Order Code RS21720
Updated February 17, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Space Exploration: Overview of President
Bush’s New Exploration Initiative for NASA,
and Key Issues for Congress
Marcia S. Smith
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush set new goals for the U.S. space
program, asserting that the United States should continue exploring the solar system
“because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character.” The vision he
outlined for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) focuses on the
goal of returning humans to the Moon in the 2015-2020 time frame, and eventually
sending them to Mars and “worlds beyond.” Under the plan, the space shuttle would be
retired after construction of the International Space Station (ISS) is completed in 2010,
and the United States would end its involvement in ISS by FY2017. NASA’s FY2005
budget request shows that $12.6 billion would be “added” for FY2005-2009 to begin
achieving the new goals, but only $1 billion is new money; the remainder would be
redirected from other NASA programs. A cost estimate for the entire program was not
provided. The President invited other countries to join in the program. Congress is
evaluating the President’s proposal. This report will be updated regularly.
Overview of President George W. Bush’s Exploration Initiative
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced new goals for the U.S.
space program [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html].
Amplified by documents from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) [http://www.ostp.gov] and NASA, the following are its main features.
! Astronauts would return to the Moon in the 2015-2020 time period. (The
last Americans walked on the Moon in 1972.) NASA would build a
Crew Exploration Vehicle whose primary purpose would be to take
astronauts to the Moon. It would be available for human space flights in
2014, and could be used to take astronauts to the International Space
Station (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017) as well.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
! Eventually, astronauts would go to Mars, and “worlds beyond,” but no
date was announced.
! Robotic probes would be used as trailblazers for human explorers. The
first probe in support of this exploration initiative would be launched in
2008 to study the Moon further.
! Construction of the International Space Station (ISS) would be completed
by 2010. The shuttle system (see CRS Issue Brief IB93062) then would
be retired. The President promised that the United States would meet its
obligations to its partners in the ISS program (Europe, Canada, Japan,
and Russia).1 According to a NASA budget chart, U.S. involvement in
ISS would end by FY2017, although NASA Administrator O’Keefe later
said there were no plans to “turn out the lights” at that time. Between
2010 and 2014, U.S. astronauts would rely on other ISS partners
(presumably Russia) to take them to and from ISS.
! NASA would redirect its research aboard the ISS to that which
specifically supports human exploration of space, instead of the broadly
based, multidisciplinary research program that had been planned.
! Other countries were invited to participate. None were identified, but
NASA made clear that it is not limited only to those participating in ISS.
! NASA FY2005 budget documents show that $12.6 billion would be
“added” to its budget for FY2005-2009 to begin achieving the new goals,
and a NASA budget chart suggests that $150-170 billion would be
devoted to the initiative from FY2004-2020 (NASA declines to give a
specific figure). Most of the money comes from other NASA programs.
The $12.6 billion, for example, is comprised of $1 billion in new money
for FY2005-2009, with $11.6 billion redirected from existing NASA
activities. These numbers must be used cautiously, however, because
they are based on a NASA assumption that without the President’s
initiative, NASA would have been held to a flat budget for those five
years. The “increase,” therefore, is above a hypothetical budget that is
lower than what NASA projected in its FY2004 budget. Also, NASA
budget materials describe the entire NASA budget request for FY2005-
2009 ($87.1 billion) as the budget for the “exploration vision,” of which
$31.4 billion is “exploration specific.” Thus it is difficult to determine
exactly how much the President is proposing to spend on this initiative.
! A Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy
[http://www.moontomars.org] was created by the President to advise
NASA on implementation of the policy. It is headed by former DOD
official E.C. “Pete” Aldridge.
Rationale. The President’s speech came 11 months after the tragedy of the
February 2003 space shuttle Columbia accident (see CRS Report RS21408), and 2 weeks
after the January 3, 2004 successful landing of a U.S. robotic probe (Spirit) on Mars.
Invoking the explorations of Lewis and Clark, the President explained that America has
ventured into space for the same reasons, “because the desire to explore and understand
1 Those obligations are detailed in the ISS Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed in 1998,
and associated Memoranda of Understanding between NASA and its counterpart agencies. The
texts are available at: [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codei/].

CRS-3
is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our
lives in countless ways.” The President said that returning to the Moon was an important
step for the space program because establishing an extended human presence on the Moon
could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration. Since the Moon has less
gravity than Earth, spacecraft assembled and provisioned there could be launched using
less energy, and therefore at lower cost, according to the President.
Initial Reaction. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted several days (January
9-11) before the President’s speech, in response to press reports that the announcement
was imminent, found 48% of the respondents in favor of a Moon/Mars program, 48%
opposed, and 4% not sure.2 AP reported that most respondents generally favored
continuing to send humans into space, but 55% said they would prefer spending money
on programs such as education and health care instead of space research. Reaction by
Congress also has been mixed. Two hearings have been held: by the Senate Commerce
Committee on January 28, 2004, and by the House Science Committee on February 12,
2004. Committee members on both sides of Capitol Hill expressed concern about the
potential cost of the initiative, the possible impact on other NASA activities, and other
aspects of the proposal.
Comparison with President George H.W. Bush’s 1989 Space
Exploration Initiative

Although some media stories portray the current President Bush’s speech as the first
new vision for NASA since the Apollo era,3 President George H.W. Bush made a similar
proposal in 1989. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the first human landing the
Moon, the senior President Bush announced that Americans would return to the Moon
and go on to Mars. He said: “Why the Moon? Why Mars? Because it is humanity’s
destiny to strive, to seek, to find. And because it is America’s destiny to lead.”
Major Features of the 1989 “Space Exploration Initiative”. The program
was known as the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). The major goals were building the
space station as a stepping stone to returning humans to the Moon and someday sending
them to Mars, though dates were not set. In response to congressional criticism that the
2 (1) Associated Press. Results of AP Poll on Space Exploration. January 12, 2004, 14:44. (2)
Lester, Will. AP Poll: U.S. Tepid on Bush’s Space Plans. Associated Press, January 12, 2004,
14:50.
3 The Apollo program was initiated by President John F. Kennedy in May 1961 to land a man on
the Moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of that decade. NASA first developed
experience with launching people into space, and extravehicular activities (EVAs, or
spacewalks), through the Mercury (1961-1963) and Gemini (1965-1966) programs. The first
Apollo mission was to be launched in 1967, but the crew died on January 27, 1967 when a fire
erupted in the Apollo command module during a pre-launch test. The first successful Apollo
mission was launched in 1968, and the first Americans landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969
(Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, while pilot Michael Collins orbited above in the Apollo 11
spacecraft). A total of six two-man crews walked on the Moon from 1969-1972. Another crew
(Apollo 13) intended to land on the Moon in 1970, but made an emergency return to Earth when
the Service Module of their spacecraft exploded enroute to the Moon.

CRS-4
plan lacked specifics, the senior President Bush gave a speech in May 1990 adding more
detail, including that he believed humans would reach Mars by 2019.
Richard Darman, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
stated at a press conference the day of the President’s speech that fulfilling the goals
would cost $400 billion over 30 years. Other cost estimates (some higher, some lower)
were offered later by NASA, but no decision was made on exactly how to proceed, so
detailed cost estimates were not provided. Mr. Darman’s original estimate continues to
be the one most often associated with the SEI program. NASA was the lead agency for
SEI, but it also involved the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy
(DOE), which were involved primarily because of their work with NASA on a program
(SP-100) to develop new nuclear power systems for space missions.
Congressional Reaction to SEI. The initiative was announced during a period
when Congress was attempting to cut government spending to reduce the federal deficit,
and it was not received enthusiastically. Funding for SEI was requested in the FY1991,
FY1992, and FY1993 budgets, though what constituted “SEI funding” changed
significantly during those years. In the FY1991 request, OMB used a “maximalist”
definition, labeling a number of existing programs in the NASA and DOD budgets as
related to SEI. As opposition to the program grew, however, it became prudent to narrow
the list of activities related to SEI and a “minimalist” definition was used in the FY1992
and FY1993 budgets. Thus, tracing SEI funding is complicated. The following account
is limited to the NASA budget, since it was the lead agency for the program.
Under the “maximalist” definition used for FY1991, $953 million was requested for
NASA. The FY1991 NASA authorization bill (P.L. 101-611) approved almost full
funding, but the appropriations bill essentially zeroed it (P.L. 101-507). Congress
subsequently allowed NASA to reprogram $37 million into SEI for FY1991. For
FY1992, using the “minimalist” definition, the NASA request for SEI was $94 million.
Congress approved $32 million. For FY1993, the definition was revised again, and $64
million was requested for NASA. The FY1993 NASA authorization bill (P.L. 102-588)
approved approximately half of the request; the appropriations bill (P.L. 102-389)
essentially zeroed it.
Similarities and Differences in the 1989 and 2004 Proposals. The senior
President Bush’s long term space goals were very similar to those enunciated by the
current President Bush — return humans to the Moon and someday send them to Mars
(although the current President Bush added that they also would go to “worlds beyond”).
One difference is that the senior President Bush heralded the space station program, on
which construction had not yet begun, as a stepping stone to the Moon/Mars goals.
Today, construction of the space station is underway, and the space shuttle has suffered
another catastrophic accident. (The shuttle’s first accident, the explosion of Challenger
73 seconds after launch, was in 1986.) Thus, the current President Bush’s plan sets end
dates for both the space shuttle and space station programs.
Another similarity is that the 1989 announcement was made when the federal budget
deficit was high ($152.5 billion), as it is today ($521 billion). However, Congressional
Quarterly (CQ) points out that the political climate associated with deficits is not the same
in 2004 : “...when Ronald Reagan and the senior George Bush were in the White House
and Democrats controlled the House with an iron fist, there was always a public bow to

CRS-5
the idea of balancing the budget....The new Bush administration has already signaled that
a balanced budget is no longer its desired objective.... The [FY2005] budget will probably
project a reduced deficit by fiscal 2009, to something near $250 billion and 2 percent of
GDP. There’s no political imperative, at least, to take it down any further than that.... ( CQ
Weekly, January 17, 2004, p. 131.) Thus, although the new initiative comes at a time of
deep budget deficits, that does not necessarily mean the proposal will meet the same fate,
although cost is certain to be a major issue as Congress debates its merits.
Key Issues for Congress
Although most media accounts of the Bush initiative focus on the long term
“Moon/Mars” goals, nearer term questions of how long to fly the space shuttle and utilize
the International Space Station, and what NASA activities might be cut in order to pay for
the new goals, may be the immediate focus of congressional attention. Among the
questions that could be asked are:
What Are the Implications of Terminating the Shuttle Program in 2010?
The space shuttle has made 113 flights, two of which ended in tragedy — Challenger in
1986 and Columbia in 2003. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB)
endorsed returning the shuttle to flight, but said that if NASA plans to use it beyond 2010,
it must be recertified. The shuttle is the only U.S. vehicle capable of taking astronauts
to and from space. President Bush said the shuttle would be retired when space station
construction is completed in 2010. A new Crew Exploration Vehicle would be
developed, and fully operational for Earth orbital missions by 2014.
! What would be the consequences of a 4-year hiatus in U.S. human
spaceflights (2010-2014)? How much would Russia charge for taking
U.S. astronauts to and from ISS, and how would NASA pay (the Iran
Nonproliferation Act, P.L. 106-178, prohibits NASA from paying Russia
for ISS-related activities unless Russia stops proliferating certain
technologies to Iran)? Would China be considered as an alternative now
that it can launch people into space?
! What upgrades, if any, to the shuttle should NASA continue to pursue?
What new launch vehicle(s) may need to be developed?
! What would happen to the shuttle’s workforce of approximately 15,750
contractors and 1,700 civil servants?
! How would NASA meet its commitments to the other ISS partners
without the shuttle to take crews and cargo to and from ISS during the
operational period?
! Alternatively, if the shuttle is not terminated in 2010 as the President
proposed, how much would it cost to recertify it?
! If the “Moon/Mars” goal is not adopted, what would be the future of the
shuttle? Should it be terminated in 2010 nonetheless?
! What steps must NASA take to ensure that the space shuttle returns
safely to flight status, and the shuttle program is not unduly pressured by
the new schedule to complete space station construction by 2010? CAIB
cited schedule pressure as a factor in the Columbia tragedy.
Should U.S. Involvement in ISS End by FY2017? ISS is discussed in CRS
Issue Brief IB93017. Construction began in 1998 and is expected to be completed in

CRS-6
2010. Plans had called for ISS to be operated for at least 10 years after construction was
complete. Now, the research program would be redirected to support only that which is
needed for the new initiative, and the NASA budget chart shows that NASA funding for
ISS will end in FY2017 (although NASA Administrator O’Keefe states there are no plans
to “turn out the lights” on ISS because the partners intend to keep using it “and we may
too.”)
! Is the taxpayer investment in the space station ($32 billion through
FY2003) worth the benefits if the only U.S. research conducted there is
related to the “Moon/Mars” goals? What are the lost opportunities in
other scientific disciplines of focusing the research on Moon and Mars
exploration?
! What will happen to the space station when NASA ends funding for it?
Will it be turned over to the other partners to make use of as they wish?
Will it be “privatized”? Will it be deorbited? If so, how, and at what
cost?
! If the “Moon/Mars” goal is not adopted, should NASA return to its plan
to use ISS for a broadly-based research program for at least 10 years after
construction is completed, or terminate its involvement nonetheless?
What Are the Costs and Other Details of the “Moon/Mars” Goal?
! How much would the Moon/Mars endeavor cost and over how many
years? To what extent will Congress support the initiative absent
credible cost estimates?
! What would happen to NASA’s other programs in aeronautics and space
science and technology? What impact might there be on federal funding
for non-space related national priorities? The President envisions little
added funding for NASA, instead reprioritizing programs within an
essentially level NASA budget, adjusted for inflation (FY2004-2020).
That might mitigate concerns that the initiative would increase the deficit
or take money from other national priorities, but raises issues about the
impact on other NASA activities and whether the level of funding is
adequate to achieve the goals.
! What role should the private sector play in the exploration initiative?
! What countries should be invited to join? Should China be included? Or
India, which has announced plans to send a robotic probe to the Moon?
Will other countries be willing to participate if the United States does not
live up to its obligations on the ISS program, and if the United States
insists on directing how the Moon/Mars program is to be conducted?
! What was learned during the 3 years of work on the earlier Space
Exploration Initiative that can be applied to this endeavor?
! To what extent can robotic spacecraft accomplish these exploration goals
instead of humans, at less cost and risk to human life?
crsphpgw