Agriculture were also concerned 

that the loss of this product would impact their predictive services. 

Tropopause 

folding turbulence 

prediction

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern about not receiving this 

product. The Aviation Weather Center reported that the loss of this product is

significant because turbulence is a major hazard for safe air travel.

Vegetation 

fraction (green 

vegetation)

An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service are concerned by the loss 

of this product because it would help with forest health monitoring and fire danger 

assessments. Officials from the National Weather Service’s Environmental Modeling 

Center also expressed concern about not receiving this product because it would help

them analyze and predict temperature differences and precipitation.

Vegetation index An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service are concerned by the loss 

of this product because it would help with forest health monitoring and fire danger 

assessments.

Visibility An optional product; not 

planned to be developed 

or provided.

Officials from the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center, the Navy, the 

Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service 

expressed concern about the loss of this product. The Aviation Weather Center 

reported that this product would help prevent aviation accidents caused by low 

visibility, and the Forest Service reported that it would have helped with air quality 

monitoring and management.

Source: GAO analysis of federal agency responses.

In addition to the changes that have already been implemented on the 

GOES-R program, there are other potential changes that could occur. For 

example, by the end of 2013, the program plans to decide whether or not 

to include the Geostationary Lightning Mapper on the GOES-R satellite. 

Also, there could be changes in the spectrum allocated to weather 

satellite data. Officials from the National Weather Service and Forest 

Service raised concerns that these potential changes could also affect 

their operations. Because these changes have the potential to impact 

satellite data user operations, it is critical that the GOES-R program 

communicates program changes to the extended user community. By 

doing so, satellite data users can establish plans to mitigate any shortfalls 

in data and minimize the impact of the changes on their operations.
 

Page 39 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

GOES satellite data are considered a mission-essential function because 

of their criticality to weather observations and forecasts. These 

forecasts—such as those for severe storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes—

can have a substantial impact on our nation’s people, infrastructure, and 

economy. Consequently, NOAA policy requires that there must be two inorbit GOES satellites and one on-orbit spare in operation at all times. If 

one of the operational satellites were to fail, the on-orbit spare could be 

moved into position to take the place of the failed satellite. However, if 

there are delays in the launch of the GOES-R satellite or if either of the 

two satellites currently in operation were to fail, NOAA would not have an 

on-orbit spare to fill the gap.

Government and industry best practices call for the development of 

contingency plans to maintain an organization’s essential functions in the 

case of an adverse event.25 These practices include key elements such 

as defining failure scenarios, identifying and selecting strategies to 

address failure scenarios, developing procedures to implement the 

selected strategies, identifying any actions needed to implement the 

strategies, testing the plans, and involving affected stakeholders. These 

elements can be grouped into categories, including (1) identifying failure 

scenarios and impacts, (2) developing contingency plans, and (3) 

validating and implementing contingency plans (see table 16).

 

25 See GAO, Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency 

Planning, GAO/AIMD-10.1.19 (Washington, D.C.: August 1998); National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems, 

NIST 800-34 (Gaithersburg, Md.: May 2010); Software Engineering Institute, CMMI® for 

Acquisition, Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010).

NOAA Developed 

GOES-R Contingency 

Plans, but 

Weaknesses Increase 

the Impact of a 

Potential Coverage 

Gap 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Table 16: Guidelines for Developing a Sound Contingency Plan 

Category Key elements

Identifying failure scenarios and 

impacts 

Define likely failure scenarios

Conduct impact analyses showing impact of failure scenarios on business processes and user 

requirements

Define minimum acceptable level of outputs and recovery time objectives, and establish 

resumption priorities

Developing contingency plans Define roles and responsibilities for implementing contingency plans

Identify alternative solutions to address failure scenarios

Select contingency strategies from among alternatives based on costs, benefits, and impacts

Develop “zero-day” procedures

Define actions needed to implement contingency strategies

Define and document triggers and time lines for enacting the actions needed to implement 

contingency plans

Ensure that steps reflect priorities for resumption of products and recovery objectives

Designated officials review and approve contingency plan

Validating and implementing 

contingency plans

Identify steps for testing contingency plans and conducting training exercises

Prepare for and execute tests

Execute applicable actions for implementation of contingency strategies

Validate test results for consistency against minimum performance levels

Communicate and coordinate with stakeholders to ensure that contingency strategies remain 

optimal for reducing potential impacts

Update and maintain contingency plans as warranted 

Source: GAO analysis of guidance documents from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Software Engineering Institute, 

GAO, NOAA, and the GOES-R program.

NOAA has established contingency plans for both its GOES satellites and 

its associated ground systems. In September 2010, we recommended 

that NOAA develop and document continuity plans for the operation of 

geostationary satellites that include the implementation procedures, 

resources, staff roles, and timetables needed to transition to a single 

satellite, a foreign satellite, or other solution. In September 2011, the 

GOES-R program provided a draft plan documenting a strategy for 

conducting operations if there were only a single operational satellite. In 

December 2012, the program provided us with a final version of this plan. 

It included scenarios for three, two, and one operational satellites. In 

addition to this satellite contingency plan, NOAA has another 

contingency-related plan with activation procedures for its satellites.

Furthermore, the NOAA office responsible for ground-based satellite 

operations and products has created plans for contingency operations at 

the GOES ground system facility, the Satellite Operations Control Center. 

Specifically, NOAA’s plans describe the transfer of critical functions to a 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

backup facility during an emergency. The continuity plan contains, among 

other things, descriptions of the alternate locations for resources, and the 

performance of key functions and implementation procedures.

When compared to best practices, NOAA’s satellite and ground system 

contingency plans had many strengths and a few weaknesses. 

Specifically, the satellite contingency plan fully implemented seven 

elements, partially implemented nine elements, and did not implement 

one element. The ground system contingency plan fully implemented ten 

elements, partially implemented six elements, and one element was not 

applicable. Table 17 shows the extent to which the satellite and ground 

system contingency plans fully implemented, partially implemented, or did 

not implement key contingency planning elements.

Table 17: Implementation of Key Contingency Planning Elements for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites

Category Key element

Satellite 

system 

Ground 

system Description

Identifying 

failure 

scenarios and 

impacts 

Define likely failure 

scenarios

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA has defined three likely failure scenarios for its 

satellite system—the loss of one, two, or all three satellites 

in the GOES constellation. The agency also defines the 

conditions that would constitute a satellite failure. NOAA’s 

scenarios are broad enough that they cover a wide range of 

situations, including a gap caused by a delay in the 

GOES-R launch. NOAA has defined likely ground system 

failure scenarios.

Conduct impact analyses 

showing impact of failure 

scenarios on business 

processes and user 

requirements

Not 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

NOAA did not conduct impact analyses showing the impact 

of satellite failure scenarios on business processes or user 

requirements.

NOAA conducted impact analyses of ground system 

outages and disruptions on business processes and user 

requirements; however, these analyses do not reflect each 

failure scenario. 

Define minimum 

acceptable level of 

outputs and recovery 

time objectives, and 

establish resumption 

priorities

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA defined minimum acceptable output criteria for 

satellites, instruments and products in its satellite plans as 

well as for business processes and subsystems in the 

ground system plans.
 

Page 42 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Category Key element

Satellite 

system 

Ground 

system Description

Developing 

contingency 

plans

Define roles and 

responsibilities for

implementing 

contingency plans

Partially 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

NOAA has defined roles and responsibilities for some, but 

not all, contingency operations in both the satellite and 

ground system plans. For example, the satellite contingency 

plan identifies roles and responsibilities for briefing 

management in the event of losing an operational satellite, 

but does not define responsibility for notifying users. The 

ground system contingency plans describe roles and 

responsibilities of three contingency teams, but do not 

clearly define the roles and responsibilities for the 

contingency coordinator. 

Identify alternative 

solutions to address 

failure scenarios

Partially 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

In its satellite contingency plan, NOAA identified alternative 

solutions to address satellite failure scenarios, including 

relocating and using older GOES satellites and requesting 

coverage by foreign satellites. However, NOAA did not 

identify alternative solutions for preventing delays in the 

GOES-R launch, which could cause a reduction in the 

number of satellites. For its ground systems, NOAA 

identified a solution for its failure scenarios: to switch 

operations to one of several backup locations. 

Select contingency 

strategies from among 

alternatives based on 

costs, benefits, and 

impacts

Partially 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

In both sets of plans, NOAA has selected contingency 

strategies to address failure scenarios; however, it did not 

provide evidence that it had selected these strategies from 

alternatives based on costs, benefits, and impacts.

Moreover, NOAA did not select strategies to prevent one of 

the most likely situations that would trigger a failure 

scenario: a delay in the launch of the GOES-R satellite.

Develop “zero-day” 

procedures

Partially 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA identified strategies and procedures for addressing 

GOES satellite failure scenarios, but did not establish 

associated time frames. NOAA developed zero-day 

strategies and procedures for the GOES ground system.

Define actions needed to 

implement contingency 

strategies

Partially 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA has defined high-level activities to implement satellite 

contingency strategies, such as relocation of a satellite to a 

central location and user notification of a switch to a single 

satellite—however, no detailed procedure steps are given 

for performance of these activities. NOAA has defined the 

steps to implement GOES ground system contingency 

strategies.

Define and document 

triggers and time lines for 

enacting the actions 

needed to implement 

contingency plans

Partially 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

NOAA has identified triggers and specific time lines for 

implementing satellite contingency plans. However, it has 

not established triggers or time lines for any actions it might 

take to prevent a delay in the GOES-R launch.

NOAA has identified two different triggers for enacting the 

ground system plan, but the plan does not describe which 

trigger is to be used.
 

Page 43 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Category Key element

Satellite 

system 

Ground 

system Description

Ensure that steps reflect 

priorities for resumption 

of products and recovery 

objectives

Partially 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

NOAA’s satellite contingency plan describes its recovery 

objectives and prioritizes GOES instruments and products; 

however, the steps for implementing contingency strategies 

do not reflect these priorities and objectives. Ground system 

contingency strategies establish priorities for resuming 

operations, but do not define recovery time objectives. 

Designated officials 

review and approve 

contingency plan

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

A designated official has reviewed and approved both sets 

of contingency plans.

Validating and 

implementing 

contingency 

plans 

Identify steps for testing 

contingency plans and 

conducting training 

exercises

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA has identified steps for testing GOES satellite 

contingency plans and has conducted exercises and 

simulations. NOAA has also identified steps for testing and 

conducting exercises and simulations on its ground system 

contingency plans. NOAA provides training to its operations 

staff on contingency operations for both the satellite and 

ground systems. 

Prepare for and execute 

tests

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA officials provided documentation showing preparation 

for and execution of regular maneuvers of on-orbit satellites. 

According to officials, these maneuvers are similar to the 

maneuvers identified as an action in the contingency plans. 

NOAA also prepared for and executed tests of its ground 

system contingency plans. 

Execute applicable 

actions for 

implementation of 

contingency strategies

Fully 

implemented

Not 

Applicable

NOAA has performed actions to implement contingency 

strategies, including activities to monitor the health and 

safety of the satellites, and to provide status information to 

management. Executing actions is not applicable for the 

ground system contingency plan, because that plan does 

not identify actions to be taken at the present time. 

Validate test results for 

consistency against 

minimum performance 

levels 

Partially 

implemented 

Fully 

implemented

NOAA tested a series of satellite maneuvers similar to those 

that would be used in the event of a failure, but did not 

demonstrate how these or other scenario tests would meet 

minimum performance levels. On the ground system, NOAA 

performed tests to validate contingency operations, and 

demonstrated that the transfer of responsibility meets 

minimum recovery performance levels.

Communicate and 

coordinate with 

stakeholders to ensure 

that contingency 

strategies remain optimal 

for reducing potential 

impacts

Partially 

implemented

Partially 

implemented

According to users, NOAA is proactive in communicating 

potential changes and impacts when issues develop, and 

responded quickly to a recent outage in a GOES satellite.

However, the contingency strategies currently in place of (1) 

switching to single satellite operations and (2) using a 

foreign satellite as a temporary replacement would have a 

major effect on user operations; NOAA has not provided key 

external users with information on meeting data needs 

under these scenarios. For example, the Forest Service

relies on GOES satellites to obtain data from its distributed 

ground-based observation network, but NOAA has not 

discussed potential mitigation options specific to this 

scenario. 
 

Page 44 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Category Key element

Satellite 

system 

Ground 

system Description

Update and maintain 

contingency plans as 

warranted

Fully 

implemented

Fully 

implemented

NOAA has updated and maintained contingency plans for 

both the GOES satellites and ground system. 

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA documentation.

NOAA has implemented most of the best practices on both the GOES 

satellite and ground contingency plans. Specifically, NOAA identified 

failure scenarios, recovery priorities, and minimum levels of acceptable 

performance. NOAA also established contingency plans that identify 

solutions and high-level activities and triggers to implement the solutions. 

Further, the agency has tested its contingency plans, trained staff on how 

to implement the contingency plans, and updated the plans when 

warranted. The agency also successfully implemented its contingency 

plans when it experienced problems with one of its operational satellites. 

Specifically, when GOES-13 experienced problems in September and 

October 2012, NOAA activated its contingency plans to move its back-up 

satellite into position to provide observations until GOES-13 was once 

again operational. While the agency has not needed to address the loss 

of a back-up satellite in recent years, contingency plans cover this 

situation by determining if older GOES satellites could provide coverage, 

moving the single satellite into a central position over the country, and 

seeking data from foreign satellites.

However, both satellite and ground contingency plans contain areas that 

fall short of best practices. For example, NOAA has not demonstrated 

that the contingency strategies for both its satellite and ground system are 

based on an assessment of costs, benefits, and impact on users. Further, 

the satellite plan does not specify procedures for working with the user 

community to account for potential reductions in capability under 

contingency operations. For example, officials from the Federal Aviation 

Administration noted that NOAA’s contingency plans do not define the 

compatibility, security, and standard protocol language they should use if 

a foreign satellite were to be utilized. Also, while selected users reported

that, in the past, they have been well informed by NOAA when changes in 

service occur, including the problems with GOES-13, others were either 

not informed or received information on outages through a third party. 

Moreover, selected users stated that certain contingency operations could 

have a significant impact on their operations. For example, Federal 

Aviation Administration officials stated that flight approaches in Alaska 

that were enabled using the Global Positioning System were affected by 

the GOES-13 outage in late 2012. As another example, Forest Service 
 

Page 45 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

officials explained that if GOES were to experience an outage and not 

have a backup satellite available, it was their understanding that NOAA 

would either move a single satellite into a central position over the country 

or obtain observations from a foreign satellite. Under both of these 

scenarios, they could lose views of wildland fires and their ability to obtain 

data from ground-based observation networks. Nearly all users stated 

that the effects of a switch to a single satellite or foreign satellite 

configuration would be significant.

In addition, while NOAA’s failure scenarios for its satellite system are 

based on the number of available satellites—and the loss of a backup 

satellite caused by a delayed GOES-R launch would fit into these 

scenarios—the agency did not identify alternative solutions or time lines 

for preventing a GOES-R launch delay. According to NOAA officials, a 

gap caused by a delayed launch would trigger the same contingency 

actions as a failure on launch or the loss of a currently on-orbit satellite. 

However, this does not take into account potential actions that NOAA 

could undertake to prevent a delayed launch, such as removing selected 

functionality or compressing test schedules. 

NOAA officials stated that their focus on primary users and on the number 

of available satellites is appropriate for their contingency plans. Given the 

potential for a delay in the launch of the GOES-R satellite and the 

expectation that there will be at least a year with no backup satellite in 

orbit, it is important that NOAA consider ways to prevent a delay in the 

GOES-R launch, and ensure its contingency plans are fully documented, 

tested, and communicated to affected stakeholders. Further, it is critical 

that NOAA and users are aware of how contingency scenarios will affect 

user operations. Until comprehensive plans are developed, it is less 

certain that NOAA can provide a consistent level of service and 

capabilities in the event of an early failure or late launch. This in turn 

could have a devastating effect on the ability of meteorologists to observe 

and report on severe weather conditions.

The GOES-R program is well on its way toward developing the first 

satellite in the series, but it continues to face risks that could delay the 

first satellite’s launch. Among these risks are issues we have previously 

raised on how the program manages reserve funds and implements 

sound scheduling practices. Specifically, the agency does not provide 

important details on its contingency reserve funds to senior executives, 

including the reserves allocated for each of the four satellites or key 

assumptions made in calculating reserves. Without this information, 

Conclusions 
 

Page 46 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

program officials could misinterpret the size of the remaining reserves 

and make poor decisions regarding the program’s future funding. The 

agency has improved selected scheduling practices, but others remain 

weak—in part, according to agency officials, due to the dynamic nature of 

scheduling a program as complex as the GOES-R satellite program. As 

the agency closes in on its expected launch date, technical issues in 

developing the space and ground segments and scheduling problems 

could make it more difficult to launch on schedule, and program officials 

now acknowledge that the launch date may be delayed by 6 months. Any 

delay in the anticipated launch date would expand a potential one-year 

gap in the availability of an on-orbit backup GOES satellite, and raise the 

risk of a gap in geostationary satellite data should one of the two 

operational satellites experience a problem.

While the agency has made multiple changes to GOES-R requirements in 

recent years, it has not effectively involved satellite data users in those 

changes. Specifically, internal NOAA and external satellite data users 

were not fully informed about changes in GOES-R requirements and did 

not have a chance to communicate their concerns about the impact these 

changes could have on their ability to perform their missions. Many of 

these users expressed concerns about the effect these changes could 

have on their ability to fulfill their missions, including facilitating air traffic, 

conducting military operations, and fighting wildland fires. Until NOAA 

improves its outreach and communication with external satellite data 

users, its changes in requirements could cause unexpected impacts on 

critical user operations.

Given the possibility of a gap in geostationary satellite coverage, NOAA 

has established contingency plans for both its GOES satellites and 

ground systems; these plans include the likely scenario in which there will 

not be an on-orbit backup. While these plans include many elements 

called for in industry best practices, the satellite contingency plan did not 

assess the potential impacts of a failure on users, or specify actions for 

working with the user community to address these potential reductions in 

capability under contingency operations. They also did not identify 

alternative solutions or time lines for preventing a delay in the GOES-R 

launch date. The absence of a fully-tested and complete set of GOES-Rrelated contingency plans and procedures could have a major impact on 

levels of service provided in the event of a satellite or ground system 

failure.
 

Page 47 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

To address risks in the GOES-R program development and to help 

ensure that the satellite is launched on time, we are making the following 

four recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce. Specifically, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the NOAA 

Administrator to:

• Direct program officials to include information on the amount of 

reserve funding for each of the four satellites in the program as well 

as information on the calculation and use of reserves in regular 

briefings to NOAA senior executives, so that executives are fully 

informed about changes in reserve levels.

• Given the likely gap in availability of an on-orbit GOES backup 

satellite in 2015 and 2016, address the weaknesses identified in this 

report on the core ground system and the spacecraft schedules. 

These weaknesses include, but are not limited to, sequencing all 

activities, ensuring there are adequate resources for the activities, and 

conducting a schedule risk analysis.

• Improve communications with internal and external satellite data 

users on changes in GOES-R requirements by (a) assessing the 

impact of changes on user’s critical operations; (b) seeking 

information from users on any concerns they might have about past or 

potential changes; and (c) disseminating information on past and 

potential changes in requirements to satellite data users.

• Revise the satellite and ground system contingency plans to address 

weaknesses identified in this report, including providing more 

information on the potential impact of a satellite failure, identifying 

alternative solutions for preventing a delay in GOES-R launch as well 

as time lines for implementing those solutions, and coordinating with 

key external stakeholders on contingency strategies.

We sought comments on a draft of our report from the Department of 

Commerce and NASA. We received written comments on a draft of this 

report from Commerce transmitting NOAA’s comments. NOAA concurred 

with all four of our recommendations and identified steps that it is taking 

to implement them. It also provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated into our report, as appropriate. NOAA’s comments are 

reprinted in appendix II.

While NOAA concurred with our recommendation to include information 

on reserve funding for each of the four satellites in the program and 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 48 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

information on the calculation and use of reserves in regular briefings to 

senior executives, and suggested that its current processes fulfill this 

recommendation, we do not believe they do. Specifically, NOAA stated 

that the GOES-R program currently reports on reserve funding at two 

major monthly management meetings, which alerts management if 

reserves fall below designated thresholds for the remaining work on all 

four satellites. The agency also stated that its reporting of the percent of 

“unliened” contingency funding—the amount of contingency funding not 

allocated to a potential risk or issue—for the remaining work addresses 

our concern regarding whether there are sufficient reserves to complete 

the GOES-R series.

However, the GOES-R program does not currently identify the reserve 

funding needed for each individual satellite or provide details on how 

reserves are being calculated and used at the monthly management 

meetings. By not providing reserve information on the individual satellites, 

the program is not alerting management about potential near-term 

funding shortfalls. For example, maintaining a high level of reserves on 

the later satellites could mask a low level of reserves in the near-term for 

GOES-R and S. Such a scenario could affect the satellites’ development 

schedules and launch dates. Further, by not obtaining details on the 

assumptions made when calculating reserves and the causes of changes 

in reserve values, management is unable to determine if changes in 

reserve levels are due to the addition, subtraction, or use of funds, or to 

changes in the assumptions used in the calculations. Given the 

importance of reserve funds in ensuring the satellite development 

remains on track, management should be aware of reserve funding levels 

for each individual satellite and of the underlying reasons for changes in 

reserve levels. Therefore, we continue to believe that additional action is 

needed by NOAA to respond to our recommendation.

After we received agency comments and while our report was in final 

processing, NOAA notified us that the launch dates of the first and 

second GOES-R series satellites would be delayed. Given the late receipt 

of this information, our report reflects the previous launch date.

NASA did not provide comments on the report’s findings or 

recommendations, but noted that it would provide any input it might have 

to NOAA for inclusion in that agency’s comments.
 

Page 49 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of NASA, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested 

parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO website 

at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology

Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Our objectives were to (1) assess the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) progress in developing the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite-R series (GOES-R) program and in 

addressing key cost and schedule risks that we identified in a prior report, 

(2) evaluate the program’s efforts to manage changes in requirements 

and whether any significant changes have recently occurred, and (3) 

evaluate the adequacy of GOES-R contingency plans.

To assess NOAA’s progress in developing the GOES-R satellite program, 

we compared the program’s planned completion dates for key milestones 

identified in its management control plan and system review plan against 

actual and currently estimated completion dates. We analyzed monthly 

program status briefings to identify the current status and recent 

development challenges of flight and ground project components and 

instruments. To assess NOAA’s efforts to address key cost risks, we 

compared program-reported data on development costs and reserves to 

best practices in reserve funding as identified by the program’s 

management control plan, which, in turn, reflects National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration requirements. We calculated reserve 

percentages using program office data on development costs and 

reserves, and compared these calculations to the reserve percentages 

reported by the program to management. To assess NOAA’s efforts to 

address key schedule risks, we compared schedules for two key GOES-R 

components to best practices in schedule development as identified in 

our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.1 Similar to our previous 

report, we used a five-part rating system. We then compared our previous 

assessment to our current assessment to identify practices that were 

improved, stayed the same, or became weaker over time. We conducted 

interviews with GOES-R program staff to better understand milestone 

time frames, to discuss current status and recent development challenges 

for work currently being performed on GOES-R, and to understand how 

the program reports costs and reserve totals. We also examined the 

reliability of data on cost reserves and program schedules. Regarding 

cost reserves, we examined reliability by recalculating reserve 

 

1 See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing 

and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2009). In 

May 2012, GAO published updated guidance on scheduling best practices. See GAO, 

Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules—Exposure Draft,

GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2012). The updated guidance identifies 10 

best practices. In order to compare past and current results, we conducted our current 

assessment using the original 9 practices. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

percentages based on supporting data over a period of one year, and 

compared the results to those presented by the program to management.

Regarding schedules, we created a template that examined each 

schedule in areas such as missing logic, tasks completed out of 

sequence, and completed tasks with start or finish dates in the future. As 

a result, we found both the reserve information and the schedules to be 

reliable for the purposes of conducting our analyses.

To evaluate the program’s efforts to manage changes in requirements, 

we compared GOES-R practices for managing requirements changes 

against best practices, which we drew from several leading industry 

sources including the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity 

Model®–Integration, the Program Management Institute’s Program 

Manager’s Body of Knowledge, the Federal Information Security Controls 

Audit Manual and the Information Technology Governance Institute’s 

Control Objectives for Information and related Technology governance 

framework. We assessed GOES-R practices as having satisfied, partially

satisfied, or not satisfied each best practice. We analyzed changes from 

2007 to the present in the program’s Level I Requirements Document to 

determine the extent of the changes. We also identified concerns about 

these changes from a subset of satellite data users. We selected users 

from both inside and outside NOAA’s National Weather Service, the main 

GOES satellite user, based on several factors: the importance of GOES 

data to the organization’s core mission, the user’s reliance on GOES 

products that have changed or may change, and—for agencies outside of 

NOAA—the percentage of spending devoted to meteorological 

operations. The user organizations outside of NOAA included in our 

review were: the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of 

Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of 

Defense’s Navy and Air Force. User organizations inside of NOAA’s 

National Weather Service included the Aviation Weather Center, Space 

Weather Prediction Center, Storm Prediction Center, Environmental 

Modeling Center, and a Weather Forecast Office.

To evaluate the adequacy of GOES-R contingency plans, we compared 

contingency plans and procedures for both GOES satellites and the 

GOES ground system against best practices developed from leading 

industry sources such as the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity 

Model®–Integration, and our prior work. We analyzed the contingency 

plans to identify strategies for various failure scenarios and determined 

whether the satellite and ground system contingency plans fully 

implemented, partially implemented, or did not implement each of the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

practices. We also interviewed selected satellite data users to better 

determine the impact of a GOES failure scenario on their operations, and 

the level of communication they have had with NOAA satellite offices on 

current contingency plans.

We performed our work at NOAA, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and US Department of Agriculture offices in the 

Washington, D.C., area and at National Weather Service offices in 

Kansas City, Missouri; Norman, Oklahoma; and Sterling, Virginia. We 

conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to September 2013, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 53 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 54 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 55 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-13-597 Geostationary Weather Satellites

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, individuals making contributions 

to this report included Colleen Phillips (assistant director), Paula Moore 

(assistant director), Shaun Byrnes, Kathleen Feild, Nancy Glover, 

Franklin Jackson, Kaelin Kuhn, Jason Lee, Scott Pettis, Meredith 

Raymond, Maria Stattel, and Jessica Waselkow.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311276)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.