The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's FY2001 Budget Request and FY2001-FY2002 Authorization: Description and Analysis

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's FY2001 Budget Request and FY2001-FY2002 Authorization: Description and Analysis

Order Code RL30493
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s FY2001 Budget Request and
FY2001-FY2002 Authorization: Description and
Analysis
Updated January 13, 2001
Richard E. Rowberg
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Erin Hatch
Analyst in Space and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
FY2001 Budget Request and FY2001-FY2002
Authorization: Description and Analysis
Summary
For FY2001, NASA requested $14.035 billion, an increase of 3.2% above the
FY2000 appropriations. This was the first budget increase requested by NASA in
seven years. Of the request, $9.73 billion is for R&D, an increase of 0.8% above the
FY2000 level. NASA requested an increase of $206 million for Space Science and
$69.9 million for Aero-Space Technology. The agency requested a decrease of
$208.6 million for the International Space Station.
In its request, NASA proposed a five-year, $4.4 billion ($290 million for
FY2001) effort to develop the technology base for a 2nd generation reusable launch
vehicle (RLV), and a 10-year, $1.7 billion ($20 million for FY2001) program —
Living With a Star — to study the origins of eruptions on the Sun’s surface that can
result in damage to Earth satellites. Another initiative in the request was a five-year,
$1.9 billion effort for safety and supportability upgrades for the Space Shuttle.
The budget request highlighted several issues that were considered by the 106th
Congress. A perennial concern was U.S. reliance on Russia for construction of the
ISS, and the problems Russia is having in meeting its commitments. An issue that
intensified this past year was whether NASA’s “faster, better, cheaper” policy about
deployment of its scientific missions resulted in too many failures and not enough
attention to the scientific objectives of the mission. Concerns were also raised about
NASA’s plans to develop a follow-on RLV to the Space Shuttle. In the meantime,
there was growing concern about the safety and reliability of the shuttle, although the
shuttle upgrade program proposed by NASA could address those concerns. It is
likely that these issues will continue to be important for the 107th Congress.
On October 27, 2000, the VA/HUD appropriations bill for FY2001 (P.L. 106-
377, H.Rept. 106-988) was signed providing $14.285 billion for NASA, 1.8% above
the request and 5.0% above FY2000. Included in the amount is a shift, proposed by
NASA subsequent to the initial budget request, of $75 million to the Mars 2003
Lander program from other NASA programs. All other programs are being funded
at or above the level requested originally including the Living With a Star and 2nd
generation RLV initiatives.
On October 30, 2000, the NASA authorization bill for FY2001 and FY2002
became law (P.L. 106-391 and H. Rept. 106-843). The Act authorizes $14.184
billion for FY2001 and $14.465 billion for FY2002. The Living With a Star and 2nd
generation RLV initiatives were both authorized. In addition, Act put a cap of $25
billion on total ISS development costs with a 20% contingency fund to cover “urgent
situations” that may arise. The 106th Congress also expressed support for the “faster,
better, cheaper” concept, while urging NASA to improve its implementation.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Historical Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
NASA Programs and FY2001 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Human Space Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
International Space Station (ISS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Space Flight Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Payload and ELV Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Investments and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Space Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Earth Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Aero-Space Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Space Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Academic Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Mission Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Safety, Mission Assurance, Engineering, and Advanced Concepts . . 25
Research and Program Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Construction of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Outyear Budget Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. NASA FY2001 Budget — Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. NASA Authorization – FY2001-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. NASA FY2001 and Outyear Budget Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s FY2001 Budget Request and
FY2001-FY2002 Authorization: Description and
Analysis
Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created by the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568) to undertake civilian
research, development, and flight activities in aeronautics and space. This report
describes the various NASA programs, NASA’s FY2001 budget request, and
disposition of that request by the 106th Congress. Included are discussions of key
issues that affected congressional actions on the budget and that may reemerge in the
107th Congress.
Historical Budget
Since its creation, NASA has experienced periods of budget growth and decline,
some of which have been quite dramatic. In the early 1960s, as the nation strived to
put an American on the Moon by 1969, NASA’s budget increased rapidly, peaking
at $5.25 billion in FY1965. Then, as other national priorities gained precedence,
Billions of Dollars
30
$$$
25
$
$
20
$
$$
$$
15
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
))))) $
) $
)) $
)
)
$
$
$
$ )
10
$
$
) )
$$$$$$$$$$$$ )
$
5
))))
)
))))))
$$
)))))))))))))
0 ))))
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Year
)Current Year Dollars
1998 Dollars
$
Source: Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, FY1997 Activities: NASA, FY2001 Budget Request
NASA’s budget declined sharply from the FY1965 peak to about $3 billion in
FY1974. After FY1974, NASA’s budget once again began to increase steadily,

CRS-2
peaking at $14.5 billion in FY1994. As efforts to restrain federal funding took hold
under the pressure of the budget caps, NASA’s budget again began to decline to its
FY2000 level of $13.600 billion. Figure 1 (previous page) displays the agency’s
budget history, both in current year dollars (unadjusted for inflation) and in 1998
dollars. (The one-year spike in 1987 was to build a replacement orbiter following the
Challenger tragedy.) The sharpness of the budget growth and decline from 1958 to
1974 is quite clear when presented in 1998 dollars.
NASA Programs and FY2001 Budget Request
Overview
NASA’s budget1 request was presented in four appropriations categories:
Human Space Flight (HSF), Science Aeronautics and Technology (SAT), Mission
Support (MS), and the Inspector General (IG).2 For FY2001, NASA requested
$14.035 billion, an increase of 3.2% above the FY2000 appropriations. This is the
first increase requested by NASA in seven years. Of the request, $9.73 billion was
for R&D, an 0.8% above the FY2000 level. Funding for the R&D programs
contained within the SAT category would increase by 6.2% while funding for the
International Space Station, in the HSF category, would decrease by 9%.
NASA stated that its FY2001 budget request was designed around four key
priorities: operate the space shuttle safely; continue construction of the International
Space Station; make progress toward reducing the cost of access to space; and
perform outstanding science and technology. In addition, the budget request
proposed two changes in the major account structure. First it converted the Payload
Utilization and Operations account into two new accounts: Payload and ELV
(expendable launch vehicle) Support, and Investments and Support. This action was
designed to separate activities that support the shuttle and NASA’s ELV program
from those that provide broad support for all of NASA’s human space flight (HSF)
activities. The second action combined Mission Communication Services and Space
Communications Services into one account, Space Operations. These two programs
perform similar functions. NASA is combining their activities under the Consolidated
Space Operations Contract (CSOC).
For FY2001, NASA also is increasing its full-time equivalent workforce by 328
people following several years of decline. NASA stated that it wishes to stabilize its
workforce and rebalance the skill mix. This follows from growing concerns that the
losses in personnel during the last several years of downsizing might be adversely
affecting NASA’s technical capabilities.
1 For budget details, see, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Budget
Estimates: Fiscal Year 2001, [http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2001/].
2 The NASA budget supports its four strategic enterprises: the Space Science Enterprise,
the Earth Science Enterprise, the Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise,
and the Aero-Space Technology Enterprise. See: NASA Budget Estimates, AS2-3.

CRS-3
On October 27, 2001, the FY2001 VA/HUD appropriations bill was enacted
(P.L. 106-377, H.Rept. 106-988) providing $14.285 billion for NASA for FY2001,
1.8% above the request and 5.0% above the FY2000 level. Details are provided in
table 1 below. The 106th Congress directed NASA to develop a comprehensive and
strategic plan for its centers including a 10-year mission schedule that identifies the
Table 1. NASA FY2001 Budget — Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
Funding Category
(Appro.)
(Request)
(House)
(Senate)
(Conf)
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
5,467.7
5,499.9
5,472.1a
5,462.9
5,462.9
Space Station
2,323.1
2,114.5
2,114.5
2,117.5
Space Shuttle
2,979.5
3,165.7
3,165.7
3,125.7
Payload Utilization and Operations
165.1
Payload and ELV Support
90.2
90.2
90.2
Investments & Support
129.5
129.5
129.5
SCIENCE, AERO, AND TECH
5,580.9
5,929.4
5,579.5b
6,190.7c
6,190.7c
Space Science
2,192.8
2,398.8
2,378.8
2,508.3
Life and Microgravity Sciences
274.7
302.4
329.0
316.9
Earth Science
1,443.4
1,405.8
1,405.8
1,498.1
Aero-Space Technology
1,124.9
1,193.0
859.0
1,253.2
Space Operations
529.4
529.4
529.4
Mission Communications Services
406.3
Academic Programs
138.8
100.0
105.4
134.0
MISSION SUPPORT
2,532.2
2,584.0
2,584.0
2,608.7
2,608.7
Safety& Mission Assurance
43.0
47.5
47.5
47.5
Space Communications Services
89.7
Research and Program Manag
2,217.6
2,290.6
2,290.6
2,286.8
Construction of Facilities
181.9
245.9
245.9
274.4
INSPECTOR GENERAL
20.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
TOTAL
13,600.8
14,035.3
13,658.6
14,285.3
14,285.3
a The total has been reduced by $27.8 million to account for amendments adopted by the House, which has
not been allocated to the individual programs.
b The total has been reduced by $27.2 million to account for amendments adopted by the House, which has
not been allocated to the individual programs.
c This total was reduced by a general reduction of $49 million, which has not yet been allocated to the
individual programs.
Source: NASA FY2001 Budget Estimate
lead center for each mission. The 106th Congress, in prescribing reprogramming
procedures, warned NASA that no change was to be made in a program account if
that action constituted a change in policy. Further, NASA is directed to make no
reduction or reprogramming in any program specifically identified by the 106th
Congress in the conference report without prior approval. The 106th Congress also
gave NASA authority to offer buyout authority in order to reduce personnel levels for
specific activities it deems as having excess staff, while not having to reduce total full-
time equivalent personnel for the entire agency. This action is designed to give NASA
more flexibility in adjusting its skill mix. The 106th Congress also expressed its

CRS-4
concern about the effect of the adoption of full-cost accounting on the program and
financial information it is provided by NASA. It stated that NASA should be ready
to provide [the 107th] Congress with any information needed in the event it finds the
initial submissions inadequate.
Table 2 (page 5) shows authorization action for the 106th Congress. On October
30, 2000, the NASA Authorization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-391 (H.R. 1654), H.R.
106-843) was signed. The Act authorizes $14.184 billion for FY2001 and $14.625
billion for FY2002.
In the conference report with the NASA authorization act, H.Rept. 106-843, the
106th Congress noted the significant changes in the FY2001 NASA budget request
compared to that delivered with the FY2000 request in 1999. Those changes were
primarily a result of new initiative with the FY2001 budget request and funding for
the ISS had passed its peak. Accordingly, the conferees made changes in the FY2001
NASA authorization act to reflect these developments.
Human Space Flight
The Human Space Flight account includes funding for the International Space
Station, Space Flight Operations (space shuttle), Payload and ELV Support, and
Investments and Support. Total request for the HSF account for FY2001 was $5.500
billion compared to $5.468 billion approved for FY2000. The enacted FY2001
appropriations provides $5.462 billion, 0.7% below the request and 0.1% below the
FY2000 level. NASA had proposed a budget adjustment that would reduce the HSF
account by $40 million in order to provide more funds for the Mars 2003 lander. This
adjustment was agreed to in the final act. Under these conditions, the final amount
approved for the HSF account for FY2001 was just $3 million above the request.
International Space Station (ISS). The principal ISS mission is to establish
permanent human presence in space.3 The station will serve as a platform for a range
of research activities in biology, physics, and materials science, as well as for Earth
and astronomical observations. NASA also hopes that experience gained by using the
ISS will facilitate decisions about the future of its Human Exploration and
Development of Space enterprise. NASA considers the ISS as central to fulfilling that
enterprise, including the commercial exploitation of space. The agency hopes that the
ISS will attract a substantial number of commercial ventures, and that an increasing
fraction of the ISS operational costs will be covered by the private sector.
For FY2001, NASA requested $2.114 billion for the ISS, 9% below the FY2000
appropriation, reflecting a planned decline as hardware for the station is completed.
Currently, three elements of the space station are in orbit. The most recent was the
Service Module built by Russia and successfully launched in July 2000.
NASA requested $442.6 million for the ISS vehicle, down from $890.1 million
approved in FY2000. The ISS Vehicle program supports development of the
3 For a complete discussion of ISS issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations,
by Marcia Smith.

CRS-5
hardware to be installed on the station. The successful launch of the Russian Service
Module in July means that station assembly will continue in FY2001 as outlined in the
FY2001 budget request. Seven shuttle flights are now scheduled, including
installation of truss assemblies for supporting photovoltaic arrays and six systems
racks including the Human Facility Rack.4 The latter will provide the station, for the
first time, with the capability to support research. The first extended stay by a crew
began in November 2000. Installation of an airlock is also planned for FY2001.
For space station operations capability, NASA requested $826.5 million for
FY2001, up from $763.6 million approved for FY2000 . This activity’s objective is
to assemble and operate the space station. Space station operations includes operation
of the station in flight and the associated ground operations. A major objective of
operations capability is to ensure that all operations are safe, reliable, and sustainable.
NASA began permanent habitation of the ISS in November 2000. Three different
crews are planned to be on board the station during FY2001, and training is being
carried out for the three crews scheduled for FY2002. Seven shuttle flights will be
supported by operations during FY2001. In addition to the crews, these flights will
transport additional research and stowage racks. The operations activity is also
responsible for integrating all foreign contributions to the ISS. During FY2001, an
Italian-built logistics module and a Canadian-built mechanical arm are planned for
delivery to the station.
NASA requested $455.4 million for FY2001 for space station research, an
increase of $61 million over the FY2000 appropriation. The objective of space station
research is to develop the facilities — human research facility racks — and
procedures to carry out research on the space station in the areas of biology, physics,
and materials science. In addition, this activity supports research in those fields and
will direct the transition from the current short-term focus of research now carried out
on the space shuttle to a long-term focus made possible by the ISS. For FY2001,
research using the first human research facility rack is underway. Research will focus
on understanding how humans adapt to living in space for long periods and the
development of ways to mitigate undesirable effects. To assist with this research,
NASA plans to deploy four smaller, focused racks — called EXPRESS racks —
during FY2001. Also, NASA is continuing fabrication and assembly of several other
research racks and facilities permitting research on a variety of subjects.
The final component of the space station program budget request is the Crew
Return Vehicle (CRV) project, for which NASA requested $90 million for FY2001.
This project’s objective is the development of a vehicle that could return up to seven
ISS crew to Earth in the event of an emergency. The first of four crew return vehicles
will be required for the ISS by FY2004. For FY2001, NASA is continuing Phase 1
of the CRV program which involves conversion of the X-38 design into a CRV
design. The X-38 project is designed to develop the technology base for a CRV. A
space flight test is planned for FY2002. Upon completion of Phase 1, NASA will
decide whether to proceed with an X-38-based design of a CRV. Funding for that
phase, Phase 2, would no longer be in the ISS account, but would
4 A rack is the assembly in which specific scientific experimental facilities, or associated
equipment, will be mounted.

CRS-6
90.3
51.5
22.7
131.0
344.0
500.8
141.3
231.0
5,387.6
1,858.5
3,307.8
6,548.9
2,630.4
1,357.5
1,574.9
2,666.2
2,383.7
FY2002
(Conf)
14,625.4
90.2
47.5
22.0
129.5
335.2
529.4
141.3
245.9
5,499.9
2,144.5
3,165.7
6,078.5
2,417.8
1,430.8
1,224.0
2,584.0
2,290.6
FY2001
(Conf)
14,184.4
90.3
22.1
131.0
271.8
605.2
133.9
280.0
5,520.3
2,091.0
3,208.0
6,062.9
2,330.4
1,548.0
1,067.8
2,646.8
FY2002
(S. 342)
14,214.2
90.2
21.4
129.5
263.9
527.8
133.9
150.0
5,653.5
2,328.0
3,105.8
5,768.4
2,262.5
1,502.9
1,036.7
2,569.7
FY2001
(S. 342)
13,967.4
90.3
49.0
22.0
131.0
344.0
470.8
130.6
280.0
191.0
5,355.3
2,091.0
3,043.0
5,831.6
2,411.8
1,365.3
1,003.3
2,675.8
2,261.6
FY2002
13,847.9
(H.R. 1654)
90.2
45.0
22.0
129.5
335.2
918.4
491.4
128.6
144.0
181.0
5,499.9
2,114.5
3,165.7
5,636.8
2,315.2
1,413.3
2,530.3
2,195.0
FY2001
13,757.1
(H.R. 1654)
90.2
47.5
22.0
129.5
302.4
529.4
100.0
245.9
5,499.9
2,114.5
3,165.7
5,929.4
2,398.8
1,405.8
1,193.0
2,584.0
2,290.6
FY2001
(Request)
14,035.3
Table 2. NASA Authorization – FY2001-FY2002
.
0
43.0
20.8
274.7
585.7
100.0
181.0
5,487.9
2,323.1
2,979.5
5,580.9
2,192.8
1,443.4
1,124.9
2,494.9
2,181.2
FY2000
(Appro)
13,578.4
and Authorization Bills
a
FY2001 Budget Estimate
Funding Category
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
International Space Station
Space Shuttle
Payload/ELV Support
Investments and Support
SCIENCE, AERO, AND TECH
Space Science
Life and Microgravity Sciences
Earth Science
Aero-Space Technology
Space Operations
Academic Programs
Future Planning
MISSION SUPPORT
Safety, Mission Assur, Eng & Adv Concept
Research and Program Management
Construction of Facilities
INSPECTOR GENERAL
TOTAL
In October 1998, NASA changed the name of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology to the Office of Aero-Space Technologya
Source: NASA

CRS-7
be transferred to the Office of Aero-Space Technology. As a contingency, NASA
plans to buy two Russian Soyuz vehicles, which would increase reliance on Russia.5
For FY2001, the NASA appropriations act provides the entire request for the
ISS for FY2001. plus $3 million for design of a Bioastronautics facility (see below).
The FY2001 NASA authorization act bill provides $2.114 billion for the ISS for
FY2001 and $1.858 billion for FY2002. These lower levels reflect the fact that
annual funding for the ISS has passed its peak. The 106th Congress also directed that
$451.6 million of ISS funds for FY2001 be set aside for ISS research to be managed
by the OLMSA. In addition, $20 million for FY2001 and FY2002 is authorized for
Technology and Commercialization.
Perhaps none of NASA’s programs has generated more controversy than the
ISS. Despite the successful launch in 1998 of the first two major components of the
station, the station continued to encounter problems during 1999. While the
successful launch of the Russian Service Module in July was a significant event, there
is still concern about whether the Russians will be able to meet all its commitments
to the station. One consequence of this uncertainty is that NASA requested $300
million for FY2001 to fund ISS efforts that might be needed in the even key Russian
contributions are not forthcoming or are excessively delayed. For FY2001 NASA
expects most these funds to be used to continue development of the propulsion
module that would be needed in case Russia is not able to provide reboost flights
throughout station assembly. It is important to note that those funds would not be
transferred to Russia, but would be used by NASA to procure substitute services and
facilities. Even that amount, however, might not be sufficient.
In the appropriations bill conference report, the 106th Congress recognized the
need to conduct biomedical research in order to determine the best way to protect
long-term inhabitants of the ISS. It also noted that this research was a principal
objective of the Bioastronautics Initiative and, in particular, a Bioastronautics facility
being constructed at the Johnson Spaceflight Center. Accordingly, the 106th Congress
provided an additional $3 million to complete the design of this facility. It also
included a provision directing the development of a 10-year ISS-related research plan
including consideration of a variety of research management options. The 106th
Congress also stated that the Committees on Appropriations must have such a plan
before the 107th Congress can approve final funding for any management arrangement.
Accordingly, the 106th Congress prohibited the use of funds to implement any
management agreement prior to December 1, 2001.
In the authorization bill conference report, H.R. 106-843, the 106th Congress
expressed concern about the cost overruns on the propulsion module project,
5 Russian Soyuz spacecraft are planned be used for emergency escape for U.S. crews
until a CRV is ready. Each Soyuz can only hold a three-person crew, however, limiting ISS
crew size, and the Soyuz must be replaced every six months, increasing operations costs.
Those limitations are the reasons why NASA is in the process of building a more capable
CRV, which can hold up to seven crew and would need to be replaced only once every three
years.

CRS-8
particularly given that the project was in its early stages. It noted the current lack of
specific future plans for the module. The 106th Congress also directed NASA to
deliver bimonthly reports on the Russia’s status in meeting its commitments and to
notify the 107th Congress if NASA decided to replace any critical Russian element or
launch service. The 106th Congress also directed NASA to seek assurances from
Russia that it place the ISS on a higher priority than the Mir space station, and it
placed a limit of $25 billion on ISS development and $17.7 billion for shuttle flights
necessary for “substantial completion” of ISS assembly. The authorization act
provides an additional 20% for contingencies for both ISS development and the
shuttle flights. The contingencies are to be reserved for any “urgent situation” on the
ISS, particularly those that would affect crew safety or ISS integrity. The 106th
Congress also repeated its concern about the need to maintain the capabilities of
space-based life and microgravity research during ISS development. It noted that it
has provided funding for a shuttle flight dedicated to such research and that the House
version of the authorization bill called for a National Research Council review of how
ready the U.S. scientific community is to use the ISS. Finally, the 106th Congress
directed NASA to establish an agreement with an non-government organization to
manage both research and commercialization activities for the ISS. Such an
organization should be selected competitively and should include expertise from the
research community and from industry.
Space Flight Operations. The function of this program is to operate and
maintain the Space Shuttle and carry out shuttle safety and performance upgrades.6
NASA missions are the primary customer of the shuttle, although industry, academia,
and international entities use shuttle services, usually on a reimbursable basis.
Currently, the Space Shuttle program is designed for an average of seven launches per
year.
For FY2001, NASA requested $3.166 billion for this program, an increase of
$186.2 million from the amount approved for FY2000. Included in the FY2001
request are $2.006 billion for flight hardware, $555.1 million for ground operations,
$273.6 million for flight operations, and $334.4 million for program integration. Nine
flights are now planned for FY2001. In addition, upgrades to combat obsolescence
— supportability upgrades — are to be funded in FY2001. NASA has also embarked
on a major safety upgrade activity designed to improve reliability and ensure safe
operations for the next decade. An independent review panel has been established by
NASA to determine the priorities for these upgrades, which are now planned to be
completed by 2005. The size of the Space Flight Operations (SFOC) contract will
grow in FY2001 as more shuttle operations are added to that contract. The SFOC
is designed to consolidate all shuttle operations under one contract and currently
accounts for about one-half of the program’s budget.
The FY2001 appropriations act did not give a specific figure for space shuttle
operations, but it can be inferred from the conference report that the amount provided
is equal to the adjusted request, $3,125.7 million. As noted above, NASA asked to
6 For a more extensive discussion on space launch issues, see: CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
Space Launch Vehicles: Government Requirements and Commercial Competition, by Marcia
Smith.

CRS-9
transfer $40 million from the HSF account to the Mars 2003 Lander program.
According to the conference report, the transferred funds are to come from shuttle
reserves and the commercialization and technology program.
The FY2001 authorization act authorized $3.166 billion for Space Shuttle
operations and safety and performance upgrades for FY2001, the NASA request.
The major concerns about NASA’s space shuttle operations center on shuttle
safety. Since 1998, the Aerospace Advisory Panel’s annual reports have expressed
concern about future shuttle safety. In particular the reports note that personnel
issues such as a growing shortage of skilled workers and aging of the shuttle
workforce coupled with budget constraints and downsizing might lead to serious
safety problems. On March 9, 2000, NASA released a report of an independent
review it had commissioned of shuttle systems and maintenance.7 The review
expressed high regard for the dedication and skill of the shuttle workforce. At the
same time the report presented nine issues providing broad guidance to NASA in
managing shuttle operations and maintenance. In addition, the report noted a number
of technical problems that needed addressing and provided NASA with 81
recommendations about steps to take between now and 2006 to improve shuttle
safety and reliability. Four of these were highlighted for action prior to the next flight.
NASA appears to be addressing these concerns with its FY2001 appropriation and
an FY2000 supplemental appropriation to shift funds to hire more shuttle personnel
and do additional upgrades. Because the shuttle is likely to be the primary means of
human access to space for several more years, continued efforts to maintain safe
shuttle operations are essential.
The 106th Congress, in the FY2001 appropriations act conference report,
affirmed earlier congressional concern about NASA’s failure to fly dedicated life and
microgravity research missions on the shuttle during construction of the ISS.
Accordingly, the 106th Congress directed NASA to submit a plan to the
Appropriations Committees within 30 days of the enactment of the FY2001
appropriations bill giving a detailed schedule of such flights beginning after flight
STS-107.
Payload and ELV Support. The Payload and ELV Support program is charged
with support and processing of shuttle payloads and of NASA payloads that use
expendable launch vehicles (ELV). Included are the technical expertise and facilities
for payload buildup, test and checkout, integration, servicing, transportation, and
installation in the shuttle prior to launch. In addition to funding for all NASA
missions requiring ELVs, the activity provides advanced mission design and analysis,
and integration services for future missions considering an ELV launch vehicle.
For FY2001, NASA requested $90.2 million for this program compared to $79.9
million approved for the comparable activities in FY2000. For FY2001, the program
is supporting 20 major and secondary payloads for the shuttle including hardware for
7 NASA, Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team, Report to the Associate
Administrator; Office of Space Flight: October-December 1999, “The MacDonald Report”
March 7, 2000 [http://www.nasa.gov/newsinfo/publicreports.html].

CRS-10
the ISS. For the ELV portion, the program is supporting 11 missions and one
secondary payload.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides the amount requested for this
program for FY2001. In the FY2001 authorization act, $90.2 million was authorized
for this program.
Investments and Support. For FY2001, NASA proposed to separate the
engineering and technical base (ETB) activity from payload and ELV support. In
addition, NASA included in the Investment and Support program rocket propulsion
test support, technology and commercialization activities, and additional funding for
academic programs. The ETB activity provides technical support for NASA’s space
flight laboratories and test beds.
For FY2001, this program requested $129.5 million, including $73.5 million for
the ETB activity. The latter is $11.7 million below that approved for ETB in
FY2000. The Investments and Support program will be the home of the Human
Exploration and Development of Space Technology and Commercialization initiative
in FY2001. This initiative is designed to foster innovative technology for future
human exploration of space and enable commercial development of such technologies.
For FY2001, the NASA Space Flight Centers is being converted to full cost
accounting and all ETB activities and budgets will be assigned to specific customers
resulting in the phasing out of a specific ETB budget. Also in FY2001, NASA’s
rocket propulsion test capabilities are being consolidated to ensure effective
management and maintenance. Important facility upgrades are also planned for
FY2001 along with investments in new technology for testing.
In the FY2001 appropriations act, the requested amount was provided for this
program for FY2001. In the FY2001 NASA authorization act, $129.5 million was
authorized for this program.
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
The Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account of the NASA budget funds
the bulk of its research and development activities. Included are the Offices of Space
Science, Earth Science, Life and Microgravity Science and Applications, Aero-Space
Technology, Space Operations, and Academic Programs. The Offices of Space and
Earth Science focus on increasing human understanding of space and the planet, and
make use of satellites, space probes, and robotic space craft to gather and transmit
data. The Office of Life and Microgravity Science and Applications funds research
in biological areas important for human exploration of space. The Office of Aero-
Space Technology supports aeronautics research that continues a long tradition dating
back to NASA’s predecessors, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. It
also funds advanced space transportation R&D aimed at lowering the cost of access
to space. Space Operations is a new program for FY2001, combining the activities
of the current Mission Communications Services and Space Communications
Services. The new program will be responsible for communications activities of all
of NASA’s space missions.

CRS-11
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $6.191 billion for SAT, 4.4%
above the request and 10.9% above the FY2000 level. Included in the total approved
for SAT are funds to meet NASA’s original SAT request plus $46 million in net
increases for the Mars 2003 Lander program subsequently requested by NASA. In
addition, the total includes $264.3 million in funding for projects and activities
specifically identified and directed by the 106th Congress. Finally, the 106th Congress
approved a general reduction of $49 million for SAT. That reduction has not yet been
allocated to the programs making up the SAT account. The FY2001 NASA
authorization act authorized $6.078 billion for this account.
Space Science. The Office of Space Science (OSS), which is responsible for
NASA’s Space Science Enterprise, has four missions: understanding the universe,
exploration of the solar system, discovering planets around other stars, and searching
for life beyond Earth. Using primarily space-based telescopes and other sensing
probes, the NASA OSS programs study the nature of stellar objects to determine their
formation, evolution, and fate. Robotic probes are sent to other bodies in the solar
system, searching for information about their makeup and whether the conditions for
life exist. To accomplish these tasks, NASA supports a number of activities: a series
of large, focused missions such as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and
the Hubble Space Telescope (HST); the Explorer program to provide low-cost access
to space with small, single purpose satellites; the Discovery program to support small
planetary missions; and a Mars exploration activity. The OSS also funds an extensive
supporting research and technology (SR&T) effort. The research component focuses
on data analysis and theoretical studies to understand space-based observations, and
supports complementary ground-based and laboratory activities. Universities and
NASA centers are the principal performers of supporting research. The supporting
technology component of the SR&T program is designed to provide enabling
technologies for the next generation of space science missions, cross-cutting
technology development that can be used on a number of NASA missions, and flight
testing of new technologies that can be used on future NASA science missions.
Through its Supporting Research and Technology program, the NASA OSS is
putting more emphasis on developing enabling technology for future missions. By
expending more effort at this stage, NASA hopes to reduce the cost and increase the
reliability of its future missions. A principal example of this technique is the Next
Generation Space Telescope (NGST) currently in the planning stage. NASA has set
stringent cost requirements for the project even though its goal is to perform more
extensive science than the Hubble Space Telescope. About 30% of the NGST’s cost
will be for enabling technology development.
For FY2001, NASA requested $2.399 billion for the OSS, an increase of $206
million above the amount approved for FY2000. Included in the FY2001 request
were $168.1 million for HST development, $117.6 million for the SIRTF, $138.8
million for Explorer development, $326.7 million for the Mars Surveyor Program,
$196.6 million for the Discovery program, $1.30 billion for SR&T, and $13.2 million
for education.8 For FY2001, NASA is continuing work on Servicing Mission 4 for
8 These two subprograms are located within Academic programs. For FY2001, NASA,
(continued...)

CRS-12
the HST, now scheduled for June 2003.9 Three missions are planned for launch under
the Explorer program in FY2001, along with continued development of several others
scheduled for launch in FY2002 through FY2004. For the Discovery program, launch
is planned for the Genesis mission, designed to return charged particles from the solar
wind to Earth. In addition, startup of a new activity, Discovery Micromissions, is
underway which focuses on ways to carry out inexpensive solar system science.
NASA recently completed a review of the Mars program and announced a new plan
for the program.10 The first mission, schedule for launch in April 2001, will be the
2001 Mars Odyssey and orbiting spacecraft designed to explore the structure of the
planet.11 Other missions include twin Mars Exploration Rovers planned for launch in
2003 and a scientific orbiter planned for 2005.12
For FY2001, NASA is focusing on activities in four areas of the technology
portion of the Supporting Research and Technology program for FY2001. These are
technology, including the Next Generation Space Telescope, for the astronomical
search for origins; technology for advanced deep space systems including the Europa
orbiter and the Pluto/Kuiper Express mission; technology for study of the structure
and evolution of the universe; and technology for the Sun-Earth Connections
program. The last element includes the Living With a Star initiative that will focus
on understanding the origin of solar disturbances and how they affect human-made
space and terrestrial technology.13 For this initiative, which is projected to cost about
$433 million from FY2001 to FY2005, NASA requested $20 million for FY2001. In
addition, NASA requested an additional $5 million for FY2001 to expand research
in nanotechnology as part of the Administration’s National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Within the research portion of SR&T, NASA is continuing to fund a broad range of
space science data analysis and basic research to understand observations from
8(...continued)
for the first time, has assigned the portions funded by the OSS and OES to those offices.
9 Service mission 3B is now scheduled to take place no earlier than June 2001, and may
slip into FY2001.
10 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mars Program Independent
A s s e s s m e n t T e a m R e p o r t , M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 .
http://www.nasa.gov/newsinfo/mpiat_summary.pdf
11 NASA Press Release , 00-071, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/2000/00-171.txt
Oct. 26, 2000.
12 NASA Press Release, 00-155, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/2000/00-155.txt
September 28, 2000.
13 Solar variability describes changes in the sun’s burning activity over time. Those
changes can be rather violent — solar storms — and result in significant variation in solar
radiation and eruptions from the Sun’s surface that can send a stream of energetic electrons
to the Earth. When these electrons strike the Earth’s magnetic field, significant disruptions
can occur — geomagnetic storms — that can interfere with radio communications and long-
range radar, and disrupt electric power transmission. In addition, the energetic particles can
damage sensitive electronics in space systems and may be a threat to human space activity.

CRS-13
various space science missions. In addition, a series of high-priority studies in the
Astrobiology Institute14 are being funded and 25 sounding rockets will be launched.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $2.508 billion, 4.6% above the
original request and 14.4% above the FY2000 level. Included is $75 million for the
Mars 2003 Lander that was requested by NASA subsequent to the original budget
request. If this is added to the original request (a net of $73 million because $2
million is to come from other space science programs), the revised request is $2.472
billion. The act also provides the $20 million requested for the Living With a Star
initiative. The 106th Congress also put a cost cap of $75 million on the Hubble Wide
Field Camera 3 and directed NASA not to allocate costs of servicing the Hubble
Space Telescope to the Human Space Flight account until the Appropriations
Committees can review NASA’s policy for such allocations. Finally, the 106th
Congress approved $34.5 million for specifically identified projects.
The FY2001 NASA authorization act authorizes $2.418 billion. Of that amount,
$523.6 million is authorized for the Research Program, and $12 million for space solar
power technology.
The Space Science Enterprise has perhaps the most ambitious mission of any
activity within NASA. Until recently, efforts toward fulfilling that mission made use
primarily of costly, highly sophisticated and complex missions. NASA successes have
been substantial, significantly advancing our understanding of the universe and our
knowledge of the solar system. At the same time, those missions have had a history
of cost overruns and schedule delays. In some cases, technical problems have
developed that have cost NASA a great deal to fix, when a fix was possible. To
continue towards its space and Earth science goals, NASA adopted a policy of
“faster, better, cheaper”(FBC) in the early 1990s to guide the design of future space
missions. This policy would not eliminate the risks just mentioned, but it was hoped
that it would reduce the consequences of such risks. Those risks became quite visible
last year with the consecutive loss of the two Mars missions mentioned above,
following the loss of the Lewis and WIRE missions.15 Since 1992, NASA has
launched 16 robotic space exploration missions under its “faster, better, cheaper”
policy and seven of them either failed or had serious technical problems post launch.16
That record has raised concerns among some observers.
At the same time, the number of satellite and spacecraft launches, many of which
fall under the FBC rubric, has increased dramatically. The cost of those 16 missions
is still less than the single Cassini probe, which was the last robotic mission NASA
launched under the old policy. In addition, the launch rate is much greater now than
14 The Astrobiology Institute is a partnership between NASA and academic institutions
to study the origin, evolution, distribution, and destiny of life in the universe.
15 The Wide-field Infrared Explorer (WIRE) mission was designed to detect infrared
radiation from certain types of galaxies. The Lewis and Clark missions were funded by the
Office of Earth Science and were designed to demonstrate different land imaging capabilities.
The Clark mission was cancelled because of cost overruns.
16 Robert Lee Hotz, “Are Failed Mars Probes the Price of Cost-Cutting?” Los Angeles
Times, December 26, 1999. [http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi].

CRS-14
prior to 1992. Still, concerns remain about this policy. In particular, some believe that
technical risk has increased too much even if the financial consequences of failures
might be less. In particular, the emphasis on cost may be too great, leading to
shortcuts taken by NASA and its contractors that increase the risk of failure for those
missions to unacceptable levels. It is possible that the basic FBC policy is not flawed,
and that a relatively small increase in funds for and time spent on each mission could
reduce the failure rate. A recent review commissioned by NASA of the FBC policy
also concluded that the problem lay in too much emphasis on cost and schedule
reduction and not enough on oversight by NASA officials.17
A related concern is whether such missions are compromising the achievement
of scientific goals. In other words, are there scientific issues that cannot be addressed
using small, inexpensive satellites? In 1998, Congress requested that NASA contract
with the National Research Council (NRC) to study this question. That study was
recently completed and concluded that while the FBC mission policy was sound, its
implementation too often “jeopardized the scientific objectives of these missions.”18
The NRC recommends that NASA should make sure that the driving force behind its
missions be the desired scientific outcomes and not the mission cost. According to
the study, while some missions can be performed with small, less costly spacecraft,
others will require larger systems to achieve their scientific goals.
Another issue is concern about the value of the Living With a Star initiative.
While requesting only a small amount of funds for FY2001 for the project, NASA
estimates that annual project costs will grow to about $200 million annually (in
FY2000 dollars) over the period FY2006 to FY2009 and then begin to decline. Total
project cost through FY2010 would be about $1.7 billion. The project plan is quite
complex, involving the launch of numerous satellites over the next several years,
including one that will orbit the Sun and another that will be placed in a fixed position
on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth. A primary goal of the project is to be able
to predict the onset of potentially damaging solar eruptions with greater lead times
than is possible now. NASA claims that the benefits could be substantial noting that
the nation and the world are increasingly dependent on satellite systems that are
vulnerable to solar disturbances. In addition, as human presence in space is expected
to increase substantially with habitation of the ISS, dangers to that presence from
solar activity are also likely to increase. As a result, the ability to avoid a significant
amount of the potential damage from solar disturbances could be quite beneficial.
It is not clear, however, just how much the knowledge that might be gained from
the Living With a Star program will allow any significant mitigation of that risk.
Some believe that an increase of a few hours in warning time of the arrival of particles
erupting from the Sun’s surface will provide enough time to shut down vulnerable
systems. Whether such actions would be sufficient to protect sophisticated
electronics systems aboard satellites is not clear. Furthermore, the program is quite
17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA FBC Final Report, March 14,
2000, [http://www.nasa.gov/newsinfo/publicreports.html]
18 National Research Council, Space Studies Board, Assessment of Mission Size Trade-
offs for Earth and Space Science Missions, March 14, 2000
[http://www.nap.edu/ catalog/9796.html].

CRS-15
costly and might result in a substantial reduction of resources available for other
important space science projects over the next several years. In that context, NASA
does not appear to have made it clear why its existing Sun-Earth Connections
program would not be able to meet the goals of the new program.
In the conference report, the 106th Congress repeated the concern expressed in
the Senate report about ensuring that at least 75% of all space science advanced
technology funding be done competitively. It noted NASA’s concern that increased
competitive funding would result in the degradation of core competencies in the
centers by diverting funds from those centers. To deal with this issue, the 106th
Congress allowed that NASA could request reprogramming of funds from other
“sources” to maintain those core competencies, and that these requests would be
considered by the Appropriations Committees. It directed the Office of Aerospace
Technology (see below) to provide the 107th Congress with an assessment of the core-
competency concern. The 106th Congress also directed NASA to carry out an
analysis of the cost implications of applying the recommendations of the Mars
Program Independent Assessment Team to all space science programs. With respect
to the Living With a Star initiative, the 106th Congress directed NASA to consider the
recommendations of the NASA Inspector General, the Applied Physics Laboratory,
and NASA about the procurement strategy for this program. It also adopted the
Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommendation that NASA prepare a long-term
plan for the Sun-Earth Connection program.
In the conference report with the FY2001 NASA authorization act, the 106th
Congress expressed their continued commitment to exploring Mars and the increase
in the program’s baseline funding requested over the FY2001 to FY2005 period. The
106th Congress also endorsed the “faster, better, cheaper” concept and expressed
belief that it will do more to achieve space science goals than the older, large mission
concept. At the same time, it urged NASA to provide a better definition of the
concept to improve its implementation.
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The Office of Life and
Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) funds and directs biomedical and
health research in support of the Human Exploration and Development of Space
enterprise. It carries out a number of programs that investigate the biomedical effects
of space flight and the effects of gravity on biological processes, develop technologies
to support humans living in space, enhance space crew health and safety, and address
medical care requirements for human space flight. The office also supports research
on biological, chemical, and physical processes in a microgravity environment. An
important function of OLMSA is to assist the private sector to make use of space for
product development, primarily in the life sciences. Research activities sponsored by
OLMSA are now carried out in space on robotic vehicles, in ground-based
laboratories, and on space shuttle missions. The International Space Station is
intended to serve as a site for OLMSA research beginning in FY2001.
For FY2001, NASA requested $304.4 million, up from $274.7 million approved
for FY2000. Included in the request were $76.9 million for biomedical research and
countermeasures, $39.2 million for fundamental biology research, and $129.26 million
for microgravity research. NASA proposed a Bioastronautics initiative for FY2001
that would accelerate R&D on various means — diagnostics, preventatives, therapy,

CRS-16
etc. — to maintain the health of humans on long-duration space flights. In FY2001,
OLMSA is expanding research operations on the ISS and funding 164 separate
investigations in the fundamental biology area. NASA is continuing preparation of
the ISS for microgravity research and plans to carry out such research on suborbital
missions and one shuttle flight during FY2001. In addition, in FY2001, OLMSA is
funding research on biology-based technology that could support biological
computing and materials research.
In the FY2001 NASA appropriations act, the 106th Congress approved funding
of $316.9 million for the OLMSA, 4.8% above the request and 15.4% above the
FY2000 level. Included in the appropriation is a reduction of $7 million for funds
transferred to the Mars 2003 Lander program at NASA’s request, and $24.5 million
for projects specifically identified by the 106th Congress.
The enacted FY2001 NASA authorization act authorizes $335.2 million for the
OLMSA. In addition the act specifies that $70 million of that amount is authorized
for ISS-associated research.
In H.Rept. 106-145 accompanying its authorization bill, the House noted that
the increases it approved are, in part, designed to help restore microgravity and life
science research funding that NASA had removed to help pay for ISS cost increases.
The report language noted that the restored funds were being placed under control
of the OLMSA rather than in the ISS research budget in order to permit NASA to
undo “the damage done to the research community” by the cuts. This language was
reaffirmed by the 106th Congress in the conference report.
Earth Science. The Office of Earth Science (OES), which is responsible for
NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE), supports programs that focus on the effects
of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment. The ESE is the
largest federal agency program studying the Earth and its environment. The program
aids scientific understanding of environmental issues, particularly global climate
change. NASA uses a combination of space-based, airborne, and ground-based
instruments to acquire long-term data on the Earth climate system. OES supports
research and analysis programs that assist scientists in converting these data into
knowledge of the Earth system. At the same time, OES operates a data and
information management system to capture, process, archive, and distribute data to
the scientific community and the public. A final cross-cutting objective of OES is the
development of enabling remote sensing technologies, which can be used to reduce
the cost and increase the reliability of future missions. A significant objective of OES
is to enhance predictive capabilities about potential global environmental risks. In
support of this objective, NASA is a significant contributor to the United States
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Program (IGBP), and the World Climate Research Program (WCRP).
There are three major program areas within OES. The centerpiece is the Earth
Observing System (EOS) spacecraft series. The series consists of several
polar-orbiting and low inclination satellites of various sizes, many of which include
international contributions. The EOS program also supports research designed to
analyze data and develop models that might explain the spacecrafts’ observations.
The first EOS satellite was launched in 1999, and launches will continue through

CRS-17
2003. OES is in the process of developing a science implementation plan that will
drive the selection of follow-on missions to this first phase of EOS spacecraft. To
process EOS flight data into useful information, NASA has also created an EOS Data
Information System (EOSDIS). The agency characterizes EOSDIS as evolutionary,
including the phased deployment of the EOS satellites and their enabling data
transmission technology. Though significant technical difficulties delayed the
deployment of the second and third versions of EOSDIS, the agency reports that both
are now performing successfully. Also complimenting EOS is the Earth Probes
program, which NASA defines as consisting of unique, specific, and highly-focused
missions. This set of missions includes those opportunities presented by international
cooperative efforts, small satellites, and advanced technologies. Earth Probes can
investigate processes requiring special orbits or short development cycles of one to
three years. One such Earth Probe project is Triana, a spacecraft that would be
located at the Earth-Sun LaGrange-1 (L1) point, and which has been the subject of
significant congressional controversy.19
For FY2001, NASA requested $1.406 billion for the Office of Earth Sciences,
a decrease of 3.4% below the FY2000 appropriation. Of this amount, $819.5 million
is for Major Developments, including $447.1 million for EOS, $252.0 million for
EOSDIS, and $120.4 million for the Earth Probes program. NASA also requested
$533.3 million for Research and Technology, including $353.2 million for Earth
Science Program Science, $69.2 million for Applications, Commercialization and
Education, and $110.9 million for Technology Infusion.20 Finally, the agency
requested $42.7 million for Operations, and $10.3 million for Investments, the latter
of which includes $8.8 million for the Minority University Research and Education
subprogram and $1.5 million for the Education subprogram.21 OES plans to launch
eight spacecraft in FY2001, including Triana and three EOS satellites.22 OES expects
that FY2001 will be a very important year for EOSDIS, especially given expected
increases in the volume of archived climate data, and the demand for timely delivery
19 The Earth-Sun L-1 (LaGrange-1) point is the location in space where the Earth’s
gravitation field just balances the Sun’s gravitation field. A satellite placed at that point
would remain stationary with respect to the Earth, allowing a continuous, full disk sunlit view
of the Earth. For more information, see: CRS Report RS20252, NASA’s Triana Spacecraft:
An Overview of Congressional Issues, by Erin Hatch, March 29, 2000.
20 According to NASA’s FY2001 budget justification documents, the agency has
restructured the FY2001 OES budget to display Research and Technology budgetary
allotments in a manner more readily understood by NASA’s customers. As a result, the
former Research and Technology budget has been subdivided into three categories: Earth
Science Program Science, Applications Commercialization and Education (ACE), and
Technology Infusion. In addition, Technology Infusion allotments formerly contained within
the EOS budget are now budgeted within Research and Technology. The agency contends
that this restructured format aligns the Research and Technology budget requirements with
the manner in which they are managed within the agency.
21 See note 10.
22 The three planned FY2001 EOS launches are JASON-1 (a follow-on mission to
TOPEX/Poseidon), Aqua (formerly known as EOS PM-1), and IceSat (Ice, Clouds and Land
Elevation Satellite).

CRS-18
of archived products. The next phase of EOSDIS deployment is scheduled for April
2001..
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $1.498 billion for Earth
Sciences, $92.3 million (6.6%) above the request and $5.5 million (3.8%) above the
FY2000 level. Included in the total are an increase of $20 million to continue
purchasing commercial remote sensing products and an increase of $35 million for
EOSDIS development. Also included are an additional $37.3 million for projects
specifically identified by the 106th Congress. The 106th Congress also expressed its
concern about NASA’s failure to implement congressional directives, and prohibited
the reprogramming of any funds by the Office of Earth Science unless specifically
authorized by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate.
The FY2001 NASA authorization act authorized $1.431 billion for FY2001, $25
million above the request. The 106th Congress retained authorization for the Triana
project.
Substantial criticism of the Office of Earth Sciences over the last several years
has resulted primarily from delays in the EOS program and the controversial nature
of many of the subjects being studied by the EOS program (e.g., global climate
change).23 These issues have led some to question the value of NASA’s Earth science
program as a whole. Some EOS program delays are attributable to difficulties in
developing data management and satellite control software for the EOSDIS program.
NASA has been forced to scale back the program more than once from its original
design. Agency officials now assert that the new EOSDIS time line is both
incremental and realistic. In FY2002, some EOSDIS operations will become part of
the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (see below), and the agency plans for
EOSDIS to be fully operational by the end of FY2003. OES also has received
criticism from the National Research Council regarding the lack of a “fully integrated
science plan” for missions following completion of the first EOS series.24 As a result,
OES is in the process of developing a targeted research program—including a set of
specific science questions—for missions in 2003 and beyond. Another area that was
of interest to the 106th Congress and is likely to be an issue in the 107th Congress as
well is the impact of OES missions on the emerging commercial remote sensing
industry. Other possible issues that may hold over into the 107th Congress include:
competitive pricing procedures for government remote sensing data; federal resolution
restrictions on civilian data sets; government-mandated satellite imagery black-out
zones (“shutter control”); consistency in data standards and licensing procedures, and
guidelines for building satellites versus purchasing data from commercial providers.25
23 For more information about these issues and other areas of congressional interest in
NASA’s Earth science programs, see CRS Report RS20673, NASA’s Earth Science
Enterprise, by Erin Hatch.
24 National Research Council, Task Group on Assessment of NASA Plans for Post-2002
Earth Observing Missions, NASA’s Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions, April 26,
1999, 4 [http://www.nas.edu/ssb/post2000menu.htm].
25 Due to national security concerns, current law and administration policy allow U.S.
companies to sell commercial satellite imagery data only at 1-meter or lower resolution. The
(continued...)

CRS-19
In the conference report accompanying the FY2001 NASA appropriations act,
the 106th Congress directed NASA to report to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees by March 15, 2001, with a ten-year strategy and funding profile to extend
benefits from the enterprise’s science, technology, and data results “beyond the
traditional science community and address practical, near-term problems.” NASA
was further directed to work with other specific entities in making public and private
remote sensing and related technologies available to state and local governments, and
to public and private organizations. The 106th Congress expressed concern about a
potential delay in launch for the Vegetation Canopy LIDAR Project (VCL), and
requested NASA to report by October 2001 on the mission’s development status.26
The 106th Congress also recommended that NASA initiate studies for a commercial
follow-on to the Landsat-7 mission, for minimizing costs on EOSDIS, to assist in
developing the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), and for other related technology
development work.
In the conference report with the FY2001 NASA authorization act, the 106th
Congress directed $25 million to be used by the Commercial Remote Sensing
Program for commercial data purchases, unless NASA obligates at least 5% of the
combined EOS and Earth Probes budgets for purchasing Earth science data from the
private sector.
Aero-Space Technology. The Office of Aero-Space Technology, which is
responsible for the Aero-Space Technology Enterprise, supports NASA’s
Aeronautical Research and Technology and Advanced Space Transportation
Technology programs. The Office is divided into the Research and Technology Base
and the Focused programs. For FY2001 NASA is proposing to integrate the
aeronautics and space transportation activities of the Office. The Technology Base
programs are responsible for developing new technologies, processes, and
computational tools that can enhance development of new aero-space technologies.
The programs support both the aeronautical and the space transportation activities of
the Office. The programs that make up the Technology Base are information
technology, intelligent synthesis environment, vehicle systems technology, propulsion
25(...continued)
U.S. government also prohibits the sale of satellite imagery to rogue countries such as Iraq
and North Korea. Furthermore, the U.S. government can prohibit a U.S. company from
selling satellite images of a specific geographic area; this policy is known as “shutter control.”
26 The VCL mission is expected to provide a better understanding of the structure of
Earth’s forests, and the impact human land use has had on them. The mission was originally
priced at $60 million, was scheduled to launch in September 2000. However, earlier in 2000,
NASA officials stated that the project would require an extra $47 million to complete, and the
mission would not be ready to launch until at least May 2002. In order to prevent the mission
from being cancelled, a group of scientists have been trying to secure private financing for the
project. In the mean time, NASA has agreed to continue funding VCL until December 2000.
For more information, see: Brian Berger, “NASA Panel Extends VCL Mission Funding,”
Space News, August 14, 2000, p. 3; Brian Berger, “Scientists Seeks Corporate Investors for
VCL Mission,” Space News, August 7, 2000, p. 1; and the VCL website:
http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/vcl.html.

CRS-20
and power technology, flight research, operations systems, rotorcraft, and space
transfer and launch technology.
The Focused programs examine specific civilian aviation and space
transportation technical issues through separate projects. The Focused programs
include NASA’s high-performance computing and communications effort, the aviation
system capacity project, the aviation safety program, the ultra-efficient engine
technology program, the future X-pathfinder project, the X-34 project, and the
enabling space launch initiative.
A major goal of the Office of Aero-Space Technology is the development and
demonstration of next-generation technology for access to space. Such technology
could serve as the basis for commercial space transportation systems. Consequently,
this work is often done in partnership with industry. The prime NASA goal is a
dramatic reduction in launch costs, while improving reliability and safety. The final
responsibility of the Office is NASA’s Commercial Technology Programs. These
programs included NASA’s technology transfer activities and the Small Business
Innovative Research Program.
For FY2001, NASA requested $1.193 billion for Aero-Space Technology, up
from $1.125 billion approved for FY2000. Included in the request are $539.4 million
for the Research and Technology Base programs and $507.4 million for the Focused
programs. NASA proposed three initiatives for the Office for FY2001. The first is
the small aircraft transportation system initiative to develop and demonstrate
technologies permitting greater use of small, public-use airports. The purpose of the
initiative is to allow those airports, most of which are under utilized, to make a greater
contribution to improving the efficiency of the nation’s transportation system. The
second initiative, quiet aircraft technology, is aimed at achieving a dramatic reduction
in airport noise. The third is the 2nd generation RLV program. Between now and
2005, NASA is planning to spend about $4.4 billion to develop the technology base
for the shuttle replacement. It is NASA’s hope that after this expenditure, the risk of
developing a second generation RLV will be reduced to the point where the
commercial sector will continue development toward an operating system to provide
launch services to NASA and other potential customers. Included in the 2nd generation
RLV initiative are programs to develop alternative access and 3rd generation RLV
technology. The former is designed to support the use of existing and emerging
commercial launch capabilities that could meet NASA requirements for access to the
ISS. The latter program, which is now operating under the Spaceliner-100
designation, is focusing on technology that could make a substantial leap in cost
reduction beyond more conventional RLV systems.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act bill provides $1,253.2 million for the
AST programs. Included in the total are a reduction of $20 million from the research
and technology base for transfer to the Office of Space Science for the Mars 2003
Lander program as requested by NASA, the full $9 million requested for the SATS
program, and the full $290 million requested for the 2nd generation RLV (space launch
initiative (SLI)) program. The act also provides an additional $13 million for the
ultra-efficient engine technology program. Finally, the total includes $67.2 million for
projects specifically identified by the 106th Congress.

CRS-21
The FY2001 NASA authorization act authorized $1.193 billion for FY2001, the
requested amount. While expressing concern about the continuing decline of
aeronautics research funding, the Act directs that for FY2001, $36 million be for quiet
aircraft technology programs, $70 million for aviation safety programs, and $50
million for ultra-efficient engine technology programs. The 106th Congress also
endorsed the approach of the Space Launch initiative and authorized full funding for
the 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle program.
The development of the next generation RLV has been under consideration at
NASA for several years. The Agency has known for some time that a replacement
to the shuttle would be necessary eventually, and that lowering the cost of access to
space would be essential to continuing human exploration and development of space.
The plan NASA has announced this year appears to take a new approach to that
effort. While it includes the X-33, X-34 and Future-X programs, the main focus is
on a new, competitive program to reduce the risk of RLV development. Indeed,
NASA’s contribution to those three “X” programs is expected to be completed by the
end of FY2002. There are many unanswered questions about the new NASA
approach, however, that may be raised during consideration of the request. It is not
clear, for example, what role if any the three “X” programs will have in the risk
reduction effort. Also, there are no assurances that at the end of the risk reduction
program, the space-launch industry will feel confident that it can proceed with
development of an operating launch system without additional NASA funds beyond
those needed for NASA-unique requirements. Nevertheless, a new approach to next
generation RLV development might be needed. The existing efforts, while making
progress, do not seem to be offering a promising outcome. And NASA believes that
it will need to replace the shuttle, as it is currently configured, within 10 to 12 years,
although upgrades could make it last longer, perhaps to 2030 if necessary.
In the conference report with the FY2001 NASA appropriations act, the 106th
Congress informed NASA that its funding of the SATS program was predicated on
NASA using the funds to carry out assessment of four concepts that “promise to
increase the safe and efficient capacity of the National Airspace System” and “extend
reliable air service to smaller communities.” In carrying out these assessments, NASA
is to work closely with the Federal Aviation Administration who will be responsible
for implementing those concepts that prove to be of value. The 106th Congress also
directed that at least 75% of the funds awarded in the SATS program should be
through a competitive process. Because the program may require additional
resources in the future for successful completion, the 106th Congress directed NASA
to include them in the FY2002 budget request. The 106th Congress also expressed
its “general” agreement with the two principles stated in the Senate report about the
Space Launch Initiative (SLI). It further directed NASA to ensure that at least 75%
of the SLI funds be subject to a competitive process and that all NASA Centers be
eligible. The 106th Congress also expressed its continued support of the Software
Optimization and Reuse Technology (SORT) program and the transfer of program
management to the Goddard Space Flight Center. Finally, the 106th Congress, noting
that the Cross-Enterprise Technology Development Program (CETDP) has been
transferred to the Office of Aerospace Technology, directed OAT to report on how
it plans to increase the fraction of advanced technology funding subject to competitive
selection while maintaining the core competencies of the NASA Centers (see above).

CRS-22

The Fy2001 NASA authorization act reaffirmed the support of the 106th
Congress for a strong aeronautical R&D program. They also stated that NASA
should modernize its aeronautical research facilities to keep pace with growing
demands. The106th Congress also expressed their endorsement of NASA’s approach
and plan for the 2nd generation RLV initiative, particularly the emphasis on preserving
competition among different concepts. Furthermore, the 106th Congress commended
NASA on taking steps, through the space launch initiative’s Alternative Access
program, to reduce dependence on the Space Shuttle and the Russian Soyuz and
Progress vehicles for access to the ISS. The 106th Congress noted that modernization
of NASA’s space launch infrastructure will likely be needed for the 2nd generation
RLV program. The 106th Congress also noted that the authorization act directs
NASA to develop a plan to integrate NASA’s aeronautics and space transportation
R&D activities. In particular, the 106th Congress is concerned about the lack of
“strategic direction and adequate funding” for aeronautics research and point out the
many benefits that have been derived from that research. It expressed hope that the
integration efforts will lead to benefits for both aeronautics and space launch research
programs, and the 106th Congress expect that the integration will help strengthen
aeronautics research in the United States over the next decade.
Space Operations. The Space Operations program provides command,
tracking, telemetry, and data services between ground facilities and all of NASA’s
missions. Satellite links, ground networks, mission control, data processing, and
related facilities comprise the elements of this program. Services are provided for
every NASA mission, including deep space probes, Earth-orbiting satellites, research
aircraft, and sub-orbital flights. High-speed telecommunication links are provided to
connect industry, university, and laboratory scientists participating in NASA missions
with tracking, data acquisition, mission control, and data processing facilities.
Mission support services and mission planning and analysis are also provided by the
Space Operations program.
For the last few years, NASA has attempted to cut costs by contracting for
communications and operations services, and consolidating these contracts. The
largest example of this effort is the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC),
which was awarded to Lockheed Martin Space Operations Company on September
25, 1998, and began operations on January 1, 1999. The agency asserts that when
fully implemented, CSOC will provide end-to-end space operations mission and data
services to both NASA and non-NASA customers.27
For Space Operations in FY2001, NASA requested $529.4 million, not including
program office contributions, which is an increase of 6.7% over the FY2000
appropriation. Of this amount, $422.0 million is for Mission Communications
Services (formerly contained in the Mission Support account), including $158.6
million for Ground Networks (e.g. the Deep Space Network), $254.6 million for
Mission Control and Data Systems, and $8.8 million for Space Network Customer
27 NASA’s contract with Lockheed Martin allows for excess operations and
communications capacity to be marketed and sold by the contractor, which would also keep
any fees received.

CRS-23
Services. NASA also requested $107.4 million for Space Communications Services
(formerly contained in the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT) account),
including $4.8 million for Space Network Services, $55.0 million for the Tracking and
Data Relay System (TDRS) Replacement Spacecraft and Launch Services, and $47.6
million for the NASA Integrated Services Network. Including contributions from
other program offices, the total Space Operations FY2001 request was $672.2
million, $358.5 million for CSOC services and $314.2 million for non-CSOC
services.28
In an attempt to streamline accounting and management processes, NASA
recently reorganized its space operations and communications budgets. Previously,
the NASA space operations effort was split between the Mission Communications
Services program in the SAT account, and the Space Communications Services
program in the Mission Support account. The Space Communications Services
program operated the space-based portion of the network, while the Mission
Communications Services program supported the ground-based portion. Beginning
in FY2001, NASA’s Space Operations effort is consolidated in the SAT account.
NASA states that these two programs are to be combined so as to more directly link
space communications activities with the programs that use these facilities and
services. Moreover, the agency contends that this new budget configuration will
enable more effective management of the Space Operations program as a whole.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $529.4 million for Space
Operations (formerly Mission Communications Services) for FY2001. The FY2001
NASA authorization act, following NASA’s new space Operations budget structure
authorized the requested amount for Space Operations, $529.4 million.
NASA is continuing this reorganization trend by moving towards a “fee for
service” accounting system for space operations services. The agency has already
begun this transition by designing an on-line space operations and management
catalog of all related services available to NASA missions. This catalog will
eventually enable NASA programs to order standard space operations mission and
data services. During FY2001, agency officials are identifying all operations costs for
each NASA office.29 This will allow offices, and potentially individual programs, to
directly account for operations expenses. Eventually, perhaps as early as FY2003, the
agency intends to budget for all space operations costs directly within the account for
the program office receiving the services.
In 1999, NASA reported that anticipated cost savings from CSOC would be
delayed because initial cost reductions due to management consolidation would be
28 For CSOC, NASA’s FY2001 request includes $215.2 million from Space Operations
and a combined total of $143.3 million from four program offices.
29 For example, NASA plans that all communications and operations costs of Office of
Space Science’s programs and projects will be assigned to that office rather than be assigned
to Space Operations as is now the practice. The same would be done for the Office of Earth
Sciences, the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, the Office of Space
Flight, and the Office of Aero-Space Technology.

CRS-24
used for a new system architecture.30 In addition, in anticipation of CSOC savings,
some FY1999 funds for space operations and communications were shifted to other
NASA programs; these funds were primarily transferred from the Space
Communications program to the International Space Station (ISS) account. Along
with other technical and management difficulties experienced by the contractor in
implementing CSOC, these decreases in available funds have delayed full
implementation of the system. NASA still expects to save $1.4 billion from CSOC
over the ten years of the contract, but now says that the majority of these savings will
be realized in the last five years. Challenges are anticipated in developing the
appropriate CSOC capacity for the anticipated future demand. In addition, the agency
expects to experience difficulties in increasing the outsourcing of operations and
communications services, and in achieving the CSOC small business goals.31
In the conference report with the FY2001 NASA authorization act, the 106th
Congress directed that no funds be used to create a government-owned corporation
to perform CSOC functions.
Academic Programs. Academic programs include a broad array of activities
designed to improve science education at all levels. They include programs that
directly support student involvement in NASA research, train educators and faculty,
develop new educational technologies, provide NASA resources and materials in
support of educational curriculum development, and involve higher education
resources and personnel in NASA research efforts. In addition, a separate set of
programs is devoted to minority education issues. Academic programs supply NASA
mission and research experience to students in grades K-12, and support for graduate
students in NASA-related disciplines. Teachers at the K-12 level receive training
from NASA to enhance math and science teaching skills and the application of NASA
research results in the classroom. In both cases, efforts are made to reach
underrepresented populations. Efforts to improve K-12 and higher education are
supported through the Aerospace Education Services and National Space Grant
College and Fellowship programs. NASA also funds an Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to help develop research capabilities of
states that have been less successful in obtaining NASA research grants. Programs
are also funded to develop new teaching technologies based on NASA developments,
apply those technologies to the classroom, and involve educators in NASA missions.
Programs devoted to minority education focus on expanding participation of
historically minority-dominant universities in NASA research efforts. Working with
NASA enterprises, these programs develop opportunities for participation by
researchers and students from those institutions in NASA activities. Five competitive,
peer-reviewed research award categories have been set up for those institutions. The
objectives are to improve research quality in those universities, and increase the
number of underrepresented investigators supported by NASA.
30 “Rohrabacher Worried CSOC Won’t Produce Promised Savings,” Aerospace Daily,
March 15, 1999, p. 384.
31 NASA’s CSOC contract with Lockheed Martin and its industry partners includes a
goal of procuring 25% of services from small businesses.

CRS-25
For FY2001, NASA requested $100 million for Academic programs, a reduction
of $38 million from the amount approved for FY2000. The reduction was primarily
due to NASA’s decision not to continue funding programs mandated by the 106th
Congress in the FY2000 appropriation, which amounted to $38 million. Included in
the FY2001 request is $54.1 million for the Education subprogram and $45.9 million
for the Minority Research and Education subprogram. In the latter, NASA is
selecting, through merit review, additional Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and
Aerospace Academies at minority institutions. NASA is also involving its Strategic
Enterprises more fully in partnership awards with minority institutions, which will be
run through the NASA Centers. Under the Education subprogram, NASA is
continuing efforts at much the same level as in FY2000.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $134 million for Academic
Programs. Included in the total are an increase of $5.4 million for the EPSCoR
program (to total of $10 million) and an increase of $9.1 million for minority
university research and education activities (to a total of $55 million). Also included
in the total is an additional $20.5 million for projects specifically identified by the 106th
Congress.
The FY2001 NASA authorization act authorizes $141.3 million, $41.3 million
above the request. Of that amount, the act directs that $28 million be for Space
Grant Colleges and $54 million for minority university research and education.
Mission Support
The Mission Support account provides funds for the principal support activities
for NASA missions. It includes funding for NASA civil service employees, assurance
of mission safety and quality, development of engineering policies and standards, and
facility construction.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $2.609 billion for these
programs.
Safety, Mission Assurance, Engineering, and Advanced Concepts. The
Safety, Mission Assurance, Engineering, and Advanced Concepts (SMAEAC) budget
has three components: the safety of NASA missions and personnel, oversight of
NASA’s crosscutting technology development activities, and coordination of NASA-
wide technology goals. The Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) sets
agency-wide safety and mission assurance policy and strategy, sets standards, and
oversees compliance. It also supports research on new methods to assure safe and
successful missions. The Office of Chief Engineer (OCE) is responsible for
development of policies and standards to enhance NASA engineering practices. The
Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) is responsible for development of a NASA-
wide investment strategy for innovative technology, and oversight of NASA
technology policies and capabilities.
For FY2001, NASA requested $47.5 million, up from $43 million approved for
FY2000. The SMAEAC program supporting 8 shuttle and 11 expendable launch
vehicle missions in FY2001. In addition, the NASA electronics program, which
performs radiation testing and readiness assessments of advanced electronic packages,

CRS-26
is developing new methods in FY2001 for qualifying technologies and assessing their
readiness. Other activities are continuing at FY2000 levels.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $47.5 million for these
activities, the requested amount. The FY2001 NASA authorization act authorized
the same amount.
Research and Program Management. Research and program management
provides the salaries, benefits, travel, and administrative support for all of NASA’s
civil service employees. It also provides all travel funds, and funds for facilities and
technical services, and for management and operations supplies and equipment.
For FY2001, NASA requested $2.291 billion for research and program
management, an increase of $73 million over that approved for FY2000. NASA plans
to increase its workforce in FY2001 to a total full-time equivalent level of 18,741
from 18,413 at the end of FY2000. The increase is in response to concerns that
NASA’s downsizing effort, begun in FY1993, has resulted in staffing levels below
that needed in mission critical and safety-related areas.
The FY2001 NASA appropriation act provides $2.287 billion. Included is a
reduction of $6 million from the request and a transfer of those funds to the Mars
2003 Lander project as requested by NASA. The act also includes an additional $2.2
million to fund a two-year test of fractional ownership of administrative aircraft.
In the conference report with the FY2001 NASA authorization act, the 106th
Congress directed NASA to take steps to ensure a “robust and safe” aerospace
program over the next several years. In particular, the 106th Congress noted the high
percentage of NASA employees eligible for retirement and the need to make sure
NASA facilities are safe. It directed NASA to prepare a plan for ensuring the
maintenance of critical management and technical skills throughout the agency and
upgrading facilities and equipment to ensure safety.
Construction of Facilities. Construction of facilities provides funding for
individual projects needed to maintain NASA’s basic infrastructure and its
institutional facilities.
For FY2001, NASA requested $245.9 million for this activity, an increase of $64
million above the amount approved for FY2000. The increase is a result of
construction of several new utilities and support structures at various NASA Centers
and an increase in minor revitalization and small facility construction projects at those
Centers.
The FY2001 NASA appropriations act provides $274.4 million for construction
of facilities, 11.6% above the request and 50.8% above the FY2000 level. Included
in the total are increases of $18 million for the E-Complex and $10.5 million for the
Propulsion Test Operations Building. The FY2001 NASA authorization act
authorizes $245.9 million for FY2001, the requested amount.

CRS-27
Outyear Budget Projections
Along with its FY2001 budget request, NASA supplied estimates of its requests
for the succeeding four years. That five-year budget outlook is provided in Table 2.
Although the outyear estimates are subject to change, the trends they provide indicate
the general directions that NASA is headed at this time. The table shows that NASA
plans to increase spending for the next five years. Significant increases are projected
in the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account, slower growth is projected for
the Mission Support account, and the Human Space Flight account is projected to
decline. This outyear budget forecast is a substantial departure from the one
presented with the FY2000 request, where NASA had projected that its total budget
request would stay flat between FY2001 and FY2004. The outyear budget forecast
accompanying the FY2001 request projected a FY2004 budget that is 11.3% higher
than the one projected in last year’s NASA budget justification.32
Table 3. NASA FY2001 and Outyear Budget Estimate
Category
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Human Space Flight
5,499.9
5,347.8
4,939.0
4,817.4
4,686.3
Science, Aero, and Tech
5,929.4
6,388.9
6,993.9
7,571.3
7,913.5
Mission Support
2,584.0
2,666.2
2,812.7
2,892.2
2,945.1
Inspector General
22.0
22.7
23.6
24.5
25.4
Total
14.035.3
14,465.3
14,769.2
15,305.4
15,570.3
Source: NASA FY2000 Budget Estimate
For the Human Space Flight account, funding for the ISS is projected to decline
by nearly 40% between FY2001 and FY2005 as the station is completed. In addition,
NASA plans to transfer work on the Crew Return Vehicle to the Office of Aero-
Space Technology, further reducing outyear ISS funding requirements. Funding for
the shuttle is projected to remain relatively flat over that period. Funding would peak
in FY2002 as a result of the safety and supportability upgrades scheduled over the
next five years.
NASA proposes that funding for the Office of Space Science would grow by
about 45% between FY2001 and FY2005. The growth is to be focused in the
Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) programs, primarily the Astronomical
Search for Origins and the Sun-Earth Connection programs. The latter includes the
Living With a Star initiative. A modest increase in funding for the SR&T core
program is projected. Increases are also projected for the Explorer Development and
32 See CRS Report RL30154, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
FY2000 Budget: Description and Analysis, by Richard Rowberg.

CRS-28
Discovery programs. Included in the Explorer Development program is an outyear
wedge of $110 million reserved for future projects to sustain a presence in exploration
of the solar system. Funding for the Hubble Space Telescope is projected to decline
sharply as the telescope nears the end of its useful life.
Increased funding is also projected for the Office of Aero-Space Technology.
NASA is proposing a 93% increase in funding for the Office between FY2001 and
FY2005. All of the increase would be for the 2nd Generation RLV initiative. Funding
for that initiative is projected to grow by 360% over FY2001–FY2005. The Aero-
Space Base and Focused programs would remain essentially flat for that period.
Funding for the Office of Life and Microgravity Science and Applications and
the Office of Earth Sciences would change little during the FY2001–FY2005 time
period. The former would grow slightly, in part to accommodate outyear funding for
the Bioastronautics Initiative. Funding for the Office of Earth Sciences is projected
to decline about 7% over that period. Funding for the Research and Technology
programs would grow while funding of the Earth Observing System would decline as
the system’s satellites are deployed. Funding for Space Operations is projected to
decline by about 43% as savings from the CSOC consolidation begin to emerge.
Both the House and Senate authorization bills provide amounts for FY2002 as
shown in Table 2. As was the case for FY2001, many of the amounts authorized are
well below those NASA plans to request for FY2002, although they are greater for
the ISS and Earth Sciences. The latter reflects the turndown of spending
requirements for the ISS and EOS that were not conveyed in the FY2000 request,
while the former represents new initiatives approved with the FY2001 appropriations.
As seen in Table 2, those changes are reflected in the FY2002 authorization levels
reported in the conference report.