Order Code IB92011
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
Updated February 28, 2005
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
Science Programs
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Interagency Coordination
Commercial Space Programs
Space Launch Services
Commercial Remote Sensing, and Landsat
Space Tourism
Military Space Programs
International Cooperation and Competition
NASA and DOD Space Budgets
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
Military Space Issues
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
International Relationships
LEGISLATION
For links to other current CRS reports on space activities, go to the CRS website
[http://www.crs.gov] and click on “Science” in the list of Current Legislative Issues. Then
click on “U.S. Space Programs.”

---

IB92011
02-28-05
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
SUMMARY
The 109th Congress is likely to address a
programs) or will suddenly release without
broad range of civilian, military, and commer-
explanation new figures for prior years that
cial space issues.
are quite different from what was previously
reported. The most recent figures from DOD
The National Aeronautics and Space
show a total (classified and unclassified) space
Administration (NASA) conducts the most
budget of $19.4 billion for FY2003, $20
visible space activities. For FY2005, NASA
billion for FY2004, and a FY2005 request of
requested $16.24 billion, and received $16.07
$21.7 billion. The final amount appropriated
billion (adjusted for the rescission). Sepa-
for FY2005, and the amount requested for
rately, Congress provided $126 million in a
FY2006, has not been released yet. How to
supplemental for hurricane relief, making a
manage DOD space programs to avoid the
total FY2005 budget of $16.2 billion. The
cost growth and schedule delays that have
FY2006 request is $16.46 billion. The loss of
characterized several recent projects is a key
the space shuttle Columbia on February 1,
issue facing DOD.
2003, and the future of NASA’s human space
flight activities, is dominating debate about
The appropriate role of the government
NASA. On January 14, 2004, President Bush
in facilitating commercial space businesses is
announced a new Vision for Space Explora-
an ongoing debate. For many years, the focus
tion that involves terminating the shuttle
has been on space launch services, but com-
program in 2010 when construction of the
mercial remote sensing satellites also pose
space station is completed, building a new
complex questions. President Bush signed a
Crew Exploration Vehicle to take astronauts
new commercial remote sensing policy in
to the Moon by 2020, and redirecting U.S.
2003, and a new space launch policy in 2004,
research on the space station to support return-
that try to strike a balance between facilitating
ing humans to the Moon and eventually send-
commercial activities while ensuring the U.S.
ing them to Mars and “world beyond.”
government has needed data and services.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has
International cooperation and competi-
a less visible but equally substantial space
tion in space are affected by the world eco-
program. Tracking the DOD space budget is
nomic situation and the post-Cold War politi-
extremely difficult since space is not identi-
cal climate. President Clinton’s 1993 decision
fied as a separate line item in the budget.
to merge NASA’s space station program with
DOD sometimes releases only partial
Russia’s is symbolic of the dramatic changes,
information (omitting funding for classified
and the risks.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB92011
02-28-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
For FY2006, NASA is requesting $16.456 billion, a 2.4% increase over the amount it
received in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) — $16.070 billion
(adjusted for the rescission). Separately, the FY2005 Military Construction Appropriations
and Emergency Supplemental Hurricane Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-324) includes
$126 million for NASA for hurricane relief, giving the agency a total FY2005 budget of
$16.196 billion. The FY2006 request is a 1.6% increase over that amount. By contrast, in
last year’s budget, a 4.6% increase was projected for FY2006 to allow NASA to accomplish
the Vision for Space Exploration announced by President Bush in January 2004. For more
on the NASA FY2006 request, see CRS Report RS22063. For more on the Vision, see CRS
Report RS21720.
NASA’s space shuttle remains grounded following the February 2003 space shuttle
Columbia tragedy. NASA hopes to return the shuttle to flight status during a May15-June
3, 2005 launch window. For more on the shuttle, see CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
The total amount that DOD is requesting for space activities in FY2006 is not yet
available, nor is the total amount that was appropriated for FY2005.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Government Civilian Space Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The establishment of 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. 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, 1961, though he made only a suborbital flight
(the first American to orbit the earth was John Glenn in February 1962), as part of the
Mercury program. Following Shepard’s flight, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy
announced that the United States intended to put a man on the Moon within a decade,
initiating the Apollo program. Following successful completion of the Mercury and Gemini
programs, NASA was ready to begin Apollo flights, but in January 1967, the first Apollo
crew was killed when fire erupted in their Apollo command module during a pre-launch test.
The first successful Apollo flight took place in 1968. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and
Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the Moon as the Apollo 11 spacecraft and
CRS-1

---

IB92011
02-28-05
pilot Michael Collins orbited overhead. A total of six 2-man crews (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15,
16 and 17) walked on the Moon through December 1972. Another crew (Apollo 13)
intended to do so, but instead made an emergency return to Earth when the craft’s Service
Module exploded enroute to the Moon. 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 three astronauts and a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft with two
cosmonauts docked for two days of joint experiments.
In 1972, President Nixon approved NASA’s proposal to develop a reusable vehicle for
taking crews and cargo into Earth orbit — the space shuttle. The first shuttle flight occurred
in 1981 and NASA declared the system operational in 1982. The Challenger tragedy in
January 1986 suspended shuttle operations for 32 months. Flights resumed in 1988. After
87 successful flights, on February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated during
its return to Earth (see CRS Report RS21408). The space shuttle fleet is currently grounded.
NASA hopes to resume flights during a May 15-June 3, 2005 launch window.
The shuttle is NASA’s sole means of launching humans into space. Beginning in the
early 1980s, NASA, sometimes with DOD, attempted to develop a replacement for it (see
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles, below). For many years, NASA’s plan was to
phase out the shuttle in 2012. The replacement programs were not successful, however, and
in November 2002, NASA announced that it would keep the shuttle operational at least until
2015, and perhaps until 2020 or longer. However, in January 2004, President Bush
announced a “Vision For Space Exploration” that calls for the space shuttle to be retired after
construction of the International Space Station (see next paragraph) is completed, currently
expected in 2010. He directed NASA to build a new “Crew Exploration Vehicle” (CEV)
to take astronauts to and from the Moon. The CEV is a spacecraft, not a launch vehicle.
What launch vehicle will be used for the CEV is yet to be determined. The CEV is
scheduled to be available for taking people to space in 2014. Between 2010 and 2014, the
United States would not have an ability to place astronauts in space.
NASA continues to build and operate the International Space Station (ISS) in
cooperation with Russia, Canada, Japan, and 10 European countries (see CRS Issue Brief
IB93017). The space station program began in 1984 (FY1985) and has been very
controversial because of cost growth and schedule delays. Twenty-two attempts in Congress
since 1991 to terminate the program in NASA funding bills failed. The ISS is being
assembled in orbit, with segments taken into space by the U.S. space shuttle or Russian
launch vehicles. The first assembly flight was in 1998, and construction is now
approximately 50% complete. Construction is suspended until the space shuttle returns to
flight because most of the remaining segments are designed to be launched on the shuttle.
Crews rotating on six-month schedules continue to live and work aboard the station using
Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crew transport and “crew return” (essentially serving as a
lifeboat to return the crew to Earth in an emergency), and Russian Progress spacecraft for
cargo delivery. Under a 1996 agreement, Russia agreed to provide crew transport and crew
return for U.S. astronauts on 11 Soyuz missions at no cost to NASA. The 11th Soyuz is due
to be launched in October 2005, returning to Earth in April 2006. After that time, NASA
would be limited to having its crews aboard ISS only when the space shuttle is docked unless
it can negotiate an agreement with Russia to continue providing crew return services. The
shuttle typically docks for 1-2 weeks at a time, approximately five times per year (although
NASA has not yet determined exactly how many times per year the shuttle will fly). No
CRS-2

---

IB92011
02-28-05
agreement exists for Russia to provide these services to NASA, however. NASA is not
permitted to pay Russia for such services under the Iran Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 106-178)
unless President Bush makes a determination that Russia is not proliferating certain
technologies to Iran. Issues concerning U.S. access to the ISS after April 2006 are discussed
in CRS Issue Brief IB93017.
Science Programs. NASA has launched many spacecraft for space science and
earth science research. Robotic probes served as pathfinders to the Moon for astronauts, and
have visited all the planets in the solar system except Pluto, and a probe is scheduled to be
launched to that planet 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. Two NASA probes, Mars
Odyssey and Mars Global Surveyor, are now orbiting Mars, and twin rovers, Spirit and
Opportunity, are investigating the planet’s surface (a European probe, Mars Express, also is
orbiting Mars). NASA also has sent, or plans to send, spacecraft to other planets, comets,
and asteroids. These include Cassini, which arrived at Saturn on July 1, 2004 (GMT) after
a seven-year journey; and the Stardust probe that is on its way back to Earth after collecting
samples of a comet. NASA’s Genesis spacecraft, which collected particles of the Sun for
return to Earth, was damaged when its parachute did not deploy, making a planned mid-air
capture impossible. Genesis hit the ground at approximately 200 miles per hour. NASA
reports that some of the samples survived the impact, and is optimistic that they were not
contaminated by the Earth’s environment and are still useable for scientific research.
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: Hubble Space Telescope, launched April 1990 (primarily for
the visible wavelengths); Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, launched April 1991, deorbited
June 2000; Chandra X-Ray Observatory, launched July 1999; and the Spitzer Space
Telescope (formerly the Space Infrared Telescope Facility or SIRTF), launched August 2003.
NASA is planning the James Webb Space Telescope for further infrared observations.
Hubble was designed to be serviced and eventually returned to Earth by the space shuttle, but
NASA announced in January 2004 it would not send any more shuttles to Hubble because
of safety concerns. That controversial decision is discussed in CRS Report RS21767.
NASA 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.
NASA also conducts research related to ensuring that humans can live and work safely
and effectively in space, and fundamental research that can be conducted in microgravity
environments, such as on the ISS. In his January 2004 Vision for Space Exploration,
CRS-3

---

IB92011
02-28-05
President Bush directed that ISS research be limited to that supporting human exploration
of space, rather than the broadly-based research program that was planned.
During the 1960s and 1970s, NASA developed communications, meteorological, and
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, however, particularly earth science (including global climate change). NASA,
sometimes in partnership with other countries, has a variety of earth science probes in orbit
today, including three large satellites in the Earth Observing System (EOS).
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Beginning in the 1960s, other civilian agencies became involved in space. Operation
of weather satellites was transferred to what is now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. NOAA is currently working with
DOD to build a joint weather satellite system that merges the capabilities of its Polar
Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) system with those of DOD’s Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Called the National Polar Orbiting
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), it is managed by an integrated program office
(see [http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/]). NASA develops new technology for NPOESS. The first
NPOESS launch is expected by 2010.
Other parts of the Department of Commerce are involved in space issues as well due
to the Department’s role in trade policy and export of items on the Commerce Control List.
It also has an Office of Space Commercialization (part of the Technology Administration)
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 [http://www.igeb.gov/]. 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 spacecraft; the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of Interior, which operates the
government’s Landsat land remote sensing 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. The White House’s
National Security Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy are involved in
developing policy.
Interagency Coordination
Several mechanisms have been tried since 1958 to coordinate interagency space policy.
Congress created a National Aeronautics and Space Council in the NASA Act. That Space
Council was abolished in 1973 by President Nixon. President Carter established a Policy
Review Committee on Space under the aegis of the National Security Council (NSC), but
CRS-4

---

IB92011
02-28-05
it was chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. President
Reagan established a Senior Interagency Group on Space (SIG/Space) under the NSC,
chaired by the National Security Adviser. Congress was dissatisfied with SIG/Space,
however, particularly in terms of slow decision making after the 1986 space shuttle
Challenger tragedy. Congress created a National Space Council in the FY1989 NASA
authorization act (P.L. 100-685), chaired by the Vice President. Under President George H.
W. Bush, the Space Council was headed by Vice President Quayle.
President Clinton decided not to use the Space Council mechanism. It still exists in law,
but is not staffed or funded. Instead, Space Council functions were merged into a National
Science and Technology Council, administered through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. NSTC oversaw civil and commercial space policy; while military space
activities were overseen by the National Security Council. Some space advocates hoped
President George W. Bush would reactivate the Space Council, but instead his administration
uses a Policy Coordinating Committee under the NSC (similar to SIG/Space). NASA and
DOD also have a “Partnership Council” to facilitate communication between their
organizations and identify areas for collaboration and cooperation.
On July 28, 2002, in NSPD-15, President Bush directed the NSC to chair a review of
national space policies. The first new policy, on commercial remote sensing, was signed
April 25, 2003. On January 6, 2005, the White House released a new U.S. Space
Transportation Policy, which had been authorized by President Bush on December 21, 2004.
Also, President Bush’s announced a new Vision for Space Exploration for NASA on January
14, 2004.
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.
Space Launch Services
Congress has passed several laws to facilitate the commercialization of space launch
services for putting satellites into orbit (the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act, the 1988
Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, the 1998 Commercial Space Act, and the 2004
Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments). The development of a U.S. commercial
launch services industry has been largely successful. DOD and NASA continue to play a role
in developing new launch vehicles, though some private companies are 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 (primarily in Europe and Russia), and trade and missile
proliferation issues involved in exporting satellites to other countries for launch. In terms
of competition, it must be mentioned that the two major U.S. space launch service companies
operate in partnership with companies in other countries. Lockheed Martin and two Russian
companies comprise International Launch Services, which offers launches on the U.S. Atlas
and Russian Proton vehicles. Boeing offers launches on its Delta launch vehicle, and also
CRS-5

---

IB92011
02-28-05
is a partner in the Sea Launch venture, where a Ukrainian Zenit launch vehicle with a
Russian third stage is launched from a mobile oil rig built by Norway. See CRS Issue Brief
IB930632 for more information.
Commercial Remote Sensing, and Landsat
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
purposes. The first Landsat satellite was launched in 1972. After a tumultuous eight 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. Landsat 5 and 7, built and operated by the government, are now
in orbit. Landsat 5, launched in 1984, is well past its design lifetime and only partially
functioning. One of the sensors on Landsat 7, launched in 1999, also is not functioning
properly. Whether and how the U.S. government should ensure the continuity of Landsat-
type data is currently being debated. NASA hoped the private sector, rather than the
government, would build the next satellite. NASA solicited bids, but only one was received
and NASA rejected it. NASA’s current plan is to place Landsat-type sensors on the
NPOESS satellites (discussed earlier), but scientists are concerned that the current Landsat
satellites will fail before the first NPOESS satellite is launched.
The Land Remote Sensing Policy 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. Three U.S. companies — Space Imaging, DigitalGlobe, and
Orbimage — have commercial remote sensing satellites in orbit. The market for their
products is limited, however, and they reportedly are struggling financially. Partially in
response to that concern, President Bush signed a new commercial remote sensing policy on
April 25, 2003 that is intended to sustain and enhance the U.S. remote sensing industry.
Controversy over the fact that the imagery has military as well as civilian uses
complicates this commercial space effort, however. Though not as precise as military
reconnaissance satellites, the three operating U.S. private sector satellites, Ikonos 2 (Space
Imaging), QuickBird (DigitalGlobe), and Orbview 3 (Orbimage) produce imagery with
resolution (the ability to “see” an object or feature of a certain size) of 1 meter or less.
Competitors include French, Russian, Indian, and Israeli companies that offer imagery with
2.5-meter, 1-meter, 1-meter, and 1.8-meter resolution respectively. One major issue is when
the U.S. government can exercise “shutter control,” forcing U.S. companies to discontinue
obtaining or distributing imagery of certain parts of the world in times of crisis. 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, now
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA) bought exclusive rights to Ikonos
imagery of that area so that no one else could use the data without NIMA’s approval, a
practice dubbed “checkbook shutter control” in the media. The government apparently did
not limit access to commercial satellite imagery during the 2003 Iraqi war. Another issue is
the government’s role in controlling to whom the imagery is sold and which countries may
CRS-6

---

IB92011
02-28-05
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. The 2003 Bush policy states that the government
will provide a timely and responsive regulatory environment.
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 (subsequently renamed Orbview) 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) prohibits 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. Congress has
strongly encouraged NIMA (now NGA) to purchase commercial imagery to augment
classified imagery. The 2003 Bush policy directs the U.S. government to utilize U.S.
commercial remote sensing space capabilities, for both civil and national security purposes,
to the maximum extent practicable. Foreign commercial remote sensing space capabilities
may be used consistent with national security and foreign policy objectives. (See below for
more on the use of commercial imagery by NGA/NIMA.)
Space Tourism
A nascent commercial space area is “space tourism.” On June 21, 2004, Mike Melvill
became the first person to reach space (on a suborbital flight) aboard a privately funded
launch vehicle, SpaceShipOne, designed by Scaled Composites. Mr. Melvill is sometimes
referred as the first “commercial astronaut,” but several representatives of commercial
companies, and other private individuals, have flown in space. Mr. Melvill’s flight is notable
because SpaceShipOne was developed without government funding, and some hope it will
usher in an era of “affordable” space tourism. In 2004, Congress passed the Commercial
Space Launch Act Amendments (P.L. 108-492) that, inter alia, create a regulatory structure
for space tourism. See CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
Military Space Programs
The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military space activities
be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Undersecretary of the Air Force
is DOD’s executive agent for space, and the Air Force acquisition executive for space. The
intelligence community makes significant use of space-based intelligence collection
capabilities. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an agency within DOD, builds and
operates intelligence collection satellites, and collects and processes the resulting data, which
are provided to users such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the
National Security Agency (NSA). The Undersecretary of the Air Force is the Director of
NRO. NRO, NGA, and NSA also are under the oversight of the new Director of National
CRS-7

---

IB92011
02-28-05
Intelligence (DNI). See CRS Report RL32515 for more on the DNI and potential effects for
DOD intelligence agencies, including NRO, NGA, and NSA.
DOD and the intelligence community manage a broad array of space activities,
including launch vehicle development, communications satellites, navigation satellites (the
Global Positioning System — GPS), early warning satellites to alert the United States to
foreign missile launches, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and developing
capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to adversaries
(called “space control” or “counterspace systems”). 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. These
systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military operations.
How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space
programs has been an issue for many years. Congress established commissions to review
the NRO in the FY2000 intelligence authorization act, P.L. 106-120; NGA (then called
NIMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency) in the classified annex to the FY2000
DOD appropriations act, P.L. 106-79; and overall U.S. national security space management
and organization in the FY2000 DOD authorization act, P.L. 106-65. The NRO,
NGA/NIMA, and “Rumsfeld Space Commission” reports are discussed below.
Although U.S. military and civilian space programs are separated organizationally, 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.
After the Cold War, interest in space weapons to attack satellites (antisatellite, or
ASAT, weapons) or ballistic missiles declined initially, but was rekindled beginning with the
104th Congress. Using satellites to attack ballistic missiles has been controversial since
President Reagan’s 1983 announcement of 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 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
weapons ultimately are based in space or not, a missile defense system would require
satellites for early warning, communications, and other functions.
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, Ukraine, and the European Space Agency (ESA) are members. ESA
CRS-8

---

IB92011
02-28-05
developed the Ariane launch vehicle; Ariane launches are conducted by the French company
Arianespace. These countries, including many of the individual members of ESA, present
opportunities for cooperation, 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. Many NASA programs today have an international component. One of the major
cooperative projects
today is the space station
NASA & DOD Space Budgets
(see CRS Issue Brief
IB93017). European
(in Billions of Unadjusted Dollars by Fiscal Year)
c o u n t r i e s , b o t h 30
individually and through
25
ESA, Canada, and Japan,
in particular, have 20
participated in many
15
c o o p e r a t i v e s p a c e
programs with NASA. 10
They also compete with
U.S. companies in some 5
space areas. Europe,
0
India, Ukraine, and
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 '09
Russia compete in launch
NASA
DOD
services for placing
Does not include transition quarter. See text for other notes.
satellites into orbit.
France, Russia, India and
Israel compete in satellite remote sensing, and Europe competes in communications satellite
manufacturing. n 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 main area of competition
today seems to be on the economic front, although 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 from FY1959 to FY2004, with projections through
FY2009. The DOD funding figures must be used cautiously, however. Space is not a line
item in the DOD budget, and DOD’s annual budget justifications do not include a figure for
“space activities.” DOD sometimes releases only partial information or will release without
explanation new figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously
reported. Space spending by all federal government agencies, by year since FY1959, is
provided in the annual Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, submitted to Congress
by NASA. The most recent edition of that report was released in 2002, covering through
FY2000. This table uses data from that report for NASA and DOD through FY2000.
FY2001-FY2004 appropriations, and projections through FY2009, are from NASA’s annual
budget justifications, and from data supplied to CRS by DOD’s Office of the Comptroller.
CRS-9

---

IB92011
02-28-05
According to data provided in March 2004, DOD’s space budget for FY2003 was $19.4
billion, for FY2004 is $20 billion, and the FY2005 request was $21.7 billion (the total
amount appropriated has not been calculated by DOD yet). According to NASA budget
documents, NASA received $15.3 billion in FY2003 and $15.4 billion in FY2004. The
FY2005 request was $16.2 billion. Congress appropriated $16.07 billion (adjusted for the
across-the-board rescission), plus $126 million in a supplemental for hurricane relief, for a
total of $16.2 billion. All NASA figures include aeronautics funding ($400 million-$1
billion annually in recent years).
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
President Bush’s January 14, 2004 announcement of a new “Vision for Space
Exploration” (see CRS Report RS21720) is capturing the spotlight of NASA issues. The
President’s directive calls for redirecting NASA’s human exploration program from low
Earth orbit to the Moon, Mars, and “worlds beyond.” Achieving that goal involves both
robotic and human missions. According to the President’s speech, humans would return to
the Moon in 2015-2020, and eventually go to Mars (no date given). The space shuttle
program would be terminated when construction of the International Space Station (ISS) is
completed, currently expected in 2010. The President also asserted that the United States
would meet its obligations to the other partners in the program (see CRS Issue Brief
IB93017). How it will do so without the shuttle is uncertain. The President invited other
countries to join the United States in the Vision.
U.S. research aboard the ISS would focus only on that which is needed to support the
Vision instead of the broadly-based program that was planned. According to a budget chart
released the same day as the President’s speech, NASA would end its involvement in the
ISS program by FY2017 (although then-NASA Administrator O’Keefe subsequently stated
there were no plans to “turn out the lights”). NASA would build a Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV) whose primary purpose is taking astronauts to the Moon, but could also be
used to take them to the space station by 2014. U.S. astronauts would have to rely on Russia
to take them to and from the space station between 2010 and 2014. No agreement has been
negotiated with Russia to provide those services to NASA, however. As discussed earlier
(see Human Spaceflight), Russia currently provides NASA with crew transport and crew
return services at no cost under a 1996 agreement. Russia’s obligations under that agreement
will be fulfilled with a Soyuz spacecraft scheduled for launch in October 2005 and return to
Earth in April 2006. Assuming that the space shuttle has returned to flight status by then,
NASA could continue to place U.S. astronauts aboard the ISS as long as the shuttle is flying,
but they could not remain there for long duration missions without access to the Russian
crew return (“lifeboat”) services. They would have to depart with the shuttle, which typically
remains at the ISS for 1-2 weeks, unless NASA changes its policy requiring an emergency
escape route for its astronauts. Once the shuttle is retired, U.S. astronauts would not be able
to visit the ISS without access to Russia crew transport services. Russian space officials
have repeatedly indicated that they will not provide these services for free, yet, under the
terms of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 106-178), NASA is prohibited from making
payments to Russia for ISS-related services unless the President makes a determination that
Russia is not proliferating certain technologies to Iran. NASA officials state that the Bush
CRS-10

---

IB92011
02-28-05
Administration is working on an approach to resolve these issues, but details have not been
made public.
Meanwhile, NASA is proceeding with plans to build the CEV to take astronauts to the
Moon. NASA estimates that returning humans to the Moon by 2020 will cost $64 billion
in 2003 dollars, not including the cost of associated robotic missions. A September 2004
Congressional Budget Office report [http://www.cbo.gov] concluded that, based on historical
NASA experience, that cost could be much higher. NASA has not provided an estimate for
sending astronauts to Mars. Most of the required funding would come from redirecting funds
from other NASA programs, but the President requested approximately 5% increases for
NASA each year for FY2005-2007.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees expressed support for the Vision in
their reports on the FY2005 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (H.Rept. 108- 674; S.Rept. 108-
353), but each committee cut funding for it. The final version of the bill (incorporated in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 4818, P.L. 108-447) funds NASA almost at its
requested level, which many supporters of the Vision viewed as an endorsement of the plan.
However, conferees noted that they were giving NASA funding for the Vision even though
“there has been no substantive Congressional action endorsing” it. At a February 17, 2005
hearing on the FY2006 NASA budget request, House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert
echoed that comment, saying in his opening statement that “Congress has never endorsed –
in fact, has never discussed – the Vision.” (The statement is available at
[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/feb17/SBopening.pdf].)
For FY2006, NASA is requesting $16.456 billion, a 2.4% increase over the amount
included in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act ($16.070 billion). NASA also
received a $126 million FY2005 supplemental for hurricane relief, making its total FY2005
budget $16.196 billion. The FY2006 request is a 1.6% increase over that amount. When the
Vision was announced, a projected NASA budget chart showed a 4.6% increase for FY2006
to proceed with the Vision on the schedule announced by the President.
Military Space Issues
For many years, questions have arisen about whether DOD effectively manages its space
activities, and several commissions and task forces have studied the issue. 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 Space Commission” made sweeping recommendations
for management of DOD and intelligence community space programs (see CRS Report
RS20824 for a synopsis). According to two GAO reports (GAO-02-772, June 2002; GAO-
03-379, April 2003), DOD plans to implement 10 of the 13 organizational recommendations.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) and Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB)
commissioned a task force to review DOD space program acquisition because of significant
cost increases in several programs. Chaired by retired Lockheed Martin executive Tom
Young, its May 2003 report was publicly released in September 2003
[http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/space.pdf]. Four key points are that cost has replaced
mission success as the primary driver in managing acquisition processes, creating excessive
CRS-11

---

IB92011
02-28-05
technical and schedule risk; the space acquisition system is strongly biased to produce
unrealistically low cost estimates; government capabilities to lead and manage the acquisition
process have seriously eroded; and there are long term concerns about the space industrial
base. According to press reports (e.g., Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2004, B7), the task
force produced an update in August 2004 that concluded that some of the space programs it
criticized were making progress but still required close review, and that better coordination
in needed between the military and intelligence agencies in setting requirements.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration planned to increase DOD’s space budget
significantly — from $15.7 billion in FY2002, to $20 billion in FY2004, to a projected
$28.7 billion in FY2008. However, in its report on the FY2005 DOD appropriations bill (S.
2559, S.Rept. 108-284), the Senate Appropriations Committee cautioned that funding for
DOD’s space activities may not be sustainable. DOD has not yet released its FY2006 budget
request for “space.” DOD has not yet publicly released figures for its total FY2006 space
budget request, nor for how much those programs received in total for FY2005.
A number of DOD space programs are encountering cost growth and schedule delays,
including the Air Force’s Space Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) for early warning
of missile launches, the Air Force’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)
communications satellite system, and the National Reconnaissance Office’s (NRO’s) Future
Imagery Architecture reconnaissance satellite system. DOD requests to initiate new
programs, including the Transformational Satellite (T-SAT) communications satellite
program, and a Space Based Radar (SBR) program, are controversial because of the
potentially large costs involved (and therefore their affordability), and concern as how to
avoid the cost growth and schedule delays experienced in other DOD space programs.
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
Government and private sector launch vehicles are discussed in CRS Issue Brief
IB93062. There are two types of launch vehicles: Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs,
which can only be used once) and Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs). The space shuttle is
the only RLV in the world.
NASA began its attempts to develop a new RLV to replace the space shuttle in the
1980s that would cost less and improve safety. Several programs were started and later
abandoned: the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP), jointly with DOD; X-33; X-34; and the
Space Launch Initiative (SLI). SLI was terminated following President Bush’s January 2004
announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration, The Vision involves sending astronauts
back to the Moon, but NASA officials have not yet determined what launch vehicles are
needed to take crews there, or cargo. NASA has concluded that it is preferable to separate
the functions of crew transport and cargo (the shuttle does both).

Under a 1994 Clinton policy, NASA was the lead agency for developing new RLVs,
while DOD was the lead agency for ELVs. DOD initiated 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 V and the Delta
IV respectively, which are now in operation. The companies and DOD shared the
development costs, with the expectation that the companies would recoup their costs through
selling launches to commercial customers. Market demand did not materialize as expected,
CRS-12

---

IB92011
02-28-05
however, and the companies now are seeking additional funds from DOD. DOD has been
supportive of industry’s position, asserting that by ensuring the health of both companies, it
will have “assured access to space” should technical problems arise with one of the vehicles.
DOD notified Congress in 2004 that the EELV program breached a “Nunn-McCurdy” limit
of 25% cost growth, which required DOD to cancel or restructure the program, or certify that
it is essential to national security. In April 2004, DOD certified that the program is essential
for national security. Questions began to arise, however, about whether the government
could afford both EELV service providers.
In January 2005, the Bush White House released a new U.S. space launch policy
[http://www.ostp.gov/html/SpaceTransFactSheetJan2005.pdf]. Under the new policy, DOD
is the lead agency for the national security space sector, and NASA is the lead agency for the
civil sector. DOD is directed to maintain the capability to develop, evolve, operate and
purchase services for the space transportation systems, infrastructure, and support activities
necessary to meet national security requirements. NASA is directed to do the same for the
civil sector, but is permitted to engage in development activities only for requirements that
cannot be met by capabilities being used by the national security or commercial sectors.
Regarding the EELV program, DOD is directed to fund the annual fixed costs for both
launch service providers unless or until the Secretary of Defense(SecDef) certifies to the
President that a capability to reliably assure access to space can be maintained without two
EELV providers. No later than 2010, the SecDef, Director of Central Intelligence, and the
Administrator of NASA are to evaluate the long term requirements for the EELV, including
a recommended “proportionate shift” of funding responsibility to reflect any change in the
balance between national security and civil missions requiring an EELV. Any department
or agency seeking to modify or develop new launch systems derived from the EELV,
including human rating (such as may be needed for NASA to accomplish the Vision for
Space Exploration), is responsible for related funding.
Several private companies are attempting to develop their own launch vehicles,
although market conditions make it difficult to raise financing. One focus today is building
suborbital launch vehicles that would take passengers into space (though not to orbit). The
first successful launch of a person into space on a craft (SpaceShipOne) that was developed
with private capital was conducted on June 21, 2004 (discussed earlier). The 2005 Bush
policy calls both for continued government support for space transportation capabilities, and
for capitalizing on the U.S. private sector’s “entrepreneurial spirit.” NASA os hoping that
the private sector can field systems to take cargo to and from the ISS once the space shuttle
no longer is available.
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. Other countries are responding cautiously to President Bush’s invitation to
join in the new Vision for Space Exploration. Some of the partners in the ISS program say
they want that program completed before agreeing to further cooperation. Still, many of
NASA’s current partners, as well as potentially new partners such as China, are participating
CRS-13

---

IB92011
02-28-05
in NASA-led discussions about the Vision. Also, a major European aerospace company,
EADS, reportedly will be part of a Lockheed Martin-led team to bid for the CEV contract.
Thus, international cooperation at both the government and industrial levels may be part of
achieving the Vision.
LEGISLATION
108th Congress, 2nd Session
P.L. 108-287, H.R. 4613. FY2005 DOD appropriations bill. H.R. 4613 reported from
House Appropriations Committee June 18, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-553); passed House June 22.
S. 2559 reported from Senate Appropriations Committee June 24 (S.Rept. 108-284); passed
Senate June 24. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-622) passed House and Senate July 22.
Signed into law August 5, 2004.
P.L. 108-375, H.R. 4200. FY2005 DOD authorization bill. H.R. 4200 reported from
House Armed Services Committee May 14, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-491); passed House May 20.
S. 2400 reported from Senate Armed Services Committee May 11, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-260);
passed Senate June 23. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-767) passed House and Senate
October 9, 2004. Signed into law October 28, 2004.
P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818. FY2005 VA-HUD-IA appropriations (includes NASA).
H.R. 5051 reported from House Appropriations Committee September 9, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-
674). S. 2825 reported from Senate Appropriations Committee September 21, 2004 (S.Rept.
108-353). No floor action. Final version incorporated into H.R. 4818, FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 108-792). Passed House and Senate November 20, 2004.
Signed into law December 8, 2004.
P.L. 108-492, H.R. 5382. Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 2004. No
committee action. Passed House November 20, 2004; Senate December 9, 2004. (A related
bill, H.R. 3752, had passed the House on March 4, 2004). Signed into law December 23,
2004.
CRS-14

---