Order Code RS22063
Updated November 17, 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 requested $16,456.3 million, a
2.4%increase over the $16,070.4 million it received in the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), or 1.6% more than the total of $16,196.4 million it
received for FY2005, including a hurricane supplemental. The final version of the
FY2006 appropriations bill that includes NASA (H.R. 2862) approves $16,456.8 million
($500,000 above the request); it is awaiting signature by the President. A NASA
authorization bill (H.R. 3070) passed the House with a $510 million increase above the
request; the Senate-passed version (S. 1281) has a $100 million increase. The
Administration included $324.8 million for NASA in the October 28, 2005 reallocation
package that includes funds for hurricane relief. 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 47 years since, NASA has
conducted far reaching programs in human and robotic spaceflight, technology
development, and scientific research.
Dr. Michael Griffin is the Administrator of NASA. The agency is managed from
NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Links to NASA’s four Mission Directorates
(Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations) and
individual NASA programs, are at [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/org.html]. NASA has
nine major field centers: 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, near Houston, TX;
Kennedy Space Center, near Cape Canaveral, FL: Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
VA; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; and Stennis Space Center, in
Mississippi, near Slidell, LA. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, is a
Federally Funded Research and Development Center operated for NASA by the California
Institute of Technology. According to NASA, the agency has approximately 19,000 civil
servant full time equivalents (FTEs) budgeted for FY2005.
NASA’s FY2006 Budget Request
NASA requested $16,456.3 million, a 2.4% increase over the $16,070.4 million
appropriated in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (adjusted for the rescission).
NASA also received $126 million in a FY2005 supplemental for hurricane relief, giving
it a total of $16,196.4 million for FY2005. The FY2006 request is 1.6% more than that
total. Last year, NASA was projected to receive a 4.7% increase for FY2006. NASA has
substantially changed its budget structure again, as explained in footnotes to Table 1.
NASA submitted a budget amendment on July 15; the total amount requested for the
agency did not change, only how it is allocated within the agency. The “FY2006 Req”
figures in Table 1 reflect the amendment, but the appropriations figures do not.
Table 1. NASA’s FY2006 Budget Request
(Budget Authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2005
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Senate
House
Category
Est.*
(Amended)
App.
App.
Rpt.
Auth.
Auth.
Science, Aero., and Expl.
**7,681
**9,829
9,726
9,761
9,761
9,661
Science a
5,527
5,341
5,341
Aeronautics
906
852
Biological and Physical
1,004
— b
Research
Exploration Systems
25
3,468
Education
217
167
Exploration Capabilities
**8,358
**6,595
6,713
6,603
6,663
6,863
Space Operations
6,704
6,595
- Space Shuttle
4,543
4,531
- International Space Station
1,676
1,689
- Space and Flight Support
485
376
Exploration Systems
1,654
— c
Inspector General
31
32
32
32
32
32
Total regular
16,070
16,456
16,471
16,396
16,457
16,556
16,966
appropriations
Supp. for 2004 Hurricanes
126
Grand total
16,196
16,456
16,471
16,396
16,457
16,556
16,966
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, NASA FY2006 budget request documents, and House and
Senate bills and committee reports.

---

CRS-3
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Some of the fields are blank because the committee bills and
reports do not provide requisite data.
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.
* Figures in this column are from NASA’s Initial Operating Plan (IOP) and are not final. Several operating
plan updates have been submitted, but are not in a budget format compatible with the FY2006 budget.
** 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 that trace. Hence the OMB data are used in this report.
NASA appropriations are included in the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce
appropriations bill (H.R. 2862). The House passed the bill on June 16, 2005, approving
a net increase of $15 million. The Senate passed the bill on September 15, approving a
net cut of $60 million. The conference report (H.Rept. 109-272), which has passed the
House and Senate, approves a net increase of $500,000 ($16,456.8 million, compared
with the $16,456.3 million request). Among the increases above the request are $280
million for congressionally directed priorities, $60 million for aeronautics, $50 million
for the Hubble servicing mission, $30 million for the Glory earth science mission, $20
million for the National Center for Advanced Manufacturing, $20 million for alternative
small spacecraft technology, $15 million for the Propulsion Research Lab, $15 million for
earth science competitive grants, $12.2 million for the Space Grant program, $10 million
for the Space Interferometry Mission, $10 million for the Institute for Scientific Research,
$8.2 million for EPSCoR, $5 million for a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, and $5 million for
the Living with a Star solar-terrestrial physics program. Among the decreases are $200
million from Project Prometheus; a $90 million general reduction from the Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration account; $34 million from the Centennial Challenges
program; $26 million from corporate G&A expenses; $25 million from exploration
research and technology; $25 million from human systems research and technology; $25
million from the Discovery program; $15 million from optical communications; $80
million from the International Space Station (including $60 million from the ISS
Crew/Cargo Services line); $10 million from space communications; and $10 million
general reduction from the Exploration Capabilities account.
The House passed a FY2006-2007 NASA authorization bill on July 22 (H.R. 3070,
H.Rept. 109-173) after adopting a manager’s amendment that significantly increased
funding compared with the committee-reported bill. As passed, it authorizes $16.966
billion, $510 million more than the request. (The bill uses a different budget structure
than the request, so the breakdown cannot be incorporated into Table 1.) The Senate
passed a FY2006-2010 NASA authorization bill (S. 1281, S.Rept. 109-108) on September
28 that recommends a $100 million addition to Exploration Capabilities to enhance the
use of the ISS for research.
The July 15 budget amendment reflects, in part, NASA’s decision to move two
programs into the Exploration Systems line — ISS Crew/Cargo Services ($168 million)
was moved from the International Space Station, and the Lunar Robotic Exploration
Program ($135 million) was moved from the Science Mission Directorate. Other changes
also were made within the accounts in the budget amendment and in updates to NASA’s
FY2005 operating plan (see CRS Report RL32988). Separately, two NASA facilities in

---

CRS-4
or near New Orleans, LA, were damaged by Hurricane Katrina: the Stennis Space Center,
and the Michoud Assembly Facility, operated for NASA by Lockheed Martin. NASA
estimates that it will cost $760 million to repair damages and relocate staff. The agency
shifted $100 million in FY2005 funds to begin hurricane recovery efforts. The rescission
and reallocation request submitted by the Bush Administration on October 28, 2005
contains $324.8 million for NASA for hurricane relief.
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.” The Vision involves
both robotic and human space missions, and other countries were invited to participate.
For more information, see CRS Report RS21720. The President proposed adding only
$1 billion to NASA’s five-year (FY2005-2009) budget for the Vision. The remainder of
the required funding is to be redirected from other NASA activities, for example by
terminating the space shuttle program in 2010, and ending U.S. use of the International
Space Station in 2016. At the time of the speech, NASA issued a “sand chart” with
projected NASA budgets through FY2020, but did not offer a cost estimate for the Vision.
Later in 2004, NASA stated that returning humans to the Moon would cost $64 billion
(2003 dollars) for FY2004-FY2020, not including robotic probes. A cost estimate for
sending people to Mars was not provided. Under the Vision, NASA is to develop a new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), to take astronauts to and from the
Moon, with an Earth-orbit capability by 2014. On September 19, 2005, NASA released
its implementation plan for the Vision, setting a goal of having the CEV ready by 2012,
and estimating the cost of returning humans to the Moon at $104 billion through 2018.
The President’s speech came almost one year after the space shuttle Columbia
tragedy that killed seven astronauts (see CRS Report RS21408). One of the conclusions
of the chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), Harold Gehman,
was that the nation needs an “agreed vision” that NASA can execute. President Bush’s
announcement initiated the process of finding an “agreed vision.” Whether or not a
consensus has emerged is debatable. Supporters point to Gallup polls in 2004 and 2005
that showed strong public support, but others note that the polls were sponsored by the
Coalition for Space Exploration, a group of companies and organizations that support the
Vision [http://www.spacecoalition.org]. Supporters also point to congressional action
funding the Vision as an endorsement. Congressional committees, however, have stressed
that while they agree with the “Moon/Mars” goal, they also think NASA should maintain
a balanced set of program including science and aeronautics, not focus specifically on
human exploration. For FY2006, the House and Senate have passed authorization (H.R.
3070/S. 1281) and appropriations (H.R. 2862) bills for NASA. The appropriations bill,
as reported from conference, cut the following Vision-related programs: $25 million from
each of the two Exploration Systems research and technology subaccounts; all $34 million
from Centennial Challenges; and $200 million from Prometheus. Conferees added $5
million for a “heavy lift” launch vehicle. H.R. 3070 uses a different budget structure than
NASA’s request, placing “exploration systems” into its own budget account, instead of
including it with science, aeronautics, and education. The additional $510 million in the
House-passed version of H.R. 3070 would be allocated to the Vision.

---

CRS-5
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,
and the funding requirements associated with hurricane recovery, 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 points out that benefits accrue
from space exploration 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.
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 2004 “sand chart”
(discussed earlier), the programs that are not included in the Vision were labeled
Aeronautics and Other Science Programs. Funding for those activities, including
aeronautics, earth science, and certain space science programs, was shown as remaining
flat through FY2020. Advocates of those programs worried that funding for their research
would suffer. However, NASA Administrator Griffin, who assumed office in April 2005,
has stated that he will not take funds from space science, earth science, or aeronautics
programs to pay for the Vision (although he is cutting funding for life sciences and
materials sciences research that was to be conducted aboard the ISS in order to pay for
accelerated development of the CEV). As discussed earlier, the reports accompanying the
House and Senate NASA appropriations and authorization bills express support for the
Vision, but only as part of a balanced program that includes science and aeronautics. It
should be noted that current budget constraints at NASA are due not only to the need to
fund the Vision, but also to cost growth in existing NASA programs (including several
science missions), the cost of returning the space shuttle to flight status, and the need to
fund congressionally directed items.
Workforce and Institutional Issues. Funding for various NASA activities also
will affect NASA workforce levels. NASA officials insist that there are no plans to close
any NASA centers, but NASA’s FY2006 budget assumes that the number of budgeted
civil service full time equivalents (FTEs) will drop from 19,227 in FY2005 to 16,738 by
the end of FY2006. 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. The final version of the FY2006 appropriations bill (H.R. 2862) restricts
NASA’s use of buyouts and Reductions in Force (RIFs) prior to NASA providing certain
reports to Congress.
The Future of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station
The Vision calls for the space shuttle fleet to be retired in 2010, when ISS
construction is expected to be completed. NASA Administrator Griffin emphasizes his

---

CRS-6
intention to meet that deadline, citing the need to use that funding to implement other
aspects of the Vision. 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). One alternative is to fly the shuttle until
a replacement is available. Another is to specify how many more shuttle flights are
needed, and continue the system until those requirements are met, whenever that is. S.
1281, as passed by the Senate, states that it is U.S. policy to possess the capability for
assured human access to space, and directs the NASA Administrator to act to ensure that
capability and to make a number of related reports to Congress in future years. The
replacement for the shuttle is the CEV (discussed above). President Bush directed NASA
to build the CEV so that it would be available by 2014. Dr. Griffin hopes to accelerate
CEV development so it is ready in 2012. That would reduce the gap between the end of
the shuttle (2010) and availability of the CEV. During such a gap, the United States
would be dependent on Russia to take American crews to and from ISS. Russia has
indicated that it will not provide ISS crew transport services to NASA for free after April
2006 (when an existing agreement will be fulfilled), but NASA is not permitted to pay
Russia for such services under the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA). The Senate and
House have passed different versions of legislation (S. 1713) that would allow NASA to
purchase needed services from Russia for a certain time period. (See CRS Report
RS22270 for more information.)
NASA officials have indicated that NASA plans to complete its use of the ISS in
2016. Under the Vision, the only U.S. research that would be conducted on ISS is that
needed to fulfill the Vision. NASA is downscaling its ISS research plan, which is being
further eroded by NASA’s decision to shift funds from ISS research into accelerating
development of the CEV. 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 opportunities that remain. Others want to restore the ISS
research program to what was previously planned. NASA is building ISS in partnership
with Canada, Japan, Russia, and 10 European countries. Others consider fulfilling U.S.
commitments to those partners to be a sufficient rationale for continued U.S. involvement.
S. 1281 adds $100 million and makes other recommendations to enhance ISS research.
H.R. 3070 does not specify an ISS funding level, but directs that 15% of ISS research
spending be used for non Vision-related research. The final version of the appropriations
bill, H.R. 2862, cuts $80 million from the space station program.
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 Sean O’Keefe cited shuttle safety concerns as the
primary reason. Widespread criticism 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. In the FY2006 request, NASA requested money only for a deorbit mission (to
ensure that Hubble reenters from orbit without posing danger to populated areas). Dr.
Griffin has pledged to revisit the shuttle servicing decision after the shuttle completes its
two “Return to Flight” mission. The final version of the appropriations bill, H.R. 2862,
adds $50 million for a Hubble servicing mission, which the accompanying report (H.Rept.
109-272) says brings the total available for Hubble in FY2006 to $271 million.

---