Order Code IB92011
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
Updated June 28, 2002
Marcia S. Smith
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Government Civilian Space Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Human Spaceflight
Space Science and Applications
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Commercial Space Programs
Military Space Programs
Interagency Coordination
International Cooperation and Competition
NASA and DOD Space Budgets
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
Military Space Issues
Early Warning Satellites: the SBIRS Program
Space-Based Lasers and Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapons for Boost-Phase
Missile Defense
Antisatellite Weapons and Space Control
NRO and NIMA
Space-Based Radar
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
Commercial Space and Trade Issues
International Relationships
LEGISLATION
See also: CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations; CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch
Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports; CRS
Report RL31347, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s FY2003 Budget
Request: Description, Analysis, and Issues for Congress; and CRS Report RS21148, Military
Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s Space-Based InfraRed System (SBIRS).



IB92011
06-28-02
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress is addressing a broad
space issues include management of a pro-
range of civilian, military, and commercial
gram (SBIRS) to develop new early warning
space issues.
satellites, and management of military and
intelligence space activities generally.
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) conducts the most
The appropriate role of the government
visible space activities. NASA’s International
in facilitating commercial space businesses is
Space Station (ISS) program is the most
an ongoing debate. For many years, the focus
controversial because it is over budget, behind
has been on commercial space launch ser-
schedule, and relies on Russia for some
vices, but commercial remote sensing satel-
hardware and services. Nevertheless, it has
lites also pose complex questions in terms of
survived 22 termination attempts in NASA
encouraging the development of commercial
funding bills since 1991. Other NASA issues
satellites that provide high quality data, while
are whether NASA is adequately managing its
protecting national security.
flight programs, ensuring the safe operation of
the space shuttle, effectively developing new
Space launch vehicles are similar to
launch vehicles, and facilitating space com-
ballistic missiles and concerns exist about the
mercialization. NASA requested $14.5 billion
potential transfer of certain space technologies
for FY2002; Congress approved $14.9 billion.
to countries intending to build missiles. U.S.
The FY2003 request is $15.1 billion.
linkage between space cooperation and adher-
ence to the Missile Technology Control Re-
The Department of Defense (DOD) has
gime was a significant factor in reaching
a less visible but equally substantial space
agreement on cooperative and commercial
program. Tracking the DOD space budget is
space activities with Russia, and creates a
extremely difficult since space is not identi-
complex relationship with China depending
fied as a separate line item in the budget.
on the political relationship between China
DOD sometimes releases only partial
and the United States.
information (omitting funding for classified
programs) or will suddenly release without
International cooperation and competi-
explanation new figures for prior years that
tion in space are affected by the world eco-
are quite different from what was previously
nomic situation and the post-Cold War politi-
reported. The most recent figures from DOD
cal climate. President Clinton’s 1993 decision
show a total (classified and unclassified)
to merge NASA’s space station program with
FY2002 space budget of $15.761 billion, and
Russia’s is symbolic of the dramatic changes,
a FY2003 request of $18.481 billion. DOD
and the risks.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB92011
06-28-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Senate passed the FY2003 DOD authorization bill (S. 2514) on June 27. The
House passed its version (H.R. 4546) on May 9. The House passed the FY2003 DOD
appropriations bill (H.R. 5010) on June 27. DOD’s FY2003 request for space activities is
$18.5 billion, compared with $15.8 billion appropriated in FY2003. Perhaps the most
controversial DOD space program is the Space-Based InfraRed System (SBIRS). The
program consists of two components, SBIRS-High (managed by the Air Force) and SBIRS-
Low (managed by the Missile Defense Agency). Both are over budget and behind schedule.
DOD is requesting $815 million for SBIRS-High in FY2003, an 83% increase over the $445
million appropriated in FY2002. For SBIRS-Low, $294 million is requested. The House
approved full funding for both in the FY2003 DOD authorization act (H.R. 4546), but cut
SBIRS-High by $70 million in the appropriations bill. The Senate cut $100 million from
SBIRS-High and $55 million from SBIRS-Low in its version of the authorization bill. See
CRS Report RS21148 for more on SBIRS.

Congress also is considering NASA’s FY2003 budget request of $15.1 billion, including
federal retiree costs. Without retiree costs, which ordinarily are not included in NASA’s
budget, the request is $15.0 billion. The $15 billion figure compares with $14.9 billion that
NASA received in FY2002, a 0.66% increase. The request reflects the Administration’s
decision to build the International Space Station only through a phase it calls “core
complete” (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017); to terminate proposed planetary exploration
missions to Pluto and Europa (a moon of Jupiter) and begin a “New Frontiers” program
to replace them; and to initiate research and development programs for spacecraft nuclear
power and propulsion. NASA FY2003 funding bills have not yet been introduced. The
House Science Committee has publicly indicated that it will not take up a NASA
authorization bill this year. NASA’s appropriations are considered as part of the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies bill, which has not yet been introduced in the House or Senate.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Government Civilian Space Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568, the “NASA Act”), symbolized
the entrance of the United States into the space age. The Soviet Union had successfully
orbited the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, on October 4, 1957, lending the U.S. space
program a new urgency. The first U.S. satellite, Explorer 1 (developed and launched by the
Army), was orbited on January 31, 1958 after several failures of the Naval Research
Laboratory’s Vanguard rocket. President Eisenhower’s desire to separate military and
civilian space activities led to the “NASA Act” and the creation of the civilian NASA on
October 1, 1958, with the Department of Defense (DOD) retaining control over military
space programs.
CRS-1

IB92011
06-28-02
Human Spaceflight. The Soviets achieved another space “first” on April 12, 1961,
when Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth. The United States responded by
launching Alan Shepard into space on May 5 (though he made only a suborbital flight; the
first American to orbit the earth was John Glenn in February 1962). Following Shepard’s
flight, President Kennedy announced that the United States intended to put a man on the
Moon within a decade, a goal accomplished on July 20, 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz
Aldrin walked on the Moon (a total of six 2-man crews walked on the Moon through 1972).
Apollo was followed by the Skylab space station (to which 3 crews were sent in 1973-1974)
and the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in which a U.S. Apollo spacecraft with 3 astronauts
and a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft with 2 cosmonauts docked for 2 days of joint experiments.
In 1972, President Nixon approved NASA’s space shuttle program to develop a reusable
spacecraft for taking crews and cargo into Earth orbit. The first shuttle flight occurred in
1981 and the system was declared operational in 1982. The Challenger tragedy in January
1986 suspended shuttle operations for 32 months, but all the missions since the shuttle
returned to flight in 1988 have been successful. Concerns remain about shuttle safety,
however (see CRS Issue Brief IB93062).
In 1984, President Reagan directed NASA to build a permanently occupied space
station “within a decade.” In 1988, Europe, Canada and Japan agreed to be partners with the
United States in building the space station. Redesigned and rescheduled repeatedly,
President Clinton called for yet another redesign in 1993 and later that year merged NASA’s
space station program with Russia’s. That program, the International Space Station (ISS),
is currently under construction (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017). Six major modules and other
hardware are in orbit, and the station is permanently occupied by successive three-person
crews rotating on 4-6 month shifts. Other astronauts and cosmonauts routinely visit ISS on
the U.S. space shuttle or Russian Soyuz spacecraft for shorter missions to exchange crews,
deliver supplies or more ISS segments, or exchange Russian Soyuz “lifeboats,” which must
be replaced every 6 months. Questions about Russia’s financial ability to fulfill its continuing
obligations to the ISS program, and substantial cost overruns on NASA’s part of the
program, make ISS an issue of continuing controversy. The Bush Administration has decided
to truncate construction of ISS at a phase it calls “core complete” in response to the NASA
cost growth. At that point, ISS crew size will remain at three, instead of increasing to seven
as planned. Consequently, less research may be conducted aboard the station. The other
countries participating in the program have expressed deep concern. Twenty-two attempts
in Congress since 1991 to terminate the program in NASA funding bills have failed.
Space Science and Applications. NASA has launched many spacecraft for space
science and applications. Robotic probes served as pathfinders to the Moon for astronauts,
and have visited all the planets in the solar system except Pluto. (Proposals to launch a probe
to Pluto are discussed under “NASA Issues.”) Many have been quite successful, but there
have been failures, too. In 1999, for example, two NASA Mars missions failed, at a
combined cost of $328.5 million. They reflected NASA’s “faster, better, cheaper” (FBC)
approach to scientific spacecraft, replacing large, complex spacecraft that can acquire more
information, but take longer and cost more to build. The last two of that type are Galileo,
which arrived at Jupiter in 1995 and continues to return data, and Cassini, now enroute to
Saturn. The FBC approach was subsequently scrutinized and NASA restructured its Mars
exploration program significantly. Instead of launching orbiter-lander pairs in 2001 and 2003
and a sample-return mission in 2005, NASA launched an orbiter in 2001 (Mars Odyssey)
CRS-2

IB92011
06-28-02
which is now orbiting that planet, and plans to launch twin landers in 2003, an orbiter in
2005, and additional spacecraft through the remainder of the decade. Plans for a sample-
return mission in the first half of the next decade have been terminated. NASA also has sent,
or plans to send, spacecraft to other planetary destinations, as well as comets and asteroids.
Space-based observatories in Earth orbit have studied the universe since the 1960s,
creating new fields of astronomy since space-borne telescopes can intercept wavelengths
(such as x-rays and gamma rays) that cannot penetrate Earth’s atmosphere. In the 1980s,
NASA embarked upon building four “Great Observatories” for studies in different parts of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Three have been launched: Hubble Space Telescope,
launched April 1990 (for the visible wavelengths); Compton Gamma Ray Observatory,
launched April 1991, deorbited June 2000; and Chandra X-Ray Observatory, launched July
1999. The fourth, Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), was reduced in size because
of budgetary issues. It is scheduled for launch in 2003.
NASA also has solar-terrestrial physics programs that study the interaction between the
Sun and the Earth. In FY2001, NASA began the Living with a Star program that envisions
the launch of many spacecraft over the next decade to obtain more accurate information on
how the Earth and society are affected by what has come to be known as “space
weather”—including, for example, negative effects of solar activity on telecommunications.
The 1960s witnessed the development of communications and meteorological satellites
by NASA, and in the 1970s, land and ocean remote sensing satellites. NASA’s role in this
aspect of space utilization traditionally is R&D. Once the technology is proven, operational
responsibility is transferred to other agencies or the private sector. NASA continues to
perform research in many of these areas. NASA’s major environmental satellite research
program today is the Earth Observing System (see Environment).
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Beginning in the 1960s, other civilian agencies became involved in space. At that time,
operation of weather satellites was transferred to what is now the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. The Landsat land
remote sensing satellite system was transferred to NOAA in 1979. (Later, NOAA oversaw
private sector operation of the system, but in 1992, Congress moved the program back into
the government; see below). The Department of Commerce is involved in space issues due
to its role in trade policy and export of items on the Commerce Control List, and has an
Office of Space Commercialization to facilitate commercial space businesses. In 1983, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) was given responsibility for facilitating and regulating
commercial launch services companies. This function is performed through the Federal
Aviation Administration. DOT and DOD co-chair a group that oversees use of DOD’s
Global Positioning System of navigation satellites. DOT represents civilian users and has
programs to augment the system’s utility to the civilian community. Other government
agencies involved in space include the Department of Energy, which develops nuclear power
sources for satellites; the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of Interior which
operates the Landsat satellites; the Departments of Agriculture and other departments that
use satellite data for crop forecasting and map making, for example; and the Department of
State, which develops international space policy and determines whether to grant export
licenses for items on the Munitions List (including some types of spacecraft and launch
CRS-3

IB92011
06-28-02
vehicles). The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the National Security Council also are involved.
Commercial Space Programs
Civilian communications satellites have been chiefly a private sector activity since
passage of the 1962 Communications Satellite Act (P.L. 87-624). Attempts to commercialize
other aspects of space activities have yielded mixed success. Congress has passed several
laws to facilitate the commercialization of space launch services for putting satellites into
orbit (the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act, the 1988 Commercial Space Launch Act
Amendments, the 1990 Launch Services Purchase Act, and the 1998 Commercial Space
Act). The development of a U.S. commercial launch services industry has been largely
successful. DOD and NASA continue to play a strong role in developing new launch
vehicles, though private companies are partnering with the government or developing their
own. The most controversial issues are the relative roles of the government versus the
private sector in developing new systems, ensuring that U.S. companies can compete with
foreign launch services companies, and trade and missile proliferation issues involved in
exporting satellites to other countries for launch. See CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
Congress also sought to facilitate commercialization of land remote sensing satellites
by privatizing the government’s Landsat program through the 1984 Land Remote Sensing
Commercialization Act ( P.L. 98-365). Such satellites provide imagery of the Earth that can
be used for land-use planning, environmental studies, mineral exploration, and many other
uses. After a tumultuous 8 years that saw the effort to privatize Landsat fail, Congress
repealed that Act and replaced it with the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L.
102-555), bringing Landsat back under government sponsorship. The Act also promoted
development of new systems by the private sector. Coupled with a 1994 Clinton
Administration policy, these actions led several U.S. companies to initiate programs to build
remote sensing satellites and offer imagery on a commercial basis. Those companies must
obtain an operating license from NOAA for such systems. The first successful launch of a
commercial imaging satellite, Space Imaging’s Ikonos 2, was achieved in September 1999.
Controversy over the fact that the imagery has military as well as civilian uses continues
to complicate this commercial space effort, however. Though not as precise as military
reconnaissance satellites, some of the private sector systems, such as Ikonos 2 and
QuickBird, can produce imagery with 1 meter or better resolution (the ability to “see” an
object or feature of a certain size). Competitors to U.S. commercial satellite imaging
companies include French, Russian, Indian, and Israeli companies that offer imagery with
10-meter, 2-meter, 1-meter, and 1-meter resolution respectively. Tensions between the U.S.
government and the private sector in implementing the 1994 Clinton policy to ensure that
national security is not harmed by commercial imagery sales prompted an interagency
review. One major issue is when the government can exercise “shutter control,” forcing
companies to discontinue obtaining or distributing imagery of certain parts of the world in
times of crisis. Shutter control is part of the 1994 policy, but the companies want greater
guidance on when it could be exercised. DOD took a different approach to controlling access
to imagery when the United States initiated attacks in Afghanistan. Through the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), for two months it bought exclusive rights to Ikonos
imagery of that area from Space Imaging so that no one else could use the data without
NIMA’s approval. The practice was dubbed “checkbook” shutter control in the media.
CRS-4

IB92011
06-28-02
Some groups complained that the media and relief agencies need that data, too. Another issue
is the government’s role in controlling to whom the imagery is sold and which countries may
invest in the U.S.-owned systems. U.S. companies want time limits on how long the
government can take to decide whether particular sales or investments will be permitted so
they can make wise business decisions. Under the 1992 Landsat Act, the Commerce
Department has 120 days to accept or reject license applications. However, Clinton
Administration policy required that Commerce consult with other agencies, including the
Departments of State and Defense. Those departments have no time limits.
Special issues have arisen regarding Israel. On October 7, 1994, Senator Bingaman and
63 other Senators sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce expressing concern that data
from Eyeglass (a U.S. system, subsequently renamed Orbview, that was to be built by Orbital
Sciences Corporation) that could be used against Israel would be made available to Saudi
Arabia, which was providing partial financing for the system and would be the location of
a ground station. The FY1997 DOD authorization bill (P.L. 104-201) included language
prohibiting the collection and release, or U.S. government declassification, of satellite
imagery of Israel unless such imagery is no more detailed or precise than what is available
from commercial sources.
Potential availability of commercial imagery also has a positive side for the military,
since the U.S. military and intelligence communities could reduce costs by acquiring imagery
commercially instead of building their own systems for some purposes. The House and
Senate Intelligence Committees have strongly encouraged NIMA to purchase commercial
imagery to augment classified imagery. The January 2001 report of the Independent
Commission on NIMA (see Military Space Issues) strongly endorsed NIMA acquisition of
commercial imagery, and supported the proposal to allow private sector companies to build
satellites with half-meter resolution.
Other potential commercial space activities are microgravity materials processing
(making products such as purer pharmaceuticals by utilizing the microgravity conditions in
space), space tourism, and space facilities such as Spacehab’s modules that fly inside the
space shuttle’s cargo bay for scientific experiments or carrying cargo.
Several bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress relating to commercial space
activities. H.R. 1707 (Berman), the Satellite Trade and Security Act; H.R. 1931 (D.
Weldon), the Spaceport Equality Act; and H.R. 2177 (Calvert), the Invest in Space Now Act,
all focus on commercial space launch issues and are discussed in CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
H.R. 2443 (Lampson) seeks to facilitate the emergence of a space tourism industry, but
would prohibit tourists from visiting the U.S. portion of the International Space Station, with
exceptions. H.R. 2504 (Rohrabacher) would create a tax exemption for certain emerging
commercial space activities.
Military Space Programs
The creation of NASA was a deliberate step by President Eisenhower to separate
military and civilian space activities. Among other things, he wanted to stress that the United
States was interested in the peaceful uses of space, but recognized that space had military
applications as well. The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military
CRS-5

IB92011
06-28-02
space activities be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Air Force is the
executive agent for most DOD space programs. The intelligence community (coordinated
by the Director of Central Intelligence) makes significant use of space-based intelligence
collection capabilities, and participates in managing satellite reconnaissance programs
through the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an agency within DOD. NRO builds
and operates intelligence collection satellites, and collects and processes the resulting data.
The data are provided to users such as NIMA and the National Security Agency (NSA).
How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space
matters has been an issue for several years. Congress established commissions to review the
NRO as part of the FY2000 intelligence authorization act (P.L. 106-120), and the U.S.
National Security Space Management and Organization (the “Rumsfeld Commission” or
“Space Commission”) in the FY2000 DOD authorization act (P.L. 106-65). A commission
was also created to review NIMA. The reports of these commissions are discussed below.
DOD and the intelligence community rely increasingly on satellites for reconnaissance,
surveillance, early warning of missile launches, weather forecasts, navigation, and
communications. The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War is dubbed by some as the first “space
war” because support from space displayed great improvement over what was available
during the previous major conflict, Vietnam. In the Persian Gulf War, space-based sensors
furnished commanders and staff at all levels with detailed information, often in near
real-time, and satellites were crucial for communications. GPS navigation satellites helped
U.S. and allied land, sea, and air forces pinpoint their own locations as well as enemy targets.
Satellites are providing similar support in the ongoing war against terrorism.
The separation between military and civilian space programs remains, but the functions
performed by satellites and the vehicles that launch them are not easily divided. Both sectors
use communications, navigation, weather, and remote sensing/reconnaissance satellites,
which may operate at different frequencies or have different capabilities, but have similar
technology. The same launch vehicles can be used to launch any type of military, civilian,
or commercial satellite. DOD uses some civilian satellites and vice versa.
DOD develops space launch vehicles, too. The Delta, Atlas, and Titan launch vehicles
were all initially developed by DOD, while NASA developed Scout and Saturn (both no
longer produced), and the space shuttle. All except the shuttle are “expendable launch
vehicles” (ELVs) that can only be used once (the shuttle is reusable). An August 1994
Clinton Administration policy gave DOD responsibility for maintaining and upgrading the
ELV fleet (through the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program), while NASA
maintains the shuttle and develops new reusable technology (see CRS Issue Brief IB93062).
After the Cold War ended, DOD and congressional interest in space weapons, both
those to attack other satellites (antisatellite, or ASAT, weapons) and weapons based in space
to attack ballistic missiles, declined initially, but since the 104th Congress, funding has been
added for these projects (see below). Using satellites to attack ballistic missiles has been
controversial since President Reagan’s 1983 announcement that he would initiate a Strategic
Defense Initiative to study the viability of building a ballistic missile defense system to
protect the United States and its allies. The Clinton Administration changed the name of the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) to reflect a new focus on theater missile defense in the wake of the Persian Gulf
CRS-6

IB92011
06-28-02
War, rather than national missile defense. The Bush Administration changed the name to the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to reflect its interest in broad missile defense goals (see
CRS Report RL31111). The concept of placing weapons in space as part of a missile defense
system remains controversial. H.R. 2977 (Kucinich) would ban U.S. space-based weapons
and require the President to initiate actions to adopt and implement a world treaty banning
such weapons. Whether missile defense weapons ultimately are based in space or on the
ground, a missile defense system would require satellites for early warning, communications,
and other support functions.
Interagency Coordination
Several mechanisms have been tried since 1958 to coordinate interagency space policy.
Dissatisfied with the Reagan Administration’s approach of using a Senior Interagency Group
(SIG/Space) under the National Security Council, in the FY1989 NASA authorization act
(P.L. 100-685), Congress re-created the National Space Council. The original council, which
included aeronautics, created in the 1958 Space Act, was abolished by President Nixon in
1973. Under President George H. W. Bush, the Space Council was headed by Vice President
Quayle. President Clinton decided to merge the Space Council functions into a National
Science and Technology Council, administered through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. It oversaw civil and commercial space policy; while military space
activities were overseen by the National Security Council. The Space Council still exists in
law, but it is not staffed or funded. Some space advocates hoped President George W. Bush
would reactivate the Space Council, but a mechanism called a Policy Coordinating
Committee (similar to SIG/Space) was chosen instead.
International Cooperation and Competition
Virtually every country in the world uses satellites for communications and obtaining
weather data, but the usual measure of whether a country is a member of the “space-faring”
club is its ability to launch satellites. By that criterion, Russia, the United States, China,
Japan, India, Israel, and Ukraine, and the European Space Agency (ESA), are members. ESA
developed the Ariane launch vehicle; Ariane launches are conducted by the French company
Arianespace. These countries, including many of the individual members of ESA, present
opportunities for cooperation in space, as well as competition. The 15 members of ESA are
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
The NASA Act specifically states that NASA may conduct international space
activities. Most NASA programs today have an international component. One of the major
cooperative projects today is the space station (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017). European
countries, both individually and through ESA, Canada, and Japan have participated in many
cooperative space programs with NASA. Most also compete with U.S. companies in space
activities such as launch services for placing satellites into orbit. Other competitors include
France, Russia, India and Israel in remote sensing, Europe in communications satellite
manufacturing, and Europe and Japan in microgravity materials processing research.
CRS-7

IB92011
06-28-02
Cooperation and competition between the United States and the former Soviet Union
attracted much attention. Competition with the Soviet Union was measured less in economic
terms than in prestige and national defense. The prestige competition may have ebbed, and
the reduction in military tensions has muted concerns about military satellites. Thus, the
main area of competition in the future may be on the economic front. However, Russian and
Ukrainian companies have joint ventures with U.S. firms to provide launch services, so
economic cooperation also exists.
NASA and DOD
NASA/DOD Space Funding
In Billions of Unadjusted Dollars
Space Budgets
20
)
) )
)
'
The majority of U.S.
)
) ' ' '
15
)
' '
)
)' ' )' '
)
' '
'
' ' ' '
government space funding goes
)
)
)
'
) )
) )
'
'
to NASA and DOD. This table
)
)
10
)
'
shows NASA and DOD space
' ' '
) '
funding, but must be used
' ' '
5
'
' ' '
'
)
'
' '
)
cautiously. Tracking the DOD
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'
space budget is difficult since
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
' ' '
0
space is not specifically
59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07
' NASA ) DOD
identified as a line item in the
DOD budget. OMB and GAO
Does not include Transition Quarter. See text for other notes.
provided CRS with DOD space
funding figures through FY1995 including funding for both unclassified and classified DOD
space programs. However, in 1996, the Director of Central Intelligence decided for the first
time to classify the NRO funding figure so total figures for DOD space spending were not
available for more than a year. In the summer of 1997, the Administration finally released
a number for the total DOD FY1996 space budget, $11.5 billion, but at the same time revised
numbers downward for FY1992-1995 without explanation. This table shows the data as
provided in the FY2000 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President (released in 2002),
with additional data from NASA’s FY2003 budget estimate (including out-year projections),
and FY2000-2003 data provided by DOD in April 2002. According to DOD, its FY2002
space budget is $15.761 billion, and its FY2003 request is $18.481 billion. NASA received
$14.9 billion in FY2002; its FY2003 request is $15.1 billion (including federal retiree costs,
or $15.0 billion without them). All NASA figures include aeronautics funding, ranging from
$400 million-$1 billion annually in recent years.
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
NASA currently is facing much uncertainty. The agency has a new administrator for
the first time in almost 10 years. Daniel Goldin, who had been appointed by President
George H.W. Bush and retained by President Clinton, stepped down in November 2001. A
career aerospace engineer, he was replaced by Sean O’Keefe. Mr. O’Keefe’s background
is public administration, and had served as the Deputy Director of OMB prior to being named
to head NASA. His appointment is viewed by many as a signal that striving for more
CRS-8

IB92011
06-28-02
effective management of NASA programs will be the Bush Administration’s primary near-
term goal for NASA.
Mr. O’Keefe inherits an agency that has been enjoying many mission successes both in
its human spaceflight and robotic programs. ISS has been operating with sequential 3-person
crews since November 2000, a new Mars probe correctly entered Martian orbit in 2001
(following the failure of two Mars probes in 1999), and several other scientific spacecraft,
including the Hubble Space Telescope, continually return data. On the other hand, NASA
also is coping with approximately $5 billion in additional cost growth on the ISS program.
Without mitigating steps, the ISS development cost would rise to $30 billion, 72% higher
than what had been forecast when this version of the program began in 1993. The Bush
Administration is making dramatic changes that could affect the extent to which ISS can host
a “world class” research program as intended. Some of the international partners in the
program—Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia—are reevaluating their participation if a
robust research program is not feasible. NASA’s Office of Biological and Physical Research,
which manages the research program for ISS, is in the midst of determining scientific
priorities so the research can be restructured to reflect the new budget constraints. An
independent task force reviewed the ISS program in 2001 (see CRS Report RL31216). Inter
alia
, it recommended cutting the space shuttle flight rate to ISS to four per year in order to
achieve $688 million in savings that could be applied to building ISS. NASA is lowering
the flight rate as recommended, but all the savings are being allocated to the shuttle program
itself, which also is under financial constraints. The future of the shuttle continues to be
debated. Some want more “privatization,” but the exact meaning of that concept is unclear.
In space science, the Bush Administration’s interest in a more robust Mars exploration
program, coupled with increased funding requirements for several ongoing programs in
response to lessons learned from the 1999 Mars failures, led NASA to terminate a planned
mission to Pluto—the only planet not yet visited by a NASA probe—and a Solar Probe in
its FY2002 budget request. Congress disagreed with those cancellations, however, and
restored both programs in the FY2002 VA-HUD-IA appropriations act (P.L. 107-73). In the
FY2003 budget request, NASA again would terminate the Pluto program, as well as a
mission to explore Europa, a moon of Jupiter. Data from another NASA probe, Galileo,
indicates that Europa may have liquid water, a scientifically intriguing discovery. Congress
approved the Europa mission in FY2002, capping its funding at $1 billion. The Bush
Administration concluded the Pluto and Europa missions were too expensive. Still, it
signaled support for space science generally, with total funding expected to increase from
$3.4 billion to $4.5 billion between FY2003 and FY2007. Included are two new initiatives:
a “New Frontiers” program in which proposals for new planetary exploration missions would
compete against each other; and investment in space nuclear power and propulsion
technologies that could enable spacecraft to reach their destinations more quickly and operate
for longer periods of time. In terms of developing new reusable space launch vehicles,
NASA initiated the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program in 2001 following the failure of
its X-33 and X-34 programs. The nearly $5 billion (over 5 years) program is viewed by some
as a potential source of funds for nearer-term requirements, but the Bush Administration
apparently sees SLI as a high priority. Funding would increase from $467 million in FY2002
to $759 million in FY2003.
NASA’s Earth Sciences program is focused on completing the launches of two dozen
satellites that comprise the first phase of its Earth Observing System, which provides data
CRS-9

IB92011
06-28-02
for studying global climate change. NASA developed a plan for a “follow-on” series of
missions, but several have been put on hold pending completion of a Bush Administration
government-wide plan for global climate change research.
In summary, virtually every aspect of NASA’s space activities faces challenges today.
Many see NASA struggling to match its ongoing and planned programs with the resources
it can expect, and wonder what the nation’s long-term goals are for NASA. H.R. 4742
(Lampson) would set long-term goals for the human space flight program, including
development and flight demonstration of reusable launch vehicles capable of taking humans
to the Moon and Mars.
Military Space Issues
DOD also is facing challenges in its space activities. Several DOD space programs are
facing significant cost growth and schedule delays, and, like NASA, DOD also is trying to
manage its space activities more effectively. Congress created a commission in the FY2000
DOD authorization bill to make recommendations on the overall management of national
security space programs. Chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, the Commission released its report
on January 11, 2001, shortly after Mr. Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense.
The Rumsfeld Commission (or “Space Commission”) made sweeping recommendations
for management of DOD and intelligence community space programs (see CRS Report
RS20824). Many expected that with Mr. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense (SecDef), space
activities would receive a high priority in the Bush Administration, and hoped that increased
funding would follow. Implementation of the Rumsfeld Space Commission
recommendations is taking longer than expected, however. The appointment of a new
Undersecretary of the Air Force, with enhanced responsibilities for DOD and intelligence
space activities, took all of 2001 (Peter Teets was confirmed in December). Also, as SecDef,
Mr. Rumsfeld has chosen not to adopt all of the Commission’s recommendations, deciding
not to create a new position of Undersecretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and
Information, for example. GAO issued a letter report in June 2002 summarizing the status
of implementation of the Rumsfeld Space Commission recommendations (GAO-02-772R).
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks significantly changed both DOD priorities and its
funding situation, and the impact on space activities is unclear, although for FY2003, the
request for space activities ($18.5 billion) is a significant increase over FY2002 ($15.8
billion). Much of that apparently will be devoted to compensating for cost growth in several
existing programs (see below), however, rather than funding new activities.
Meanwhile, DOD is changing its unified command structure. Currently, the Commander
in Chief (CINC) of U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) is “dual-hatted” as the CINC of the
U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). In October, the
CINC of the newly created Northern Command (NorthCom) will be dual-hatted as
CINCNORAD, and SpaceCom will merge with U.S. Strategic Command. The merged
command will be responsible both for early warning of, and defense against, missile attacks.
General Eberhart, current CINC of SpaceCom, is slated to become CINC of NorthCom.
Early Warning Satellites: the SBIRS Program. Among the most prominent
DOD-space programs is a new early warning satellite system, the Space Based InfraRed
System (SBIRS). This program is discussed in more detail in CRS Report RS21148.
CRS-10

IB92011
06-28-02
Briefly, DOD is attempting to develop more capable satellites to provide early warning of
foreign missile launches, and to support missile defense objectives. SBIRS was proposed
and approved in the FY1996 DOD budget. Today, it envisions satellites in both high orbits
(“SBIRS-High”) and low orbits (“SBIRS-Low”). SBIRS-High, managed by the Air Force,
would replace existing Defense Support Program satellites, with the primary goal of
detecting missiles when they are launched. SBIRS-Low, managed by the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA, formerly the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, BMDO), would track
missiles from launch to intercept or reentry; track warheads deployed from the missiles;
discriminate between warheads and decoys; and pass data to other systems that would
attempt to intercept and destroy the missiles or warheads.
SBIRS-High and SBIRS-Low have each encountered technical challenges, schedule
delays, and cost increases. Congress has expressed concern about the programs for several
years, and in the FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117), reduced funding for both
(see CRS Report RS21148). DOD’s FY2003 SBIRS-High request is $815 million, an 83%
increase over FY2002, all for RDT&E (none for procurement). The House approved that
funding in the FY2003 DOD authorization bill (H.R. 4546), but cut $70 million in the
FY2003 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5010). The Senate cut $100 million in its version
of the authorization bill (S. 2514).
The FY2003 request for SBIRS-Low is $294 million. DOD submitted a SBIRS-Low
restructuring program to Congress in April 2002 (see CRS Report RS21148) and indicated
that more money would be needed in FY2003 than was included in the request. The amount
was not specified. The House approved all the SBIRS-Low funding in the FY2003 DOD
authorization act (H.R. 4546) and the appropriations bill (H.R. 5010). The Senate cut $55
million in its version of the authorization bill (S. 2514).
Space-Based Lasers and Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapons for
Boost-Phase Missile Defense. Space-based lasers (SBL) and space-based kinetic
energy (KE) “hit-to-kill”weapons have been of interest in the context of missile defense since
President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program in 1983.
Conceptually, these weapons would be able to attack missiles while they are still in their
boost phase (from launch until burnout), prior to when warheads or decoys are deployed.
Funding for research on SBL has waxed and waned over the years. From 1995-2001,
Congress added funds to the DOD request for SBL ($50 million in FY1996, $70 million in
FY1997, $98 million in FY1998, and $74 million in FY1999 The FY1999 DOD
authorization conference report directed DOD to release promptly a request for proposals
(RFP) for a space based laser readiness demonstrator (SBL-RD). However, the Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board concluded that technology was not sufficiently advanced to
proceed with the SBL-RD, later renamed the Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX). The Air
Force restructured the program so that instead of choosing a single contractor, a Boeing-
Lockheed Martin-TRW team would jointly develop IFX, after which a spacecraft contractor
will be competitively selected. The companies completed a systems requirements review in
April 2001. Congress approved a total of $148.8 million for SBL in the Air Force and
defense-wide accounts for FY2000, and $148 million in those two accounts for FY2001.
For FY2002, SBL was transferred to BMDO, and $165 million was requested for the
IFX, plus $5 million for SBL optics. In the FY2002 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3338,
CRS-11

IB92011
06-28-02
P.L. 107-117), conferees cut $120 million from SBL. The IFX was effectively killed. In the
FY2003 budget justification material, the Missile Defense Agency (which supersedes
BMDO) shows that it will spend $49 million on SBL in FY2002, and is requesting $35
million for FY2003. The House approved that request in the FY2003 DOD authorization bill
(H.R. 4546) and the FY2003 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5010) The Senate cut $10
million in its version of the authorization bill (S. 2514).
The FY2002 budget also included funds for BMDO to resume work on space-based
kinetic energy (KE) weapons: $5 million for experiment design and $15 million for concept
definition. In the FY2002 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3338, P.L. 107-117), conferees cut
$10 million from the KE weapons study. The FY2003 request is $54 million, which the
House approved in the authorization bill, but cut by $40 million in the FY2003 DOD
appropriations bill (the committee recommended a $10 million cut, and another $30 million
was cut per a Spratt floor amendment). The Senate cut $30 million in its version of the
authorization bill.
Antisatellite Weapons and Space Control. DOD also has a long standing
interest in developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of
space to adversaries. For many years, antisatellite (ASAT) weapons designed to attack other
satellites in orbit were viewed as the primary means for denying the use of space to
adversaries. More recently, the term “space control” has come into use. Although ASATs
are one means of space control, the latter term includes other methods of denying the use of
space to adversaries, such as jamming satellite command links, or destroying ground control
and launch infrastructure. One disadvantage of ASAT weapons is that they may create
debris that could damage other satellites. In 2001, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Space
Command expressed reservations about using “kinetic energy” ASATs because of the
collateral damage that could be inflicted on U.S. government and commercial satellites
(Aerospace Daily, March 29, 2001).
An Air Force ASAT development program, using F-15 based interceptors, was
terminated in the 1980s because of limitations set by Congress on testing the system. An
Army ground-based kinetic-energy ASAT (KEAsat) program was later initiated, but was
terminated by the Clinton Administration in 1993 ( technology studies continued). DOD has
not requested KEAsat funding since then, focusing instead on other space control methods.
Congress has supported DOD budget requests for space control technology funding, and
also revived the KEAsat program in FY1996. DOD requested no funding for KEAsat, but
Congress added $30 million that year, $50 million in FY1997, $37.5 million in FY1998, $7.5
million in FY2000, and $3 million in FY2001. In a December 5, 2000 letter report (GAO-
01-228R) to Senator Robert Smith, GAO stated that the program was in disarray, and the
$7.5 million in FY2000 funding had not been released because there was no agreement on
a spending plan for the program. Defense Daily reported on February 7, 2001 (p. 4) that
Senator Smith and the Army had reached agreement and the Army would complete the
manufacture of three KEAsat kill vehicles. Aerospace Daily reported April 8, 2002 (p. 4-5)
that Senator Smith is seeking support from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to add funding
in FY2003 for two KEAsat flight tests and purchase 10 interceptors and related equipment.
No KEAsat funding is included in the FY2003 budget request now.
CRS-12

IB92011
06-28-02
As noted, Congress is supporting development of other space control technologies, too.
In FY1999, Congress added $15 million for space control, and allowed some of the $37.5
million allocated to KEAsat to be spent on space control. For FY2000, Congress added $3
million to the $9.8 million requested for space control technology. It approved the $9.7
million requested for FY2001, and approved $32.3 million of the $33 million requested for
FY2002. The FY2003 request for space control is $13.8 million. The House approved the
request in the FY2003 DOD authorization act (H.R. 4546) and the FY2003 DOD
appropriations bill (H.R. 5010), as did the Senate in its version of the authorization (S. 2514).
NRO and NIMA. Another aspect of national security space activities involves the
NRO. Revelations beginning in September 1995 about poor financial management at NRO
led to a review by a panel chaired by retired Admiral David Jeremiah. The 1997 Jeremiah
report made 47 recommendations. Some were adopted while others were referred for further
study. In response to continuing concerns, the FY2000 intelligence authorization act (P.L.
106-120) established a National Commission on the Review of the National Reconnaissance
Office. That Commission’s November 2000 report found that NRO requires the personal
attention of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence
and must remain a strong, separate activity focused on innovation. The Commission warned
that without such support, significant intelligence failures could result.
In the late 1990s, recognizing that future budgets could be constrained, NRO adopted
the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) plan calling for developing more, smaller, less
expensive intelligence collection satellites. Commercial imagery would be purchased to
augment NRO’s own data. Congress has expressed deep concern about the level of funding
available to NIMA for processing satellite data into usable products through “tasking,
processing, exploitation, and dissemination” (TPED) activities. The conference report
(H.Rept. 106-945) on the FY2001 DOD authorization act (P.L. 106-398) made extensive
recommendations re TPED and, in the classified annex to the FY2000 DOD appropriations
conference report, Congress created a commission to look at NIMA, including the TPED
issue. The Commission’s January 2001 report generally praised NIMA’s work, but
expressed significant concern with TPED, stating that “heroic measures will be required to
remedy the problems.” (Page xv).
Space-Based Radar. The FY2001 DOD appropriations (P.L. 106-259) and
authorization (P.L. 106-398) acts terminated the Air Force-NRO-Army Discoverer II
program that was to involve the launch of two satellites to demonstrate the ability of radar
satellites to track mobile targets on the ground. Instead, $30 million was provided to NRO
to develop and mature technologies for such a purpose. Concerns included whether
technology was sufficiently mature; the potential cost of an operational system (the House
Appropriations Committee estimated it at $25 billion); and whether DOD could use all the
resulting data. For FY2002, DOD requested $50 million for space-based radar development,
which Congress approved in the DOD authorization act ( P.L. 107-107). The appropriations
act (P.L. 107-117), however, cut that to $25 million. DOD’s request for FY2003 is $48
million in the Air Force RDT&E account. According to press reports, the Air Force also is
requesting another $43 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), for a total
of $91 million for space-based radar RDT&E. The House approved the $43 million in both
the FY2003 DOD authorization bill (H.R. 4546) and the appropriations bill (H.R. 5010).
The Senate approved the $91 million in its version of the authorization bill (S. 2514).
CRS-13

IB92011
06-28-02
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
Government and private sector launch vehicles are discussed in CRS Issue Brief
IB93062. Briefly, a 1994 Clinton Administration policy directive gave NASA primary
responsibility for maintaining the reusable space shuttle and developing new reusable launch
vehicles (RLVs), while DOD is responsible for expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). Private
sector companies also are developing new launch vehicles on their own or in partnership
with the government. U.S. government satellites must be launched on U.S. launch vehicles
unless the President grants a waiver. Government and commercial customers in the United
States and commercial customers abroad purchase launch services from launch service
companies in the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Ukraine, or India.
After the failure of an RLV technology development program called X-33 (see CRS
Issue Brief IB93062), NASA restructured its RLV program and initiated a new “Space
Launch Initiative” (SLI) through which it plans to fund several companies to develop new
RLV technologies. NASA plans to decide in 2006 whether to invest in extensive shuttle
upgrades, to anticipate private sector development of a new RLV, or to build a new RLV at
government expense (or through a government-private sector partnership). Meanwhile,
NASA is funding “safety and supportability” upgrades to the space shuttle to ensure its safe
operation. See CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
DOD is pursuing the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program to upgrade
U.S. expendable launch vehicles to reduce launch costs by at least 25%. Lockheed Martin
and Boeing are building two EELVs (Atlas 5 and Delta 4, respectively). They and DOD
shared the development costs, although press reports indicate that they are seeking to recoup
some of their expenses from DOD in the wake a downturn in the forecast for commercial
launch services. The first launches of the new vehicles are anticipated in 2002.
Several private companies are attempting to developing their own launch vehicles,
although market conditions make it difficult to raise financing. As noted earlier, two bills
have been introduced in the 107th Congress to encourage investment in such companies (H.R.
2177, Calvert) or associated facilities (H.R. 1931, D. Weldon).
Commercial Space and Trade Issues
Commercial space launch issues are discussed in CRS Issue Brief IB93062. Briefly,
the role of the government in encouraging the growth of commercial space businesses either
by direct or indirect subsidies, or policies that help stave off foreign competitors, continues
to be debated. Some argue that the government provides indirect subsidies to launch services
companies by allowing them to use government launch sites at nominal costs and providing
a guaranteed market for a certain number of launches. Others insist that the U.S. government
is doing no more than foreign governments.
The main competitors to U.S. companies today are Europe, China, Russia, and Ukraine
(Ukraine’s Zenit launch vehicle is used for the international Sea Launch joint venture that
also includes Boeing, Russia’s Energia, and Norway’s Kvaerner). Most of the satellites that
require launches are built in the United States or contain U.S. components, meaning export
licenses are required to ship them to the launch site. Thus, the United States has substantial
leverage over the success of these competitors in offering launch services. Bilateral
CRS-14

IB92011
06-28-02
agreements were signed with China, Russia, and Ukraine setting forth the conditions under
which they offer launch services, both the price they can charge compared to Western prices
and setting quotas on the number of launches. The quotas have since been eliminated for
Russia and Ukraine, and the agreement with China lapsed at the end of 2001. Concerns that
China acquired militarily useful information by launching U.S.-built satellites resulted in
new U.S. laws and regulations to ensure such technology or information is not transferred
to China or other countries. Aerospace industry representatives argue the new regulations
are hurting U.S. companies and are seeking revisions. (See CRS Issue Brief IB93062.)
As discussed, another commercial space issue concerns the sale of high resolution
commercial remote sensing data with very good resolution. At issue is how to allow U.S.
companies to compete in this market without sacrificing national security interests.
International Relationships
The shifting world political situation has allowed new relationships to evolve in
international space cooperation. Increased cooperation is the result not only of changed
political circumstances, but also of constrained budgets throughout the world. All the major
space-faring countries are questioning how much they should invest in space. The same
budget constraints may preclude the initiation of new programs if a critical mass of funding
is not available.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 2443 (Lampson)
Space Tourism Promotion Act. Introduced July 10, 2001; referred to Committees on
Science, and Ways & Means.
H.R. 2504 (Rohrabacher)
Zero Gravity, Zero Tax Act. Introduced July 16, 2001; referred to Committee on Ways
& Means.
H.R. 2977 (Kucinich)
Space Preservation Act. Introduced October 2, 2001; referred to Committees on
Science, Armed Services, and International Relations.
H.R. 4546 (Stump)/S. 2514 (Levin)
FY2003 National Defense Authorization Act. H.R. 4546 reported from House Armed
Services Committee May 3, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-436); passed House May 9. S. 2514 reported
from Senate Armed Services Committee May 15 (S.Rept. 107-151); passed Senate June 27.
H.R. 4742 (Lampson)
Space Exploration Act of 2002. Introduced May 15, 2002; referred to House
Committee on Science.
H.R. 5010 (Lewis)
FY2003 DOD appropriations act. Reported from House Appropriations Committee
June 25 (H. Rept. 107-532); passed House June 27.
CRS-15