Order Code RS22063
Updated March 16, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration: Overview, FY2006 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. For FY2006, NASA is requesting $16.456 billion, a 2.4%
increase over the $16.070 billion NASA received in the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). Separately, NASA received $126 million in a
FY2005 supplemental for hurricane relief. Key issues for Congress center on President
Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, announced in January 2004. If it proceeds as the
President plans, the Vision could have significant effects on NASA’s programs and
budgets, and the agency as a whole, including job cuts. Returning the space shuttle to
flight is the first step in the Vision, but the Vision also calls for the shuttle to be retired
in 2010. The future of the shuttle, including whether it should be used to service the
Hubble Space Telescope, is one focus of attention. 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 conducts civilian space
and aeronautics activities. 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 since, 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,
TX; Kennedy Space Center, near Cape Canaveral, FL: Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; and Stennis Space
Center, in Mississippi, near Slidell, LA. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
(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. See [http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/OrganizationIndex.html]
for links to these facilities. According to NASA, the agency has approximately 19,000
civil servant full time equivalents (FTEs) budgeted for FY2005.
Mr. Frederick Gregory is the Acting Administrator of NASA. The White House
has announced its intention to nominate Dr. Michael Griffin to be the next NASA
Administrator. NASA headquarters has four “mission directorates”: Aeronautics
Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations (including the space
station and space shuttle). Links to those directorate and individual NASA programs, are
at [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/org.html].
NASA’s FY2006 Budget Request
NASA is requesting $16.456 billion, a 2.4% increase over the amount appropriated
in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act ($16.070 billion when adjusted for the
rescission). NASA also received $126 million in a FY2005 supplemental for hurricane
relief, giving it a total of $16.196 billion for FY2005. The FY2006 request is a 1.6%
increase above that total. Last year, NASA was projected to receive a 4.7% increase for
FY2006. NASA has substantially changed its budget structure again, as it has done each
year for the past several years, making comparisons across fiscal years difficult.
Footnotes to Table 1 explain budget structure changes from FY2005.
Table 1: NASA’s FY2006 Budget Request
(Budget Authority, in millions of dollars)
Category
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Actual
Estimate*
Request
Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration (SA&E)
7,873
**7,681
**9,661
Science A
5,600
5,527
5,476
Aeronautics
1,057
906
852
Biological and Physical Research
986
1,004
— B
Exploration Systems
— C
25
3,165
Education
230
217
167
Exploration Capabilities
7,478
**8,358
**6,763
Space Operations
5,890
6,704
6,762
- Space Shuttle
4,061
4,543
4,531
- International Space Station
1,364
1,676
1,857

---

CRS-3
Category
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Actual
Estimate*
Request
- Space and Flight Support
466
485
376
Exploration Systems
1,588
1,654
— C
Inspector General
27
31
32
Total Regular Appropriations
15,378
16,070
16,456
FY2005 Hurricane Supplemental
126
Grand Total
15,378
16,196
16,456
Source: Office of Management and Budget [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/nasa.html],
except for space shuttle, space station, and space and flight support, which are from NASA’s FY2006
budget justification. Totals may not add due to rounding. Grand Total was added by CRS.
* Figures in this column are from NASA’s Initial Operating Plan (IOP) and are not final.
** The FY2005 totals for the SA&E and Exploration Capabilities accounts are different from those in the
table included in NASA’s FY2006 budget justification documents because OMB shows the shift of
“Exploration Systems” from one account to the other. The NASA table uses the FY2006 budget structure
without showing a “trace” between last year’s budget presentation and this year’s. Since the OMB data
show that trace, and include FY2004, they are used in this report.
A In the FY2006 request, “ Science” incorporates the former Space Science and Earth Science line items.
B In the FY2006 request, Biological and Physical Research became part of Exploration Systems.
C In the FY2006 request, funding for Exploration Systems was moved into the SA&E account.
Congress gave NASA “unrestrained transfer authority” to shift funds between its
two major accounts in FY2005, but required the agency to notify Congress through the
operating plan process of how it plans to spend the funds. NASA apparently plans to
provide those details periodically throughout FY2005, while Congress simultaneously
considers the FY2006 request.
President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration”
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced a new Vision for Space
Exploration, directing NASA to focus its efforts on returning humans to the Moon by
2020, and someday sending them to Mars and “worlds beyond.” Other highlights include
the following (for more information see CRS Report RS21720):
! Robotic probes would serve as trailblazers for human explorers, and study the
solar system and universe for signs of life.
! The space shuttle would be used to complete construction of the International
Space Station (ISS), and then be retired, with 2010 as the target. NASA would
redirect its ISS research to only what is needed to support the Vision, instead
of the broadly-based program that was planned earlier. The United States
would meet its obligations to its international partners in the ISS program. A
NASA budget chart shows NASA completing its use of ISS by FY2017.
! NASA would build a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to take astronauts to
and from the Moon, with an Earth-orbit capability by 2014. It would also
conduct research on nuclear power and propulsion systems, and develop new
technologies, including using “prizes” to stimulate innovative ideas.
! Other countries were invited to participate.

---

CRS-4
! No cost estimate was provided for the Vision overall, but NASA released a
“sand chart” with projected NASA budgets through FY2020
[http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budget_chart_14jan04.pdf]. Later,
NASA stated that returning humans to the Moon would cost $64 billion (in
2003 dollars) between FY2004 and FY2020, not including the cost of robotic
probes. Most of the funding would come from redirecting funds from other
NASA activities, not new money.
The President’s speech came almost exactly one year after the space shuttle
Columbia tragedy that killed seven astronauts (see CRS Report RS21408). One of the
conclusions of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) was that NASA
lacked a national mandate providing it with a compelling mission requiring human
presence in space. CAIB chairman Adm. Harold Gehman (Ret.) told Congress in
September 2003 that the nation needs an “agreed vision” that NASA can execute.1
President Bush’s announcement of the Vision initiated the process of finding an
“agreed vision.” Whether or not a consensus has emerged on adopting the President’s
goals is debatable. Supporters cite congressional action on the FY2005 NASA budget
as one sign of that consensus. Congress approved almost the full NASA request for
FY2005. However, conferees on the bill emphasized in the accompanying report that
although they were providing substantial funds, “to date there has been no substantive
Congressional action endorsing this initiative.”2 Supporters also point to a 2004 Gallup
poll that showed that 68% of the public supports the Vision. Others note, however, that
the poll was sponsored by the Coalition for Space Exploration, composed of companies
and organizations that support the Vision. Thus, as debate about the Vision and NASA’s
FY2006 budget request ensues, the depth and breadth of support for it in Congress and
the public remains uncertain. According to NASA briefing charts, the FY2006 budget
includes $6 billion for “exploration specific” activities. That does not include $6.4
billion for the space shuttle and space station programs, which are often described as the
first steps in the Vision.

Key Congressional Issues
The Relative Priority of NASA in the Federal Budget
With the current emphasis on cutting spending to reduce the federal budget deficit,
some may question the amount of money proposed for NASA in FY2006 and beyond.
Space program advocates often cite the small percentage of federal budget authority that
is allocated to NASA — 0.7 % in FY2005 — as an indication that it is not a significant
factor in the nation’s overall spending. The Coalition for Space Exploration
[http://www.spacecoalition.org] points out that benefits accrue from space exploration,
1 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board
Report. Hearing. September 4, 2003. 108th Congress, 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 2004. p. 57.
2 FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-792).
Congressional Record, November 19, 2004, p. H10860. No FY2005 NASA authorization bill
was introduced in the House. The Senate Commerce Committee reported a FY2005-2009 NASA
authorization bill (S. 2541), but there was no further action.

---

CRS-5
inter alia, in terms of stimulating children to study math and science, and driving
invention, which supports a robust economy. Skeptics counter that spending more than
$16 billion on NASA is a luxury when many domestic discretionary programs are being
cut, and federal R&D spending overall is not keeping pace with inflation. Thus, a
fundamental question facing Congress is the relative priority of funding NASA compared
with other government programs, including other R&D programs. In a statement
[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/index.htm] at a February 17, 2005, House
Science Committee hearing, Chairman Representative Sherwood Boehlert said that while
he supports the Vision, “I don’t think NASA should be our top budget priority either in
the Committee or the Congress.” Science Committee Ranking Member Representative
Bart Gordon said [http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/releases/05feb17.htm] that
he strongly supports exploration, but “NASA is headed for a potential train wreck as it
puts all its eggs in the exploration basket at a time when deficit concerns are going to
keep squeezing discretionary spending.”
The Relative Priority of the Vision Versus Other NASA Activities
Funding. The President’s plan calls for most of the funding for the Vision to come
from redirecting spending from other NASA activities. In the “sand chart” (discussed
earlier), the programs that are not included in the Vision are labeled Aeronautics and
Other Science Programs. Funding for those activities is shown as remaining flat through
the FY2004-2020 time frame. The “other science” is Earth science, and two Space
Science disciplines, Sun-Earth Connections, and Structure and Evolution of the Universe
(SEU). Advocates of aeronautics and the science disciplines in the “other” category
worry that funding for their research will suffer. Tracking funding for those science
activities is difficult because, in the FY2006 budget, they are merged with other
programs. Aeronautics funding, however, is projected to decline 32 percent, from $1
billion in FY2004 to $718 million in FY2010, according to the FY2006 budget
documents. Then-NASA Administrator O’Keefe said on January 31, 2005
[http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107627main_ok_aiaa.pdf] that the space “community must
bluntly confront the fact that as momentum continues to build for the Vision, some
programs ... must fall by the wayside.” In their statements at the February 17, 2005
House Science Committee hearing (referenced above), Chairman Boehlert and
Representative Gordon each expressed concern, however. Chairman Boehlert said that
he was “for a NASA that sees itself as a science agency, with all of Space Science, Earth
Science and Aeronautics receiving the attention and funding accorded to priority areas.”
Representative Gordon said that “cannibalizing NASA’s science and aeronautics
programs to fund the exploration initiative will further erode the base of support for
NASA in Congress.”
Workforce and Institutional Issues. The amount of funding for various
activities will affect workforce levels at the various NASA centers. For example,
according to NASA briefing charts, the reduction in aeronautics funding will mean the
elimination of 1,100 civil service jobs at NASA centers. NASA officials insist that there
are no plans to close any NASA centers, but the agency is studying how to “transform”
its centers. Also, a 2003 assessment of NASA’s aeronautics program by the National
Research Council found that its center infrastructure exceeds its current needs. How to
“right size” NASA, its facilities, and its workforce, and ensure NASA has the necessary
skill mix for the Vision, are among the issues facing Congress. According to figures
provided to CRS by NASA, the number of budgeted FTEs would drop from 19,227 in

---

CRS-6
FY2005, to 18,798 in FY2006, to 16,738 in FY2007, a decrease of 2,489 FTEs between
now and the start of FY2007.
The Future of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station
The Vision calls for the space shuttle fleet to be retired in 2010, primarily to make
that funding available for other aspects of the Vision. Another factor may have been a
requirement set by the CAIB for the shuttle system to be recertified if it is used beyond
2010. Placing a fixed termination date on the shuttle system, however, may create
schedule pressure similar to what the CAIB found to have contributed to the Columbia
accident (see CRS Report RS21408). Also, retiring the shuttle without another vehicle
to replace it means that the United States would be completely dependent on Russia to
take American crews to and from ISS at least until the new CEV is available (projected
in 2014). NASA has not committed to using the CEV to service ISS, however — its
main purpose is taking crews to and from the Moon. Some argue that the shuttle should
be retained until another U.S. vehicle is available. Also, Russia has indicated that it will
not provide transport services for free, and NASA is not permitted to make payments to
Russia related to the ISS under terms of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA, P.L. 106-
178) unless Russia stops proliferating certain technologies to Iran. Thus, the future of
NASA’s ability to use the ISS is unclear (see CRS Report RS22072 and CRS Issue Brief
IB93017). Another concern is how to ensure that shuttle flights remain safe as funding
decreases and the workforce and vendors dissipate.
NASA officials have indicated that NASA may complete its use of the ISS by
FY2017. Under the Vision, the only U.S. research that will be conducted on ISS is that
needed to fulfill the Vision, i.e., to support human health and safety in exploring the
Moon and Mars. NASA spends about $2 billion a year on ISS, in addition to the costs
of the shuttle program. Some question whether ISS is worth that level of investment
considering the modest research objectives that remain. NASA is building ISS in
partnership with Canada, Japan, Russia, and 10 European countries. Fulfilling U.S.
commitments to those partners may be another rationale for continued U.S. involvement.
The Future of the Hubble Space Telescope
Two days after the President’s Vision speech, NASA announced that it would not use
the shuttle to conduct further servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope (see CRS
Report RS21767). Then-Administrator O’Keefe cited shuttle safety concerns as the
primary reason for his decision. Widespread criticism of that decision led NASA to
explore the possibility of a robotic servicing mission. A December 2004 report from the
National Research Council, however, concluded that a robotic servicing mission was not
likely to succeed in the time available. Meanwhile, cost estimates of $1 billion or more
for either a shuttle or a robotic servicing mission raised questions about affordability,
regardless of which option was chosen. In the FY2006 request, NASA is requesting
money only for a deorbit mission (to ensure that Hubble reenters from orbit without posing
danger to populated areas), even though Congress directed NASA to spend $291 million
in FY2005 on a servicing mission. Whether or not to service Hubble, robotically or with
the shuttle, is a major issue facing Congress.

---