Order Code RS21744
Updated October 22, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration: Overview, FY2005 Budget in
Brief, and Key Issues for Congress
Marcia S. Smith and Daniel Morgan
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts U.S.
civilian space activities. Its FY2005 budget request is $16.2 billion, a 5.6% increase
over its FY2004 appropriation of $15.4 billion. The increase is primarily for fulfilling
new exploration goals that were announced by President Bush in January 2004 that
include returning the space shuttle to flight, completing construction of the International
Space Station, and returning humans to the Moon by 2020. The House Appropriations
Committee version of the FY2005 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill, which includes
NASA, cuts the NASA request by $1.1 billion (H.R. 5041). The Senate Appropriations
Committee version (S. 2825) adds $135 million to the request. The Senate Commerce
Committee ordered reported a FY2005-2009 NASA authorization bill (S. 2541) that
recommends $16.2 billion for FY2005. NASA received $126 million for hurricane
relief in an FY2005 supplemental act (P.L. 108-324). This report is updated regularly.
Agency Overview
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created by the
1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568). NASA’s charter is to conduct
civilian space and aeronautics activities. Military space and aeronautics activities are
conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence community. DOD
and NASA cooperate in some areas of technology development and occasionally have
joint programs. NASA opened its doors on October 1, 1958, almost exactly one year after
the Soviet Union ushered in the Space Age with the launch of the world’s first satellite,
Sputnik, on October 4, 1957. In the more than 45 years that have elapsed, NASA has
conducted far reaching programs in human and robotic spaceflight, technology
development, and scientific research.
The agency is managed from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. It has nine
major field centers around the country: Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA;
Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA; Glenn Research Center, Cleveland,
OH; Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Johnson Space Center, Houston,
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
TX; Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL: Langley Research Center, Hampton,
VA; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Stennis Space Center, in
Mississippi, near Slidell, LA. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (often
counted as a 10th NASA center), is a federally funded research and development center
operated for NASA by the California Institute of Technology. Goddard Space Flight
Center manages the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (New York, NY), the Independent
Validation and Verification Facility (Fairmont, WV); and the Wallops Flight Facility
(Wallops, VA). Ames Research Center manages Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain
View, CA. Johnson Space Center manages the White Sands Test Facility, White Sands,
NM. Web links are at [http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/OrganizationIndex.html].
NASA employs approximately 19,000 civil servants (full time equivalents), and 40,000
contractors and grantees working at or near NASA centers. For more information on
NASA’s workforce, see [http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/default.htm].
Mr. Sean O’Keefe is the Administrator of NASA. NASA headquarters has four
“mission directorates”: Exploration Systems, Space Operations (including the space
station and space shuttle), Science, and Aeronautics Research. Links to those mission
directorates and individual NASA programs are at [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/org.html].
NASA’s FY2005 Budget Request
For FY2005, NASA is requesting $16.2 billion, a 5.6% increase over its FY2004
appropriation of $15.4 billion.
Table 1: NASA’s FY2005 Budget Request (in $ millions)
Category
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005 Appropriations ††
FY2005
approp.
Req.
Authorization
House Cmte
Sen. Cmte
Sen. Cmte
Exploration, Science, &
7,830
7,760
7,621
7,937
7,760
Aeronautics
Space Science
3,971
4,138
4,138
Earth Science
1,613
1,485
1,485
Biol. & Phys. Res.
985
1,049
1,049
Aeronautics
1,034
919
919
Education
226
169
169
Exploration Capabilities
7,521
8,456
7,497
8,411
8,441
Exploration Systems
1,646
1,782
1,768
Space Launch Init.
†
†


—
Other
†
†


—
Human & Robotic Tech.
679
1,094
1,079
Transportation Systems
967
689
689
Space Flight
5,875
6,674
6,674

---

CRS-3
Category
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005 Appropriations ††
FY2005
approp.
Req.
Authorization
House Cmte
Sen. Cmte
Sen. Cmte
Space Station*
1,498
1,863
1,863
Space Shuttle
3,945
4,319
4,319
Space Flight Support
432
492
492
Inspector General
27
28
31
32
28
Ind. Tech. Eng. Auth.
—
—
—
—
15
Total
15,378
16,244
15,149
16,379
16,245
Source: NASA FY2004 and FY2005 budget justifications, and bills or committee reports. Totals may not
add due to rounding.
* Not including funds for research aboard the space station, which is in the Biological and Physical Research
line. For FY2004, that is $578 million; for FY2005, it is $549 million.
† NASA’s FY2005 request assumes cancellation of the Space Launch Initiative, reallocation of its remaining
funding, and restructuring of what was called “Crosscutting Technologies,” of which SLI was a part..
††The House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports do not include the level of detail needed to
definitively determine totals for the subcategories in this table.
The House Appropriations Committee version of the FY2005 VA-HUD-IA bill
(H.R. 5041, H.Rept. 108-674) cut $1.1 billion from the request. Major reductions include
all $438 million from the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV); $230 million of the $438
million for Project Prometheus; $190 million from the $1.9 billion for International Space
Station (ISS), including $70 million of the $140 million for a new ISS Crew/Cargo Services
line; and $103 million of the $309 million for bioastronautics research. The Senate
Appropriations Committee (S. 2825, S.Rept. 108-353) recommended $16.4 billion, $135
million over the request, including $800 million designated as emergency spending: $500
million for the space shuttle, and $300 million for the Hubble Space Telescope ($100
million in Exploration Capabilities, and $200 million in Exploration, Science, and
Aeronautics). Among the cuts made by the Senate committee are $160 million from CEV,
all $115 million from exploration systems technology maturation, $260 million from ISS
(including all $140 million from ISS Crew/Cargo), and $124 million from biological
research. The Senate Commerce Committee has ordered reported a FY2005-2009 NASA
authorization bill (S. 2541) that essentially recommends the amounts requested by NASA.
Key Issues for Congress
Return to Flight of the Space Shuttle
The space shuttle Columbia disintegrated as it returned to Earth on February 1, 2003;
all seven astronauts aboard were killed. NASA and its contractors are working to resume
shuttle launches as soon as possible, consistent with ensuring the shuttle is as safe as
possible. See CRS Report RS21408 for more on Columbia and “Return to Flight” (RTF).
In the FY2005 budget request, shuttle funding would rise from $4 billion to $4.3 billion.
One issue involved in RTF is whether schedule pressure could influence shuttle program
managers to take shortcuts, and if President Bush’s new exploration initiative (see below)
adds to that pressure. President Bush has called for ISS construction to be completed by
2010, at which point the shuttle system would be retired. NASA estimates that 25-30

---

CRS-4
shuttle launches are required to complete construction. By ending the shuttle program,
funds would be freed for the President’s exploration initiative. NASA’s FY2005 request
includes “out-year” projections that reduce the shuttle budget by $1.5 billion in FY2008
and FY2009 to help pay for the exploration initiative. The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) cited schedule pressure as one factor in the Columbia tragedy.
It also noted that funding was taken from the shuttle budget over several years to pay for
other NASA programs, particularly ISS. NASA’s willingness to slip RTF, most recently
to May 2005, suggests to some that NASA is proceeding cautiously, but the agency’s plan
to launch 25-30 flights in less than six years makes others worry that an environment
similar to that prior to Columbia is being recreated. (The most recent slip was caused in
part by hurricane damage at Kennedy Space Center—Congress appropriated $126 million
to NASA for hurricane relief in the FY2005 military construction/emergency supplemental
appropriations act, P.L. 108-324.) The House and Senate Appropriations Committee fully
funded the FY2005 request for the shuttle, and the Senate committee added another $500
million for the shuttle, designated as emergency spending. The Senate Commerce
Committee recommended the requested shuttle funding level. It also created a separate
budget account, with $15 million in FY2005, for an Independent Technical Engineering
Authority that is not tied to any specific NASA program and would be responsible for
technical standards for the shuttle and waivers thereto CAIB recommended that NASA
establish an Independent Technical Authority (ITA) that would have similar functions.
NASA is setting up the ITA; it reports to the NASA Chief Engineer.
President Bush’s Exploration Initiative
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush made a major space policy address
in which he directed NASA to focus its activities on returning astronauts to the Moon by
2020, and someday sending them to Mars and “worlds beyond” (see CRS Report
RS21720). To accomplish those goals, NASA would terminate the shuttle program in 2010
(discussed above); build a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) able to take astronauts to
Earth orbit by 2014 and ultimately to the Moon; restructure the U.S. ISS-based research
program to support only life sciences research associated with achieving the exploration
goals; and build robotic probes as “trailblazers” for the astronauts. The President invited
other countries to join. Between 2010 when the shuttle is terminated, and at least 2014
when the CEV would be available for Earth-orbital flights, U.S. astronauts would have to
rely on Russia to travel to and from ISS.
Cost and Other Issues. Initially, the President and NASA did not provide cost
estimates for achieving the goals, only budget estimates for FY2005-FY2009, and a budget
chart (the “sand chart,” see below) extending to FY2020. In late February 2004, however,
NASA released a cost estimate for landing a crew on the Moon in 2020 — $64 billion
(FY2003 dollars): $24 billion (FY2004-2020) to build and operate the Crew Exploration
Vehicle; and $40 billion (FY2011-2020) to build the lunar lander portion of that vehicle,
a new launch vehicle, and operations. The estimate does not include the cost of robotic
missions. An estimate for sending astronauts to Mars was not provided.
The President plans to fund the initiative by redirecting most of the needed funding
from other NASA activities, rather than adding significant sums to the NASA budget. A
NASA budget chart (dubbed the “sand chart,” and available at
[http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budget_chart_14jan04.pdf]) covering FY2004-2020
shows a NASA budget that increases 5% in FY2005 and 2006, less than 1% in FY2007-

---

CRS-5
2009, and is roughly level with inflation beyond FY2009. NASA says the intent of the
chart is to demonstrate there is no “balloon” in funding past FY2009. The total amount of
funding represented in the chart appears to be $150-170 billion.
NASA explains that the FY2005 budget request and its projections through FY2009
include an “additional” $12.6 billion for the initiative. However, only $1 billion is new
money. The other $11.6 billion is redirected from other NASA programs, leading some to
question whether it is an “addition.” Redirecting most of the funding from other NASA
activities may quell concerns about rising deficits and neglecting other national priorities
in order to fund the initiative, but it subjects the plan to criticism that total agency projected
funding level is insufficient, and that the plan will preclude other NASA activities. Mr.
O’Keefe says that the schedule will be allowed to slip, rather than increasing the budget.
By agreeing to take most of the funding from other NASA activities, NASA has
opened the door to questions about the value of those activities even if the Bush initiative
is not adopted. If Congress and the public are not persuaded to embark upon the
President’s vision, what direction should NASA be given for the future? Is it reasonable
to assume that the proposed $11.6 billion in cuts can be made in any case? Should U.S.
participation in the ISS program continue? Under the President’s plan, the only apparent
reasons for U.S. involvement in ISS are fulfilling its commitments to the other partners, and
performing research associated with the President’s goals. If the latter rationale is
eliminated, are the international commitments sufficient to warrant spending $6.7 billion
($2.4 billion for the space station and $4.3 billion for the shuttle) in FY2005 alone? Are
they worth the risk to astronaut lives inherent in human space flight? Or are there other
reasons that U.S. taxpayers may wish to continue the human space flight program, such as
its oft-cited value in demonstrating U.S. technological leadership, stimulating children to
study math and science, or satisfying an intangible “desire written in the human heart” as
stated by President Bush following the Columbia accident?
FY2005 Budget Request. A NASA chart identifies $4.5 billion of the agency’s
FY2005 $16.2 billion request as “exploration specific,” but that does not include the space
shuttle and space station programs, which are related to it. Among the exploration specific
projects are: $428 million for Project Prometheus, to design nuclear power and propulsion
systems that would first be used on a robotic spacecraft, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter
(JIMO), which would study three Jovian moons; $428 million for the Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV) to take astronauts to the Moon; $115 million for technology maturation; and
$70 million for robotic lunar probes as precursors to human missions.
Congressional Action. The House Appropriations Committee cut $230 million
from Prometheus; all of the funds for the CEV (shown as $438 million in committee
documents, but as $428 million in NASA’s budget request); and $30 million from
technology maturation. Related projects in other parts of NASA that were cut include
$12.4 million of the $12.5 million for scientific instruments to be carried aboard JIMO, all
$70 million for robotic lunar probes, $103 million from the $309 million for bioastronautics
research, $190 million of the $1.9 billion for ISS construction and operations (including
$70 million of the $140 million for ISS Crew/Cargo services to fund alternatives to the
space shuttle). The Senate Appropriations Committee cut $260 million from the ISS
(including all $140 million for ISS Crew/Cargo), $160 million from CEV, $50 million from
lunar probes, and $50 million from planning for future Mars probes. Both committees
expressed support for the President’s goals, but cited the constrained budgetary climate as

---

CRS-6
a factor in their decisions. The Senate Commerce Committee essentially recommended the
requested levels for these programs, but Human &Robotic Technology was cut by $15
million to fund the Independent Technical Engineering Authority.
Hubble Space Telescope
A planned shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope was cancelled,
primarily for safety reasons, in the wake of the Columbia accident (for more information,
see CRS Report RS21767). NASA now intends to proceed with design of a robotic
servicing mission to Hubble. NASA Administrator O’Keefe has been quoted as estimating
the cost at between $1 billion and $1.6 billion. (Cost estimates are still imprecise because
many technical issues remain to be resolved.) The FY2005 budget request did not include
funds for this mission because the decision had not yet been made to proceed with design.
Press reports have indicated that a budget amendment will be submitted to reallocate funds
within the planned total for NASA to accommodate a robotic servicing mission, but no
amendment has yet been submitted. The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $300
million in emergency funds for a Hubble servicing mission in its markup of the FY2005
VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (S. 2825): $100 million in the Exploration Capabilities
account, and $200 million in the Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics account.
Aeronautics
Congress has expressed concern about constraints in NASA’s funding for aeronautics
R&D for several years. The need to reprioritize NASA spending in light of President
Bush’s new initiative may exacerbate those concerns. Aeronautics advocates decry a multi-
year slide in funding, although this trend has been difficult to track recently because of
changes in how NASA presents its annual budget. Aeronautics R&D at NASA was cut by
about one-third in the late 1990s, with the termination of programs in high-speed research
and advanced subsonic technology. NASA’s aeronautics activities have been restructured
several times, including the August 2004 reorganization noted above. Critics have argued
for several years that NASA lacks a clear vision of its goals and direction in aeronautics,
d e s p i t e r e l e a s e o f t h e N A S A A e r o n a u t i c s B l u e p r i n t
[http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/aboutus/tf/aero_blueprint/cover.html] in February 2001
and further recommendations by the congressionally established Commission on the Future
of the United States Aerospace Industry ([http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/
aerospacecommission/aerospacecommission.htm]) and the National Research Council
([http://books.nap.edu/html/atp/0309091195.pdf]). The FY2005 request for aeronautics is
$919 million, a reduction of 11% from FY2004. Most of the reduction comes from
eliminating funds for items added at congressional direction in FY2004. Other changes
include a $7 million increase for aircraft noise reduction and $15 million to fund rotorcraft
research. The House Appropriations Committee recommended increases for 24 specific
projects, totaling $42.9 million, and directed NASA to develop “a prioritized set of
aeronautics goals through 2020” along with associated annual funding requirements. The
Senate Appropriations Committee provided $25 million to continue research on hypersonic
engine technologies and recommended increases for 17 specific projects, totaling $33.8
million.

---