The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues
Facing Congress
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
April 19, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41016
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Summary
For the past several years, the priorities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) have been governed by the Vision for Space Exploration. The Vision was announced by
President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by Congress in the 2005 and 2008 NASA
authorization acts (P.L. 109-155 and P.L. 110-422). It directed NASA to focus its efforts on
returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and some day sending them to Mars and “worlds
beyond.” The resulting efforts are now approaching major milestones, such as the end of the
space shuttle program, design review decisions for the new spacecraft intended to replace the
shuttle, and decisions about whether to extend the operation of the International Space Station. At
the same time, concerns have grown about whether NASA can accomplish the planned program
of human exploration of space without significant growth in its budget.
A high-level independent review of the future of human space flight, chaired by Norman R.
Augustine, issued its final report in October 2009. It presented several options as alternatives to
the Vision and concluded that for human exploration to continue “in any meaningful way,” NASA
would require an additional $3 billion per year above current plans.
In its FY2011 budget request, the Obama Administration proposed cancelling the Constellation
spacecraft development program and eliminating the goal of returning humans to the Moon.
NASA would instead rely on commercial providers to transport astronauts to Earth orbit, and its
ultimate goal beyond Earth orbit would be human exploration of Mars, with missions to other
destinations, such as visiting an asteroid in 2025, as intermediate goals. Operation of the
International Space Station would be extended to at least 2020, and long-term technology
development would receive increased emphasis.
Committees in the House and Senate have held hearings to consider both the Augustine report
and the Administration proposals. As Congress considers these broad space policy challenges, it
faces choices about
• whether NASA’s human exploration program is affordable and sufficiently safe,
and if so, what destination or destinations it should explore;
• whether the space shuttle program should continue past its currently planned
termination at the end of 2010 (or in early 2011); if so, how to ensure the
continued safety of shuttle crews after 2010; if not, how the transition of the
shuttle workforce and facilities should be managed;
• whether U.S. use of the International Space Station should continue past its
currently planned termination at the end of 2015;
• whether the currently planned Orion crew capsule and Ares rockets, being
developed as successors to the space shuttle, are the best choices for delivering
astronauts and cargo into space, or whether other proposed rockets or commercial
services should take their place; and
• how NASA’s multiple objectives in human spaceflight, science, aeronautics, and
education should be prioritized.
Congressional Research Service
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Contents
Introduction and Legislative Context ........................................................................................... 1
What Is NASA For? .................................................................................................................... 2
What Should NASA Do?............................................................................................................. 4
Human Spaceflight: The Vision for Space Exploration .......................................................... 4
Current Program to Implement the Vision ....................................................................... 5
Issue for Congress: Cost and Schedule ............................................................................ 5
Issue for Congress: Why the Moon? ................................................................................ 7
Issue for Congress: “The Gap” and Utilization of the Space Station................................. 7
Human Spaceflight: The Augustine Committee ..................................................................... 8
Options Identified by the Augustine Committee .............................................................. 8
Questions for Congressional Policy Makers to Consider ................................................ 10
Human Spaceflight: Administration Proposals..................................................................... 11
Congressional and Public Reaction................................................................................ 11
Modifications to the Administration Proposals .............................................................. 12
Science ............................................................................................................................... 12
Aeronautics......................................................................................................................... 14
Education............................................................................................................................ 15
Balancing Competing Priorities........................................................................................... 16
Space Shuttle Program .............................................................................................................. 17
Why the Shuttle Program Is Ending..................................................................................... 17
Possible Extension of the Shuttle Program........................................................................... 18
Transition of Shuttle Workforce and Facilities ..................................................................... 19
International Space Station........................................................................................................ 20
ISS Service Life Extension.................................................................................................. 22
Post-Shuttle Access to the ISS ............................................................................................. 23
Future Access to Space.............................................................................................................. 24
Orion and Ares.................................................................................................................... 24
Government Alternatives to Ares V ..................................................................................... 25
Commercial Services as an Alternative to Ares I.................................................................. 26
Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................. 28
Safety ........................................................................................................................... 28
Other Issues .................................................................................................................. 29
Destinations for Human Exploration ......................................................................................... 30
Alternatives to Human Exploration ........................................................................................... 31
Robotic Exploration ............................................................................................................ 32
Emphasize Technology Development .................................................................................. 32
Other Space Policy Issues ......................................................................................................... 33
NASA Acquisition and Financial Management .................................................................... 33
U.S. Space Policy Governance ............................................................................................ 34
U.S. National Security Space Programs ............................................................................... 35
NASA’s Relationship with NOAA....................................................................................... 35
The U.S. Commercial Space Industry.................................................................................. 36
Legislation in the 111th Congress ............................................................................................... 37
Summary of Major Issues for Congress ..................................................................................... 37
Congressional Research Service
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Figures
Figure 1. Potential Activities at Alternative Human Exploration Destinations (in Addition
to the Moon and Mars) as Evaluated by the Augustine Committee.......................................... 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 38
Congressional Research Service
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Introduction and Legislative Context
The idea of human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit has captivated many Americans for more than
half a century. As U.S. space policy has evolved, new opportunities have emerged, and new
challenges have arisen. For the past several years, the priorities of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) have been governed by the Vision for Space Exploration. The
Vision was announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by Congress in the 2005
and 2008 NASA authorization acts (P.L. 109-155 and P.L. 110-422). It directed NASA to focus its
efforts on returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and some day sending them to Mars and
“worlds beyond.” The resulting efforts are now approaching major milestones, such as the end of
the space shuttle program, design review decisions for the new spacecraft intended to replace the
shuttle, and decisions about whether to extend the operation of the International Space Station. At
the same time, concerns have grown about whether NASA can accomplish the planned program
of human exploration of space without significant growth in its budget. When President Obama
took office in January 2009, most analysts expected the new Administration to revisit the Vision,
but it was not immediately clear what changes it would make.
In May 2009, when the Administration released the full details of its budget request for FY2010,
it announced plans for a high-level independent review of the future of human space flight,
chaired by Norman R. Augustine.1 Major components of the NASA budget request were
placeholders, to be revised following the results of this review. The Augustine committee released
its final report in October 2009.2 Committees in the House and Senate held hearings to consider
the proposals.3 The Administration did not submit a revised FY2010 budget for NASA. In
December 2009, Congress appropriated FY2010 funds for NASA at approximately the level in
the President’s original request. The appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) stated
that the Augustine committee’s report
raises issues requiring thoughtful consideration by the Administration and the Congress.... It
is premature for the conferees to advocate or initiate significant changes to the current
program absent a bona fide proposal from the Administration and subsequent assessment,
consideration and enactment by Congress.... It is the expressed hope of the conferees that the
Administration will formulate its formal decision soon, submit its recommendations for
congressional review and consideration, and budget the necessary resources.
As part of its FY2011 budget, the Administration proposed major changes to the Vision, including
the elimination of a human return to the Moon as NASA’s primary goal, the cancellation of
NASA’s Constellation spacecraft development program, a new effort to encourage the private
sector to develop commercial crew launch services, and increased emphasis at NASA on
technology development and science. Congress will consider these proposals as it acts on FY2011
appropriations legislation.
1 For more details, see “Human Spaceflight: The Augustine Committee,” below.
2 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, October 2009, online at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.
3 House Committee on Science and Technology, Options and Issues for NASA’s Human Space Flight Program: Report
of the “Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans” Committee, hearing September 15, 2009; Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science and Space, Options from the Review of U.S. Human
Space Flight Plans Committee, hearing September 16, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The 111th Congress is also widely expected to consider a new NASA authorization bill. The 2008
authorization act authorizes appropriations for NASA only through FY2009 and still reflects
congressional endorsement of an unmodified Vision for Space Exploration. The House
Committee on Science and Technology has publicly announced its intent to “work with the new
Administration on a multi-year authorization for NASA.”4 No new authorization bill has yet been
introduced in either chamber, however.
As Congress considers these broad space policy challenges, the major issues it faces can be
summarized as three broad questions:
• What is NASA for? Different analysts and policy makers give different answers
to this question: making scientific discoveries, developing technologies with
economic benefits, enhancing national security, enhancing international prestige,
even fulfilling human destiny in space. How should these competing goals be
prioritized?
• What should NASA do? In order to accomplish its broad goals, how should
NASA balance its major programs in human spaceflight, robotic spaceflight,
aeronautics research, and education? In the human spaceflight program, which is
larger than all the others put together, should the agency’s goal be exploration of
the Moon, or some other destination? What should the top priorities be for
NASA’s science and aeronautics programs?
• How? Once these questions are decided, how should their answers be
implemented? What new space vehicles are needed? What should be done with
existing programs, such as the space shuttle and the International Space Station?
This report analyzes these questions and some possible answers. It also addresses a number of
cross-cutting issues, such as NASA’s interactions with other federal agencies and the growing role
of the commercial space industry.
What Is NASA For?
During the Eisenhower Administration, after the Soviet Union’s launch of the first artificial
satellite, Sputnik, but before the establishment of NASA, the President’s Science and Advisory
Committee identified four “principal reasons for undertaking a national space program”:
• “the compelling urge of man to explore and to discover”;
• “defense ... to be sure that space is not used to endanger our security ... [and to]
be prepared to use space to defend ourselves”;
• to “enhance the prestige of the United States ... and create added confidence in
our scientific, technological, industrial, and military strength”; and
• “scientific observation and experiment which will add to our knowledge and
understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.”5
4 House Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Congress – Agenda Overview,
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/ForReleases/111thSTAgenda.pdf.
5 President’s Science Advisory Committee, Introduction to Outer Space, March 26, 1958, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
To these objectives, analysts today add
• the potential for technologies developed for the space program to have direct and
indirect (“spinoff”) economic benefits;
• the opportunity to use space activities as a tool of international relations, through
collaboration on projects such as the International Space Station; and
• the ability of the space program to inspire students and promote education in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
These goals form a foundation for U.S. space policies, but policy makers differ in how they
should be balanced against each other. Is the urge to discover a sufficient reason to explore space,
or must exploration also meet needs here on Earth? Should economic benefits be an explicit focus
for NASA or just a positive side effect? To what extent should improving STEM education be a
NASA function, as opposed to a consequence of its other functions? Should the emphasis of
international space programs be competition or cooperation?
The priorities that Congress assigns to these objectives may determine how it balances the
competing demands of NASA’s programs. For example, if Congress believes that national
prestige is a high priority, it could choose to emphasize NASA’s high-profile human exploration
activities, such as establishing a Moon base or exploring Mars. If scientific knowledge is a high
priority, Congress could emphasize unmanned missions such as the Hubble telescope and the
Mars rovers. If international relations are a high priority, Congress could encourage joint space
activities with other nations. If economic benefits are of interest, Congress could focus on
technological development, linking NASA programs to the needs of business and industry.
A report by the National Academies proposed goals similar to those listed above and
recommended three criteria to use in balancing their competing demands for resources:6
• Steady progress. Each major area should be maintained at a level that allows
sustained long-term progress with intermediate goals achieved at a reasonable
pace.
• Stability. Rapid downsizing and abrupt redirection should be avoided because
they are disruptive, can take time to recover from, and can create risk as
operations experience is lost.
• Robustness. Sufficient human resources and research infrastructure should be
maintained so that the nation can ramp up selected activities quickly in response
to changing national needs or scientific breakthroughs.
The Academies report did not, however, actually employ these criteria to prioritize the goals it
proposed.
(...continued)
office/pao/History/monograph10/doc6.pdf. For more information on the evolution of space policy since Sputnik, see
CRS Report RL34263, U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities: Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik, by Deborah D. Stine.
6 National Research Council, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, 2009,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12701.html, pp. 46-48.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
What Should NASA Do?
Based on this wide variety of objectives, NASA has established programs in human spaceflight,
science, aeronautics, and education. The largest and most visible effort, in human spaceflight,
faces considerable uncertainty about its proper scope and aims. The content of the science,
aeronautics, and education programs is less controversial but still faces questions about scope,
balance, and other issues.
Human Spaceflight: The Vision for Space Exploration
The Vision for Space Exploration, announced by President Bush in a speech on January 14, 2004,
directed NASA to focus its efforts on returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and eventually
sending them to Mars and “worlds beyond.”7 (Twelve U.S. astronauts walked on the Moon
between 1969 and 1972. No humans have visited Mars.) The Vision also directed NASA to return
the space shuttle to flight status following the February 2003 Columbia disaster; to complete
construction of the International Space Station (ISS) in accord with existing international
commitments; and to conclude U.S. participation in the ISS by the end of 2015. The first post-
Columbia shuttle flight was launched in July 2005. The other goals remain to be accomplished.
To advise NASA on implementation of the Vision, President Bush established a Commission on
the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, chaired by Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr.8
The Aldridge Commission issued its report in June 2004.9 In April 2005, NASA established an
Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) to identify a strategy and technical architecture
for implementing the Vision. The ESAS issued its final report in November 2005.10 Since then,
the reports of the Aldridge Commission and the ESAS have been the baseline for NASA’s space
exploration plans.
In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), Congress endorsed the Vision in broad
terms and established several milestones for its implementation, including a statutory mandate to
return to the Moon no later than 2020.11 Nevertheless, it directed NASA to construct an
architecture and implementation plan for its human exploration program “that is not critically
dependent on the achievement of milestones by specific dates.”12
7 President George W. Bush, speech at NASA headquarters, Washington, D.C., January 14, 2004,
http://history.nasa.gov/BushSEP.htm. For more information on the original Vision and initial reactions to it by
Congress and the public, see CRS Report RS21720, Space Exploration: Issues Concerning the Vision for Space
Exploration, by Marcia S. Smith.
8 Peter Aldridge was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from 2001 to 2003. He
previously held other senior positions in both government and the aerospace industry. In the 1980s, he trained as a
shuttle astronaut, but his mission was cancelled following the Challenger disaster in 1986.
9 Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover,
June 2004, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf.
10 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study: Final Report¸
NASA-TM-2005-214062, November 2005, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140649main_ESAS_full.pdf.
11 P.L. 109-155, Section 101(b).
12 P.L. 109-155, Section 503.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422) reaffirmed the Vision’s broad goals,
including the “eventual” return to the Moon and missions to other destinations in the solar
system.13 It expressed the sense of Congress that “America’s friends and allies” should be invited
to participate.14 It directed NASA to take a “stepping stone approach” in which lunar exploration
activities are designed and implemented with strong consideration to their future contribution to
exploration beyond the Moon.15 It directed that plans for a lunar outpost should not require its
continuous occupation and that NASA should use commercial services for its lunar outpost
activities “to the maximum extent practicable.”16
Current Program to Implement the Vision
The current program for implementing the Vision addresses the conclusion of the space shuttle
and International Space Station programs as well as the development and implementation of new
vehicles for taking humans into Earth orbit and then back to the Moon. The major elements of the
current program are as follows:
• Retire the space shuttle at the end of 2010 (or if necessary, in the first half of
2011). Rely on non-U.S. vehicles for human access to space until a replacement
vehicle is developed.
• Terminate U.S. use of the International Space Station at the end of 2015.
• Under the Constellation program, develop new systems for space exploration:
• the Ares I rocket to launch astronauts into low Earth orbit, where the
International Space Station is located;
• the Orion crew capsule, to be launched atop Ares I to carry astronauts into
orbit and beyond;
• the Ares V heavy-lift rocket to send astronauts and equipment to the Moon;
and
• the Altair lunar lander and various lunar surface systems.
No FY2011 funds are currently budgeted for any shuttle flights that extend past the end of 2010.
No FY2016 funds are currently budgeted for deorbiting the space station. The first crewed flight
(or “initial operating capability”) of Ares I and Orion is scheduled for early 2015. The first return
to the Moon, using all the Constellation systems together, is planned for 2020, but NASA
acknowledges that meeting that date will be difficult.
Issue for Congress: Cost and Schedule
Cost is likely to play a central role as congressional policy makers oversee the Vision’s progress
and considers proposals to modify it. During the Bush Administration, NASA stressed that its
strategy was to “go as we can afford to pay,” with the pace of the program set, in part, by the
13 P.L. 110-422, Section 402.
14 P.L. 110-422, Section 401.
15 P.L. 110-422, Section 403.
16 P.L. 110-422, Section 404.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
available funding.17 The original plan in 2004 proposed adding a total of just $1 billion to
NASA’s budget for FY2005 through FY2009 to help pay for the Vision, with increases thereafter
limited to the rate of inflation. Subsequent Administration budgets more than eliminated this
increase, and actual appropriations by Congress were even less. As a result, most funding for the
Vision has been redirected from other NASA activities, such as the planned termination of the
space shuttle program.
NASA has not provided a cost estimate for the Vision as a whole. In 2004, it projected that
developing capabilities for human exploration, not including robotic support missions, would cost
a total of $64 billion up through the first human return to the Moon.18 The Congressional Budget
Office concluded that, based on historical trends, the actual cost could be much higher.19 In its
2005 implementation plan, NASA estimated that returning astronauts to the Moon would cost
$104 billion, not including the cost of robotic precursor missions or the cost of servicing the ISS
after the end of the shuttle program.20 In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
estimated the total cost for the Vision as $230 billion over two decades.21 In April 2009, as
directed in the 2008 authorization act, the Congressional Budget Office updated its 2004
budgetary analysis of the Vision. It found that NASA would need an additional $2 billion per year
through FY2025 to keep the Vision activities on schedule, not counting probable cost growth in
other activities.22 In October 2009, the Augustine report stated that executing NASA’s current
plans would require an additional $3 billion per year, even with some schedule delays.23
Schedule is closely related to cost. For example, the 2009 CBO analysis found that NASA could
maintain its currently planned budget by delaying its return to the Moon by approximately three
years.24 The tradeoffs can be difficult to quantify, however. The Augustine report, unlike the CBO
analysis, found that under NASA’s current budget plans, “human exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit is not viable” and currently planned budgets would delay a return to the Moon “well into the
2030s, if ever.”25 Schedule delays are already evident. For example, the initial operating
capability for Orion and Ares I was originally planned for 2012; it is now planned for 2015; the
Augustine committee concluded that 2017 is more likely.
17 See, for example, Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testimony
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and
Related Sciences, February 28, 2007, http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/
Testimony_MichaelDGriffin_NASA_FY2008PostureStatementFINAL22707.pdf.
18 Congressional Budget Office, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space Exploration, September 2004,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5772/09-02-NASA.pdf, p. xi.
19 Congressional Budget Office, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space Exploration, pp. xi-xiv.
20 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Exploration Systems Architecture Study: Final Report, p. 676.
21 Government Accountability Office, High Risk Series, GAO-07-310, January 2007, p. 75.
22 Congressional Budget Office, The Budgetary Implications of NASA’s Current Plans for Space Exploration, April
2009, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10051/04-15-NASA.pdf, pp. 2-3 and 12-13. The statutory mandate for
this study was in P.L. 110-422, Section 410.
23 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 15-17.
24 Congressional Budget Office, The Budgetary Implications of NASA’s Current Plans for Space Exploration, pp. 2-3
and 7-9.
25 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 17 and 84.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Issue for Congress: Why the Moon?
Ever since the Vision was first announced, some analysts have questioned its choice of the Moon
as the headline destination for NASA’s human exploration efforts. Some feel that revisiting the
destination of the Apollo missions of 1969-1972 is a less inspiring goal than a new target would
be.26 Some doubt the scientific rationale, suggesting that robotic missions to the Moon could
accomplish as much or more at lower cost and without risking human lives, or that more could be
learned by visiting another destination that has been studied less by previous missions. Some are
simply concerned about the cost.
Supporters counter that the Moon is the closest destination beyond Earth orbit and could serve as
a stepping stone for subsequent destinations. As Earth’s nearest neighbor, the Moon is of great
scientific interest. Missions to the Moon would provide an opportunity to develop and test
technologies and gain experience working in space. According to some advocates, the Moon
might literally be a staging point for future missions. For some in Congress, concerned about
national security or national prestige, the prospect of a manned Chinese mission to the Moon is a
strong motivation to reestablish a U.S. presence. For many who have supported the Vision up to
this point, completing it may have become important in itself; part of the Vision’s original
purpose was to set a goal for NASA that would give the agency direction and enhance its public
support, and supporters may fear that changing plans at this point would weaken NASA, whether
or not a better plan could be devised.
Issue for Congress: “The Gap” and Utilization of the Space Station
In order to fund the cost of the Vision and because of safety concerns following the Columbia
disaster in 2003, NASA intends to end the space shuttle program once construction of the ISS is
complete in 2010. The shuttle’s successors, Orion and Ares I, are not expected to be ready for
crewed flight until at least 2015. The difference between these dates is generally referred to as
“the gap.” Congressional policy makers and others have expressed concerns about U.S. access to
space during the gap. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 declared it to be U.S. policy “to
possess the capability for human access to space on a continuous basis.”27 Former NASA
Administrator Michael Griffin, a strong advocate of the Vision, has referred to the gap as
“unseemly in the extreme.”28
Under current plans, Russian spacecraft will be the only means of access to the ISS for humans
during the gap. A variety of alternatives are being considered for cargo. These points are
discussed further below in the section “Post-Shuttle Access to the ISS.”
The prospect of the gap has intensified congressional concerns about whether the capabilities of
the ISS will be fully utilized. In addition to the uncertainty about U.S. access to the ISS during the
gap period, it appears possible that U.S. use of the station will end at about the same time as the
shuttle’s successors first become available, or even before.
26 For example, Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin has called returning to the Moon “not visionary.” See Buzz Aldrin,
“Time to Boldly Go Once More,” New York Times, July 16, 2009.
27 P.L. 109-155, Section 501.
28 For example, see Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testimony
before the before the House Committee on Science and Technology, February 13, 2008, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
211844main_House_Science_Committee_Oral_13_Fe08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Human Spaceflight: The Augustine Committee
The Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee was formally chartered on June 1,
2009. It was chaired by Norman R. Augustine, a former chairman and chief executive officer of
Lockheed Martin Corporation and a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology under Presidents of both parties. Other committee members included scientists,
engineers, astronauts, educators, executives of established and new aerospace firms, former
presidential appointees, and a retired Air Force general.29 The committee reported jointly to the
Administrator of NASA and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the
Executive Office of the President. The committee’s charter defined its scope and objectives as
follows:30
The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight
plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best
trajectory for the future of human space flight – one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and
sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that
spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities
beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. The identification and characterization of these
options should address the following objectives: a) expediting a new U.S. capability to
support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS); b) supporting missions to the
Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO); c) stimulating commercial space
flight capability; and d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration
activities.31
In addition to the objectives described above, the review should examine the appropriate
amount of research and development and complementary robotic activities needed to make
human space flight activities most productive and affordable over the long term, as well as
appropriate opportunities for international collaboration. It should also evaluate what
capabilities would be enabled by each of the potential architectures considered. It should
evaluate options for extending ISS operations beyond 2016.
Options Identified by the Augustine Committee
The committee released its final report in October 2009. It identified five options: two within the
current budget profile and three that would require about an additional $3 billion per year. In the
committee’s judgment, developing Ares I, Orion, and the other Constellation systems is likely to
take longer than NASA currently plans, and the options presented by the committee reflect these
expected delays. The options are as follows:32
• Option 1: Current Budget, Current Program. This option is the current
program, modified only to provide funds for space shuttle flights in FY2011 and
for deorbiting the International Space Station in FY2016. The first crewed flight
29 See Meet the Committee, http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/index.html.
30 Charter of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/about/
charter.html.
31 It was subsequently agreed that the committee would also consider options not constrained by the current budget
profile, if necessary to satisfy the other objectives. Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a
Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, p. 7.
32 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 15-16.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
of Ares I and Orion is no earlier than 2017, after the International Space Station
has been deorbited. Ares V is not available until the late 2020s, and there are
insufficient funds to develop Altair and the lunar surface systems needed for
returning to the Moon until well into the 2030s, if ever.
• Option 2: Current Budget, Extend Space Station, Explore Moon Using
Ares V Lite. This option extends use of the International Space Station to 2020
and begins a program of lunar exploration using a variant of Ares V known as
Ares V Lite. It develops commercial services to transport humans into low Earth
orbit. It delivers a heavy-lift capability in the late 2020s, but it does not develop
the other systems needed for returning to the Moon for at least the next two
decades.
• Option 3: Additional Budget, Current Program. Like Option 1, this option is
the current program, modified to provide funds for space shuttle flights in
FY2011 and to deorbit the International Space Station in FY2016. The first
crewed flight of Ares I and Orion would still be after the International Space
Station is deorbited. The additional funding, however, would permit a human
lunar return in the mid-2020s.
• Option 4: Additional Budget, Extend Space Station, Explore Moon First.
Like Option 2, this option extends use of the International Space Station to 2020
and uses commercial services to transport humans into low Earth orbit. The first
destination beyond Earth orbit is still the Moon. There are two variants to this
option. Variant 4A develops the Ares V Lite for lunar exploration as in Option 2.
Variant 4B extends the space shuttle program to 2015 and develops a heavy-lift
vehicle for lunar missions that is more directly shuttle-derived. Both variants
permit a human lunar return by the mid-2020s.
• Option 5: Additional Budget, Extend Space Station, Flexible Path for
Exploration. Like Option 4, this option extends use of the International Space
Station to 2020 and uses commercial services to transport humans into low Earth
orbit. Missions beyond Earth orbit, however, follow a “flexible path” of
increasingly distant destinations—such as lunar fly-bys, rendezvous with
asteroids and comets, and Mars fly-bys—without initially attempting a lunar
landing. A lunar landing would be possible by the mid to late 2020s. Variant 5A
employs the Ares V Lite. Variant 5B uses a commercial heavy-lift rocket derived
from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). Variant 5C develops a
shuttle-derived vehicle for heavy lift as in Variant 4B. (These alternative launch
vehicles are discussed further later in this report.)
Although the committee did not recommend any particular one of these options over the others in
its report, it made a number of findings and comments that put the options into context:33
• Option 1 and Option 2 fit within the current budget profile, but “neither allows
for a viable exploration program. In fact, the Committee finds that no plan
compatible with the FY2010 budget profile permits human exploration to
continue in any meaningful way.” The additional funding contemplated in
33 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 16-17.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Options 3, 4, and 5 is necessary for “an exploration program that will be a source
of pride for the nation.”
• “The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners
would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the [International
Space Station]. A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair
U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.”
• Commercial services to launch crews into Earth orbit “are within reach. While
this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and
life-cycle costs than the government could achieve.”
• Of the heavy-lift alternatives, Ares V Lite is “the most capable.” The commercial
EELV derivative “has an advantage of potentially lower operating costs, but
requires significant restructuring of NASA” including “a different (and
significantly reduced) role.” A shuttle-derived vehicle would “take maximum
advantage of existing infrastructure, facilities, and production capabilities.”
• Variant 4B, which extends operation of the space shuttle to 2015, is “the only
foreseeable way to eliminate the gap in U.S. human-launch capability.”
• “Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system;
but it is not the best first destination. Visiting the ‘Moon First’ and following the
‘Flexible Path’ are both viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily
mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we could extend our presence in
free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.”
Questions for Congressional Policy Makers to Consider
The Augustine committee identified five questions “that could form the basis of a plan for U.S.
human spaceflight”:34
• What should be the future of the space shuttle?
• What should be the future of the International Space Station?
• On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
• How should crew be carried to low Earth orbit?
• What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low Earth orbit?
These five questions focus on designing a future program of human spaceflight. In keeping with
the committee’s charter, the questions do not address NASA’s other programs, and they take it as
given that a human spaceflight program should be implemented. Congress may therefore wish to
consider additional questions such as these:
• Is human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit worth the cost and risk?
• If not, are there alternatives that would accomplish some of the same goals?
34 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
• What is the future of NASA’s other activities, such as robotic exploration,
science, and aeronautics research?
Each of these issues is discussed in more detail later in this report.
Human Spaceflight: Administration Proposals
In its FY2011 budget request, the Obama Administration proposed cancelling the Constellation
program and eliminating the return of humans to the Moon as NASA’s primary goal.35 Instead,
NASA would encourage the private sector to develop commercial space transportation services to
carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. For spaceflight beyond Earth orbit,
NASA would emphasize long-term technology development rather than near-term development
of specific flight systems. Operation of the International Space Station would continue until at
least 2020. When asked about destinations for future human exploration of space, NASA officials
stated that Mars would be the ultimate goal, but that other intermediate destinations would come
first. They described these proposals as consistent with the “Flexible Path” option identified by
the Augustine committee.
Congressional and Public Reaction
Congress and the public at large reacted mostly negatively to the Administration’s proposals.
Their concerns included the potential negative impact of Constellation’s cancellation on
employment in the aerospace industry, the lack of a specific destination and schedule to replace
the goal of returning humans to the Moon, and the risk that the private sector might not in fact
develop commercial space transportation services that meet NASA’s needs. In the media,
attention focused on the proposed cancellation of Constellation, with less notice of the programs
that would replace it, such as increased technology development and stimulation of commercial
space transportation services. Press accounts often reported the Administration’s proposals as
cutting NASA’s budget, or eliminating its human spaceflight program, even though the proposed
FY2011 budget for NASA was actually an increase over previous plans and included other human
spaceflight activities to replace Constellation.
Supporters of Constellation have been particularly concerned about its status during FY2010. The
FY2010 appropriations act prohibits NASA from using FY2010 or prior-year funds to terminate
or eliminate “any program, project, or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program”
or to create or initiate any new program, project, or activity.36 Some analysts and policy makers
have expressed concern that NASA contracting decisions and other actions during FY2010 may
be in violation of the appropriations provision.37 NASA officials reply that they are continuing to
implement the Constellation program during FY2010 in full compliance with the law, even
though they intend to terminate the program in FY2011.
35 For more information on the FY2011 budget request for NASA, see CRS Report R41161, Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations.
36 P.L. 111-117, Division B, Title III.
37 See, for example, the letter from 27 Members of Congress to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, February 12,
2010, online at http://www.posey.house.gov/UploadedFiles/LetterToBolden-CancellingConstellation-Feb15-2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Modifications to the Administration Proposals
On April 15, 2010, President Obama gave a speech at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida that
attempted to answer some of these public and congressional concerns.38 In this speech, he
announced several modifications to the original FY2011 budget request proposals:
• Development of a modified Orion crew capsule would continue. The modified
design would provide an emergency escape capability for the International Space
Station, however, rather than transporting crews to and from the station on a
regular basis.
• The next human mission beyond Earth orbit would be to an asteroid and would
take place in 2025. This would be the first human mission to a destination more
distant than the Moon. Subsequent missions to orbit Mars would take place in the
mid-2030s. A human landing on Mars would remain the ultimate goal.
• NASA’s increased technology efforts would focus on the development of a new
heavy-lift rocket, with a decision in 2015 on a specific heavy-lift architecture for
exploration of deep space.
• Independent of the FY2011 budget, an Administration task force will address
economic development and the aerospace industry in the region of Florida known
as the Space Coast.
It remains to be seen whether Congress and the public will receive these changes to the
Administration’s original proposals favorably.
Science
About two-thirds of NASA’s budget is associated with human spaceflight. Most of the rest is
devoted to unmanned science missions. These science missions fall into four categories: Earth
science, planetary science, heliophysics, and astrophysics. The latter three are sometimes known
collectively as space science.
In part because of concerns about climate change, both Congress and the Administration have
recently placed increased emphasis on Earth science. In the FY2006 and FY2007 budget cycles
NASA had no separate budget for Earth science, and supporters became concerned that this was
adversely affecting the field. In late 2006, NASA reorganized the Science Mission Directorate,
creating a separate Earth Science Division. The National Research Council recommended in early
2007 that the United States “should renew its investment in Earth observing systems and restore
its leadership in Earth science and applications.”39 In response, Congress and the Administration
increased the share of NASA’s science funding devoted to Earth science from 26% in FY2008 to
38 For a transcript of the speech, see “Remarks by the President on Space Exploration in the 21st Century,” White House
press release, April 15, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-space-exploration-21st-
century. See also two White House fact sheets provided in association with the speech: “A Bold Approach for Space
Exploration and Discovery,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp-space-conf-
factsheet.pdf, and “Florida’s Space Workers and the New Approach to Human Spaceflight,”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nasa-space-conf-factsheet.pdf.
39 National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
and Beyond, 2007, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820.html.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
32% in FY2010. In addition, NASA allocated 81% of the science funding it received under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) to Earth science. The
Administration’s FY2011 budget would provide substantial increases for Earth science funding,
including a five-year, $2.1 billion global climate initiative.
In recent years, Congress has sought to ensure that NASA’s science program includes a balanced
variety of approaches to R&D rather than focusing only on certain types of missions. For
example, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 stated that the science program should include
space science missions of all sizes as well as mission-enabling activities such as technology
development, suborbital research, and research and analysis (R&A) grants to individual
investigators.40 According to the National Research Council, “practically all relevant external
advisory reports have emphasized the importance of mission-enabling activities,” but determining
their proper scale has been challenging “throughout NASA’s history.”41 In the past few years,
funding for planetary science technology has increased significantly, but funding for Earth
science technology has increased only slightly; the astrophysics and heliophysics programs do not
have dedicated technology subprograms. Funding for suborbital rocket operations increased from
$51 million in FY2008 to $66 million in FY2010, but the trend is unclear as the latter amount was
down from $77 million in FY2009. Funding for R&A grants, which NASA controversially
proposed to reduce significantly as recently as FY2007, has recovered as the result partly of the
Administration’s own initiatives and partly of congressional action on appropriations legislation.
In December 2009, the National Research Council recommended ways to make the mission-
enabling activities of NASA’s science programs more effective through more active management.
These recommendations included establishing explicit objectives and metrics, making budgets
more transparent, and clearly articulating the relationships between mission-enabling activities
and the ensemble of missions they are intended to support.42 The NASA Authorization Act of
2008 stated that the technology development program should include long-term activities that are
“independent of the flight projects under development.”43 NASA may sometimes find it
challenging to balance this independence against the goal of linking mission-enabling activities to
the missions they support.
NASA’s science programs have a history of periodic review by the National Academies. Such
reviews typically take place every 10 years, so they are commonly known as decadal surveys.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 mandated an Academy review of each division of NASA’s
science directorate every five years.44 The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 also mandated
periodic reviews and directed that they include independent estimates of the cost and technical
readiness of each mission assessed.45 Decadal surveys by the National Academies are generally
well received by NASA and are widely respected in the science and science policy communities.
On the other hand, the expertise of the National Academies is primarily scientific. It is unclear
whether their analysis of mission cost and readiness will be considered equally authoritative.
40 P.L. 110-422, Section 504.
41 National Research Council, An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, December
2009, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12822.html, p. vii.
42 National Research Council, An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, p. 4.
43 P.L. 110-422, Section 501.
44 P.L. 109-155, Section 301.
45 P.L. 110-422, Section 1104.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Aeronautics
After human spaceflight and science, NASA’s largest activity is research on aeronautics, the
science and technology of flight within Earth’s atmosphere. There is a history of disagreement in
Congress about the appropriate role of this program. Supporters argue that the aviation industry is
vital to the economy, especially because aircraft are a major component of U.S. exports. They
claim that government funding for aeronautics research can contribute to U.S. competitiveness
and is necessary in light of similar programs in Europe and elsewhere.46 Opponents counter that
the aviation industry itself should pay for the R&D it needs. Against the background of this
debate, NASA aeronautics programs have focused increasingly on long-term fundamental R&D
and on research topics with clear public purposes, such as reducing noise and emissions,
improving safety, and improving air traffic control.
In 2005, Congress directed the President to develop a national policy for aeronautics R&D.47 The
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), part of the Executive Office of the President,
issued this policy in December 2006.48 The policy established general principles and goals for
federal aeronautics activities, laid out the roles and responsibilities of NASA and other agencies,
and directed the NSTC to issue a national aeronautics R&D plan at least every two years. The
NSTC released the first national aeronautics R&D plan in December 2007.49 It released a draft
update for public comment in November 2009.50 The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 stated that
NASA’s aeronautics research program should be “guided by and consistent with” the national
aeronautics R&D policy.51
In June 2006, in response to a congressional mandate, the National Research Council of the
National Academies released a decadal strategy for federal civil aeronautics activities, with a
particular emphasis on NASA’s aeronautics research program.52 Along with other
recommendations, the report identified 51 technology challenges to serve as the foundation for
aeronautics research at NASA for the next decade. In the 2008 authorization act, Congress
directed NASA to align its fundamental aeronautics research program with these technology
challenges “to the maximum extent practicable within available funding” and to increase the
46 In 2005, a NASA-funded report found that European government support for aeronautics R&D was growing and that
European countries “support civil aeronautics research on the basis of industrial policies.” (Hans J. Weber et al., “Study
of European Government Support to Civil Aeronautics R&D,” August 15, 2005, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/
tecop_europe_aero_r&d.pdf.) The report also found that European aeronautics R&D was increasingly guided by a 2001
European Union report that called for European countries to invest about $100 billion in the topic over 20 years. See
European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020, http://www.acare4europe.org/docs/Vision%202020.pdf.
47 P.L. 109-155, Section 101(c). A similar but less detailed provision was previously included in Section 628 of the
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-108).
48 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, National Aeronautics Research and
Development Policy, December 2006, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/releases/
national_aeronautics_rd_policy_dec_2006.pdf.
49 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, National Plan for Aeronautics
Research and Development and Related Infrastructure, December 2007, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/releases/
aero_rd_plan_final_21_dec_2007.pdf.
50 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, National Aeronautics Research and
Development Plan Biennial Update, Draft 3.0, November 2009, http://www.ostp.gov/aeroplans/pdf/
nat_aero_rd_plan_public_comments.pdf.
51 P.L. 110-422, Section 301.
52 National Research Council, Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future, 2006,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11664.html. The congressional mandate was in P.L. 109-155, Section 421(c).
Congressional Research Service
14
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
involvement of universities and other external organizations in that program.53 It also mandated
periodic Academy reviews of the NASA aeronautics program and directed that they include
independent estimates of the cost and technical readiness of each mission assessed.54 As noted
above with respect to its decadal surveys of NASA science, while the National Academies are
widely respected for their scientific expertise, it is unclear whether their analysis of cost and
technical readiness will be considered equally authoritative.
The aeronautics program’s heavy use of shared facilities and capabilities, such as wind tunnels
and supercomputers, has sometimes created challenges. For example, when NASA introduced
full-cost accounting in the FY2004 budget request, the stated cost of the aeronautics program
increased significantly because facility costs had previously been budgeted in another account. At
least partly in response to these concerns, NASA subsequently established a separate Aeronautics
Test Program in the aeronautics directorate and a Strategic Capabilities Assets Program outside
the directorate. It has also sometimes been difficult for NASA to balance its stewardship of
unique aeronautics facilities, often used by other agencies and by industry as well as by NASA
itself, against the cost of maintaining those facilities. In 2005, Congress directed NASA to
establish a separate account to fund aeronautics test facilities, to charge users of NASA test
facilities at a rate competitive with alternative facilities, and not to implement a policy seeking
full cost recovery for a facility without giving 30 days’ notice to Congress.55 To accompany the
national aeronautics R&D plan, the Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee of the
NSTC is developing a national aeronautics research, development, test, and evaluation
infrastructure plan. This infrastructure plan is scheduled for completion in 2010.56
There is ongoing congressional interest in the relationship between NASA’s aeronautics program
and related efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense
(DOD). One aspect of this relationship is the interagency Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO), which oversees the development of a Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NGATS) for improved airspace management.57 Congress has directed NASA to align the
Airspace Systems program of its Aeronautics Research Directorate with the objectives of the
JPDO and NGATS.58
Education
In 2008, a congressionally mandated National Academies review of NASA education programs
found that even though NASA is uniquely positioned to interest students in science, technology,
and engineering, its education programs are not as effective as they could be.59 The report found
that NASA has no coherent plan to evaluate its education programs, and few of them have ever
been formally evaluated. It recommended that NASA develop an evaluation plan and use the
53 P.L. 110-422, Section 303.
54 P.L. 110-422, Section 1104.
55 P.L. 109-155, Section 205.
56 Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, webpage of the Aeronautics Science
and Technology Subcommittee, http://www.ostp.gov/aeroplans/index.htm.
57 The establishment of JPDO was mandated by Section 709 of the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act (P.L. 108-176).
58 P.L. 109-155, Section 423.
59 National Research Council, NASA’s Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique, 2008,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12081.html. The mandate for this review was in P.L. 109-155, Section 614.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
results of the evaluations to inform project design and improvement. It found that the operating
directorates, rather than the Office of Education, fund about half of the agency’s primary and
secondary education activities. It recommended that the Office of Education focus on
coordination and oversight, including advocacy for the inclusion of education activities in the
programs of the operating directorates. Congress directed NASA to prepare a plan by October
2009 in response to the recommendations of the National Academies, including a schedule and
budget for any actions that have not yet been implemented.60 As of December 2009, the plan had
not yet been completed.61
Unlike the Department of Education or the National Science Foundation, NASA does not have a
lead role in federal education programs. As a result, some analysts may view NASA’s education
activities as secondary to its primary efforts in spaceflight, science, and aeronautics. Congress,
however, is typically supportive of NASA education programs and often provides more funding
for them than NASA requests. This imbalance between Administration and congressional
priorities, the dispersed nature of NASA’s education activities outside the Office of Education,
and the tendency for congressional funding increases to be dedicated to specific one-time projects
rather than to ongoing programs, may make it difficult for NASA to plan and manage a coherent,
unified education program.
Balancing Competing Priorities
Ever since the announcement of the Vision, NASA’s emphasis on exploration has created
concerns about the balance between human spaceflight and NASA’s other activities, especially
science and aeronautics. Because most funding for the Vision has been redirected from other
NASA activities, advocates of science and aeronautics have feared that their programs will be cut
in order to pay for human exploration activities. Congress, while fully supporting the Vision, has
been clear about the need for balance. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 directed NASA to
carry out “a balanced set of programs,” including human space flight in accordance with the
Vision, but also aeronautics R&D and scientific research, the latter to include robotic missions
and research not directly related to human exploration.62 The NASA Authorization Act of 2008
found that NASA “is and should remain a multimission agency with a balanced and robust set of
core missions in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration” and “encouraged”
NASA to coordinate its exploration activities with its science activities.63 In January 2010, NASA
Administrator Charles Bolden assured a group of scientists that “the future of human spaceflight
will not be paid for out of the hide of our science budget.”64
Balancing these competing priorities depends on answering questions, raised earlier in this report,
about NASA’s purpose. More than 50 years ago, President Eisenhower’s advisors were aware that
a space program was justified both by “the compelling urge of man to explore and to discover”
and by “scientific observation and experiment which will to add to our knowledge and
understanding.” Today, there is still no consensus about how to balance these purposes. Some
60 P.L. 110-422, Section 701.
61 NASA Office of Legislative Affairs, personal communication, December 16, 2009.
62 P.L. 109-155, Section 101(a)(1).
63 P.L. 110-422, Sections 2 and 409.
64 NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr., address to a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, January 5,
2010, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/415511main_Bolden_AAS_Remarks_010510.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
policy makers believe that a space program can best be justified by tangible benefits to economic
growth and competitiveness. Others believe that its most important role is to be a source of
national pride, prestige, and inspiration.
Space Shuttle Program
Since its first launch in April 1981, the space shuttle has been the only U.S. vehicle capable of
carrying humans into space. After a few remaining flights during 2010 (some may slip into early
2011) current plans call for the space shuttle program to end. Although some advocates and
policy makers would like to extend the program, technical and management issues are making
that ever more difficult as the scheduled termination approaches. Congress’s attention is
increasingly on managing the transition of the shuttle workforce and facilities and on addressing
the projected multi-year gap in U.S. access to space between the last shuttle flight and the first
flight of its successor.
Why the Shuttle Program Is Ending
The oldest shuttle is approaching 30 years old; the youngest is approaching 20. Although many
shuttle components have been refurbished and upgraded, the shuttles as a whole are aging
systems. Most analysts consider the shuttle design to be based, in many respects, on obsolete or
obsolescent technology. The original concept of the shuttle program was that a reusable launch
vehicle would be more cost-effective than an expendable one, but many of the projected cost
savings depended on a flight rate that has never been achieved. Over the years, NASA has
attempted repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to develop a second-generation reusable launch vehicle
to replace the shuttle. In 2002, NASA indicated that the shuttle would continue flying until at
least 2015 and perhaps until 2020 or beyond.
The Columbia disaster in 2003 forced NASA to revise that plan. Within hours of the loss of the
space shuttle Columbia and its seven astronauts, NASA established the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board to determine the causes of the accident and make recommendations for how
to proceed.65 The board concluded that the shuttle “is not inherently unsafe” but that several
actions were necessary “to make the vehicle safe enough to operate in the coming years.”66 It
recommended 15 specific actions to be taken before returning the shuttle to flight. In addition, it
found that
because of the risks inherent in the original design of the space shuttle, because the design
was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the shuttle is now an
aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation’s interest to replace the
shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth
orbit.67
65 For more details, see CRS Report RS21606, NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board, by Marcia S. Smith.
66 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, untitled report, August-October 2003, http://caib.nasa.gov/, vol. 1, p. 208.
67 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, pp. 210-211.
Congressional Research Service
17
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The board recommended that if the shuttle is to be flown past 2010, NASA should “develop and
conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels” as
part of a broader and “essential” Service Life Extension Program.68
The announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004 created another reason to end the
shuttle program: money. Before the shuttle program began to ramp down, it accounted for about
25% of NASA’s budget. Making those funds available for the Vision became a primary
motivation for ending the program.
Possible Extension of the Shuttle Program
Despite the safety risks identified by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the need to
reallocate the shuttle’s funding stream to other purposes, some policy makers and advocates
remain eager to extend the program. For example, the American Space Access Act (H.R. 1962)
would extend the program to 2015, and the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, passed shortly
before the 2008 presidential election, directed NASA not to take any action that would preclude
the new President from deciding to extend the shuttle program past 2010.69 One of the options put
forward by the Augustine committee (Variant 4B) would include extending the shuttle program to
2015.
A decision to extend the program would create challenges relating to cost, schedule, and safety.
With the planned termination date approaching, some contracts for shuttle components have
already run out, and some contractor personnel have already been let go.70 Reestablishing the
capability to operate the program would likely incur costs and delays, and this potential will grow
as the planned termination date approaches. The recertification process recommended by the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board could be costly and time-consuming, although the board
itself gave no estimate of either cost or schedule. At this point, completing a recertification in
time to maintain a continuous flight schedule might already be difficult. Congressional policy
makers or the Administration could simply decide to continue flying anyway, in parallel with the
recertification process—in effect, NASA has already done this to some extent with the decision to
allow a few flights to slip into 2011 if necessary—but policy makers could suffer political
repercussions from such a choice if another serious accident occurred.
During the 2009 presidential transition, the GAO identified the pending retirement of the space
shuttle in 2010 as one of 13 “urgent issues” facing the incoming Obama Administration.71 The
GAO also stated that “according to NASA, reversing current plans and keeping the shuttle flying
past 2010 would cost $2.5 billion to $4 billion per year.”72
68 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, p. 209.
69 P.L. 110-422, Section 611(d).
70 For example, see Tariq Malik, “NASA Begins Job Cuts for Shuttle Retirement,” Space.com, May 1, 2009.
71 http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/urgent/
72 http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/urgent/space-shuttle.php
Congressional Research Service
18
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Transition of Shuttle Workforce and Facilities
The transition of assets and personnel at the end of the shuttle program is of great interest to many
in Congress and represents a major challenge for NASA. The shuttle workforce is a reservoir of
unique expertise and experience that would be difficult for NASA and its contractors to
reassemble once dispersed. NASA managers are particularly concerned to maintain key human
spaceflight expertise and capabilities through the expected gap period before the first flight of the
shuttle’s successor. In certain communities, the loss of the shuttle workforce will have a
significant economic impact. For individuals, the loss of specialized, well-paid employment that
has been relatively stable for many years can be especially disruptive at a time when the job
market is already unusually difficult. Finding the best alternative use of facilities and equipment
is important for getting the best value for the taxpayer.
NASA’s transition management plan, issued in August 2008, establishes a timeline for the post-
shuttle transition, defines organizational responsibilities for various aspects of the transition,
establishes goals and objectives, and outlines planning and management challenges such as
management of human capital and disposition of infrastructure.73 As it notes, the scope of the
transition is huge:
The SSP [space shuttle program] has an extensive array of assets; the program occupies over
654 facilities, uses over 1.2 million line items of hardware and equipment, and employs over
2,000 civil servants, with more than 15,000 work year equivalent personnel employed by the
contractors. In addition, the SSP employs over 3,000 additional indirect workers through
Center Management and Operations and service accounts. The total equipment acquisition
value is over $12 billion, spread across hundreds of locations. The total facilities replacement
cost is approximately $5.7 billion, which accounts for approximately one-fourth of the value
of the Agency’s total facility inventory. There are over 1,200 active suppliers and 3,000 to
4,000 qualified suppliers geographically located throughout the country.74
Congress has addressed a number of these issues through legislation:
• In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress directed NASA to use the
personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the shuttle program “to the
fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program” in
developing the vehicles now known as Orion, Ares I, and Ares V. It also required
the development of a transition plan for personnel affected by the termination of
the shuttle program.75
• In the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008, Congress directed NASA to prepare a strategy, to be updated at least every
six months, for minimizing job losses as a result of the transition from the shuttle
to its successor.76 The strategy report was first issued in March 2008 and was
updated in October 2008 and July 2009.77 As well as strategic information, it
73 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Transition Management Plan for Implementing the U.S.
Space Exploration Policy, JICB-001, August 2008, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/202388main_Transition_Mgmt_Plan-
Final.pdf.
74 NASA, Transition Management Plan, pp. 7-8.
75 P.L. 109-155, Section 502.
76 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161), Division B.
77 For the most recent update, see NASA Space Shuttle Workforce Transition Strategy Pursuant to FY 2008
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
provides annual workforce projections for each NASA center and a summary of
recent relevant actions by NASA and its contractors.
• In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, Congress directed NASA to submit a
plan for the disposition of the shuttles and associated hardware and to establish a
Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office to assist affected communities.78 It
provided for temporary continuation of health benefits for personnel whose jobs
are eliminated as a result of the termination of the program.79 It directed NASA to
analyze the facilities and personnel that will be made available by the termination
of the shuttle program and to report on other current and future federal programs
that could use them.80 The resulting report summarized the “mapping” process
that NASA is using to align the civil servant and contractor shuttle workforce and
the shuttle facilities at each NASA center with the needs of other programs.81
• In the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2010, and in previous NASA appropriations acts for several years, Congress
prohibited NASA from using appropriated funds to implement reductions in force
(RIFs) or other involuntary separations, except for cause.82
Before the release of the Administration’s FY2011 budget, many of the personnel currently
employed in the shuttle program were expected to transition to the Constellation program. The
proposed cancellation of Constellation introduces new uncertainty into these plans.
International Space Station
Construction of the International Space Station (ISS) began in 1998. The ISS is composed of
crew living space, laboratories, remote manipulator systems, solar arrays to generate electricity,
and other elements. Launched separately, these elements were assembled in space. Rotating crews
have occupied the ISS, each for a period of four to six months, since November 2000.
Construction continues, with an expected completion date in 2010 or perhaps early 2011.83
The framework for international cooperation on the ISS is the Intergovernmental Agreement on
Space Station Cooperation, which was signed in 1998 by representatives of the United States,
Russia, Japan, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The intergovernmental agreement has the
status of an executive agreement in the United States, but is considered a treaty in all the other
partner countries. It is implemented through memoranda of understanding between NASA and its
counterpart agencies: the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos), the Japanese Aerospace
(...continued)
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), July 2009 Update, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/372110main_7-21-
09%20Workforce%20Transition%20Strategy%203rd%20Edition.pdf.
78 P.L. 110-422, Section 613.
79 P.L. 110-422, Section 615.
80 P.L. 110-422, Section 614.
81 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aerospace Skills Retention and Investment Reutilization Report,
July 2009.
82 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), Division B.
83 For more details, see the ISS website, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and the European Space
Agency (ESA).84 The United States also has an ISS participation agreement with Brazil,
independent of the 1998 framework.
Because of cost growth and schedule delays, the scope and capabilities of the ISS have repeatedly
been downsized.85 The original concept was not just a laboratory, but also an observatory; a
transportation node; a facility for servicing, assembly, and manufacturing; and a storage depot
and staging base for other missions.86 By 1989, only the laboratory function remained, and even
that was smaller and less capable than in the original plans. In 1993, Russia joined the space
station partnership, a move that added foreign policy objectives to the program’s goals. By 2001,
following further downsizing, NASA saw three goals for the station: conducting world-class
research, establishing a permanent human presence in space, and “accommodation of all
international partner elements.”87 Following the announcement of the Vision in 2004, learning to
live and work in space became a key justification for the ISS program, and ISS research was to be
focused on the long-term effects of space travel on human biology.
Concerned that the station’s function as a research laboratory was being eroded, Congress took
several legislative actions. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 required NASA to allocate at
least 15% of the funds budgeted to ISS research to “life and microgravity science research that is
not directly related to supporting the human exploration program.”88 It also required NASA to
submit a research plan for utilization of the ISS.89 Issued in June 2006, the plan described
proposed R&D and utilization activities in each of six disciplinary areas.90 It characterized the
ISS as a long-duration test-bed for future lunar missions; a flight analog for future missions to
Mars; a laboratory for research directly related to human space exploration, such as human health
countermeasures, fire suppression, and life support; and an opportunity to gain experience in
managing international partnerships for long-duration space missions. The plan stated that
research not related to exploration would continue “at a reduced level.” At about the same time,
the National Academies issued a review of NASA’s plans for the ISS.91 This review noted “with
concern” that the objectives of the ISS “no longer include the fundamental biological and
physical research that had been a major focus of ISS planning since its inception.” It concluded
that “once lost, neither the necessary research infrastructure nor the necessary communities of
scientific investigators can survive or be easily replaced.”
84 The text of the bilateral memoranda of understanding can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/
structure/elements/partners_agreement.html.
85 For more information on the evolution of the space station’s purposes and capabilities, see Marcia S. Smith,
Congressional Research Service, “NASA’s Space Station Program: Evolution of its Rationale and Expected Uses,”
testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science and
Space, April 20, 2005, http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/smith.pdf.
86 James Beggs, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testimony before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies, March 27, 1984.
87 Daniel Goldin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testimony before the House
Committee on Science, April 25, 2001.
88 P.L. 109-155, Section 204.
89 P.L. 109-155, Section 506.
90 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Research and Utilization Plan for the International Space Station,
June 2006, http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/
NASA_Research_and_Utilization_Plan_for_the_ISS.pdf.
91 National Research Council, Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station, 2006, http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/11512.html.
Congressional Research Service
21
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The 2005 authorization act designated the U.S. portion of the ISS as a national laboratory, to be
available for use by other federal agencies and the private sector.92 As required by the act, NASA
submitted a plan for this designation in May 2007.93 It concluded that NASA use of the ISS must
continue to have first priority, that use by non-NASA entities should be funded by those entities,
and that “the availability of cost-effective transportation services will directly affect the ability of
the ISS to operate as a national laboratory in the years to come.” The impact that the national
laboratory designation would have was initially unclear. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008,
Congress directed NASA to establish an advisory committee on the effective utilization of the ISS
as a national laboratory.94 As of mid-2009, NASA had established agreements for use of the ISS
with at least five other federal agencies, three private firms, and one university, and had identified
“firm interest” in using the ISS for education; human, plant, and animal biotechnologies;
aerospace technologies; and defense sciences research.95 NASA officials believe that about half of
planned U.S. utilization resources on the ISS could be available for non-NASA use.96
When the space station was first announced, its assembly was to be complete by 1994. In 1998,
when construction actually began, it was expected to be complete by 2002, with operations
through at least 2012. Completion is now scheduled for 2010 or perhaps early 2011. As recently
as 2003, NASA briefing charts showed operations possibly continuing through 2022. Under the
Vision, U.S. utilization is scheduled to end after 2015, but widespread efforts to extend that date
are ongoing.
ISS Service Life Extension
The 2015 end date for U.S. utilization of the ISS arises from the engineering specifications of the
U.S. ISS components, which were designed for a 15-year lifetime from the date of deployment.
The various components were launched sequentially during the assembly process, but the
nominal reference point is considered to be the launch of the U.S. laboratory module Destiny in
February 2001. Despite the 15-year specification, past experience “clearly indicates that systems
are capable of performing safely and effectively for well beyond their original design lifetime” if
properly maintained, refurbished, and validated. The first milestones for a decision on service life
extension will occur in 2014.97
Many ISS advocates want to continue utilization past 2015 in order to receive a greater return on
the cost and effort that have been invested in ISS construction. The international partners issued a
joint statement in July 2008 calling for operations to continue beyond 2015. Russia has stated
that, if necessary, it will continue operations on its own. (Some analysts doubt that this would be
technically feasible.) The Augustine committee found that extending ISS operations would
“significantly enhance” the return on investment to both the United States and its international
92 P.L. 109-155, Section 507.
93 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Report to Congress Regarding a Plan for the International
Space Station National Laboratory, May 2007, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
181149main_ISS_National_Lab_Final_Report_rev2.pdf.
94 P.L. 110-422, Section 602.
95 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Congressional Budget Justification for FY2010,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345225main_FY_2010_UPDATED_final_5-11-09_with_cover.pdf, p. SPA-15.
96 Ibid.
97 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Report to Congress Regarding a Plan for the International
Space Station National Laboratory, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
partners, while a decision not to extend operations would “significantly impair U.S. ability to
develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.” Three of the five options
considered by the Augustine committee include the extension of ISS operations until 2020.
Congress has directed NASA to ensure that the ISS remains viable through at least 2020 and to
take no steps that would preclude continued U.S. utilization after 2015.98
In addition to cost, extending the life of the ISS would require overcoming several technical
challenges. At present, failed parts are returned to Earth in the space shuttle for refurbishment.
After the conclusion of the shuttle program, this repair strategy will likely no longer be possible.
Most of the cargo vehicles that are being considered for the post-shuttle period are not capable of
returning cargo back to Earth.99 Instead, new parts would need to be manufactured and sent up,
but even this may be impossible in a few cases, as some ISS parts are too large for any of the
planned post-shuttle cargo alternatives. Last but not least, as ISS components reach the end of
their 15-year design life, they will need to be recertified, which is a potentially complex and
costly process.
Alternatives to service life extension also pose challenges. Some have suggested that the ISS
could be operated by the other international partners with little or no U.S. participation. The
Augustine committee found that this would be “nearly impossible” within the available budgets
of the partner space agencies and because export controls would limit the direct support NASA
could provide to foreign space agencies. Another option that has been proposed is to “mothball”
the ISS for later use. The Augustine committee found that operating the ISS unoccupied would
increase the risk of loss by a factor of five and also increase the risk of uncontrolled reentry into
Earth’s atmosphere, which would pose a hazard to people on the ground. Even deorbiting the ISS
in a controlled manner is a challenging task. The Augustine committee found that no existing or
currently planned vehicle is capable of this task. It projected that the cost of developing one, or of
disassembling the ISS on-orbit and deorbiting the major components separately, could be $2
billion or more.100
Under the Administration’s FY2011 budget, ISS operations would be extended to at least 2020.
Post-Shuttle Access to the ISS
The U.S. space shuttle has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo to and from the ISS.
Russian Soyuz spacecraft also carry both crews and cargo. Russian Progress spacecraft carry
cargo only, as they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. A Soyuz is
always attached to the station as a “lifeboat” in case of an emergency. The “lifeboat” Soyuz must
be replaced every six months.
Unless the shuttle program is extended, paying Russia for flights on the Soyuz is the only short-
term option for U.S. human access to the ISS. In 2009, in order to permit such payments,
98 P.L. 110-422, Section 601.
99 After delivering their payloads, they are designed to burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean.
100 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 53-54.
Congressional Research Service
23
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Congress extended a waiver of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 106-
178 as amended) until July 1, 2016.101
One element of NASA’s plans for ensuring cargo access to the ISS during the gap is the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to develop commercial capabilities
for cargo spaceflight. Under the COTS program, SpaceX Corporation is developing a vehicle
known as Dragon, and Orbital Sciences Corporation is developing a vehicle known as Cygnus.
Both would be cargo-only and would have about one-eighth the capacity of the space shuttle.102
Only Dragon would be capable of returning cargo to Earth as well as launching it into space.
Neither has yet flown into space. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, Congress directed
NASA to develop a contingency plan for post-shuttle cargo resupply of the ISS in case
commercial cargo services are unavailable.103 This plan was due to Congress by October 2009. It
had not yet been completed as of December 2009.104
Noncommercial alternatives for cargo, in addition to the Russian Progress, include the European
Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). The first ATV
was launched in March 2008 and carried out docking demonstrations with the ISS the following
month. The first HTV was launched in September 2009 and also docked successfully with the
ISS. Contracting with Russia for use of the Progress would probably require passing an additional
waiver of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. Like the Dragon and Cygnus,
the ATV, HTV, and Progress all have significantly smaller cargo capacity than the space shuttle.105
None of the noncommercial alternatives is capable of returning cargo to Earth.
Future Access to Space
Whether or not the shuttle program is extended, and whatever option is chosen for access to the
ISS during the gap, in the long term new vehicles will be needed to carry humans and cargo into
space. Under current plans, these are the crew capsule Orion, the Ares I rocket to launch Orion
into low Earth orbit, and the heavy-lift Ares V rocket to launch cargo. A variety of alternatives to
these plans have been proposed, including reliance on commercial launch services.
Orion and Ares
One option is to continue with the status quo (i.e., Orion, Ares I, and eventually Ares V).
Development of Orion and Ares I is well under way by NASA and its contractors. Development
of Ares V has not begun, but Ares I and Ares V are to share some components. The first crewed
101 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329), Section
125. For more information, see CRS Report RL34477, Extending NASA’s Exemption from the Iran, North Korea, and
Syria Nonproliferation Act, by Carl E. Behrens and Mary Beth Nikitin.
102 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, Fig. 4.2.2-1, p. 53.
103 P.L. 110-422, Section 603.
104 NASA Office of Legislative Affairs, personal communication, December 17, 2009.
105 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, Fig. 4.2.2-1, p. 53. The Progress has about 10% the cargo capacity of the shuttle. The HTV and ATV have
about 20%.
Congressional Research Service
24
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
flight of Orion and Ares is scheduled for 2015. The Augustine committee concluded that a 2017
date is more realistic and that a delay until 2019 is possible.
Orion is similar to an enlarged Apollo capsule. It is designed to carry six astronauts and to operate
in space for up to six months. An upgraded version would be required for travel to the Moon or
beyond. The Augustine committee concluded that Orion “will be acceptable for a wide variety of
tasks in the human exploration of space” but expressed concern about its operational cost once
developed. The committee suggested that a smaller, lighter, four-person version could reduce
operations costs for support of the ISS by allowing landing on land rather than in the ocean and
by enabling simplifications in the launch-abort system.106
The Ares I rocket is designed to be a high-reliability launcher that, when combined with Orion,
will yield a crew transport system with an estimated 10-fold improvement in safety relative to the
space shuttle. The development of Ares I has encountered some technical difficulties, but the
Augustine committee characterized these as “not remarkable” and “resolvable.” On the other
hand, the committee concluded that the ultimate utility of Ares I has been diminished by schedule
delays, as it will likely not be available until after the currently planned termination of the ISS.107
Ares V is designed to be capable of launching 160 metric tons of cargo into low Earth orbit.108
(By comparison, the space shuttle has a cargo capacity for ISS resupply missions of about 16
metric tons, and the ISS, which was launched in pieces over a decade, weighs a total of 350
metric tons.109) For human missions beyond low Earth orbit, Ares V would launch equipment into
orbit for rendezvous with an Orion launched by an Ares I. At present, Ares V is only a conceptual
design. The Augustine committee described it as “an extremely capable rocket” but estimated that
under current budget plans, it is unlikely to be available until the late 2020s.
Government Alternatives to Ares V
The Augustine committee identified three categories of heavy-lift launchers that could be
alternatives to Ares V: a scaled-down version of Ares V called Ares V Lite; a rocket derived from
the design of the space shuttle; and a rocket derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle. Unlike Ares V, each of these could be rated to carry humans (in an Orion capsule) as well
as cargo.110
The Ares V Lite would be a slightly lower-performance version of the Ares V, capable of
launching about 140 metric tons rather than 160. For human missions beyond Earth orbit, two
106 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 58.
107 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p.60.
108 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 59.
109 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 53 and 64.
110 NASA requires crewed space systems to be certified as human-rated. See Human-Rating Requirements for Space
Systems, NASA Procedural Requirement 8705.2B, http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=
N_PR_8705_002B_. Engineering requirements such as redundancy and fault tolerance are greater for human-rated
systems than for uncrewed systems.
Congressional Research Service
25
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
launches of Ares V Lite, rather than one of Ares I and one of Ares V, would considerably increase
the payload that could be carried to the destination. Some human missions beyond Earth orbit
could be accomplished with a single Ares V Lite launch.111
Shuttle-derived vehicles would use the same main engines, solid rocket boosters, and external
tanks as the space shuttle. They could be either in-line or side-mount. In other words, the payload
could be mounted either on top or on the side. One example of the in-line option is the Jupiter
design advocated by DIRECT, a group ostensibly led by NASA engineers working anonymously
on their own time.112 The Augustine committee did not compare the in-line and side-mount
variants in detail, but it considered the side-mount option to be inherently less safe when carrying
a crew. A shuttle-derived launcher would likely be able to lift 90 to 110 metric tons into orbit.
The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program was a U.S. Air Force program that resulted in
the development of the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. Current EELV systems are not rated to carry
humans. In testimony to the Augustine committee, the Aerospace Corporation stated that a
human-rated variant of the Delta IV Heavy would be capable of carrying Orion to the ISS.113 A
super-heavy EELV variant could carry a cargo payload of about 75 metric tons. The Augustine
committee concluded that using an EELV variant to launch Orion would only make sense if a
super-heavy EELV variant were to be selected for heavy-lift cargo launch.
In addition to differences in capability, the Augustine committee found that these alternatives
differ in their life-cycle costs, operational complexity, and “way of doing business.” The
committee concluded that Ares V Lite would be the most capable; that a shuttle derivative would
take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure, facilities, and production capabilities; and
that an EELV derivative could potentially have the lowest operating costs, but would require a
significant restructuring of NASA. The committee noted that each alternative has strong
advocates and that “the claimed cost, schedule, and performance parameters include varying
degrees of aggressiveness.”114 It did not explicitly recommend any of the alternatives over the
others.
Commercial Services as an Alternative to Ares I
Another alternative is to rely on the private sector to develop commercial crew transport services.
The COTS program is already considering this possibility for ISS crew transfer and crew rescue.
(This COTS capability is known as COTS D.) The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 directed
NASA to make use of commercial crew services to the maximum extent practicable consistent
with safety requirements.115 The Augustine committee more broadly considered relying on
commercial services in lieu of Ares I for all crew access to low Earth orbit. It included this
approach in all the options it evaluated except Option 1 (status quo) and Option 3 (status quo with
increased funding).
111 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 66-67.
112 See http://www.directlauncher.com/.
113 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 69.
114 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 72.
115 P.L. 110-422, Section 902.
Congressional Research Service
26
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The Augustine committee concluded the following:116
• Considering that all U.S. crew launch systems to date have been built by industry,
“there is little doubt” that the U.S. aerospace industry is capable of building and
operating a four-passenger “crew taxi” to low Earth orbit.
• Because of the importance of crew safety, commercial crew transport services
would need to include “a strong, independent mission assurance role for NASA.”
• If the service were developed so as to meet commercial needs as well as NASA’s,
there would be private-sector customers to share operating costs with NASA. In
that case, the cost of the program to NASA would be about $5 billion, and a
service could be in place by 2016.
• If the private sector effort were to fail in mid-program, the task of crew transport
would revert to NASA. NASA should continue development of Orion and move
quickly toward the development of a human-ratable heavy-lift rocket as a
fallback option to mitigate this risk.
The Administration’s FY2011 budget proposals include reliance on commercial crew transport
services. Unlike the Augustine committee’s proposal, the Administration budget would not
support continued development of Orion except for emergency escape from the International
Space Station.
The Augustine committee found that the commercial space industry is “burgeoning,” and
concluded that creating an assured initial market would eventually have the potential—“not
without risk”—to significantly reduce costs to the government.
On the other hand, the Augustine committee also pointed out that developing Ares I would give
the NASA workforce, which has not developed a new rocket in more than 20 years, an
opportunity to gain experience with the simpler Ares I system before beginning development of
the more complex Ares V.117
Congressional policy makers may wish to consider that instead of contracting with the private
sector for crew services, NASA could continue to contract for the use of Russian Soyuz vehicles.
This would probably require Congress to further extend its waiver of the Iran, North Korea, and
Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Augustine committee concluded that while reliance on Soyuz on
an interim basis is acceptable, longer-term use would not be. It argued that “an important part of
sustained U.S. leadership in space is the operation of our own domestic crew launch
capability.”118
116 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, pp. 70-72.
117 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 69.
118 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 69.
Congressional Research Service
27
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Issues for Congress
Cost, safety, capability, and technical feasibility are key issues for Congress in considering these
alternatives. The Augustine committee used minimum criteria for safety, capability, and technical
feasibility as filters to eliminate unacceptable alternatives. It gave little information that would
distinguish clearly between the remaining, acceptable alternatives on the basis of these factors. It
concluded that of the acceptable alternatives, all would require roughly the same additional
funding: about $3 billion per year above current plans. It noted that NASA has a history of
designing for maximum capability at minimum development cost, with less focus on operational
cost, and it suggested that NASA programs would be more sustainable if designed for minimum
life-cycle cost.119
Safety
Space travel is inherently dangerous. Nevertheless, NASA’s policy is that “safety is and will
always be our number one priority in everything we do.”120 The Augustine committee described
safety as a sine qua non.121 Analysts and policy makers generally agree with this emphasis, but
some have concerns about whether it is matched by NASA’s implementation of its safety policies
and procedures.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board found in 2003 that “throughout its history, NASA
has consistently struggled to achieve viable safety programs and adjust them to the constraints
and vagaries of changing budgets.... NASA’s safety system has fallen short of the mark.”122 It
concluded that “a broken safety culture,” including a “reliance on past success as a substitute for
sound engineering practices,” was an organizational cause of the Columbia disaster.123 It found
that one contributing factor was “intense schedule pressure,” which had also been identified as an
organizational cause of the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986.124 It recommended that
NASA establish a technical engineering authority, reporting directly to the NASA Administrator
rather than to the space shuttle program, that independently verifies launch readiness and has sole
authority to grant waivers for technical standards.125 In response to these findings, NASA has
made many changes, including the establishment of an independent NASA Engineering and
Safety Center under the auspices of the headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.
Nevertheless, some analysts see signs that potential problems remain. The deadline of 2010 to
complete construction of the space station and stop flying the space shuttle created schedule
pressure for both programs until NASA converted it from a hard deadline to a flexible goal. In
2006, NASA decided to a proceed with a shuttle mission, even though the Chief Engineer and the
head of the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance recommended against the launch because of
119 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 68.
120 Jeffrey Hanley, Manager, NASA Constellation Program, testimony before the House Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, December 2, 2009.
121 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 9.
122 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, p. 192.
123 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, pp. 184 and 9.
124 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, p. 97.
125 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, p. 193.
Congressional Research Service
28
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
an issue with the shuttle ice-frost ramps that they characterized as “probable/catastrophic.”126
Some observers saw signs of “reliance on past success” in NASA’s justification for this decision:
the NASA Administrator disagreed with the “probable” characterization because “we have 113
flights with this vehicle ... and while we’ve had two loss of vehicle incidents, they’ve not been
due to ice-frost ramps.”127 (The two officials who recommended against launch stated that they
were comfortable with the decision to overrule them because “the risk was to the vehicle and not
the crew.”)128 A member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel testified in late 2009 that
describing safety as a sine qua non “oversimplifies a complex and challenging problem” and that
NASA “has given serious consideration only recently” to the establishment of safety requirements
for commercial crew transport services.129
NASA argues that it continues to implement initiatives to improve safety. These include greater
emphasis on training and qualification of safety professionals; an emphasis on “safety culture,”
including more open communication and clear appeal paths to the Administrator for safety-related
dissenting opinions; more modeling and validation of software requirements; and improved tools
for knowledge and requirements management.130 The design process for Orion and Ares I is “risk-
informed,” including the systematic identification and elimination of hazards and the mitigation
of remaining risks via effective abort systems.131
Other Issues
Some experts assert that none of the options under consideration would be capable of conducting
on-orbit repair missions, as the space shuttle is.132 They note that the shuttle has made several
missions to repair and upgrade the Hubble space telescope.133 The Hubble telescope is unique,
however, in being designed to be serviced by astronauts. Most satellites are never serviced, and if
there is only an occasional need for such a capability, it may be cheaper simply to replace them if
they fail, rather than invest in a rarely used servicing capability.
NASA has a history of new vehicle development programs ending before their completion. The
National Aerospace Plane, intended as a replacement for the space shuttle, was announced in
1986 and cancelled in 1992.134 The X-33 and X-34 projects, intended to demonstrate technology
for a commercial space shuttle replacement, were announced in 1996 and cancelled in 2001.135
126 “July 1 Shuttle Launch OK’d with Some Reservations,” Aerospace Daily, June 20, 2006.
127 Ibid.
128 “Shuttle Launch Holdouts Explain No-Go Recommendations,” Aerospace Daily, June 22, 2006.
129 John Marshall, NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, testimony before the House Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, December 2, 2009, http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/
file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Space/2dec/Marshall_Testimony.pdf.
130 Bryan O’Connor, Chief, NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, testimony before the House Committee on
Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, December 2, 2009,
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Space/2dec/OConnor_Testimony.pdf.
131 Joseph R. Fragola, Valador Inc., testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, December 2, 2009, http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/
2009/Space/2dec/Fragola_Testimony.pdf. (Dr. Fragola was a member of the ESAS.)
132 For example, see Joel Achenbach, “NASA Scientist Decries Agency’s Plans,” Washington Post, May 23, 2009.
133 See CRS Report RS21767, Hubble Space Telescope: NASA’s Plans for a Servicing Mission, by Daniel Morgan.
134 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, pp. 110-111.
135 Columbia Accident Investigation Board, vol. 1, p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
29
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Congress may wish to consider whether there is an inherent risk in abandoning the agency’s
current plans even if another alternative seems preferable on its merits. The potential for this risk
may be reduced for the heavy-lift alternatives currently being considered because they are all
closely related either to the currently planned systems (Ares V Lite to Ares I and Ares V) or to
existing operational systems (shuttle-derived rockets to the space shuttle and EELV-derived
rockets to the Delta IV or Atlas V).
Destinations for Human Exploration
In considering possible modifications to the Vision, space policy experts and other interested
observers have suggested various alternative goals. For example, some have proposed that Mars
should be the immediate objective, rather than returning to the Moon first. Others have suggested
human missions to asteroids or other solar system destinations.
The most prominently discussed alternative, especially before the Augustine committee released
its report, is to proceed to Mars directly.136 The Augustine committee rejected this possibility
because it considered current technology insufficiently developed to make a Mars mission safe. It
found that Mars is “unquestionably the most interesting destination in the inner solar system” and
the “ultimate destination for human exploration” but “not the best first destination.”137
A spacecraft that lands on either the Moon or Mars must overcome the lunar or Martian “gravity
well” before returning to Earth.138 The fuel required to accomplish this makes either destination
challenging. As potential alternatives, the Augustine committee considered fly-by missions to
either the Moon or Mars, missions that would orbit either the Moon or Mars, missions that would
land on the moons of Mars, and missions to near-Earth objects such as asteroids or comets. They
also considered missions to various Lagrange points. Lagrange points are special locations in
space, defined relative to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth or the Earth around the Sun.
They are planned locations for future unmanned science spacecraft, and some scientists believe
they will be important in determining routes for future interplanetary travel. Possible activities at
each of these destinations are shown in Figure 1.
Under the Administration’s proposals, as articulated in the President’s speech in April 2010, the
first destination would be an asteroid, followed by an orbit of Mars and subsequently a Mars
landing.
136 See, for example, the advocacy of the Mars Society, http://www.marssociety.org/.
137 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 21.
138 At least one observer has suggested the launching humans to Mars without plans to return them to Earth. See
Lawrence M. Krauss, “A One-Way Ticket to Mars,” New York Times, September 1, 2009. It seems unlikely that this
option would be politically viable.
Congressional Research Service
30
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Figure 1. Potential Activities at Alternative Human Exploration Destinations
(in Addition to the Moon and Mars) as Evaluated by the Augustine Committee
Source: Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a
Great Nation, p. 41.
Notes: L1 and L2 refer to particular Lagrange points (see text). A NEO is a near-Earth object such as an
asteroid or a comet.
Alternatives to Human Exploration
Given the costs and risks of human space exploration, Congress could decide to curtail or
postpone future human exploration missions and shift the emphasis of the nation’s space program
to other endeavors. The cost of human exploration is substantial, and according to the Augustine
committee, it is not a continuum: there is an “entry cost” below which a successful program
cannot be conducted at all.139 Congress could decide that this minimum cost is not affordable.
Similarly, no matter how energetically NASA addresses safety concerns, human spaceflight is an
inherently risky endeavor. Congress could decide that the potential benefits are insufficient to
justify the safety risks.
Several options are available as alternatives to human space exploration. Congress could seek to
accomplish some of the same goals through other means, such as through robotic exploration. It
could focus on technology development, in the hope of developing new technology that makes
human spaceflight safer and more affordable in the future. It could focus on NASA’s other
139 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 23.
Congressional Research Service
31
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
activities, such as Earth science and aeronautics. Given sufficient funding, of course, all these
options are also available in conjunction with human exploration rather than as alternatives to it.
For example, the Augustine committee acknowledged that robotic exploration is important as a
precursor to human exploration.
Robotic Exploration
Advocates of robotic missions assert that robotic exploration can accomplish outstanding science
and inspire the public just as effectively as human exploration. The Mars rovers are a familiar
example of a successful robotic science mission that has captured considerable public attention.
Advocates also claim that robotic missions can accomplish their goals at less cost and with
greater safety than human missions. They do not need to incorporate systems for human life
support or human radiation protection, they do not usually need to return to Earth, and they pose
no risk of death or injury to astronauts. Some analysts assert further that exploring with humans
“rules out destinations beyond Mars.”140 Given that current plans include no destinations beyond
Mars and treat Mars itself only as a long-term goal, this last limitation may not be important in
the near term, even if it is correct.
Advocates of human missions note that science is not NASA’s only purpose and claim that human
exploration is more effective than robotic exploration at such intangible goals as inspiring the
public, enhancing national prestige, and satisfying the human urge to explore and discover. They
assert that even considering science alone, human missions can be more flexible in the event of
an unforeseen scientific opportunity or an unexpected change in plans. As support for this
assertion, they often cite the human missions to repair and upgrade the Hubble telescope. On the
other hand, the Hubble repairs and upgrades required extensive planning and the development of
new equipment. They were not a real-time response to an unexpected event. Moreover, robotic
missions can also sometimes be modified to respond to opportunities and mishaps, through
software updates and other changes worked out by scientists and engineers back on Earth.
A few analysts portray robotic exploration as an alternative to human exploration. For the most
part, however, the two alternatives are considered complementary, rather than exclusive. The
Augustine committee, for example, found that without both human and robotic missions, “any
space program would be hollow.”141 In addition, many analysts consider that in the absence of
human missions, support for NASA as a whole would dwindle, and fewer resources would be
available for robotic missions as well.
Emphasize Technology Development
If congressional policy makers were to conclude that cost and safety concerns make a human
exploration program unaffordable or undesirable in the near term, they might seek to scale back
NASA’s human spaceflight program and focus on technology development, in the hope that
improved technology will make the costs and risks of space travel more attractive in the future.
140 See, for example, Robert L. Park, What’s New, September 11, 2009, http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/
wn091109.html.
141 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 114.
Congressional Research Service
32
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
The strategy of developing improved technology and acquiring greater expertise could take many
forms. It could complement a continuing, aggressive program of human exploration. For
example, it is similar, in some ways, to the Augustine committee’s suggestion (in its “flexible
path” option) of visiting a series of less challenging destinations before attempting a Moon
landing. It could also accompany a program of human missions in low Earth orbit without
immediate plans for more distant destinations. It could even be part of a program that abandoned
human spaceflight in the near term. Developing new technology effectively would likely be
difficult, however, without a means of testing it in realistic missions. A program without any
human spaceflight at all would risk losing existing expertise through inactivity.
The Augustine committee, the National Academies, and the Administration’s FY2011 budget
proposals all recommended a greater emphasis on technology development as a complement to an
ongoing program of human spaceflight. The Augustine committee described NASA’s space
technology program as “an important effort that has significantly atrophied over the years.”142 It
recommended that technology development be closely coordinated with ongoing programs, but
conducted independently of them. The National Academies also recommended that NASA
revitalize its technology development program. Like the Augustine committee, the Academies
concluded that this program should be conducted independently. They recommended that NASA
establish a DARPA-like technology development organization that reports directly to the
Administrator.143
Other Space Policy Issues
In addition to the programmatic and prioritization issues that are the main focus of this report,
NASA faces some cross-cutting challenges, such as acquisition and financial management, and
issues involving its relationships with other agencies and the commercial space launch industry.
NASA Acquisition and Financial Management
Since 1990, the GAO has identified acquisition management at NASA as a high-risk area for the
federal government.144 Although a 2009 update noted that “NASA has made a concerted effort to
improve its acquisition management,” it also stated that “since fiscal year 2006, 10 out of 12 ...
major development projects in implementation exceeded their baseline thresholds.”145 NASA has
issued an improvement plan in response to GAO’s finding.146 In the NASA Authorization Act of
2005, Congress established requirements for baselines and cost controls.147 These requirements
142 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 112.
143 National Research Council, America’s Future in Space, pp. 61-62. DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, http://www.darpa.mil/, a frequent model for technology development agencies within other
departments.
144 Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271, January 2009. As of this 2009
update, GAO listed 27 high-risk areas.
145 Ibid., p. 77.
146 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Plan for Improvement in the GAO High-Risk Area of
Contract Management, October 31, 2007, updated January 31, 2008, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
270426main_NASA_High-RiskCAP-Jan2008Final.pdf.
147 P.L. 110-422, Section 103.
Congressional Research Service
33
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
include additional reviews of any program that appears likely to exceed its baseline cost estimate
by 15% or its baseline schedule by six months and a prohibition on continuing any program that
exceeds its cost baseline by 30% unless Congress specifically authorizes the program to continue.
These requirements are similar to the Nunn-McCurdy cost-containment requirements for the
Department of Defense.
In November 2008, the NASA Inspector General identified financial management as one of
NASA’s most serious challenges.148 The Inspector General’s report found continuing weaknesses
in NASA’s financial management processes and systems, including its internal controls over
property accounting. It noted that these deficiencies have resulted in disclaimed audits of NASA’s
financial statements since FY2003, largely because of data integrity issues and a lack of effective
internal control procedures. According to the report, NASA has made progress in addressing these
deficiencies, but the FY2008 audit of its financial statements showed that deficiencies still exist.
The FY2009 audit was again disclaimed.149
In the conference report on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-366),
Congress expressed its continuing concern about NASA’s
pattern of lax fiscal management and oversight, ranging from the administration of enhanced
use lease receipts, insufficient evidentiary support for amounts in NASA’s budget execution
data, improper execution of its authority in the construction program, and increasing
numbers of contract awards being protested.
U.S. Space Policy Governance
A variety of governmental and nongovernmental organizations help to coordinate and guide U.S.
space policy. These include the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), both in the Executive Office of the President,
as well as outside advisory groups, such as the NASA Advisory Council,150 committees of the
National Academies,151 and independent committees such as the Augustine committee.
The National Academies have recommended that the President
task senior executive-branch officials to align agency and department strategies; identify
gaps or shortfalls in policy coverage, policy implementation, and resource allocation; and
identify new opportunities for space-based endeavors that will help to address the goals of
both the U.S. civil and national security space programs.152
The Obama Administration has stated that it intends to reestablish the National Aeronautics and
Space Council (NASC), “which will report to the President and oversee and coordinate civilian,
148 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of the Inspector General, NASA’s Most Serious Management
and Performance Challenges, November 10, 2008, http://oig.nasa.gov/NASA2008ManagementChallenges.pdf.
149 See House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
hearing December 3, 2009.
150 NASA Advisory Council (NAC), http://www.nasa.gov/offices/nac/home/index.html.
151 Such as the Space Studies Board, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/index.htm, the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/deps/ASEB/, and their committees and subcommittees.
152 National Research Council, America’s Future in Space, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
34
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
military, commercial and national security space activities.”153 The NASC was established along
with NASA itself by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568). It was most
active during the Kennedy Administration, when it recommended, among other policies, the
Apollo program to send humans to the Moon. Some analysts attribute its influence during this
period to the fact that it was chaired by Vice President Johnson. The NASC was abolished in
1973, reestablished in 1989 as the National Space Council, then abolished again in 1993, with its
functions absorbed into the NSTC.
Some aspects of space policy are documented in a formal presidential statement of national space
policy. In 2006, the Bush Administration issued such a statement,154 replacing a previous one that
had been in place for 10 years.155 The 2006 policy established principles and goals for U.S.
civilian and national security space programs and set guidelines for a few specific issues such as
the use of nuclear power in space and the hazard of debris in orbit. It defined the space-related
roles, responsibilities, and relationships of NASA and other federal agencies, such as the
Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce.
U.S. National Security Space Programs
National security space programs, conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
intelligence community, are less visible than NASA, but their budgets are comparable to NASA’s.
A key issue for them is how to avoid the cost growth and schedule delays that have characterized
several recent projects. A recent analysis of numerous GAO reports directly related to DOD space
programs found 16 recommendations still categorized as “open,” including topics such as space
acquisitions, polar-orbiting environmental satellites, DOD’s operationally responsive space
concept, and training of Air Force space personnel.156 Further discussion of national security
space programs is beyond the scope of this report.
NASA’s Relationship with NOAA
Congressional policy makers have taken long-standing interest in NASA’s relationship with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which operates Earth observing
satellites for weather forecasting and other purposes. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005
mandated the establishment of a joint NASA-NOAA working group; required NASA and NOAA
to submit a joint annual report on coordination each February; directed NASA and NOAA to
evaluate NASA science missions for their operational capabilities and prepare transition plans for
those with operational potential; and directed NASA not to transfer any Earth science mission or
Earth observing system to NOAA until a transition plan has been approved and funds have been
included in the NOAA budget request.157 In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, Congress
153 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Issues: Technology, http://www.ostp.gov/cs/issues/technology.
154 National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 49, U.S. National Space Policy, August 31, 2006,
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/space.html.
155 Presidential Decision Directive NSC-49/NSTC-8, National Space Policy, September 14, 1996, http://www.fas.org/
spp/military/docops/national/nstc-8.htm.
156 Marcia Smith, “DOD Has Mixed Record on Implementing GAO Space Program Recommendations,”
SpacePolicyOnline.com, December 28, 2009. For an explanation of the operationally responsive space concept, see
National Security Space Office, “Operationally Responsive Space,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/ors/ors.htm.
157 P.L. 109-155, Section 306.
Congressional Research Service
35
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
directed OSTP to develop a process for transitions of experimental Earth science and space
weather NASA missions to operational status under NOAA, including the coordination of agency
budget requests;158 mandated a National Academies study of the governance structure for U.S.
Earth observation programs at NASA, NOAA, and other agencies, to be transmitted to Congress
by April 2010;159 and mandated a National Academies assessment of impediments to interagency
cooperation on space and Earth science missions, to be submitted to Congress by January 2010.160
The U.S. Commercial Space Industry
Industry has long had an important role in both space launch and the development and operation
of commercial satellites. Although the commercial satellite launch business has dropped off in
recent years, many analysts expect the industry to expand as space tourism develops and NASA
begins to rely more on the commercial sector for space transportation.
The prospect of space tourism on commercial vehicles is becoming increasingly likely. With the
exception of five suborbital demonstration flights in 2004, private space travel has until now been
limited to the purchase of trips to the International Space Station on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. A
number of commercial companies are now developing reusable spacecraft to carry private
individuals on short-duration flights into the lower reaches of space. Concurrently, several
companies and states are developing spaceports to accommodate anticipated increases in
commercial space launches. The safety of commercial space launches, spaceports, and space
tourism are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). According to the GAO, the
FAA faces a number of challenges in commercial space regulation, including maintaining
sufficient space expertise to conduct proper oversight, avoiding conflicts between its regulatory
and promotional roles, and integrating spacecraft into the air traffic control system.161
Export control regulations administered by the Department of State under the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have often been a concern for this industry. The regulations limit the
export of satellites and related components because of the potential for their use in military
systems. In order to expand opportunities for U.S. industry, some analysts and policy makers have
advocated transferring the regulation of these technologies from ITAR to the Export
Administration Regulations administered by the Department of Commerce.162
The development of commercial vehicles for cargo flights to the space station, and possibly to
provide NASA with crew launch services into low Earth orbit, is discussed elsewhere in this
report.
158 P.L. 110-422, Section 204.
159 P.L. 110-422, Section 202.
160 P.L. 110-422, Section 507.
161 Government Accountability Office, Commercial Space Transportation: Development of the Commercial Space
Launch Industry Presents Safety Oversight Challenges for FAA and Raises Issues Affecting Federal Roles, GAO-10-
286T, December 2, 2009, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10286t.pdf.
162 For more on this issue, see CRS Report RL31832, The Export Administration Act: Evolution, Provisions, and
Debate, by Ian F. Fergusson; and Department of Commerce and Federal Aviation Administration, Introduction to U.S.
Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry, October 2008, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/media/Intro%20to%20US%20Export%20Controls.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
Legislation in the 111th Congress
Appropriations for NASA are provided in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) appropriations
bill. For more information, see CRS Report R41161, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations.
For FY2010, the CJS bill was passed by the House and Senate as H.R. 2847. For final passage, it
was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). For more information
about FY2010 NASA appropriations, see CRS Report R40644, Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations.
For FY2009 NASA appropriations legislation during the 111th Congress, including passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) and the Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), see CRS Report RL34540, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations.
As noted at the beginning of this report, Congress is widely expected to act on a NASA
authorization bill during the 111th Congress, but no such bill has yet been introduced.
Other space-related legislation in the 111th Congress includes the American Space Access Act
(H.R. 1962) to extend the space shuttle program to 2015; a bill to extend the current third-party
liability indemnification for commercial launch services companies by three years (H.R. 3819);
and the Commercial Space Transportation Cooperative Research and Development Centers of
Excellence Act of 2009 (H.R. 3853) to authorize grants to university consortia to establish centers
in conjunction with NASA and industry.
Summary of Major Issues for Congress
In conclusion, the major space policy issues facing Congress include the following:
• Is there a national consensus for human exploration beyond Earth orbit, despite
the inherent risks and the substantial cost?
• If so, what destination or destinations should NASA’s human exploration
program explore? Should the Moon remain the target, as under current plans?
Should there be a graduated sequence of targets as in the Augustine committee’s
“flexible path” option?
• If human exploration beyond Earth orbit is too costly or too dangerous, should
NASA focus its efforts on human missions in Earth orbit, robotic exploration,
technology development, other activities such as science and aeronautics, or
some combination of these?
• Should the space shuttle program be terminated at the end of 2010 (or in early
2011) as currently planned? If so, how should the transition of the shuttle
workforce and facilities be managed? If the shuttle program is to be extended,
what actions are needed to ensure the safety of its crews after 2010, and what
impact will its continuing cost have on the availability of funds for other NASA
programs?
Congressional Research Service
37
The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress
• Should U.S. use of the International Space Station continue past its currently
planned termination at the end of 2015? If so, what impact will the additional
cost have on the availability of funds for other NASA programs? If not, when and
how should the International Space Station be deorbited?
• Are the currently planned Orion and Ares vehicles the best choices for delivering
astronauts and cargo into space? Could commercial services take the place of
Orion and Ares I for launching humans into low Earth orbit? If so, what steps
should NASA take to develop that capability? Is Ares V the best heavy-lift launch
option? If not, which of the alternatives is preferable?
• How should NASA’s multiple objectives be prioritized? What is the proper
balance between human spaceflight, science, aeronautics, and education
programs, and how can the balance be maintained if the cost of the larger, more
prominent programs grows?
Author Contact Information
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
Congressional Research Service
38