Order Code IB92011
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
Updated April 11, 2003
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 and Space Launch Vehicles
Science Programs
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/STSS 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 RS21148, Military Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s Space-Based
InfraRed System (SBIRS),CRS Report RS21408, NASA’s Space Shuttle Columbia: Quick
Facts and Issues for Congress, and CRS Report RS21430, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration: Overview, FY2004 Budget in Brief, and Issues for Congress.

---

IB92011
04-11-03
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
SUMMARY
The 108th Congress is expected to
appropriations, but final figures for space
address a broad range of civilian, military, and
funding are not yet available. DOD space
commercial space issues.
issues include management of programs to
develop new early warning and missile track-
The National Aeronautics and Space
ing satellites, and management of military and
Administration (NASA) conducts the most
intelligence space activities generally.
visible space activities. The loss of the space
shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003, is
The appropriate role of the government
dominating debate over NASA’s future. The
in facilitating commercial space businesses is
space shuttle’s primary mission for the
an ongoing debate. For many years, the focus
foreseeable future is taking crews and cargo to
has been on commercial space launch ser-
the International Space Station (ISS). The two
vices, but commercial remote sensing satel-
programs are inextricably linked, and Con-
lites also pose complex questions in terms of
gress and the Administration face many is-
encouraging the development of commercial
sues, both near-term and long-term, about the
satellites that provide high quality data, while
shuttle and ISS. NASA requested $15.0
protecting national security.
billion for FY2003; Congress approved $15.3
billion (adjusted for the 0.65% across-the-
Space launch vehicles are similar to
board rescission, from which the shuttle
ballistic missiles and concerns exist about the
program was exempted). The FY2004 request
potential transfer of certain space technologies
is $15.5 billion.
to countries intending to build missiles. U.S.
linkage between space cooperation and adher-
The Department of Defense (DOD) has
ence to the Missile Technology Control Re-
a less visible but equally substantial space
gime was a significant factor in reaching
program. Tracking the DOD space budget is
agreement on cooperative and commercial
extremely difficult since space is not identi-
space activities with Russia, and creates a
fied as a separate line item in the budget.
complex relationship with China depending
DOD sometimes releases only partial
on the political relationship between China
information (omitting funding for classified
and the United States.
programs) or will suddenly release without
explanation new figures for prior years that
International cooperation and competi-
are quite different from what was previously
tion in space are affected by the world eco-
reported. The most recent figures from DOD
nomic situation and the post-Cold War politi-
show a total (classified and unclassified)
cal climate. President Clinton’s 1993 decision
FY2002 space budget of $15.761 billion, and
to merge NASA’s space station program with
a FY2003 request of $18.481 billion. Con-
Russia’s is symbolic of the dramatic changes,
gress completed action on the FY2003 DOD
and the risks.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB92011
04-11-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 1, 2003, NASA’s space shuttle Columbia broke apart during its descent
from orbit following a 16-day science mission. CRS Report RS21408 discusses the
Columbia tragedy. Until the cause of the accident is known, and remedial steps identified,
it is difficult to forecast the impact on NASA, the space program, or the FY2004 budget
request since NASA formulated its FY2004 prior to the tragedy. In that request, the Bush
Administration is requesting $15.469 billion for NASA, a 3.1% increase above the FY2003
request, or approximately 1% above the $15.314 billion appropriated for FY2003 (adjusted
for the 0.65% across-the-board rescission for all NASA activities except the space shuttle).
DOD has not yet calculated the total amount it is requesting for space activities in
FY2004—space funding is not grouped togther into a single account. DOD’s FY2003
request for space activities was $18.5 billion (the actual amount appropriated has not been
calculated yet), compared with $15.8 billion appropriated in FY2002. DOD’s efforts to
develop new early warning satellites is expected to remain controversial. Once called the
Space-Based InfraRed System (SBIRS) with two components, SBIRS-High (managed by the
Air Force) and SBIRS-Low (managed by the Missile Defense Agency), the latter has now
been renamed the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). Both SBIRS-High and
STSS have encountered schedule and cost problems that have led to program restructurings.
Congress fully funded SBIRS-Low/STSS for FY2003, approving $294 million. The request
for SBIRS-High was $815 million. That was cut by $30 million in the FY2003 DOD
appropriations act, and $40 million in the authorization act. For FY2004, DOD is requesting
$617 million for SBIRS-High and $300 million for STSS.
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.
Human Spaceflight and Space Launch Vehicles. 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
CRS-1

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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. Flights resumed in 1988, but on February
1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia was lost during its return to Earth. An investigation is
underway (see CRS Report RS21408). Until the cause of the accident is discovered, and
remedies identified, the impact of the Columbia tragedy cannot be usefully assessed. The
space shuttle is discussed in CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
In 1984, President Reagan directed NASA to build a permanently occupied space
station “within a decade.” The space station has been very controversial since it began.
Twenty-two attempts in Congress since 1991 to terminate the program in NASA funding
bills have failed. 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 has been permanently occupied by successive three-
person crews rotating on 4-6 month shifts since November 2000. Other astronauts and
cosmonauts routinely have visited 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. Cost growth led the
Bush Administration to decide to truncate construction of ISS at a phase it calls “core
complete.” This decision was controversial because a that point, ISS crew size would have
to remain at three, instead of increasing to seven as planned. That raised concerns about how
much research could be conducted there, since NASA said it took 2 ½ people to operate the
station, leaving little time for research. The space shuttle is currently grounded because of
the February 2003 Columbia tragedy. NASA and the other partners are assessing how to
operate the space station without the shuttle temporarily. See CRS Issue Brief IB93017 for
the status of those activities.
The space shuttle is NASA’s sole means of launching humans into space. NASA,
sometimes in concert with DOD, has been attempting since the 1980s to develop a
replacement for the space shuttle. In November 2002, NASA refocused its most recent
effort, the Space Launch Initiative, in a different direction. NASA announced that it now
plans to keep the shuttle operational at least until 2015, and perhaps until 2020 or longer.
What impact the Columbia tragedy will have on that decision is not yet known. See CRS
Issue Brief IB93062 for more information.
Science Programs. NASA has launched many spacecraft for space and earth
science. Robotic probes served as pathfinders to the Moon for astronauts, and have visited
all the planets in the solar system except Pluto, and a mission to Pluto is expected to be
CRS-2

---

IB92011
04-11-03
launched in 2006. Many of the probes have been quite successful, but there were 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 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) 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 planets, 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).
NASA also has an Office for Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) that conducts
research related to ensuring that humans can live and work safely and effectively in space,
and for fundamental research that can be conducted in microgravity environments. The
space shuttle Columbia’s final mission (STS-107) was devoted in large part to OBPR
experiments. The loss of much of the data acquired during Columbia’s 16-day mission, and
the impact of that tragedy on scientific use of the space station while the shuttle fleet is
grounded, are challenges currently facing OBPR.
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
CRS-3

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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
vehicles). The National Security Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 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, 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.
CRS-4

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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, two operating U.S. private sector satellites, Ikonos 2 (owned by
Space Imaging) and QuickBird (owned by DigitalGlobe), produce imagery with 1 meter and
0.6 meter resolution (the ability to “see” an object or feature of a certain size), respectively.
Competitors to U.S. commercial satellite imaging companies include French, Russian,
Indian, and Israeli companies that offer imagery with 2.5-meter, 1-meter, 1-meter, and 1.8-
meter resolution respectively. Tensions between the U.S. government and the private sector
over policy set by the Clinton Administration in 1994 to ensure that national security is not
harmed by commercial imagery sales continue. The National Security Council is currently
reviewing commercial remote sensing policy, with recommendations due in November 2002.
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. For two months, the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) 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. 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
CRS-5

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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.
H.R. 644 (D. Weldon), the Spaceport Equality Act, would treat spaceports the same as
airports under exempt facility bond rules.
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
space activities be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Air Force is the
executive agent for 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); 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); and NIMA in the
classified annex to the FY2000 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 106-79).
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
CRS-6

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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
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. 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 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 (NSC), 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. On July 28, 2002, in NSPD-15,
President Bush directed the NSC to chair a review of national space policies. The space
shuttle Columbia tragedy has delayed completion of that review, which had been due by the
end of March 2003.
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
CRS-7

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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.
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 Space Budgets
The majority of U.S. government space funding goes to NASA and DOD. This table
shows NASA and DOD space
funding, but must be used
NASA/DOD Space Funding
cautiously. Tracking the DOD
In Billions of Unadjusted Dollars
space budget is difficult since
20
)
) )
space is not specifically
)
'
)
) ' ' '
identified as a line item in the
15
)
' '
)
)' ' )' '
)
' '
'
' ' ' '
)
)
)
DOD budget. OMB and GAO
'
) )
) )
' '
provided CRS with DOD
)
)
10
)
'
space funding figures through
' ' '
) '
FY1995 including funding for
' ' '
5
'
' ' '
'
)
'
' '
)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
both unc l a ssified and
'
cl assified DOD space
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
' ' '
0
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
programs. However, in 1996,
' NASA ) DOD
the Director of Central
Intelligence decided for the
Does not include Transition Quarter. See text for other notes.
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
CRS-8

---

IB92011
04-11-03
billion, and its FY2003 request was $18.481 billion. Final FY2003 appropriations, and the
FY2004 space request, has not yet been calculated by DOD. NASA received $14.9 billion
in FY2002; $15.3 billion in FY2003; and the FY2004 request is $15.5 billion. All NASA
figures include aeronautics funding, ranging from $400 million-$1 billion annually in recent
years.
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
The space shuttle Columbia accident on February 1, 2003 undoubtedly will be the focus
of attention at NASA for some time. Apart from the human tragedy, there are practical
aspects of grounding the shuttle fleet that affect the space station and the Hubble Space
Telescope programs. The shuttle is used to service Hubble (the next servicing mission was
scheduled for 2004), and takes crews and cargo to and from the International Space Station
(ISS), which is under construction in orbit. The Columbia tragedy and questions arising from
it are discussed in CRS Report RS21408, CRS Issue Brief IB93017, and CRS Issue Brief
IB93062, and will not be repeated here. The key question from a NASA-wide standpoint is
what impact the Columbia tragedy may have on the agency, and on the space program
overall, as the public and policy makers debate the benefits of human space exploration
versus its risks and costs. Some may argue that more emphasis should be placed on robotic
exploration instead of risking human lives, while others may view the tragedy as the time to
recommit to the vision of human space exploration as humanity’s destiny.
NASA conducts many other activities separate from human spaceflight, and issues may
arise with some of those programs, too. For example, NASA is requesting $279 million in
FY2004 for Project Prometheus, which is the combination of NASA’s Nuclear System
Initiative (NSI) and a Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). The 5-year (FY2004-2008) budget
projection for Project Prometheus is $3 billion. NASA estimates that JIMO would be
launched in 2012 to 2013, and the total estimated program cost through 2012 is $8-9 billion,
although NASA stresses that the estimate is very preliminary. The NSI portion of Project
Prometheus was approved in the FY2003 budget, and will develop space nuclear power and
propulsion for planetary spacecraft. JIMO, a new request in the FY2004 budget, is a
spacecraft designed to successively orbit three of Jupiter’s moons (Europa, Callisto, and
Ganymede) to determine if liquid water is present beneath their surfaces. Water is essential
to life, and the discovery of liquid water would suggest the possibility of that life. NASA
had been planning a mission to Europa, which was supported by the planetary science
community and Congress. In the FY2003 budget, however, NASA canceled the Europa
mission because it was too expensive. The decision to initiate an even more expensive
mission may raise questions. Congress did appropriate $20 million for JIMO in the FY2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), however, even though NASA did not
request funding for it in FY2003. Congress approved NASA’s request to initiate the NSI,
but cut $19 million from the $125 million request. It should be noted that in the FY2004
budget, NASA moved to “full cost accounting” where personnel and facilities costs are
included in program budgets, instead of being accounted for separately, as in the past. Thus,
FY2003 (and prior) budget figures are not directly comparable to FY2004 figures. See CRS
Report RL31821 for a discussion of full cost accounting and other changes in NASA’s
budget structure in FY2004.
CRS-9

---

IB92011
04-11-03
In addition to programmatic issues, NASA also is seeking to address human capital
challenges stemming from its aging workforce. Human capital is a government-wide issue
addressed the President’s Management Agenda, but NASA is hoping that, in the wake of the
Columbia tragedy, Congress will pass legislation providing it more flexibility in hiring and
retaining workers without waiting for broader legislation for the entire government. H.R.
1085 (Boehlert) and S. 610 (Voinovich) have been introduced to address the NASA issues.
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 for a synopsis). 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. 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 has changed its unified command structure. The Commander in
Chief (CINC) of U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) was “dual-hatted” as the CINC of the
U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). As of October
1, 2002, the Commander of the newly created Northern Command (NorthCom) is dual-hatted
as the Commander of NORAD, and SpaceCom was merged with U.S. Strategic Command
(StratCom). Hence, Space Command no longer exists. (The term “Commander in Chief”
also has been eliminated for military officers; it refers now only to the President. Those who
lead the unified commands are now designated simply as “Commander.”) The revamped
StratCom is responsible both for early warning of, and defense against, missile attacks.
Early Warning Satellites: the SBIRS/STSS 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. 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 and low orbits. The high orbit system, SBIRS-High, is managed by the Air Force,
CRS-10

---

IB92011
04-11-03
and would replace existing Defense Support Program satellites, with the primary goal of
detecting missiles when they are launched. The low orbit system was called SBIRS-Low,
but was renamed the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) in 2002. It is
managed by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and 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/STSS 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 was $815
million, an 83% increase over FY2002, all for RDT&E (none for procurement). The
FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) cut the program by $30 million. The
FY2003 DOD authorization act (P.L. 107-314) cut $40 million.
The FY2003 request for SBIRS-Low was $294 million. DOD submitted a SBIRS-Low
restructuring program to Congress in April 2002. The FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L.
107-248) and authorization act (P.L. 107-314) fully fund SBIRS-Low. The FY2004 request
for SBIRS-Low/STSS is $300 million.
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,
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 FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) cuts SBL by $10
million. The authorization act (P.L. 107-314) fully funds SBL. According to an MDA
CRS-11

---

IB92011
04-11-03
spokesman, remaining SBL work has been folded into MDA’s technology budget and is not
identified separately in the FY2004 budget.
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 (P.L. 107-117), conferees cut $10 million
from the KE weapons study. The FY2003 request is $54 million. The FY2003 DOD
appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) funds the program as requested. The authorization act
(P.L. 107-314) cuts $21.3 million. According to an MDA spokesman, the space-based KE
interceptor effort has been folded into the overall BMD interceptors line and is not identified
separately in the FY2004 budget.
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 was 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 was included in the FY2003 budget.
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 (in the Air Force budget).
It approved the $9.7 million requested for FY2001, and approved $32.3 million of the $33
CRS-12

---

IB92011
04-11-03
million requested for FY2002. The FY2003 request for space control technology is $13.8
million. DOD also is requesting $40 million in a new “counterspace systems” line item in
the Air Force budget to support transition of some space control activities into the
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The $13.8 million and the $40
million were approved in the FY2003 DOD funding bills. The FY2004 request for space
control is $14.7 million; for counterspace systems, it is $82.6 million.
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. In the conference report on the FY2003
intelligence authorization bill (H.R. 4628, H.Rept. 107-789), Congress expressed deep
concern about the FIA, saying that technical and funding problems could force “untenable
trades between critical future capabilities and legacy systems.” With the advent of
commercial imaging systems (discussed earlier), DOD and the intelligence community are
augmenting the data provided by NRO systems with commercial imagery. According to
press reports, for FY2003, Congress increased the budget available to NIMA for purchase
of commercial imagery by 13 times (dollar figures were not released).
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, and another $43 million in the Defense Emergency
Response Fund (DERF), for a total of $91 million. The FY2003 DOD appropriations act
(P.L. 107-248) and authorization act (P.L. 107-314) fund the program at $48 million (the
DERF funding was not included). The FY2004 request is $274 million.
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
CRS-13

---

IB92011
04-11-03
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.
NASA has been attempting since the 1980s to develop a new RLV to replace the space
shuttle that would cost less and have improved safety. Several programs were started and
later abandoned. The most recent program was the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) through
which NASA planned to fund several companies to develop new RLV technologies, leading
to a 2006 decision on what new vehicle to build. In November 2002, NASA refocused the
SLI program on developing an Orbital Space Plane to take crews to and from the space
station. The space plane will use an existing ELV rather than a new RLV. Lowering launch
costs is no longer an SLI goal. NASA also announced that it would fund upgrades to the
space shuttle to ensure it can safely operate until at least 2015 and perhaps 2020 and beyond,
instead of phasing out the shuttle in 2012 as earlier planned. See CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
DOD pursued 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 each built EELVs—the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4, both of which succeeded in their
first launch attempts in 2002. The companies and DOD shared the development costs,
although press reports indicate that the companies are seeking to recoup some of their
expenses from DOD in the wake a downturn in the forecast for commercial launch services.

Several private companies are attempting to develop their own launch vehicles,
although market conditions make it difficult to raise financing. As noted earlier, two bills
were introduced in the 107th Congress to encourage investment in such companies (H.R.
2177, Calvert) or associated facilities (H.R. 1931, D. Weldon); there was no action on them.
However, Title IX of the FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) created a loan
guarantee program for companies developing in-orbit space transportation systems that could
move satellites from one orbit to another (but not launch them from Earth into orbit).
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
04-11-03
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 expired 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. satellite manufacturing companies because customers may chose non-U.S.
companies to build satellites rather than deal with U.S. export laws. (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
P.L. 108-7, H.J.Res. 2 (Young)
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. Includes FY2003 funding for NASA
as part of the VA-HUD-IA portion. Passed House January 8, 2003; passed Senate January
23. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) passed House and Senate February 13, 2003.
Signed into law February 20.
H.R. 644 (D. Weldon)
Spaceport Equality Act. Introduced February 5, 2003; referred to Committee on Ways
and Means.
H.R. 1085 (Boehlert)/S. 610 (Voinovich)
NASA workforce flexibility. H.R. 1085 (NASA Flexibility Act) introduced March 5,
2003; referred to Committees on Science and Government Reform. S. 610 (NASA
WorkForce Flexibility Act) introduced March 13, 2003; referred to Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
CRS-15

---