Order Code RS21430
Updated July 28, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration: Overview, FY2004 Budget in
Brief, and Issues for Congress
Marcia S. Smith
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created in 1958
to conduct U.S. government civilian space activities (military space activities are under
the purview of the Department of Defense). The FY2004 budget request for NASA is
$15.5 billion, versus $15.3 billion appropriated for FY2003. Attention is focused on
the investigation of the February 1, 2003 space shuttle
Columbia tragedy (see CRS
Report RS21408) and its implications for NASA and the space program as a whole. A
more detailed analysis of NASA’s FY2004 request is available in CRS Report RL31821.
The House passed the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill, which includes NASA
(H.R. 2861), on July 25, with a net increase of $71 million ($96 million in cuts and $167
million in additions). The House took no action on the space shuttle and related
programs pending release of the report on the investigation of the
Columbia accident.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Agency Overview
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created by the
1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568). NASA’s charter is to conduct
civilian space and aeronautics activities. Military space and aeronautics activities are
conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence community. DOD
and NASA cooperate in some areas of technology development and occasionally have
joint programs. NASA opened its doors on October 1, 1958, almost exactly one year after
the Soviet Union ushered in the Space Age with the launch of the world’s first satellite,
Sputnik, on October 4, 1957. In the more than 40 years that have elapsed, NASA has
conducted far reaching programs in human and robotic spaceflight, technology
development, and scientific research.
The agency is managed from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. It has nine
major field centers around the country:
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA;
Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA;
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland,
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
CRS-2
OH;
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD;
Johnson Space Center, Houston,
TX;
Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL:
Langley Research Center, Hampton,
VA;
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL;
Stennis Space Center, near Slidell,
MS. The
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (often counted as a 10th NASA
center), is a federally funded research and development center operated for NASA by the
California Institute of Technology. Goddard Space Flight Center manages the Goddard
Institute of Space Studies (New York, NY), the Independent Validation and Verification
Facility (Fairmont, WV); and the Wallops Flight Facility (Wallops, VA). Ames Research
Center manages Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain View, CA. Johnson Space Center
manages the White Sands Test Facility, White Sands, NM.
Web links to each are at
[http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/OrganizationIndex.html].
NASA
employs
approximately 19,000 civil servants (full time equivalents), and 40,000 contractors and
grantees working at or near NASA centers. For more information on NASA’s workforce,
see: [http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/workforce/default.htm].
Mr. Sean O’Keefe was confirmed by the Senate as NASA Administrator on
December 20, 2001. NASA headquarters is organized into six “strategic enterprises” that
correspond to NASA’s major programs: Aerospace Technology, Biological and Physical
Research, Earth Science, Space Flight, Space Science, and Education. NASA’s main
Web
site
is
[http://www.nasa.gov].
A
NASA
headquarters’
Web
site
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/org.html] has links to the various NASA program offices,
and from those sites, to individual NASA programs.
Significant Changes in NASA’s Budget Structure: “Full Cost
Accounting” and Changes in Appropriations Accounts
Full Cost Accounting. NASA’s FY2004 budget material reflects NASA’s shift
to “full cost accounting” where funding for each program includes the costs for personnel
and facilities. Previously, those costs were accounted for separately. Last year, NASA
began the transition by assigning those costs to each enterprise. This year, NASA is taking
the further step of assigning the costs directly to each program. The intent of full cost
accounting is to show more accurately a program’s total cost. A consequence of this
approach during the transition period, however, is to make it appear that funding for many
programs has increased substantially. Glancing at NASA’s FY2004 request, one might
conclude, for example, that funding for the space shuttle increased more than $700
million from a request of $3.2 billion in FY2003, to a request of $3.9 billion FY2004. In
fact, the FY2004 request is only $182 million higher. The remainder of the difference
is due to inclusion of personnel and facilities costs that were included in the “Investments
and Support” line in NASA’s Human Space Flight budget last year.
New Appropriations Accounts.
A second significant change is different
appropriations accounts. Not including the Inspector General, which is listed separately,
last year, NASA’s two accounts were Human Space Flight (HSF), and Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT). The HSF account included funding for: space
station; space shuttle; payload and Expendable Launch Vehicle support; space
communications and data support; and safety, mission assurance, and engineering. SAT
funding included: space science, earth science, biological and physical research, aerospace
technology, and academic programs. This year, NASA is seeking to emphasize that its
mission is “Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration,” and that mission is supported by
CRS-3
“Space Flight Capabilities” such as a space station, space transportation (the space shuttle
and expendable launch vehicles), space communications systems, and investing in new
technologies.
Comparing FY2003 and FY2004. Thus, care must be exercised in making
comparisons between FY2003 and FY2004. CRS cannot create a meaningful table
comparing the FY2003 request, FY2003 appropriations, and the FY2004 request, as would
normally be provided in this report. Instead, two tables are presented. Table 1 shows the
original FY2003 request (without full cost accounting), the FY2003 request with full cost
accounting, the FY2004 request, and congressional action on it.
Special attention should
be paid to the column headings, which explain what the figures represent. Table 2
shows what Congress appropriated for NASA for FY2003 using the FY2003
appropriations categories, with no full cost accounting.
The House passed the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill on July 25 (H.R.
2861, H.Rept. 108-235), with a net increase of $71 million, comprising $96 million in cuts
and $167 million in additions.
Table 1: NASA’s FY2004 Budget Request
(In millions of dollars)
Category
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
House-
Request
Request
Request
passed VA-
(Nov. 2002)
Expressed
Expressed
HUD-IA
Not in full
in Full Cost
in Full Cost
appropria-
cost
Accounting
Accounting
tions
accounting
Science, Aeronautics & Exploration
7,015
7,101
7,661
7,708**
Space Science
3,414
3,468
4,007
Earth Science
1,628
1,610
1,552
Biological & Physical Research
842
913
973
Aeronautics
986
949
959
Education
144
160
170
Space Flight Capabilities
7,960
7,875
7,782
7,806
Space Flight
6,131
6,107
6,110
6,110
Space Station*
(1,492)*
(1,851)*
(1,707)*
(1,707)
Space Shuttle
(3,208)
(3,786)
(3,968)
(3,968)
Other
(1,431)
(471)
(434)
(434)
Crosscutting Technologies
1,829
1,768
1,673
1,697
Space Launch Initiative
(879)
(1,150)
(1,065)
(1,065)
Other
(950)
(617)
(607)
(631)
Inspector General
25
25
26
26
Total
15,000
15,000
15,469
15,540
Source: NASA FY2003 and FY2004 budget documents, and H.Rept. 108-235. Column totals may not add
due to rounding. NASA submitted an amended FY2003 budget request in November 2002, which NASA
used in developing the numbers in this table.
The NASA-provided figures in the third (shaded) column
adjust the FY2003 numbers as though they had been prepared in full cost accounting. They are for
comparison purposes only and do not reflect actual funding increases or decreases.
CRS-4
*Does not include funding for space station research, which is embedded in the Biological and Physical
Research line. For FY2004, that amount is $578 million, making the total FY2004 space station request
$2,285 million.
**The House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 108-235) adds a net of $47 million to the SAE
account, but does not allocate most of those funding changes to subaccounts.
Table 2. NASA’s FY2003 Request v. FY2003 Appropriations
(in $ millions)
Funding Category
FY2003 Request
FY2003 Appropriations
Human Space Flight
6,130.9
6,058.6
International Space Station
1,492.1*
1,462.4
Space Shuttle
3,208.0
3,252.8
Payload and ELV Support
87.5
84.4
Investments and Support
1,178.2
1,094.9
Space Comm. & Data Systems
117.5
115.3
Safety, Mission Assur., Engineering
47.6
48.8
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology
8,844.5
9,254.9
Space Science
3,414.3
3,529.2
Biological. & Physical Research
842.3*
896.0
Earth Science
1,628.4
1,697.4
Aero-Space Technology
2,815.8
2,933.6
Academic Programs
143.7
198.6
Inspector General
24.6
25.4
TOTAL
15,000.0
15,338.9
Source: NASA FY2003 budget estimate and initial FY2003 operating plan. Columns may not add due to
rounding.
† Space shuttle is exempt from the rescission (both the amounts under the space shuttle line item and the
shuttle-related funding in the “investments and support” line item.
*Total funding for the space station is the sum of the funding under Human Space Flight plus a portion of
the funding in Biological and Physical Research. The total FY2003 request for the space station was $1.839
billion; Congress approved that amount and added $8 million for ISS plant and animal habitats. With the
rescission and other adjustments NASA made in its FY2003 initial operating plan, the amount available for
the space station in FY2003 is $1.810 billion
Issues for Congress
As Congress debates NASA’s FY2004 budget request, attention is focused the space
shuttle
Columbia tragedy and its aftermath.
Of NASA’s other activities, Project
Prometheus (see below), in the space science account, may generate the most interest. A
more comprehensive look at NASA budget issues is available in CRS Report RL31821.
The Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia. On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle
Columbia disintegrated as it returned to Earth following a 16-day scientific mission in
Earth orbit. All seven astronauts—six Americans and one Israeli—were killed.
An
investigation is underway. CRS Report RS21408 provides more information about the
Columbia tragedy and the investigation. The shuttle fleet is grounded.
What impact the
Columbia tragedy will have on NASA, and the space program as a
whole, will not be known until the cause of the accident is understood, and remedial steps
identified and implemented. When space shuttle flights will resume is unknown, and that
is a critical component of answering questions such as what long-term strategy to follow
CRS-5
in staffing the International Space Station (ISS). In the two other cases of U.S. spaceflight-
related fatalities (the 1967 Apollo fire, in which three astronauts died; and the 1986
Challenger tragedy, which killed seven astronauts), the programs were suspended for 21
months and 32 months, respectively.
The chairman of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board publicly stated in June 2003 that he does not believe it will take more
than 6-9 months for NASA to comply with the Board’s recommendations.
The space shuttle has been used to take crews and cargo to ISS, which is under
construction in orbit. The “Expedition 7” crew—one American and one Russian—is now
aboard ISS (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017). They arrived on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft
and can return to Earth at any time using it. Ordinarily, ISS crews are composed of three
people, but while the shuttle is grounded, NASA and the other ISS partners (Russia,
Canada, Europe, and Japan) have decided to reduce the crew size to two to lessen resupply
requirements. ISS crews can be resupplied with food and other consumables using another
Russian spacecraft called Progress. The Russians have three decades of experience in
operating space stations using only Soyuz and Progress, so it is possible for ISS to continue
operating with crews no matter how long the U.S. shuttle is grounded. Questions may
arise, though, as to whether there is sufficient reason for them to stay, since the shuttle is
needed to bring additional segments of the space station into orbit to continue construction,
and also to bring the scientific experiments that form the research program.
From a budgetary standpoint, the grounding of the shuttle will impact the schedule for
construction of the station, and could therefore increase its costs. ISS costs have been
controversial for years because of overruns. Another part of the NASA budget that could
be impacted is the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR), which uses the
space shuttle and space station to conduct many of its research activities. A third part of
the NASA budget that could be impacted is that for the Space Launch Initiative (SLI), now
part of “Crosscutting Technologies.” NASA decided in November 2002 to rely on the
space shuttle for a longer period of time than originally planned—until 2015 or longer,
rather than 2012. Instead of continuing attempts to develop technologies to build a “second
generation” reusable launch vehicle to replace the shuttle, NASA decided to focus on
building an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) to take crews to and from the space station, and
separately, on developing technologies for new launch vehicles to take cargo into space.
See CRS Issue Brief IB93062 for more on SLI, and CRS Issue Brief IB93017 for more on
OSP.
In the aftermath of the
Columbia accident, NASA may revisit its plans for
developing new space transportation systems. For example, NASA’s current plan is to
have the OSP ready by 2010 to bring crews back from the space station.
Its full
capabilities—taking crews to the space station as well as bringing them home—is
estimated for 2012. Some are suggesting that the schedule be accelerated since the shuttle
fleet now consists of only three orbiters and that may not be sufficient to meet all of
NASA’s needs. The OSP is still conceptual, however, and it is not clear that accelerating
it would be possible. NASA is assessing the alternatives.
The
Columbia tragedy may have much broader ramifications, as policy makers and
the public reassess the costs and risks of human spaceflight versus the benefits. Some are
questioning whether more could be accomplished with robotic spacecraft instead of
sending humans into space, while others are calling for a renewed commitment to human
spaceflight. It is too soon to assess how this debate will evolve.
CRS-6
In passing the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (H.R. 2861), the House took
no action on funding for the space shuttle and related programs (space station, Orbital
Space Plane, or Next Generation Launch Technology) while it awaits the report of the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
Project Prometheus (Nuclear Systems Initiative and JIMO)
In FY2003, NASA requested $125.5 million to begin a “Nuclear Systems Initiative”
to resume development of radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and nuclear
propulsion for planetary exploration spacecraft. Congress approved the program, although
it cut $19 million of the funding.
In FY2004, NASA is proposing an expansion of the NSI to include a specific
planetary exploration mission that would make use of the new nuclear systems—the Jupiter
Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). Its mission would be to search for evidence of oceans on three
moons of Jupiter: Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. NASA groups NSI and JIMO together
under the name Project Prometheus. The FY2004 request for Project Prometheus is $279
million. The 5-year (FY2004-2008) estimate is $3 billion ($1 billion for NSI, and $2
billion for JIMO). JIMO is a new request in the FY2004 budget, but Congress included $20
million for it in the FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7, H.Rept. 108-10). The head of
NASA’s space science office, Dr. Edward Weiler, is quoted in Science magazine (March
28, 2003, p. 1970) as saying the total program cost through 2012 (when JIMO would be
launched) is estimated at $8-9 billion, while cautioning that it is very preliminary.
The project may raise several questions. First is whether the agency can afford such
an expensive program at this time (when it also is planning to build the Orbital Space
Plane, e.g.).
Second is whether the mission is consistent with NASA Administrator
O’Keefe’s insistence that NASA be a “science-driven” agency. In this case, some may
argue that this is a “technology-driven” program, since the intent is to develop nuclear
technology, and it appears to some that a science mission was conceived to justify
development of the technology, rather than the reverse. There is strong scientific interest
in detailed studies of Europa, and Congress approved a Europa mission in the FY2002
budget, capping its cost at $1 billion. In the FY2003 budget request, NASA wanted to
terminate that mission because it was too expensive. Initiating an even more expensive
mission may spark debate. At NASA’s request, the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the
National Research Council developed a “decadal” planetary exploration plan in 2002,
which recommended investigations of Jupiter and its moons, but not JIMO specifically.
In a June 5, 2003 letter to Dr. Weiler, the SSB said that it did not have sufficient
information about the science capabilities of JIMO to determine whether it would meet the
Jupiter-system objectives it had presented. Third is public reaction to the use of nuclear
power in space. NASA’s launches of nuclear-powered spacecraft since the late 1980s have
generated protests by some public interest groups concerned about the environment or
other issues. Attempts by those groups to prevent the launches have failed, however.
The House approved full funding for Project Prometheus in the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA
appropriations bill (H.R. 2861) after defeating (309-114) a Markey amendment that would
have shifted $114 million from Project Prometheus into the Superfund cleanup program
at the Environmental Protection Agency.