CRS Analysis of Federal Big Science Projects: NASA
FYI #160 and #161 summarized a recent CRS report analyzing 30 big science projects, and provided quotes from the report on selected NSF and DOE projects. This FYI provides selected quotes from the CRS report relating to NASA projects. In parentheses are the expected date of completion, the initial estimated cost, and the current estimated cost.
ADVANCED X-RAY ASTROPHYSICS FACILITY (FY1998; $1.61 b for 2 spacecraft; $1.5 b for 1): “Despite NASA enthusiasm to begin AXAF development, Congress was concerned that mirror development for AXAF was technically risky and complex.... As a result, Congress reduced the funding profile from FY1989 to FY1991 in order for NASA to focus solely on mirror development. NASA completed testing of the two main mirrors in September 1991 and Congress approved continued development of the program in FY1992. Due mostly to congressional budget cuts resulting in schedule delays, the total estimated cost of the program rose to $2.1 billion in FY1992. Because of these cost increases and lower expectations for funding, NASA split the program into two spacecraft (AXAF-I and AXAF-S) to reduce program costs. Despite revising the program and reducing its estimated costs, Congress terminated AXAF-S in the FY1994 budget...because of NASA funding constraints.”
CASSINI (FY1998; $1.6 b for both CRAF and Cassini; $1.5 b for Cassini): “Although Congress was initially supportive of the program, it did cap the program’s total development cost at $1.6 billion.... Due to increased budget constraints, Congress substantially reduced funding for the program in FY1992. Because of agency budget constraints, technical concerns, and increased program costs due mainly to congressional budget reductions, the President and NASA proposed canceling CRAF in its FY1993 request and Congress concurred. Cassini continues as the sole spacecraft in the program.”
EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM (FY2017; $17 b; $7.3 b descoped): “Support for the goals of the EOS program has been strong. However, the initial two large spacecraft configuration and the high program costs were of great concern to Congress and the Administration. Due to growing concerns with EOS, in FY1991 the White House chartered a panel to review NASA’s plans. The panel...recommended in September 1991 that NASA break up the two large spacecraft into several smaller spacecraft. Congress agreed with the report and directed NASA to place the EOS instruments on several smaller spacecraft and capped EOS at $11 billion through FY2000.... Due to continuing budget constraints, NASA descoped the program in FY1992 and FY1994, reducing the program’s estimated cost to $7.3 billion. Congress has fully funded the descoped program’s requests in FY1993 and FY1994 [and appropriated additional funds for FY1995].”
SPACE STATION (FY2002; $8 b; $27.3 b): “The space station program has had a tumultuous history which has included several redesigns. The redesigns often were due to rising costs and lower than expected funding. Despite these redesigns, support for building a space station has been relatively strong in three Administrations and several Congresses. Recently, however, continued cost increases in the program and constraints on NASA’s budget have led many Members to question whether the Nation should continue funding the program. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made in Congress in the past three years to terminate the program.... Although the fact that the termination attempts were unsuccessful shows support for the program in Congress, the margins of victory in favor of the station have been getting smaller until, on...June 30, 1994, space station termination was defeated by the largest margin in two years.”
