Chapter 2

Table 2-1. Earth Science and Space Application Missions (1989–1998) 

Launch Date Mission Discipline Remarks

January 1, 1989–

February 28, 1989 

Airborne Arctic 

Stratospheric Expedition I 

(AASE I)

Atmospheric 

research

NASA-NOAA airborne 

study 

May 14, 1991 NOAA-12 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite into a morning 

orbit

September 12, 1991 UARS Atmospheric 

research

October 4, 1991–March 

26, 1992 

AASE II Atmospheric 

research

Airborne study

August 10, 1992 Ocean Topography 

Experiment 

(TOPEX)/Poseidon

Ocean surface 

topography 

Joint U.S.-French mission 

launched from Kourou, 

French Guiana

October 22, 1992 Laser Geodynamic 

Satellite II (LAGEOS II)

Earth science NASA–Italian space 

agency mission

August 9, 1993 NOAA-13 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite (contact lost two 

weeks after launch)

September 12, 1993 Advanced 

Communications 

Technology Satellite 

(ACTS)

Communications First high-speed, alldigital communications 

satellite

October 5, 1993 Landsat 6 Earth science Failed to achieve orbit

1994 Airborne Southern 

Hemisphere Ozone 

Experiment (ASHOE)

Atmospheric 

research

Aircraft flights based in 

Christchurch, New 

Zealand

April 13, 1994 Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite 

(GOES)-8 

Meteorology Deployment of NOAA

satellite (first in a new 

series of three-axis 

stabilized satellites)

December 30, 1994 NOAA-14 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite into an afternoon 

orbit 

April 3, 1995 MicroLab-1 (OrbView-1) Atmospheric 

research

Pegasus launch

May 23, 1995 GOES-9 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite (deactivated on 

July 28, 1998, because of 

failing bearings in the 

momentum wheels)

November 4, 1995 Radar Satellite-1 

(RADARSAT-1) 

Earth observation 

and geodesy 

Joint Canadian Space 

Agency (CSA), NASA, 

and NOAA project

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 1
Launch Date Mission Discipline Remarks

July 2, 1996 TOMS Earth Probe 

(TOMS-EP)

Atmospheric 

research

Pegasus launch

August 17, 1996 TOMS-Advanced Earth 

Observing Satellite 

(TOMS-ADEOS)

Atmospheric 

research

NASA-provided 

instrument on Japanese 

satellite

August 17, 1996 NASA Scatterometer 

(NSCAT)

Ocean research NASA-provided 

instrument on Japanese 

satellite

April 25, 1997 GOES-10 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite

August 1, 1997 SeaStar (OrbView-2) Ocean research Sea-viewing Wide Fieldof-view Sensor 

(SeaWiFS) payload; 

Pegasus launch

August 23, 1997 Lewis1 Technology 

demonstration 

Failed due to a flawed 

attitude-control system 

design and inadequate 

spacecraft monitoring

November 27, 1997 Tropical Rainfall 

Measuring Mission 

(TRMM)

Atmospheric 

research

Joint project with Japan

May 13, 1998 NOAA-15 Meteorology Deployment of NOAA 

satellite into a morning 

orbit

1 Details of the Lewis mission can be found in chapter 3 of this volume (“Aeronautics, Technology, and 

Exploration”).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 2
Table 2-2. Attached and Retrieved Missions 

Launch Date and 

Mission Number

Mission Discipline Area Remarks

June 5, 1991

STS-40

Spacelab Life Sciences 

Lab (SLS)-1 

Life sciences Spacelab mission

January 22, 1992

STS-42 

International 

Microgravity 

Laboratory (IML)-1 

Microgravity studies Spacelab mission

March 24, 1992

STS-45

ATLAS-1 Atmospheric studies Spacelab mission

June 25, 1992

STS-50

U.S. Microgravity 

Laboratory (USML)-1 

Microgravity studies Spacelab mission

September 12, 1992

STS-47

Spacelab J Microgravity and life 

sciences

Japanese Spacelab 

mission

October 22, 1992

STS-52 

U.S. Microgravity 

Payload (USMP)-1 

Microgravity studies

April 8, 1993

STS-56 

ATLAS-2 Atmospheric studies Spacelab mission

April 26, 1993

STS-55

Spacelab D2 Microgravity studies German Spacelab 

mission

October 18, 1993

STS-58

SLS-2 Life sciences Spacelab mission

February 3, 1994

STS-60

Wake Shield Facility 

(WSF)-1 

Technology Attempt to deploy failed

March 4, 1994

STS-62 

Shuttle Solar 

Backscatter Ultraviolet 

Experiment (SSBUV)

Atmospheric studies Sixth flight of SSBUV

March 4, 1994

STS-62

USMP-2 Microgravity studies

April 9, 1994

STS-59

Space Radar Laboratory 

(SRL)-1 

Earth science

July 8, 1994

STS-65 

IML-2 Microgravity studies Spacelab mission

September 9, 1994

STS-64 

Lidar In-Space 

Technology Experiment 

(LITE)

Atmospheric research 

and technology 

experiment

First use of laser optical 

radar for atmospheric 

research

September 30, 1994

STS-68

SRL-2 Earth science

November 3, 1994

STS-66 

Cryogenic Infrared 

Spectrometers and 

Telescopes for the 

Atmosphere-Shuttle 

Pallet Satellite 

(CRISTA-SPAS)-1

Earth science Joint project with 

Germany

November 3, 1994 ATLAS-3 Atmospheric physics Spacelab mission

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 3
Launch Date and 

Mission Number

Mission Discipline Area Remarks

STS-66

June 27, 1995

STS-71 

Spacelab-Mir LM Life sciences First Shuttle-Mir

docking 

September 7, 1995

STS-69

WSF-2 Technology Successful deployment 

and retrieval

October 20, 1995

STS-73

USML-2 Microgravity studies

February 22, 1996

STS-75

USMP-3 Microgravity studies

June 20, 1996

STS-78 

Life and Microgravity 

Spacelab (LMS)

Life and microgravity 

sciences

November 19, 1996

STS-80 

WSF-3 Technology Successful deployment 

and retrieval

April 4, 1997

STS-83

Microgravity Science 

Laboratory (MSL)-1 

Materials sciences Spacelab mission was 

cut short 

July 1, 1997

STS-94

MSL-1 Materials sciences Reflight of STS-83 

mission

August 7, 1997

STS-85

CRISTA-SPAS-2 Earth science Joint mission with 

Germany

November 19, 1997

STS-87 

USMP-4 Microgravity studies

April 17, 1998

STS-90 

Neurolab Neurobiological life 

sciences

Last Spacelab mission

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 4
Table 2-3. Programmed Budget by Major Budget Category (FY 1989–FY 1998) (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Budget Category/Fiscal Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 19932

Earth Sciences and Applications 403,400 434,199 662,300 725,393 —

Materials Processing 75,600 101,887 102,300 120,800 —

Communications 92,200 77,652 50,500 20,000 —

Information Systems 19,900 28,217 35,700 35,000 —

Research Operations Support — — — 83,909 —

MTPE — — — — 936,316

Total–All Earth sciences and 

applications/MTPE program areas

591,100 641,955 850,800 985,102 936,316

Budget Category/Fiscal Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Earth Sciences and Applications — — — — —

Materials Processing — — — — —

Communications — — — — —

Information Systems — — — — —

Research Operations Support — — — — —

MTPE 1,112,900 1,344,100 1,360,800 1,361,600 1,417,300

Total–All Earth sciences and 

applications/MTPE program areas

1,112,900 1,344,100 1,360,800 1,361,600 1,417,300

2 A major restructuring of Earth science program areas occurred at this time.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 5
Table 2-4. Earth Science and Applications Funding History (in thousands of dollars)3

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 450,400/413,700 403,400

1990 434,300/439,299 434,199

1991 661,500/667,900 662,300

1992 775,600/738,500 725,393

1993 868,500/863,848 —4

1994 —5 —

3 This budget category was called Environmental Observations in the FY 1989 budget estimate.

4 There was no programmed amount in budget documents.

5 This represents a reconfigured budget structure. The category of Earth sciences was included in the MTPE budget and 

divided among several budget line items.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 6
Table 2-5. Solid Earth Observations Funding History (in thousands of dollars)6

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed 

1989 82,100/—7 —

6 Included here are the Payload and Instrument Development, Geodynamics, and Research and Analysis budget 

categories.

7 The budget category was eliminated. The Research and Analysis budget was redistributed on a task-by-task basis.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 7
Table 2-6. Land Processes Research and Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 22,9008/19,9009 —

1990 22,500/—10 —

8 This was called Research and Analysis under the Solid Earth Observations Program at the time of the initial FY 1989 

budget estimate submission.

9 Some research activities were deferred to FY 1990 to provide critical funding for near-term planetary missions. 10 The budget category was discontinued. No revised budget estimate or programmed amounts were shown in budget 

documents. The Research and Analysis budget was redistributed on a task-by-task basis.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 8
Table 2-7. Payload and Instrument Development (Solid Earth Observations Program) Funding 

History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 25,300/24,80011 25,30012

11 This was included as a component of the Earth Science Payload Instrument Development budget category. 12 This was included as a component of the Payload and Instrument Development funding category. See table 2-20.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 9
Table 2-8. Geodynamics Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 33,900/32,90013 —

1990 38,00014/—15 —

13 Some research activities were deferred to FY 1990 to provide critical funding for near-term planetary missions. 14 This be used to fund the U.S. portion of the Laser Geodynamic Satellite (LAGEOS) mission (joint mission with 

Italy).

15 The budget category was discontinued. No revised budget estimate or programmed amounts were shown in budget 

documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 10
Table 2-9. Materials Processing in Space Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 73,400/75,600 75,600

1990 92,700/99,015 101,88716

1991 97,300/102,300 102,300

1992 125,800/118,800 120,800

1993 195,300/172,93417 — 

1994 (89,400)18/— — 

16 The budget category included Research and Analysis, Materials Experiment Operations, Space Station Utilization, 

and Commercial Microgravity R&D Enhancements. 17 The budget category included Materials Processing in Space—Research and Analysis, and Materials Processing in 

Space, Flight Experiments budget categories.

18 The budget category was transferred to the OLMSA budget category. See chapter 3 of volume VII for details of 

OLMSA’s budget.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 11
Table 2-10. Communications Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 16,200/92,20019 92,200

1990 18,60020/77,97521 77,65222

1991 52,800/52,500 50,500

1992 39,40023/12,500 20,00024

1993 4,600/4,986 —

19 The number reflected $74.6 million for the ACTS. 20 Funding was not included here for continued development of ACTS. It was the Administration’s policy that the flight 

demonstration project was more appropriately and effectively undertaken by the private sector without subsidy or 

possible competition by the government.

21 The funding for ACTS was reinstated. 22 The budget category included funding for ACTS, Advanced Communications Research, Search and Rescue, Radio 

Science and Support Studies, and Communications Data Analysis. 23 The reduction reflects a reduced ACTS budget due to progress in the project. 24 The budget category included ACTS and Search and Rescue funding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 12
Table 2-11. Advanced Communications Satellite Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —25 74,600

1990 —/59,97526 59,975

1991 34,000/34,000 34,000

1992 11,20027/11,200 18,700

1993 3,60028/3,968 3,968

1994 3,000/3,000 3,000

1995 2,300/2,300 2,300

25 This budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 26 The amount reflected congressional reinstatement of ACTS in the NASA budget. 27 The amount included the budget for the system test of the flight and ground segments and initiation of final 

preparations for shipment to the launch site, launch, and on-orbit checkout. 28 This provided for the continuation of mission operations for the ACTS flight and ground systems, which were to 

continue for two years. The ACTS experiments program was funded and conducted under the Commercial Use of Space 

program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 13
Table 2-12. Search-and-Rescue Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —29/1,350 1,350

1990 1,300/1,280 1,218

1991 1,400/1,400 1,400

1992 1,300/1,300 1,300

1993 1,000/1,018 —

1994 (1,100)30/— —

29 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial budget submission. 30 The budget category was transferred to the Commercial Use of Space program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 14
Table 2-13. Information Systems Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 22,300/19,900 19,900

1990 34,100/28,200 28,217

1991 36,800/36,700 35,700

1992 42,000/35,00031 35,000

1993 40,700/36,193 —

1994 (26,500)32/— —

31 The funding reduction was due to a congressional reduction of $5.0 million and a $2.0 million transfer to the Global 

Geospace Science program.

32 Funding was reallocated between the Space Science and MTPE programs.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 15
Table 2-14. UARS Mission Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 103,900/94,20033 85,200

1990 73,900/64,20034 55,200

1991 66,000/64,00035 62,000

1992 18,20036/—37 —

33 The reduction of $9.7 million reflected the deferral of non-critical activities to FY 1990–1991 in order to provide 

needed funding for near-term planetary missions. 34 The reduction of $8.0 million was made to provide funds for the TOPEX mission, which required additional funding 

to overcome technical and schedule problems experienced by its mission contractor. The remaining $1.7 million 

decrease resulted from the general congressional reduction and the FY 1990 sequestration. 35 The reduction was made to provide funds for the TOPEX mission. 36 The reduced budget was needed to support spacecraft launch site activities and the launch of UARS, as well as to 

complete integration and testing of the ground data handling facility, including hardware and software verification 

activities before launch.

37 The amount of $18.2 million for UARS development was eliminated in accordance with congressional direction. The 

satellite launched in September 1991.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 16
Table 2-15. TOPEX Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 97,800/83,00038 83,000

1990 72,800/80,00039 84,800

1991 68,000/76,00040 80,400

1992 51,900/59,00041 65,000

1993 —42 —

38 The reduction was the result of congressional direction ($10.0 million) and a $4.8 million reallocation of funding to 

the Scatterometer program to preserve the Japanese ADEOS launch opportunity.

39 An additional $8.0 million was added to the TOPEX program from the UARS program to maintain schedules leading 

to a launch then scheduled for June 1992.

40 An additional $8.0 million was added, including $3.0 million by congressional direction to maintain schedules 

leading to a launch then scheduled for June 1992.

41 The amount of $8.0 million was added to maintain critical schedules leading to a launch then planned for July 1992. 42 The instrument was launched and moved to the Mission Operations budget category.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 17
Table 2-16. Earth Probes Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1990 —43 13,60044

1991 25,00045/54,70046 51,700

1992 68,20047/92,80048 77,800

1993 88,900/99,413 99,413

1994 97,300/96,42649 96,426

1995 82,00050/81,600 81,600

1996 36,900/46,000 80,10051

1997 47,100/57,200 61,800

1998 40,700/48,600 34,900

43 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. In FY 1990, $10.0 million appropriated 

by Congress to begin developing the TOMS instruments was carried under the Earth Sciences Payload and Instrument 

Development budget category.

44 This included the Scatterometer and the start of development of the TOMS free-flyer spacecraft and definition studies 

for TRMM.

45 The Scatterometer ($3.7 million) was not included here, but in a separate budget category. 46 The budget category was augmented by $31.0 million per congressional direction: $15.0 million to the TRMM, $11.0 

million to TOMS, and $5.0 million to the Ocean Color mission (SeaWiFS). Funding for SeaWiFS was included under 

Earth Science mission operations and data analysis to reflect the proposed data purchase plan.

47 This included NSCAT. 48 Increases here reflected $15.0 million for Climesat and $5.0 million for TRMM, less $0.3 million contractor 

conversion adjustment, as directed by Congress. Funding for the Scatterometer was increased by $4.0 million to support 

ongoing hardware and software development. TOMS was increased by $1.0 million (less $0.1 million contractor 

conversion adjustment) to maintain the launch schedule for a 1993 launch.

49 The reduction reflected a decrease in the amount allocated for support contractors. 50 The decrease reflected the planned completion of current approved Earth probes. 51 Included here were NSCAT, TOMS, TRMM, Earth system science pathfinders, Lewis and Clark, “LightSAR,” and 

experiments of opportunity. The Lewis and Clark missions were funded primarily by the Advanced Smallsat 

Technology program in the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT) and the Office of Space Access and 

Technology (OSAT).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 18
Table 2-17. Scatterometer Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 103,900/94,20052 10,600

1990 13,800/13,600 13,600

1991 17,80053/17,800 20,700

1992 24,000/28,000 28,000

1993 20,200/20,200 20,200

1994 18,700/18,700 17,095

1995 15,400/15,400 15,400

1996 3,90054/7,700 3,200

52 The reduction of $10.0 million resulted from congressional action offset by a reallocation of $4.8 million from the 

TOPEX program. The FY 1989 Scatterometer budget maintained instrument development activities so that a possible 

launch aboard the Japanese ADEOS mission could be preserved.

53 The Scatterometer budget was broken down differently in the original FY 1991 budget estimate, which showed $3.7 

million for NSCAT flight hardware development. In the FY 1992 budget estimate for Earth probes, which included 

NSCAT and TOMS, the initial amount for NSCAT was shown as $17.8 million. The total Earth probe amount for FY 

1991, as shown in the initial budget submission, and for initial FY 1991, as shown in the FY 1992 budget submission, 

was $28.7 million but was broken down differently.

54 This decrease reflected a planned February 1996 launch.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 19
Table 2-18. TOMS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 10,900/21,90055 16,000

1992 29,900/30,800 30,800

1993 18,700/27,68556 27,685

1994 9,80057/11,000 13,805

1995 16,500/14,900 14,900

1996 8,500/8,500 3,000

1997 2,600/1,000 3,900

1998 5,700/8,200 6,000

55 Congress allocated an additional $15.0 million. 56 The increase included $8.7 million that was reallocated from the Payload and Instrument Development budget to fund 

cost growth in TOMS instrument and spacecraft contracts.

57 This reflected funds required for the system integration of the TOMS 1994 flight, including satellite system 

environmental tests, preparations for satellite launch, and associated on-site activities. The ADEOS-TOMS instrument 

would be fabricated, tested, and shipped to Japan for spacecraft integration and testing.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 20
Table 2-19. TRMM Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 —/15,00058 15,000

1992 14,300/19,000 19,000

1993 50,000/51,528 51,528

1994 68,800/66,726 65,526

1995 50,100/51,300 51,300

1996 24,500/24,200 25,500

1997 20,900/17,700 17,300

1998 —59/900 900

58 Congress allocated $15.0 million to TRMM.

59 This was launched in November 1997. Data gathering was funded from Mission Operations and Data Analysis and 

EOSDIS budgets.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 21
Table 2-20. Payload and Instrument Development (Earth Science and Applications Program) 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 45,000/46,40060 46,400

1990 66,500/76,10061 76,100

1991 49,700/49,700 49,100

1992 48,600/39,60062 37,900

1993 49,400/35,46163 35,461

1994 22,900/22,900 25,900

1995 19,500/19,500 19,500

1996 4,90064/— —65

60 This included Payload and Instrument Development from the Solid Earth Observations Program. The net increase of 

$1.4 million resulted from an increase of $2.0 million to continue the development of the TOMS instrument and a 

reduction of $0.6 million from the transfer of the Imaging Spectrometric Observatory—a space physics Spacelab 

instrument—to Physics and Astronomy Payload and Instrument Development consistent with the 1988 OSSA 

reorganization. TOMS funding was reallocated from the Upper Atmosphere Research and Analysis budget.

61 This included $10.0 million to begin developing the TOMS instruments, partially offset by a decrease resulting from 

the general congressional reduction.

62 The reduction of $8.0 million was made to provide funds for TOPEX. In addition, the Atmospheric Payloads program 

was reduced by $1.0 million to support TOMS-EP development tasks. Reductions were to be accommodated by 

deferring advanced development activities.

63 The reduction reflected a $9.2 million reallocation from the payloads program to provide $8.7 million to TOMS for 

instrument and spacecraft cost growth and $0.5 million to TRMM to support development of the TRMM microwave 

imager instrument. These reductions were accommodated through significant reductions in reserves and deferring 

advanced technology development activities. To provide for mission management and integration of ATLAS-3 and 

Shuttle Radar Laboratory (SRL) missions, $5.1 million was transferred to the Physics and Astronomy Shuttle/Spacelab 

Payload Mission Management and Integration budget. These adjustments were partially offset by a $0.3 million 

increase due to redistributing Research Operations Support (ROS) funding. (ROS funds provided support to the civil 

service workforce and to the physical plant at NASA centers and at NASA Headquarters.)

64 This reflected the reduced rate of Spacebound Imaging Radar (SIR)-C data processing and reduction and remaining 

closeout activities of the ATLAS-3 mission. 65 No amount was indicated in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 22
Table 2-21. Mission Operations and Data Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 18,500/17,60066 17,600

1990 24,800/23,90067 23,800

1991 30,400/39,40068 39,400

1992 56,300/83,80069 100,646

1993 142,10070/147,55371 93,983

1994 198,800/97,44472 —73

1995 97,500/—74 —

66 The reduction resulted from deferring some research activities to FY 1990 to provide funding for high-priority 

planetary missions. 67 The reduction was due to the general congressional reduction and the impact of the FY 1990 sequestration. Some data 

analysis activities were deferred as a result.

68 The increase reflected $8.0 million in additional funds provided for the Center (Consortium) for International Earth 

Science Information Network (CIESIN) activities, as well as $5.0 million for the Ocean Color Mission per 

congressional direction. As part of the general reduction, $4.0 million was reduced from programs unrelated to the 

congressional augmentations.

69 The increase was due to congressional direction requiring increased mission operations and data analysis programs by 

$25.0 million for the CIESIN program, in addition to $2.5 million for Landsat activities.

70 These funds supported UARS satellite operations, TOPEX experiment operations, Ocean Color Mission data 

purchase, CIESIN, Landsat, and other Earth sciences mission operations and data analysis.

71 The increase of $5.5 million reflected a congressionally directed general reduction of $15 million, offset by additional 

funding for the CIESIN program and a $0.5 million increase due to redistributing ROS funding.

72 The reduction reflected the removal of Landsat and CIESIN from the Mission Operations and Data Analysis budget 

category.

73 No amount was indicated in budget documents. 74 The budget category included Applied Research and Data Analysis. See table 2-51.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 23
Table 2-22. Interdisciplinary Research Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 1,200/2,20075 2,200

1990 2,300/8,60076 8,600

1991 2,400/12,40077 12,400

1992 2,500/2,500 2,340

1993 2,600/4,453 4,453

1994 5,000/5,000 —78

1995 4,600/— —

75 The amount of $1.0 million was added as directed by Congress for global climate change research activities. 76 The increase reflected an additional $9.0 million as directed by Congress for climate studies and university consortia 

research. This was offset by the general congressional reduction and the impact of sequestration.

77 The increase reflected direction from Congress to add $10.0 million for climate studies and individual research grants. 

Climate funding would augment NASA’s current climate modeling program and associated global field campaigns. The 

program would enhance access to and use of Earth science and related information by the scientific and policy-making 

community in pursuit of global change issues.

78 No programmed amount was shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 24
Table 2-23. Upper Atmosphere Research and Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 34,000/31,10079 —80

1990 38,100/— —

79 The reduction was a result of the transfer of $2.0 million to Earth Science Payloads and Instrument Development in 

order to prepare the TOMS instrument for a 1991 flight. The balance represented a deferral of research activities to FY 

1990 to provide funding for near-term planetary missions. 80 No programmed amount was shown in budget documents. The Research and Analysis budget was redistributed on a 

task-by-task basis.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 25
Table 2-24. Ocean Processes Research and Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 21,600/20,80081 —82

1990 24,500/— —

81 Some research activities were deferred to FY 1990 to provide funding for near-term planetary missions. 82 No programmed amount was shown in budget documents. The Research and Analysis budget was redistributed on a 

task-by-task basis.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 26
Table 2-25. Atmospheric Dynamics/Radiation Research and Analysis Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 31,400/32,80083 —84

1990 37,400/— —

83 Some research activities were deferred to FY 1990 to provide funding for near-term planetary missions. 84 No programmed amount was shown in budget documents. The Research and Analysis budget was redistributed on a 

task-by-task basis.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 27
Table 2-26. Research Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars)85

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —86 30,600

1990 27,900/27,399 27,399

1991 28,900/28,900 —87

1992 29,600/— —

85 This included Laser Research Facilities and Airborne Science and Applications. 86 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 87 No amount was shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 28
Table 2-27. Laser Research Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —88 7,600

1990 8,200/8,000 8,000

1991 8,700/8,700 —89

1992 9,000/— —

88 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

89 No amount was shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 29
Table 2-28. Airborne Science and Applications Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 23,00090/23,000 23,000

1990 19,700/19,399 19,399

1991 20,200/20,200 20,200

1992 20,600/20,30091 20,300

1993 22,900/20,70792 20,707

1994 25,200/25,200 —

1995 26,000/—93 —

90 This allocation allowed for the operation of the DC-8, two ER-2s, and the C-130 aircraft for projects such as 

collecting and analyzing stratospheric air samples, testing newly developed instrumentation, demonstrating new sensor 

concepts, investigating the ozone hole phenomena, and participating in other field experiments. This also provided for 

NASA’s final payment to the U.S. Air Force, completing the purchase of the second ER-2 aircraft.

91 The decrease applied to laser research (process studies) activities.

92 The reduction of $3.1 million was consistent with congressional direction. As a result, all environmental research 

conducted aboard the C-130 aircraft was deferred until FY 1994. These adjustments were offset by a $0.9 million 

increase due to redistributing ROS funding.

93 No budget estimate or programmed amount was shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 30
Table 2-29. EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1990 — —94

1991 199,00095/155,00096 150,60097

1992 253,400/184,40098 176,400

1993 308,40099/263,784100 263,747

1994 322,700/318,776101 392,876

1995 455,100102/591,100 574,100

1996 591,100/535,300 554,200

1997 585,700/586,700 582,200

1998 679,700/704,600 754,500

94 Prior to FY 1991, funding for the Polar Platform (EOS observatory) was included in the Space Station Freedom

budget (FY 1991 Funding Requirements, p. RD 6-7).

95 This amount reflected $36.0 million that was deducted from the original estimate of $235.0 million for EOSDIS, 

which became a separate budget category. Also represented here was a transfer from the Space Station Freedom

program to OSSA. Beginning in FY 1991, OSSA had budget and management responsibility for the Polar Platform, 

while project management resided with the EOS program (FY 1991 Funding Requirements, pp. 6-7–6-8). 96 The reduction reflected congressional direction, which reduced EOS observatories (platforms) by $72.0 million and 

allocated an additional $28.0 million to instruments.

97 Reflected here was the restructuring of the EOS program to conform to congressional guidance, as well as the results 

of the External Engineering Review.

98 The reduction reflected congressional direction to reduce the amount by $65.0 million and reallocate $4.0 million to 

NSCAT in order to maintain the delivery schedule in support of the launch.

99 The budget was restructured to conform to the new EOS program. 100 The reduction reflected realignment within the total EOS program. See changes to individual EOS budget categories. 101 Funding was reduced by $1.9 million due to a reduction to support contractors and an additional $2.0 million 

congressionally directed reduction. This was accommodated by reducing program flexibility.

102 The increase from FY 1994 to FY 1995 accommodated the planned increase in EOS work leading to first launch in 

1998, offset by reductions to support contractors and the transfer of the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 

program to Advanced Concepts and Technology.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 31
Table 2-30. Instruments–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 45,000103/79,000104 79,000

1992 159,000/123,000 114,000

1993 —105 —

103 The budget category included the design of EOS-A flight instruments that were to be selected in FY 1991. 

Instruments planned for the EOS-B series were to continue conceptual definition in preparation for later flight selection. 104 This increase reflected the reallocation of funds from the observatories budget category as part of the increased 

emphasis on advanced sensors development and the importance of instrument readiness to the overall EOS schedule.

105 The budget category was eliminated in the realignment of the program to conform to the new EOS program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 32
Table 2-31. EOS Development–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 103,000106/—107 —108

106 This included EOSDIS. 107 There is no comparable budget category in the FY 1992 budget estimate. Budget categories were realigned to reflect 

major EOS components, and EOSDIS was identified as a separate budget element. 108 The budget category was eliminated as part of the restructuring of the EOS program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 33
Table 2-32. Observatories–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars)109

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1990 — —110

1991 132,000/60,000111 55,600

1992 58,500/30,200 31,000

1993 —112 —

109 The budget category called “Polar Platform Development” was in the FY 1991 budget estimate. 110 Development funding for the EOS platforms (observatories) before 1991 was included in the Space Station Freedom

budget (FY 1991 Funding Requirements, p. RD 6-7). 111 The reduction of $72.0 million included a $44.0 million reduction as a result of congressional direction and a $28.0 

million allocation to the instruments.

112 The budget category was eliminated as part of the realignment of the program to conform to the new EOS program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 34
Table 2-33. Science–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 22,000/16,000 16,000

1992 35,000/31,200 31,400

1993 18,000113/44,996114 44,477

1994 47,100/46,792 —115

1995 76,800/— —

113 This represents funding for interdisciplinary science only. 114 The revised FY 1993 estimate included all EOS science, not only interdisciplinary science. 115 No amount was shown in budget documents. Amounts for science were included with EOS-AM, -PM, and -

Chemistry series budgets.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 35
Table 2-34. AM Series–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 241,500116/181,388 180,782

1994 200,100/196,659 198,759

1995 243,800/260,800 259,800

1996 202,200/170,000 178,700

1997 84,700117/82,800 82,800

1998 49,100/44,900 71,200118

116 The AM series budgets included development costs for components unique to the series, such as instruments, 

spacecraft, science computing facilities, science product capability development, and mission science. Development 

costs were to cover the period of development through launch plus 30 days’ inflight checkout. Mission operations and 

data analysis were to include all costs associated with the flight after development. Interdisciplinary science was to 

include funding and science computing facilities for the selected interdisciplinary science investigators and the EOS 

fellowship program.

117 Reduction in funding reflected the shifted emphasis in the AM-1 development program to fabrication and assembly 

of subsystem engineering models and the buildup of subsystem flight models following the Critical Design Review and 

External Independent Readiness Review in January 1995. 118 Increase reflected failure of the externally provided ground system leading to an unspecified delay in launch and 

reorganization of the EOS program. (Launch delay extended 18 months.) Failure of a Delta 3 launch vehicle resulted in 

further launch uncertainty due to the commonality of the RL-10 rocket engine used on both the Delta 3 and the Atlas 

IIAS to be used for EOS AM. Closure of Lockheed Martin’s Valley Forge facility (where EOS AM—renamed Terra—

was located) led to NASA’s moving operations to the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Finally, 

NASA Headquarters “overfunded” Terra by using unfunded carryover (unobligated funds) from FY 1998 and prior 

years with the expectation that funds could be carried over into FY 1999 (e-mail to author from Christopher Scolese, 

former EOS-Goddard Project Manager and NASA Chief Engineer, 23 January 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 36
Table 2-35. PM Series–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 30,900119/24,100 24,631

1994 58,200/55,700120 50,100

1995 78,500/88,800 88,800

1996 127,300/101,800 103,700

1997 171,200/149,700 147,500

1998 218,000/175,900 175,900

119 The PM series budgets included development costs for components unique to the series, such as instruments, 

spacecraft, science computing facilities, science product capability development, and mission science. Development 

costs were to cover the period of development through launch plus 30 days’ inflight checkout. Mission operations and 

data analysis were to include all costs associated with the flight after development. Interdisciplinary science was to 

include funding and science computing facilities for the selected interdisciplinary science investigators and the EOS 

fellowship program.

120 This reflected extended the detailed definition phase for EOS-PM and related spacecraft bus to permit further 

consideration of spacecraft configurations compatible with a medium-class ELV. Current program schedule and funding 

plans assumed a larger spacecraft platform and commensurately sized launch vehicle.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 37
Table 2-36. Chemistry–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 6,800121/1,100 1,251

1994 1,500/2,200 2,200

1995 5,900/10,300 10,300

1996 27,700/27,300 27,300

1997 77,400122/63,300 46,600

1998 100,600/100,600 110,400

121 The Chemistry series budgets included development costs for components unique to the series, such as instruments, 

spacecraft, science computing facilities, science product capability development, and mission science. Development 

costs were to cover the period of development through launch plus 30 days’ inflight checkout. Mission operations and 

data analysis were to include all costs associated with the flight after development. Interdisciplinary science was to 

include funding and science computing facilities for the selected interdisciplinary science investigators and the EOS 

fellowship program.

122 Increase in budget reflected major procurement activities.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 38
Table 2-37. Special Spacecraft–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars)123

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 11,200/12,200 12,606

1994 15,800/17,425 20,925

1995 50,100/85,500 81,700

1996 69,700/71,700 60,500

1997 66,700/83,100 65,500

1998 91,700/101,200 96,700

123 The Special Spacecraft budget category referred to spacecraft designed to study atmospheric aerosols, ocean 

circulation, ice-sheet mass balance, cloud physics, atmospheric radiation properties, and solar irradiance. It included a 

SAGE-III planned to fly on a Russian spacecraft in 1998 and another SAGE III planned to fly aboard the Space Station. 

The budget category also included the SeaWinds instrument to fly on the Japanese ADEOS-II, the Altimetry Radar 

mission as a joint mission with France, and a number of flights of opportunity, including Active Cavity Radiometer 

Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), and Clouds and Earth’s 

Radiant Energy System (CERES). This category was called “Small Spacecraft” in the FY 1993 budget estimate.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 39
Table 2-38. Landsat 7–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1992 7,500

1993124 25,000/25,000 25,000

1994 59,100/54,100125 74,100

1995 62,400/87,400 77,400

1996 78,800/78,800 85,200

1997 73,900/76,200 78,800

1998 52,100/52,600 74,300

124 This was an element of the Mission Operations and Data Analysis budget category through FY 1993. 125 This became part of the EOS program. The reduction of $5.0 million was directed by Congress.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 40
Table 2-39. QuikSCAT–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1997 —126 35,000

1998 —/34,500 37,900

126 This budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 41
Table 2-40. Algorithm Development–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars)127

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 —128 46,792

1995 —/58,300 55,100

1996 85,400/75,700 73,300

1997 101,800/84,900 75,900

1998 102,700/96,300 92,300

127 The budget category was related to the development of science software necessary to produce standard data products 

for each mission and to support the mission launch.

128 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 42
Table 2-41. Technology Infusion–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1996 —129 25,500

1997 —/46,700 50,100

1998 65,500/93,100 91,900

129 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 43
Table 2-42. EOS Follow-on–EOS Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1996 —130/5,500 —131

1997 — —

1998 — 3,900

130 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial budget submission. 131 No amounts were shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 44
Table 2-43. EOS Data and Information System Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 36,000132/36,000 36,000

1992 82,600/82,600 77,670

1993 82,600/130,651133 130,688

1994 182,700/188,158134 188,158

1995 284,900/230,600 220,600

1996 289,800/241,200 247,200

1997 261,100/254,600 234,600

1998 244,700/209,900 210,100

132 The EOSDIS budget was separately identified from the EOS program budget per congressional direction. 133 The increased budget estimate resulted from the realignment within the total EOS program. Funding for science 

computing facilities and science data product capability development was reallocated to EOSDIS from the individual 

EOS missions and included redistribution of ROS funding. 134 An increase of $5.5 million was the net effect of a reduction of $1.5 million for support contractors, and an increase 

of $7.0 million was consistent with congressional direction to augment program reserves for developing the EOSDIS 

Core System.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 45
Table 2-44. Modeling and Data Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —135 34,100

1990 44,800/38,500136 38,500

1991 41,300/44,300137 44,300

1992 45,000/49,000138 45,798

1993 45,000/42,571139 42,571

1994 45,000/44,245 —140

1995 41,200/— —

135 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 136 The decrease resulted from the general congressional reduction and the impact of the FY 1990 sequestration. 

Research and analysis activities were to be correspondingly decreased, although climate studies were congressionally 

augmented under the Interdisciplinary Research and Analysis Budget category, thereby mitigating the full impact.

137 This reflected a $5.0 million congressional augmentation that consisted of $2.0 million for biogeochemistry and 

geophysics and $3.0 million for physical climate and hydrologic systems. A reduction of $1.0 million from each 

program was necessary to provide funds for the schedule-critical TOPEX mission. 138 The increase reflected increased climate modeling studies in accordance with congressional direction.

139 The reduction of $3.6 million was needed to fully fund the FY 1993 request for Landsat. This reduction was offset 

by a $1.5 million increase due to a redistribution of ROS funding and a $0.3 million internal adjustment.

140 No amount was indicated in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 46
Table 2-45. Process Studies Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —141 93,700

1990 107,500/106,200142 106,200

1991 111,100/107,500143 116,200

1992 123,300/123,600144 121,539

1993 126,600/119,255145 119,255

1994 131,500/129,667 —146

1995 119,400/— —

141 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 142 This decrease was a result of general congressional reduction and the FY 1990 sequestration. 143 A reduction of $1.0 million was made to provide additional funds for the TOPEX mission, and $2.6 million was 

transferred to planetary mission operations and data analysis to provide necessary support for Galileo mission 

operations. 144 This increase was applied to Laser Research Facilities from Airborne Science and Applications. 145 The reduction of $11.4 million was needed to fully fund FY 1993 requirements for Landsat. Funding for biochemical 

processes was increased by $1.6 million through the transfer of the Biospheric program from Life Sciences. These 

adjustments were increased by $2.5 million due to a redistribution of ROS funding.

146 No amount was indicated in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 47
Table 2-46. MTPE Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1992 —147 985,102148

1993 1,207,100/1,148,022 936,316149

1994 1,112,900/1,068,400150 1,068,000

1995 1,221,100/1,340,100 1,344,100

1996 1,341,100/1,289,400 1,360,800

1997151 1,402,100/1,361,600 1,361,600

1998 1,417,300/1,367,300 1,417,300

147 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 148 The programmed amount was transferred from the former Earth Science budget category to MTPE.

149 This included $52.3 million to SAT for construction of facilities. 150 This reduction reflected a decrease of $36.1 million as the result of specific congressional direction, an additional 

reduction of $8.0 million as part of the total Agency reduction for support contractor labor, and a transfer of $0.4 

million to Physics and Astronomy/Information Systems. 151 The budget category was renamed Earth Science.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 48
Table 2-47. MTPE Information Systems Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —152 11,200153

1994 11,800/11,184 —

1995 9,800/—154 —

152 This budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 153 Reflected here is the MTPE portion of the Information Systems budget. 154 This was included with funding for Applied Research and Data Analysis. See table 2-51.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 49
Table 2-48. Research Operations Support Funding History (in thousands of dollars)155

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1992 —156/82,300157 83,909

1993 98,000/70,061158 —

1994 67,000/—159 —

155 Although ROS was included in the budget submissions for FY 1992–FY 1994, amounts were actually programmed 

only in FY 1992.

156 This budget category was not established at the time of the initial budget submission. 157 Establishment of ROS was accomplished by transferring funds contained in the Operation of Installation account in 

the Research and Program Management (R&PM) appropriation to the R&D and Space Flight, Control and Data 

Communications (SFC&DC) appropriations. 158 Funding for activities dedicated to a single program was transferred to the benefiting program. The decrease in ROS 

funding reflected the transfer of $22.1 million that was consistent with the restructuring activity and offset by a 

reduction of $5.8 million consistent with congressional direction to reduce ROS funding.

159 The budget category was not shown in the revised budget estimate or in programmed amounts in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 50
Table 2-49. Ocean Color Mission Data Purchase Funding History (in thousands of dollars)160

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —161 15,570

1994 —/3,400 —

1995 600/—162 —

160 This indicates the funds for the purchase of ocean color data for research use from the SeaWiFS instrument 

scheduled for launch on the SeaStar spacecraft in 1994.

161 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 162 This amount was included with the funding for Applied Research and Data Analysis. See table 2-51.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 51
Table 2-50. Center/Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —163 18,000

1994 18,000/5,000 —

1995 6,000/—164 —

163 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 164 This amount was included with the funding for Applied Research and Data Analysis, as well as Mission Operations 

and Data Analysis. See tables 2-21 and 2-51.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 52
Table 2-51. Applied Research and Data Analysis Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —165 339,500

1994 417,300/375,200166 317,140

1995 —/344,300167 361,800

1996 308,400/337,800 350,100

1997 379,100/373,400 393,300

1998 325,300/364,400 373,400

165 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 166 The reduction of $42.1 million included $3.7 million for support contractors, $38.0 million consistent with 

congressional direction, and the transfer of $0.4 million to Physics and Astronomy/Information Systems. Also included 

are a reduction of $13.0 million for CIESIN, a reduction of $5.0 million for Landsat, and the deletion of the Science 

Data Purchase program, which resulted in a reduction of $20.0 million.

167 A new budget category included funding for MTPE science and operations, data retrieval, and storage. Operations, 

data retrieval, and storage included funds for the following budget categories: Mission Operations and Data Analysis 

($96.7 million), Information Systems ($12.7 million), CIESIN ($6.0 million), and Ocean Color Data Purchase ($1.1 

million).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 53
Table 2-52. Global Observations to Benefit the Environment Funding History (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 —168 (300)

1995 —/5,000 5,000

1996 5,000/5,000 5,100

1997 5,000/5,000 5,000

1998 5,000/5,000 5,000

168 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 54
Table 2-53. Launch Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars)169

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 —170 18,000

1995 —/17,000 62,200

1996 17,000/107,100 107,100

1997 124,100/84,700 84,700

1998 121,900/34,800171 39,400

169 Funding for mission-unique launch services was included under the budget for the benefiting program. While 

funding for ELVs was found within the MTPE budget, program management for the ELVs rested with NASA’s Launch 

Vehicles Office.

170 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 171 The reduction reflected delays in planned launches.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 55
Table 2-54. Construction of Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —172 52,300

1994 —/20,000 —173

1995 17,000/ 17,000

1996 —/17,000 17,000

172 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 173 No programmed amount was shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 56
Table 2-55. MTPE Measurement Areas 

Environmental 

Area

Measurement Area

Atmosphere Cloud properties

Radiative energy fluxes

Precipitation

Tropospheric chemistry

Stratospheric chemistry

Aerosol properties

Atmospheric temperature

Atmospheric humidity

Lightning

Land Land cover and land use change

Vegetation dynamics

Surface temperature

Fire occurrence

Volcanic effects

Surface wetness

Ocean Surface temperature

Phytoplankton and dissolved organic matter

Surface wind fields

Ocean surface topography

Cryosphere Ice sheet topography and ice volume change

Sea ice

Snow cover

Solar radiation Total solar irradiance

Ultraviolet spectral irradiance

Source: “Mission to Planet Earth Strategic Enterprise Plan, 1996–2002,” National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Mission to Planet Earth, March 1996, p. 10.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 57
Table 2-56. Terra Key Measurements

Discipline Measurement Terra (EOS AM-1) 

Instrument

Atmosphere Cloud properties MODIS, MISR, ASTER

Radiative energy fluxes CERES, MODIS, MISR

Tropospheric chemistry MOPITT

Aerosol properties MISR, MODIS

Atmospheric temperature MODIS

Atmospheric humidity MODIS

Land Land cover and land use change MODIS, MISR, ASTER

Vegetation dynamics MODIS, MISR, ASTER

Surface temperature MODIS, ASTER

Fire occurrence MODIS, ASTER

Volcanic effects MODIS, MISR, ASTER

Ocean Surface temperature MODIS

Phytoplankton and dissolved organic matter MODIS, MISR

Cryosphere Land ice change ASTER

Sea ice MODIS, ASTER

Snow cover MODIS, ASTER

Source: “EOS AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” NASA Publication NP-1998-03-018-

GSFC, p. 7.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 58
Table 2-57. Terra (EOS AM-1) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site December 18, 1999/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Atlas IIAS

NASA role Mission management; provided spacecraft and the MODIS, CERES, and 

MISR instruments

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives174 • To provide the first global and seasonal measurements of the Earth 

system, including such critical functions as biological productivity of 

the land and oceans, snow and ice, surface temperature, clouds, water 

vapor, and land cover

• To improve our ability to detect human impacts on Earth’s system 

and climate, identify the “fingerprint” of human activity on climate, 

and predict climate change by using the new global observations in 

climate models

• To help develop technologies for disaster prediction, characterization, 

and risk reduction from wildfires, volcanoes, floods, and droughts 

• To start long-term monitoring of global climate change and 

environmental change

Orbit characteristics175

Apogee 705 km (438 mi)

Perigee 705 km (438 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.2

Period (min) 98.9

Weight 11,442 lb (5,190 kg)

Dimensions 22 ft (6.8 m) long, 11.5 ft (3.5 m) in diameter

Power source Solar panel and batteries

Instruments176 CERES (2): Provided by NASA Langley Research Center and built by 

TRW, Inc. 

PI: Bruce Barkstrom, NASA Langley Research Center

Measured the reflected and radiant energy coming from Earth’s surface 

and atmosphere to help determine Earth’s energy balance. Extended the 

dataset begun in the 1980s by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment 

(ERBE).

MODIS: Provided by Goddard Space Flight Center and built by Raytheon 

Santa Barbara Remote Sensing

PI: Vincent Salomonson, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Measured atmospherics, land, and ocean processes, including surface 

temperature (land and ocean), ocean color, global vegetation, cloud 

characteristics, snow cover, and temperature and moisture profiles. Could 

view the entire globe daily at moderate resolutions with pixels ranging 

from 250 m2

 to 1 km2 (about 0.386 mi2). This global-scale multispectral 

instrument was useful for addressing questions in many scientific 

174 “Terra: Flagship of the Earth Observing System,” Press Kit, November 1999, 

http://terra.nasa.gov/Publications/terra_press_kit.pdf (accessed March 7, 2006). 175 “Terra’s Near-Polar Orbit,” http://terra.nasa.gov/About/SC/am_orbit.html (accessed January 17, 2007). 176 “Terra: Flagship of the Earth Observing System,” Press Kit, November 1999, pp. 9–10, 

http://terra.nasa.gov/Publications/terra_press_kit.pdf (accessed March 7, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 59
disciplines.

Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT): Provided by 

the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and built by COM DEV International 

PI: James Drummond, University of Toronto 

This infrared gas-correlation radiometer measured gaseous concentrations 

of air pollutants, carbon monoxide, and methane in the troposphere (the 

lowest 10 mi [16.1 km] of the atmosphere) and provided global data about 

their location and season. 

Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer 

(ASTER): Provided by Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and 

Industry and built by NEC, Mitsubishi Electronics Co., and Fujitsu, Ltd. 

PIs: Anne Kahle, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Hiroji Tsu, Japan Geological 

Survey

Measured cloud properties, vegetation index, surface mineralogy, soil 

properties, and surface temperature and topography for selected regions of 

Earth at very high resolution (up to 15 × 15 m2

/pixel, 161 × 161 ft2/pixel). 

Obtained detailed three-dimensional measurements of surface topography.

MISR: Built and provided by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

PI: David J. Diner, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Measured every part of Earth’s system, including clouds, Earth’s surface, 

and particles floating in the atmosphere that scatter light differently at 

different angles, using cameras pointed in nine different viewing 

directions. Measured the reflective characteristics to provide data about 

their changing physical properties and to quantify their effects on Earth’s 

energy budget. Also provided unique three-dimensional views of clouds 

and volcanic plumes.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 60
Table 2-58. EOSDIS Distributed Active Archive Centers

DAAC Location Discipline Terra Instrument

Alaska Satellite Facility Fairbanks, AK Sea ice, polar processes, 

synthetic aperture radar 

imagery

Did not support Terra 

mission

Land Processes (EROS 

Data Center)

Sioux Falls, SD Land processes ASTER, MODIS

GSFC Earth Sciences Greenbelt, MD Upper atmosphere, global 

biosphere, atmospheric 

dynamics, global 

precipitation, ocean biology, 

ocean dynamics, solar 

irradiance

MODIS

Physical Oceanography, 

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

Pasadena, CA Oceanic processes, air-sea 

interactions 

Did not support Terra 

mission

Langley Atmospheric 

Science Data Center

Hampton, VA Radiation budget, clouds, 

aerosols, tropospheric 

chemistry

CERES, MISR, 

MOPITT

National Snow and Ice 

Data Center

University of 

Colorado, Boulder, 

CO

Snow and ice, cryosphere and 

climate

MODIS

Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory 

Oak Ridge, TN Biogeochemical dynamics, 

ecological data, 

environmental processes

Did not support Terra 

mission

Socioeconomic Data 

and Applications Data 

Center

Columbia 

University, 

Palisades, NY

Population, sustainability, 

geospatial data, multilateral 

environmental agreements

Did not support Terra 

mission

Source: “About the Data Centers,” http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/about.html (accessed March 7, 2006). Also “EOS 

AM-1: The First EOS Satellite, NASA’s Earth Observing System,” NASA Publication NP-1998-03-018-GSFC, p. 24. 

King and Greenstone, eds., 1999 EOS Reference Handbook, p. 28.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 61
Table 2-59. SeaWiFS Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site August 1, 1997/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Pegasus XL

NASA role177 To conduct product quality assurance, calibration, and validation 

programs; determine the degree to which the ocean color data fulfills 

NASA requirements; purchase SeaWiFS data for scientific research; and 

develop and operate a research data system to process, calibrate, validate, 

archive, and distribute SeaWiFS data for research

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives178 • To acquire data critical for studying the role of the oceans, including 

the exchange of critical elements and gases between the atmosphere 

and oceans, and how these exchanges affect phytoplankton production 

• To examine oceanic factors affecting global change and assess the 

oceans’ role in the global carbon cycle, as well as other 

biogeochemical cycles, through a comprehensive research program 

• To obtain accurate ocean color data from the world’s oceans for a 

five-year (minimum) period; to process this data in conjunction with 

ancillary data into meaningful biological parameters, such as 

photosynthesis rates; and to make this data readily available to 

researchers

Orbit characteristics179

Apogee 712 km (442 mi)

Perigee 697 km (433 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.217

Period (min) 99

Weight 50 kg (110 lb) (SeaWiFS instrument only)180

Dimensions SeaStar spacecraft: 213 cm (84 in) high × 112 cm (44 in) in diameter181

Power source Solar panels and batteries182

Instrument183 SeaWiFS

PI: Dr. Wayne E. Esaias, Goddard Space Flight Center

177 “Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS),” NASA Facts Online, FS-97 (03)-004-GSFC, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/seawifs.htm (accessed January 23, 2006). 178 “SeaWiFS Project—Detailed Description,” 

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/SEAWIFS_970_BROCHURE.html (accessed January 10, 

2006).

179 “SeaWiFS Project—Announcements-SeaWiFS/SeaStar Launch Status,” 

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/current_launch_status.html (accessed January 10, 

2006). Also “Monitoring the Earth from Space with SeaWiFS,” 

http://seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/sanctuary_5.html (accessed January 10, 2006). 180 “SeaStar Background Information,” ORBIMAGE, Global Imaging Information. Also “OrbComm: Orbital Sciences 

Corporation,” NASA History Division folder 011261, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

181 “SeaStar Background Information,” ORBIMAGE, Global Imaging Information. Also “OrbComm: Orbital Sciences 

Corporation,” NASA History Division folder 011261, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

182 “SeaWiFS Project—Spacecraft and Sensor Overview,” 

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/SEASTAR/SPACECRAFT.html (accessed January 10, 2006). 183 “NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Experiment Personnel—SeaWiFS, Ocean Color Scanner,” 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1997-037A-01-personnel.html (accessed February 27, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 62
The sensor consisted of an electronics module and an optical scanning 

telescope operating in eight spectral bands. The eight spectral bands 

operated in the visible/near-infrared regions of the spectrum with a spatial 

resolution of 1 km (0.6 mi). Scene radiation was collected by the telescope 

and reflected onto the rotating mirror. The radiation was then relayed 

through dichroic beam splitters to separate the radiation into four 

wavelength intervals, each encompassing two of the eight spectral bands. 

The four wavelength intervals were then directed by four corresponding 

aft-optics assemblies through two separate bandpass filters to separate the 

radiation into eight spectral bands. The radiation was amplified in the 

electronics module. The instrument was calibrated in flight using solar 

and lunar calibration procedures. The solar calibration used a solar 

radiation diffuser located outside the SeaWiFS scene-scan interval. Lunar 

calibration was accomplished by maneuvering the spacecraft to view the 

moon in the nighttime part of the orbit. 

Prime contractor Orbital Sciences Corporation

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 63
Table 2-60. Landsats 4 and 5 TM Band Designation 

Band 

No.

Spectral 

Band 

Spectral 

Range 

(microns)

Use

1 Blue-green 0.45–0.52 Performed bathymetric mapping and distinguished soil 

from vegetation and deciduous vegetation from 

coniferous

2 Green 0.525–0.60 Emphasized peak vegetation, useful for assessing plant 

vigor

3 Red 0.63–0.69 Discriminated vegetation slopes

4 Reflected IR 0.76–0.90 Emphasized biomass content and shorelines

5 Reflected IR 1.55–1.75 Discriminated moisture content of soil and vegetation; 

could penetrate thin clouds

6 Thermal IR 10.40–12.50 Performed thermal mapping and estimated soil moisture

7 Reflected IR 2.08–2.35 Mapped hydrothermally altered rocks associated with 

mineral deposits

Source: “Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS),” U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

http://edc.usgs.gov/products/satellite/band.html (accessed February 16, 2006). Also “Landsat: A Global LandObserving Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03 (March 2003), http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed 

February 15, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 64
Table 2-61. MSS Band Characteristics

Band 

No.

Spectral 

Band

Spectral Range 

(microns)

Use

1 Green 0.5–0.6 Emphasized sediment-laden water and delineated areas of 

shallow water

2 Red 0.6–0.7 Emphasized cultural features

3 Near IR 0.7–0.8 Emphasized vegetation boundary between land and 

water, as well as landforms

4 Near IR 0.8–1.1 Penetrated atmospheric haze best; emphasized vegetation, 

boundaries between land and water, and landforms 

Source: “Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS),” USGS, http://edc.usgs.gov/products/satellite/band.html

(accessed February 16, 2006). Also “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03 (March 2003), 

http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 65
Table 2-62. Landsat 6 Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site October 5, 1993/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Titan 2

NASA role Developed and launched the spacecraft, provided instrument 

through contract, developed the ground system.184 Assumed 

program management responsibilities from NOAA in 1992 

through provisions of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 

1992 establishing the Landsat Program Management (LPM).185

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives To ensure a collection of consistently calibrated Earth imagery. 

Landsat’s Global Survey Mission was to establish and execute a 

data-acquisition strategy, ensuring the repetitive acquisition of 

observations over Earth’s land mass, coastal boundaries, and coral 

reefs and ensuring that the data acquired was of maximum utility 

in supporting the scientific objectives of monitoring changes in 

Earth’s land surface and associated environment.186 Landsat 6 was 

designed to continue the Landsat program.

Orbit characteristics Failed to reach orbit

Weight 4,800 lb (2,200 kg) (approx.)187

Dimensions 14 ft (4.3 m) long × 9 ft (2.8 m) in diameter188

Power source Four-panel single solar array, two NiCd batteries

Instruments and experiments Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM): Incorporated the existing 

capability of the Landsat 4 and 5 TMs and added a 15-m (49-ft) 

resolution panchromatic channel at 0.5–0.9 micrometer. Also 

added a second multiplexer that improved the reliability of the 

sensor, two selectable gain states for all data that provided added 

radiometric flexibility, and dual power supplies that allowed the 

simultaneous operation of both multiplexers and all spectral 

bands.189

Prime contractor EOSAT

184 “Landsat Program,” http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/landsat.html (accessed January 10, 2006). Also “Landsat 7 

Basic Facts,” http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/project/L7basix.html (accessed February 14, 2006). 185 “Landsat Program Chronology,” http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/lpchron.html (accessed January 11, 2006). 186 “Science @ NASA: Landsat 7,” http://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_48.htm (accessed January 10, 2006). 187 “Landsat 6 History,” USGS Landsat Project, http://landsat7.usgs.gov/project_facts/history/landsat_6.php (accessed 

February 20, 2006).

188 “Landsat 6 History,” USGS Landsat Project, http://landsat7.usgs.gov/project_facts/history/landsat_6.php (accessed 

February 20, 2006).

189 “Landsat 6,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/LNDSAT6.html (accessed February 22, 

2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 66
Table 2-63. Landsat 7 ETM+ Band Designation 

Band 

No.

Spectral 

Band 

Spectral 

Range 

(microns)

Use

1 Blue-green 0.45–0.52 Performed bathymetric mapping and distinguished soil 

from vegetation and deciduous vegetation from 

coniferous

2 Green 0.53–0.61 Emphasized peak vegetation, useful for assessing plant 

vigor

3 Red 0.63–0.69 Discriminated vegetation slopes

4 Reflected IR 0.79–0.90 Emphasized biomass content and shorelines

5 Reflected IR 1.55–1.75 Discriminated moisture content of soil and vegetation; 

penetrated thin clouds

6 Thermal IR 10.40–12.50 Performed thermal mapping and estimated soil moisture

7 Reflected IR 2.09–2.35 Mapped hydrothermally altered rocks associated with 

mineral deposits

Panchromatic 0.52–0.90 This band was visible through near IR and had 15-m 

(49.2-ft) resolution for “sharpening” of multispectral 

images

Source: “Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), USGS, http://edc.usgs.gov/products/satellite/band.html

(accessed February 16, 2006). Also “Landsat: A Global Land-Observing Program,” Fact Sheet 023-03, March 2003, 

http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs02303.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 67
Table 2-64. Landsat Program Chronology, 1989–1998 

Date Event

1989 NOAA announces that its funds for Landsat operations are spent and directs EOSAT to turn 

off the satellites. The action results in a strong protest from Congress, foreign and domestic 

data users, and foreign governments. 

1989 The National Space Council develops an interim funding plan to keep the Landsat system 

operating through the end of the fiscal year. NOAA rescinds its shutdown order. The Space 

Council also recommends that the President approve a policy statement committing the 

United States to ensuring the continuity of Landsat-type data.

1989 The President approves a policy statement and requests the Space Council to work with the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on options for ensuring the continuity of Landsat 

data after Landsat 6.

1990 NOAA does not request operating funds for Landsat. Congress appropriates enough funds to 

keep the system operational for six months and requests that agencies using Landsat data 

reprogram sufficient funds to keep the system going for the remainder of the year.

1990 The Bush administration does not request funds for a follow-on to Landsat 6.

1990 EOSAT relinquishes exclusive rights to MSS data more than two years old.

1991 Funding problems and solutions from 1990 are repeated in 1991. The Bush administration 

fails to develop a policy regarding Landsat.

February 

1992 

National Space Policy Directive No. 5 is drafted and signed by President George H. W. 

Bush.190 The directive reiterates the importance of Landsat data and outlines a strategy to

• ensure the operation of Landsats 4 and 5 at least until the launch of Landsat 6; 

• acquire and launch Landsat 7 before the projected end-of-life of Landsat 6;

• foster the development of advanced land remote sensing systems and opportunities for 

commercialization;

• minimize the cost of Landsat data for U.S. government users; 

• provide data for use in global change research consistent with the administration’s Data 

Management for Global Change Research policy statements;

• limit the role of the U.S. government in private sector remote sensing to that required for 

national security, foreign policy, and public safety; 

• maintain an archive in the United States of already existing Landsat-type data as well as 

Landsat-type data that will be gathered in the future; and 

• consider alternatives for maintaining data continuity after Landsat 7.

• DOC is instructed to complete and launch Landsat 6 and ensure the operation of Landsats 

4 and 5 until Landsat 6 becomes operational. 

The DOD and NASA are instructed to

• develop and launch Landsat 7 with performance capabilities at least equal to those of 

Landsat 6; 

• define continuity requirements after Landsat 7; and

• prepare a plan that “addresses management and funding responsibilities, operations, data 

archiving and dissemination, and commercial considerations associated with the Landsat 

program”

March 

1992 

NASA and DOD draft and sign a “Management Plan for the Landsat Program.” The plan

• assigns responsibility for the space segment to DOD and responsibility for the ground 

segment to NASA;

190 “Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy,” National Space Policy Directive No. 5, February 13, 1992, 

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nspd5.htm (accessed January 15, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 68
Date Event

• establishes a Landsat Coordinating Group (NASA and DOD) to coordinate program 

plans, budgets, and policies; 

• establishes baseline funding for each agency for the life of the program (NASA: $410.0 

million; DOD: $470.0 million); and 

• states that any improvement sought beyond the technical capabilities of Landsat 6 will be 

funded by the sponsoring agency.

September

1992

EOSAT loses the capability to process MSS data. No further acquisition of MSS data at U.S. 

receiving station is planned.

October 

1992 

DOD signs a contract with General Electric (later Martin Marietta Astro Space [MMAS]) for 

the construction and launch of Landsat 7. The High Resolution Multispectral Stereo Imager 

(HRMSI) is included as an option in the contract.

October 

1992 

The NASA budget appropriation request for $25.0 million for the Landsat Program is reduced 

to $10.0 million. The reduction threatens DOD’s appropriation and its participation in the 

program.

October 28, 

1992 

Congress passes and President Bush signs the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 

102-555).191 The act recognizes that commercialization of Landsat has not worked and is 

unlikely to work in the future. Acknowledging the importance of Landsat data, the act 

establishes the LPM, consisting of NASA, DOD, and any other agency the President wishes 

to name.192 The law instructs the LPM to

• establish a management plan,

• develop a Landsat Advisory Process and report on progress at established intervals,

• procure Landsat 7, 

• begin negotiations with the contractor on data policy for Landsats 4–6, 

• assume Landsat 6 program responsibilities from DOC,

• develop a data policy for Landsat 7 on the basis of the “cost of fulfilling user request,

• conduct a technology demonstration program, and 

• assess options for a successor land remote sensing system.

January 

1993

The Landsat Advisory Process is initiated with the first meeting of the Landsat Civil Agency 

Requirements Working Group.

March 

1993

Funding for the HRMSI ground segment is not part of the NASA FY 1994 budget request.

April 1993 Congress restores $15 million to the NASA FY 1993 budget for the Landsat program.

June 1993 NASA submits a request for HRMSI funding as part of the New Technology Initiative.

June 1993 The House authorization committee approves $25 million for the NASA FY 1994 budget for 

HRMSI and full funding for the baseline program.

July 1993 The House appropriations committee approves NASA FY 1994 baseline budget for Landsat 

but does not approve any additional funding for HRMSI. HRMSI is removed from the New 

Technology Initiative.

September 

1993

The House and Senate conference committee fails to add funding for HRMSI to the NASA 

FY 1994 budget.

September 

1993

DOD receives an appropriation in FY 1994 for the HRMSI space segment, but no funds for 

the ground segment.

October 5, Landsat 6 is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The satellite fails to attain orbit.

191 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, October 28, 1992, Public Law 102-555, 102nd Congress, 2nd sess., 

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html (accessed February 15, 2006). 192 The term “Landsat Program Management,” as defined in the legislation, means the integrated program management 

structure.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 69
Date Event

1993

October 

1993 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) begins working with NASA, DOD, and 

NOAA to define the action required in light of the Landsat 6 loss. 

December 

8, 1993 

NASA Administrator Goldin and Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch agree that the two 

organizations should go separate ways regarding Landsat: NASA will be responsible for the 

ETM, and DOD will be responsible for HRMSI.

January 

1994 

Rep. George Brown, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, writes 

Vice President Gore describing the Landsat program as a “shambles” and expressing his 

concern for the program’s effects on other “convergence” efforts.

February 4, 

1994 

Vice President Gore responds to Rep. Brown reiterating the administration’s support for 

Landsat and desire to work with NASA, NOAA, and DOD to develop a successful 

implementation strategy.

February 7, 

1994 

The National Science and Technology Council votes to recommend continuing the Landsat 

program with the completion of the ETM instrument and the Landsat 7 spacecraft. NASA and 

NOAA are instructed to develop a management plan to implement the recommendation.

February 8, 

1994 

Representatives from DOD meet with NASA personnel to write a transition plan that will 

transfer the MMAS contract for the Landsat 7 space segment and the remaining FY 1994 

DOD Landsat funds from DOD to NASA. The initial goal is to have the transfer complete by 

February 28, 1994.

February 9, 

1994

Congress rescinds all remaining FY 1994 DOD Landsat funding ($139.0 million) pending 

resolution of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994.193

February 

11, 1994 

Congress restores $90.0 million in FY 1994 funding to DOD for Landsat, stipulating that 

DOD may transfer up to the full amount to NASA—for Landsat 7 work only—after the 

NASA Administrator certifies that NASA has sufficient funding in FY 1995 and the out years 

to complete the program.

February 

18, 1994 

The schedule deadline for exercising the HRMSI option is reached. By prearrangement in the 

contract, MMAS and the Santa Barbara Research Center stop work on all HRMSI-related 

tasks.

March 1, 

1994 

DOD sends a letter to MMAS terminating selected tasks on the Landsat contract.

March 3, 

1994

The NASA/DOD Landsat transition plan is signed and forwarded to OSTP.

March 3, 

1994

The first NASA/NOAA/USGS meeting on the Landsat ground system is held at Goddard.

March 18, 

1994

The first draft of the NASA/NOAA/USGS management plan is distributed to participants for 

comment.

March 23, 

1994 

A Landsat 7 status review is held at Goddard.

March 29, 

1994 

The ETM+ Critical Design Review (CDR) is held at the Santa Barbara Research Center. The 

calibrator door becomes the primary unresolved technical issue. The CDR for the door 

assembly is scheduled for June 1994.

April 7, 

1994

The second NASA/NOAA/USGS meeting on the Landsat ground system is held at the EROS 

Data Center.

April 11, Landsat program management and EOSAT agree to terms for the continued operation of 

193 U.S. Congress, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994, Public Law 103-211, February 12, 1994, 

103rd Cong., 2nd sess. This act also provided relief to southern California following the January 1994 earthquake.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 70
Date Event

1994 Landsats 4 and 5, along with a data distribution and pricing schedule that conforms to goals 

established in P.L. 102-555, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992.

May 5, 

1994 

The NASA Administrator certifies funding for the Landsat 7 program as required by P.L. 

103-211, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994. Notification of 

certification is sent to the appropriate congressional committees.194

May 10, 

1994 

The White House announces a Presidential Decision Directive continuing the Landsat 7 

program, restructuring Landsat Program Management (NASA, NOAA, and DOI), and 

transferring Landsat 7 procurement responsibility from DOD to NASA.

May 18, 

1994

MMAS’s contract for Landsat 7 is transferred from DOD to NASA.

June 28, 

1994

The Santa Barbara Research Center subcontract to Martin Marietta for the ETM+ is separated 

from the Martin Marietta contract and assigned to Goddard.

July 15, 

1994 

DOC (NOAA) and EOSAT sign a modification to the contract extending EOSAT operations 

of the Landsat system through December 31, 1994. The extension includes only one provision 

from the April 11 EOSAT/LPM agreement, and the cost of data is reduced to $3,500.00 per 

scene.

July 16, 

1994 

The original DOC contract with EOSAT for the Landsat program operations expires.

August 10, 

1994 

“Management Plan for the Landsat Program,” a document describing program objectives and 

agency responsibilities, is signed by representatives of NASA, NOAA, and USGS.195

September 

28, 1994

The FY 1995 budget for NASA is passed by Congress. The NASA appropriation includes the 

full amount requested for Landsat 7.

November 

7, 1994

DOC places a notice in the Commerce Business Daily of Commerce’s intent to contract with 

EOSAT for continued operation of Landsats 4 and 5 at no cost to the U.S. government.

December 

1994 

DOC notifies EOSAT that, based on expressions of interest in response to the notice in the 

Commerce Business Daily, Commerce will conduct a competitive procurement for the 

continued operation of Landsats 4 and 5. 

December 

1994

EOSAT responds to DOC notification by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia to block the competitive procurement.

December 

1994 

DOC and EOSAT sign a contract modification extending the existing contract for operating 

the Landsat system through February 28, 1995. Two option periods are included that, if 

exercised, will extend the contract through June 30, 1995.

February 

27, 1995 

DOC exercises the first option in a contract modification with EOSAT.

March 10, 

1995 

A panel of experts reviews the Landsat 6 failure on October 5, 1993. They conclude that the 

rupture of a hydrazine manifold seven minutes after launch kept fuel from reaching the 

satellite’s engines, thereby preventing Landsat 6 from reaching orbit.196

March 16, The U.S. District Court orders LPM to notify Congress within 10 days of the status of 

194 U.S. Congress, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994, Public Law 103-211, February 12, 1994, 

103rd Cong., 2nd sess.

195 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey, “Management Plan for the Landsat Program,” 

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/mgmtplan.html (accessed February 15, 2006).

196 “Landsat 6 Failure Attributed to Ruptured Manifold,” NOAA Release 95-13, March 10, 1995, 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr95/mar95/landsat7.html. Also Richard Monastersky, “Fuel Explosion Downed 

Landsat 6 Satellite: Earth-Sensing Satellite Never Reached Orbit After October 5, 1993, Launch,” Science News, March 

18, 1995, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v147/ai_16783246 (both accessed January 22, 

2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 71
Date Event

1995 negotiations with EOSAT. The current contract is extended through June 30, and the 

government is instructed not to take any action toward conducting a competitive procurement.

June 22, 

1995 

The quarterly meeting of the Landsat Civil Agency Requirements Working Group convenes 

at USGS offices in Reston, VA. The major item of discussion is the degradation in the 

equatorial crossing time for Landsat 5. A review by Goddard staff of the risk in performing a 

maneuver to correct the crossing time concludes that the peril to the spacecraft is low, so this 

maneuver should be performed. There is general agreement that this operation should take 

place in the fall after the end of the Northern Hemisphere’s growing season. 

June 27, 

1995 

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in the case of Earth Observation Satellite Company 

vs. National Aeronautics and Space Administration et al., rules that P.L. 102-555 (the Land 

Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992) requires the U.S. government to contract with EOSAT for 

operation of Landsats 4 and 5. Following the decision, EOSAT announces it will honor all 

provisions of its April 11, 1994, agreement with LPM pending formal extension of EOSAT’s 

contract with DOC for the operation of Landsats 4 and 5.197

August 22, 

1995 

The chief of the Landsat Commercialization Division at NOAA sends a letter to the president 

of EOSAT Corporation requesting EOSAT, as the operator of Landsat 5, to perform a 

maneuver to bring the orbital crossing time of Landsat 5 back to the mission standard of 9:45 

a.m. +/– 15 minutes. A maneuver to correct the crossing time has not been performed since 

1992. The crossing time at the end of June 1995 was approximately 9:18 a.m., and it had 

become progressively earlier. NOAA requested that the maneuver be conducted in the fall 

following the conclusion of the Northern Hemisphere’s growing season.

November 

30, 1995 

EOSAT Corporation successfully completes the last of five maneuvers to correct the 

equatorial crossing time for Landsat 5. The orbit of the satellite is now moving back to the 

nominal crossing time window of 9:45 a.m. +/– 15 minutes at the rate of 4.2 seconds per day. 

The crossing time will reach 9:30 a.m. in mid-September 1996 and will peak at 9:56 a.m. in 

the spring of 1999. Orbital information from before and after the correction maneuver:

10/25/95 12/1/95

Semimajor axis 7,077.44 km (4,397.72 mi) 7,077.95 km (4,398.03 mi)

Inclination 98.0965 deg 98.3639 deg

Equatorial Crossing Time 

(EQT)

09:12:01 a.m. 09:12:27 a.m.

EQT rate of change –3.17 sec/day +4.20 sec/day

February 8, 

1996 

Held at JPL in Pasadena, CA, a workshop on NMP addresses the technical capabilities and 

requirements for an Earth observation satellite to be built under the NMP’s sponsorship. This 

program is described as a potential opportunity to test new technology for the follow-on 

instrument to the ETM+ on Landsat 7. Workshop participants present a series of options for 

the experimental satellite and ask for recommendations. The responses from the participants 

197 “Current Status and Summary of Agreement Between Landsat Program Management and EOSAT Corporation on 

Cost and Reproduction Rights for Landsat 4/5 Thematic Mapper Data,” April 11, 1994, 

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/apr11.html (accessed February 16, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 72
Date Event

form the basis for a proposal for an advanced land imager (ALI), a hyperspectral visible and 

shortwave instrument. The recommendations are forwarded to NASA for consideration under 

the NMP.

March 22, 

1996 

The appropriate offices at NASA Headquarters review plans for the NMP and select the 

lightweight, visible, and shortwave infrared imager of Earth’s land surface as the focus of the 

first NMP mission focused on Earth science. The instrument selected is the one discussed at 

the February 8 workshop on the NMP.

April 2–3, 

1996 

The CDR for the Landsat 7 ground system is held at Greenbelt, MD. No design elements are 

identified that threaten the successful completion of the ground system or the implementation 

of the system as scheduled.

April 11, 

1996

NASA Headquarters announces the selection of the first Earth science mission in the NMP. It 

would consist of a land remote sensing satellite called Earth Observing-1 (EO-1).

April 15–

18, 1996 

The Technical Working Group of the Landsat Ground Station Operators Working Group 

(LGSOWG) meets in Annapolis, MD. It is the second meeting of the technical working group 

since the LGSOWG meeting in May 1995. Representatives from eight stations attend. Key 

technical issues discussed include the processing of data received from Landsat 7 and 

metadata and browse file formats and data distribution. New action items are generated as 

well as recommendations to be presented to the LGSOWG meeting in May 1996.

May 21–24, 

1996 

The 25th meeting of the LGSOWG convenes in Pretoria, South Africa. Representatives from 

11 ground stations attend. Updates on activities at each ground station are presented, and 

NASA and NOAA representatives update the attendees on the status of the Landsat program. 

The recommendations from the technical working group are discussed and adopted, including 

preparations for the ground stations to receive, process, and distribute data from Landsat 7. A 

draft of terms for the agreement that will allow the international ground stations to receive 

Landsat 7 data is distributed for comment. Negotiations between NOAA and the ground 

stations will begin next year.

May 23, 

1996 

NASA’s Program Management Council (PMC) accepts the recommendation from the 

Independent Annual Review (IAR) panel to include systematic processing of Landsat 7 data 

as part of the Landsat 7 processing system. The action assures data users access to 

unenhanced data similar to that distributed from the previous Landsat satellites. Under the 

recommendation, the EOSDIS will process and archive all Landsat 7 data acquired at the 

primary receiving station in the United States as Level 0R and will generate a systematically 

corrected product (Level 1G) on request from the user.

July 1, 

1996 

NASA announces the selection of the team leader and other members of the science team for 

the future Landsat 7 remote-sensing satellite. Dr. Samuel Goward of the University of 

Maryland in College Park, MD, will lead the science team. Other team members are based at 

universities in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawai’i, and New York, as well as USGS, the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Goddard, and JPL.198

July 13, 

1997 

A major thunderstorm of softball-sized hail causes extensive damage to the EROS Data 

Center (EDC) in South Dakota. The recently installed antenna that receives Landsat 7 data 

suffers damage that will require several months to repair, but the damage is not expected to 

delay the launch of the system.

July 23, 

1997

The 25th anniversary of the launch of ERTS-1 (Landsat 1).

October 6, 

1997

The Landsat Coordinating Group (LCG) convenes at USGS offices in Reston, VA. 

Representing the three agencies in LPM are William Townsend (NASA), Gregory Withee 

198 “NASA Names Landsat 7 Science Team and Funds Promising Young Earth Scientists,” July 1, 1996, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996/96-125.txt (accessed February 15, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 73
Date Event

(NOAA), and Bonnie McGregor (USGS). Presentations from staff focus on the Landsat 7 

data policy, data pricing policy, and the status of the ground system for support of Landsat 7 

data acquisition, processing, and distribution. The LCG agrees to meet quarterly until the 

launch of Landsat 7. The next meeting will occur in late January 1998. 

October 9, 

1997 

The ETM+ is delivered to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (LMMS) in Valley Forge, 

PA, from Hughes Santa Barbara Remote Sensing. The instrument will undergo further 

environmental testing at LMMS before it is integrated with the Landsat 7 spacecraft. Delivery 

of the ETM+ maintains the schedule toward a July 9, 1998, launch of Landsat 7.

October 31, 

1997 

USGS issues a “Technical Announcement” on prices of Landsat 7 data. Level 0R scenes will 

be sold initially for $475.00 per scene. Level 1R and 1G data products will be sold for no 

more than $600.00 per scene. The products are described in the announcement and in the 

Landsat 7 Data Policy.199

December 

3–5, 1997 

A conference on “Land Satellite Data in the Next Century II: Sources and Applications” is 

held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. Approximately 600 attend the 

conference presented by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 

(ASPRS) and North American Remote Sensing Industries Association (NARSIA) with 

sponsorship from, among others, NASA, NOAA, and USGS. Attendees hear the latest on the 

land satellites scheduled for launch in the next three to five years and summaries of major 

applications for land satellite data.

January 21, 

1998 

NASA announces that the Mission to Planet Earth Enterprise will now be called the Earth 

Science Enterprise.200

February 4, 

1998 

The LCG convenes at DOC.

February 

26, 1998

The Landsat Civil Agency Requirements Working Group convenes at NASA Headquarters.

March 12, 

1998 

NASA announces that Landsat 7 will not be launched in July 1998 as planned due to 

necessary changes in the design of the electrical power supply hardware for the spacecraft’s 

main instrument. A new target launch date is to be set by NASA officials after the completion 

of instrument thermal vacuum tests scheduled for July 1998.

April 14–

16, 1998 

The Landsat Science Team convenes at Goddard. The meeting, co-chaired by Darrel Williams 

(NASA/GSFC) and Samuel Goward (University of Maryland), hears updates on research and 

the status of Landsat 7 and Resource21 from the team members and discusses, among other 

items, requirements for a post-Landsat 7 system.

October 28, 

1998

The President signs the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (formerly the Commercial Space Act 

of 1997), Public Law 105-303.201

November 

19, 1998 

NASA selects a new launch date of April 15, 1999, for Landsat 7. The delay was caused by a 

need for changes in the design of the electrical power-supply hardware for the spacecraft’s 

instrument. During instrument-level thermal vacuum tests that began in December 1997, a 

power supply on the ETM+ instrument failed twice.202

April 15, 

1999

Landsat 7 launches successfully from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, on a Delta II launch 

vehicle.

199 “Landsat 7 Data Policy,” http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/l7policyn.html (accessed February 16, 2006). 200 “Mission to Planet Earth Enterprise Name Changed to Earth Science,” NASA News Release 98-12, January 21, 1998 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-012.txt (accessed January 17, 2007). 201 Commercial Space Act of 1998, Public Law 105-303, 105th Congress, 1st sess., 

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/sec107.html (accessed February 16, 2006). 202 “Landsat-7 Launch Scheduled for April 15,” GSFC Release 98-188 (HQ Release 98-209), November 19, 1998, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/1998/98-188.htm (accessed January 17, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 74
Source: “Landsat Program Chronology,” http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/lpchron.html (accessed January 11, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 75
Table 2-65. Landsat 7 Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site April 15, 1999/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Delta II

NASA role Developed and launched the spacecraft, provided instrument through 

contract, developed the ground system, and performed mission 

management

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives203 • Provide data continuity with Landsats 4 and 5

• Offer 16-day repetitive Earth coverage

• Build and periodically refresh a global archive of sunlit, substantially 

cloud-free, land images

• Make data widely available for the cost of fulfilling a user request

• Support government, international, and commercial communities 

• Play a vital role in NASA’s Earth Observing System by promoting 

interdisciplinary research via synergism with other EOS observations 

(in particular, orbit in tandem with EOS-AM-1 for near-coincident 

observations)

Orbit characteristics204

Apogee 438 mi (705 km)

Perigee 438 mi (705 km)

Inclination (deg) 98

Period (min) 99

Weight 4,800 lb (2,200 kg) at launch

Dimensions 1.4 ft (4.3 m) long × 9 ft (2.8 m) in diameter

Power source Solar array and battery

Instruments ETM+: An eight-band multispectral scanning radiometer providing highresolution imaging information of Earth’s surface. Detects spectrally 

filtered radiation at visible, near-infrared, shortwave, and thermal infrared 

frequency bands from the sunlit Earth.205

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin

203 Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook, chapter 1—Landsat 7 Program, 

http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/IAS/handbook/handbook_htmls/chapter1/chapter1.html (accessed March 14, 2006). 204 “Landsat 7 Press Kit,” April 1999, NASA, USGS, p. 27, http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/announcements/landsat7.pdf

(accessed February 16, 2006). Also Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook, chapter 5—Orbit and Coverage, 

http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/IAS/handbook/handbook_htmls/chapter5/chapter5.html (accessed March 14, 2006). 205 “Landsat 7 Press Kit,” April 1999, NASA, USGS, p. 25, http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/announcements/landsat7.pdf 

(accessed February 16, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 76
Table 2-66. Landsat 7 Science Teams 

Team Member Research Focus Affiliation

Robert Bindschalder Enhanced Antarctic research with 

Landsat: ice-sheet dynamics, 

history, and cartography

Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Greenbelt, MD

Robert F. Cahalan Clear sky and cloud 

characterization and correction 

for Landsat

Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Greenbelt, MD

Luke P. Flynn Analysis of volcanic eruptions 

and fires using Landsat 7 

Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics 

and Paleontology, University of 

Hawai’i, Manoa, HI

Alexander Goetz Land and land-use change in the 

climate-sensitive high plains: an 

automated approach with Landsat

University of Colorado, Boulder, 

CO

Samuel N. Goward Terrestrial monitoring at high 

spatial resolution: the role of 

Landsat-type sensors in MTPE

Department of Geography, 

University of Maryland, College 

Park, MD

Susan Moran L TM and ETM+ data for 

resource monitoring and 

management

Water Conservation Laboratory, 

USDA

Frank Muller-Karger Bottom assessment and waterconstituent algorithms for the 

ETM in the coastal zone

Department of Marine Science, 

University of South Florida, 

Petersburg, FL

Frank D. Palluconi Landsat 7: Calibration and 

atmospheric correction for 

thermal band 6

JPL, Pasadena, CA

John Price Surface classification for 

MODIS, radiometric calibration, 

and project support

None listed

John R. Schott Absolute calibration, atmospheric 

correction, and application of L 

ETM+ Thermal Infrared Data

Rochester Institute of 

Technology Center for Imaging 

Science, Rochester, NY

David L. Skole Acquisition and analysis of large 

quantities of Landsat 7 data for 

measuring tropical land cover 

change

Michigan State University, East 

Lansing, MI 

Kurtis J. Thome Absolute radiometric calibration 

and atmospheric correction of 

Landsat 7 TM

University of Arizona, Tucson, 

AZ

James E. Vogelman Characterization of Landsat 7 

geometry and radiometry for land 

cover analysis

Hughes STX Corporation and 

USGS, EDC, Sioux Falls, SD 

Curtis E. Woodcock Changes in temperate in 

coniferous forest ecosystems

Department of Geography, 

Boston University, Boston, MA

Source: “Landsat 7 Press Kit,” April 1999, NASA, USGS, pp. 31–32, 

http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/announcements/landsat7.pdf (accessed February 16, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 77
Table 2-67. LAGEOS II Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site October 22, 1992/Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Launch vehicle Space Shuttle Columbia, STS-52

NASA role NASA launched LAGEOS II aboard the STS-52 mission and provided the 

Italian space agency (or Agenzia Spaziale Italiana [ASI]) with LAGEOS I 

drawings, specifications, handling fixtures, and other materials.206

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objective207 Use laser ranging to:

• Provide long-term datasets to monitor the motion of Earth’s tectonic 

plates

• Measure Earth’s gravitational field

• Measure the “wobble” in Earth’s axis of rotation

• Better determine the length of an Earth day

Orbit characteristics208

Apogee 5,950 km (3,697 mi)

Perigee 5,616 km (3,490 mi)

Inclination (deg) 52.6

Period (min) 223

Weight 405 kg209 (893 lb)

Dimensions 0.6-m (2-ft)-diameter sphere

Power source None

Instruments and experiments Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR): Ground-based lasers transmitted intense, 

short pulses of light to retroreflector-equipped satellites, such as LAGEOS 

II. The retroreflectors on the surface of LAGEOS II were threedimensional prisms reflecting light (in this case a laser beam) back to its 

source. By recording the round-trip travel time required for the pulse to be 

transmitted to the satellite and return to Earth, scientists could determine 

the location of the laser station on Earth’s surface. Using this information, 

they could accurately determine the distance between the stations. Thus, 

the relative distances between the locations, and hence their changes over 

time, could be determined. This enabled scientists to study the motion of 

Earth’s crust between various points on Earth’s surface.210

Prime contractor Alenia Spazio for ASI.

206 “NASA Facts Online: LAGEOS: A Tool for Understanding Our Constantly Changing Earth,” 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/spacesci/lageos.htm (accessed January 12, 2006). 207 “40+ Years of Earth Science: Laser Geodynamics Satellite—2,” 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/lageos/lageos2.html (accessed January 12, 2006). 208 “40+ Years of Earth Science: Laser Geodynamics Satellite—2,” 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/lageos/lageos2.html (accessed January 12, 2006). Also “LAGEOS-1, 2 Mission 

Objectives,” http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/lageos.html (accessed January 12, 2006).

209 “NASA Facts Online: LAGEOS: A Tool for Understanding Our Constantly Changing Earth,” 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/spacesci/lageos.htm (accessed January 12, 2006). 210 “NASA Facts Online: LAGEOS: A Tool for Understanding Our Constantly Changing Earth,” 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/spacesci/lageos.htm (accessed January 12, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 78
Table 2-68. LAGEOS II Investigations 

PI Investigation Affiliation

NASA Investigations:

Crustal Deformation

Erik R. Ivins Lateral Earth Structure and Tidal 

Seismology

JPL, Pasadena, CA

Leigh H. Royden Proposal for the Study of Rates and 

Geometries of Deformation in an Active 

Back-Arc Extensional Regime: Northern 

and Western Greece

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA 

M. Nafi Toksoz Investigation of Ongoing Continental 

Collision and its Tectonic Consequences 

in the Eastern Mediterranean: Global 

Positioning System (GPS) Densification 

of the SLR Network in Turkey

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA 

Earth Dynamics

Dennis D. McCarthy Study of the Use of SLR in the Routine 

Rapid Determination of Earth Orientation 

Parameters and Predictions

U.S. Naval Observatory

Richard D. Rosen Dynamic Interactions Within the EarthOcean-Atmosphere System and 

Variations in Earth Orientation

Atmospheric and Environmental 

Research, Inc.

David E. Smith Geodynamics from Laser Ranging Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Greenbelt, MD

David A. Yuen Geophysical and Geodynamical 

Investigations Based on LAGEOS II 

Satellite Data

Department of Geology and 

Geophysics, University of 

Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Gravity

Jean O. Dickey Temporal Variations of the Geopotential JPL, Pasadena, CA

Orbit Determination

Peter L. Bender Regional Translocation Analysis: 

Comparison of LAGEOS II and LAGEOS 

I Results

Quantum Physics Division, 

National Bureau of Standards, 

Gaithersburg, MD

Chreston F. Martin Proposal for Analysis of Relativistic 

Effects and the Anomalous Alongtrack 

Acceleration on the LAGEOS Satellites

EG&G Washington Analytical 

Services Center, Inc., Rockville, 

MD

George Rosborough Sequential Estimation of Regional Station 

Positions for High Temporal Resolution

Colorado Center for 

Astrodynamics Research, 

University of Colorado, Boulder, 

CO

Byron D. Tapley Determination of Crustal Motions Using 

Satellite Laser Ranging to LAGEOS II 

and LAGEOS I

Center for Space Research, 

Department of Aerospace 

Engineering and Engineering 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 79
PI Investigation Affiliation

Mechanics, University of Texas 

at Austin, Austin, TX

Agenzia Spaziale Italiana Investigations:

Crustal Deformation

Alessandro Caporali Determination and Analysis of Time 

Series of European Baselines and Earth 

Rotation Parameters Using LAGEOS I 

and LAGEOS II Data

Department of Physics, 

University of Bari, Italy

Enzo Mantovani Identification of Major Constraints for 

Plate Kinematics in the Mediterranean 

Area from Geological and Geodetic Data

Department of Earth Sciences, 

University of Siena, Italy

Fernando Sanso Local Satellite Geodesy by Short-Arc 

Processing of Laser Ranging Data

Institute of Topography, 

Photogrammetry, and 

Geolophysics, Politecnico di 

Milano, Italy

Gerhard Soltau Earth Orientation and the Terrestrial 

Coordinate Reference

Institut für Angewandte 

Geodasie, Germany

George Weber Tectonic Plate Motion and the Terrestrial 

Coordinate Reference 

Institut für Angewandte 

Geodasie, Germany 

Susanna Zerbini Modeling Tectonic Motions and 

Deformation in the Central-Eastern 

Mediterranean Basin

Department of Physics, 

University of Bologna, Italy 

Earth Dynamics

Anny Cazenave Global Geodynamics with LAGEOS II Groupe de Recherches de 

Géodesie Spatiale (GRGS), 

Centre National d’Études 

Spatiales (CNES), France

Istvan Fejes Scope and Perspective of Combined 

Satellite Laser Ranging and Space VLBI 

Data Applications

FOMI Satellite Geodetic 

Observatory, Hungary

J. Hinderer Earth Rotation: Excitation Struction and 

Induced Gravimetric Effects

Institut de Physique du Globe, 

France

Jochem Zschau Model Improvements for Earth Tides, 

Ocean and Atmospheric Loading Effects

Instuit für Geophysik, Neue 

Universitat, Germany

Orbit Determination

Wolfgang Schluter Studies to Improve the Effectiveness of 

Satellite Laser Ranging

Institut für Angewandte 

Geodasie, Germany

Karel F. Wakker LAGEOS I and LAGEOS II Data 

Analysis and Interpretation

Faculty of Aerospace 

Engineering, Delft University of 

Technology, the Netherlands

Source: “LAGEOS II/IRIS Prelaunch Mission Operations Report,” Office of Space Science and Applications, Report 

No. S-465-92-52-01, pp. 10–12, NASA History Division folder 6081, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 80
Table 2-69. SAR Generalized Applications 

General Application Advantage

Tropical/coastal studies Radar penetrates cloud, fog, and rain

Coastal/lakes studies HH polarization (horizontal transmit, horizontal receive) best for 

land/water discrimination

Discerning human-made features Features strongly reflect radar energy

Assessing soil and vegetation 

moisture content

The amount of SAR backscatter is related to this

Disaster studies (volcanic 

eruptions, dust storms, flooding)

Radar penetrates dust and clouds

Remote area studies Global coverage

Geology Structural studies, exploration

Land use (including agriculture 

and forestry)

Mapping and change assessment

Source: “RADARSAT,” Australian Government, Geoscience Australia, 

http://www.ga.gov.au/acres/prod_ser/radadata.jsp (accessed May 23, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 81
Table 2-70. RADARSAT-1 Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site November 4, 1995/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Delta II

NASA role Launch site and launch vehicle in exchange for RADARSAT-1 

data

Responsible (lead) Center JPL

Mission objectives211 To provide detailed information on sea ice and terrestrial ice 

sheets for climate research; produce radar imagery for 

geographical applications in oceanography, agriculture, forestry, 

hydrology, and geology; and provide real-time products for Arctic 

Ocean navigation, including ice surveillance. Mission also 

designed to provide data products for commercial applications 

such as fishing, shipping, oil exploration, offshore oil drilling, and 

resource management.

Orbit characteristics212

Apogee 821 km (510 mi)

Perigee 793 km (493 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.6

Period (min) 100.7

Weight 2,750 kg213 (6,062 lb)

Dimensions 1.2-m (3.9-ft) cube, antenna 1.5 m × 1.5 m214 (4.9 ft × 4.9 ft)

Power source Solar array, three NiCd batteries215

Instruments and experiments SAR

PI: E. J. Langham, CSA, RADARSAT Project Office, Ottawa, 

Canada216

SAR Analysis Team PI: Ronald Kwok, JPL, Pasadena, CA217

Transmitted and received signals to capture (through clouds, haze, 

smoke, and darkness) high-quality images of Earth in all kinds of 

weather, day or night. This provided significant advantages for 

viewing Earth under conditions that precluded observation by 

aircraft or optical satellites.218

Antarctic Mapping Project PI: Kenneth C. Jezek, Byrd Polar 

Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH219

211 “NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Spacecraft—Radarsat 1,” 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1995-059A (accessed February 13, 2006). 212 “CSA—RADARSAT-1: Components and Specifications,” 

http://radarsat.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/satellites/radarsat1/components.asp (accessed February 13, 2006). 213 “CSA—RADARSAT-1: Components and Specifications.” 214 “Radarsat Quicklook,” JPL Mission and Spacecraft Library, http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/radarsatQL.html 

(accessed February 13, 2006).

215 “CSA—RADARSAT-1: Components and Specifications.” 216 “NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Experiment Personnel, Synthetic Aperture Radar,” 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1995-059A-01-personnel.html (accessed February 27, 2006). 217 “EO DAAC Study: Ice and Sky,” http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Study/IceSky/ (accessed on February 13, 2006). 218 “CSA—RADARSAT-1: Components and Specifications.”

219 “EO DAAC Study: RAMPing Up,” http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Study/RampingUp/ (accessed February 13, 

2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 82
Prime contractor SPAR Aerospace

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 83
Table 2-71. ERBS Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site October 5, 1984/KSC

Challenger, STS-41-G

NASA role OSSA oversaw the ERBE program; Goddard was responsible for overall 

project management. Langley Research Center (LRC) had responsibility 

for the three instruments and science data reduction.220

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives221 • Obtain the measurements required to determine Earth’s radiation 

budget on several spatial and temporal scales

• Use the ERBE scanner and nonscanner to derive the solar-absorbed 

radiation and emitted thermal radiation monthly on regional, zonal, 

and global scales 

• Use the SAGE II instrument to monitor the vertical global distribution 

of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere by measuring the attenuation 

(reduction in intensity) of the Sun’s energy through Earth’s 

atmosphere

Orbit characteristics222

Apogee 650 km (404 mi)

Perigee 650 km (404 mi)

Inclination (deg) 57

Period (min) 96.8

Weight 2,250 kg223 (4,960 lb)

Dimensions224 15 ft (4.6 m) wide, 12.5 ft (3.8 m) high, 5.2 ft (1.6 m) long

Power source Two solar arrays, two NiCd batteries225

Instruments and experiments SAGE II

PI: M. Patrick McCormick, LRC

Measured sunlight through the limb of Earth’s atmosphere in seven 

spectral wavelengths (from 0.385 to 1.02 micrometers). The measured 

sunlight, which was scattered and absorbed by trace gases and aerosols, 

was converted into vertical profiles of ozone, water vapor, nitrogen 

dioxide, and aerosol concentrations. The instrument vertically scanned the 

limb of the atmosphere during spacecraft sunsets and sunrises (15 sunsets 

and 15 sunrises each day).226

ERBE

PI: Bruce Barkstrom, LRC

220 “STS-41-G Press Kit,” October 1984, pp. 17–18, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_013_STS41G_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed March 20, 2006). 221 “STS-41-G Press Kit,” October 1984, pp. 17–18. 222 “SAGE II Instrument,” http://www-sage2.larc.nasa.gov/instrument/ (accessed March 20, 2006). 223 “Earth Radiation Budget Satellite Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. E-420-41-G-10, October 1, 

1984, NASA History Division electronic record 30811, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC.

224 “STS-41-G Press Kit,” October 1984, p. 17. 225 “NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Spacecraft—ERBS,” 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1984-108B (accessed February 27, 2006). 226 “SAGE II: Understanding the Earth’s Stratosphere,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/SAGE.html (accessed February 13, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 84
• ERBE scanner: a set of three co-planar detectors (longwave, 

shortwave, and total energy), all of which scanned from one limb of 

Earth to the other, across the satellite track (in its normal operational 

mode). 

• ERBE nonscanner: a set of five detectors: one measuring the total 

energy from the Sun, two measuring the shortwave and total energy 

from the entire Earth disk, and two measuring the shortwave and total 

energy from a medium-resolution area beneath the satellite.227

Prime contractor Ball Aerospace

227 “The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE),” http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.html (accessed 

February 13, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 85
Table 2-72. Microlab-1/OrbView-1 Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site April 3, 1995/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Pegasus

NASA role Instrument management; provided the OTD and the GPS Met 

instrument

Responsible (lead) Center JPL

Mission objectives To acquire affordable high-quality imagery of Earth for a variety 

of customers, including local governments, telecommunication 

companies, architects, civil engineers, real estate managers, 

farmers, and environmental monitoring agencies228

Orbit characteristics229

Apogee 740 km (460 mi)

Perigee 740 km (460 mi)

Inclination (deg) 70

Period (min) 100

Weight 76 kg230 (168 lb)

Dimensions 104 cm (41 in) in diameter × 49.5 cm (19 in) high (including 

spacecraft bus and payload compartment)231

Power source Two solar panels

Instruments and experiments GPS Met instrument

PI: Randolph H. Ware, University Corporation for Atmospheric 

Research232

Received and tracked the radio signals broadcast by 24 highorbiting satellites of the U.S. military’s GPS network; precisely 

measured the signals’ increased travel time due to the effect of 

Earth’s atmosphere and fluctuating signal strength to recover 

highly accurate profiles of atmospheric density, pressure, and 

temperature; contributed to a long-term observation program on 

how trace greenhouse gases may modify Earth’s atmosphere and 

climate; and was used to study the amount of water vapor in the 

lower atmosphere.233 

Optical Transient Detector (OTD)

PI: Hugh J. Christian, MSFC234

Detected the full spectrum of lightning flashes, including cloud to 

228 “eoPortal director: Orbview-1,” http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_OrbView1.html (accessed January 18, 2006).

229 “Optical Transient Detector,” Space Research & Observations, http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/otd/ (accessed February 

28, 2006).

230 “Orbital’s Satellite Programs in Chronological Order,” Orbital Space Systems Group (SSG), Orbital Sciences Inc., 

NASA History Division folder 011261, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. 231 “MicroStar Satellite Platform Technical Specifications,” http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/rapidii/Specs/microstar.pdf 

(accessed February 28, 2006). Personal conversation with Greg Smith, Chief, GSFC, Rapid Spacecraft Development 

Office, February 28, 2006.

232 “GPS/MET Preliminary Report, July 1995,” http://www.cosmic.ucar.edu/gpsmet/over/septsumm_top.html (accessed 

February 6, 2006).

233 “JPL Instrument Will Measure Earth’s Atmospheric Temperature, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” Universe 25, no. 7 

(April 7, 1995): 1, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/95/release_1995_9524.html (accessed January 12, 2006). 234 “Optical Transient Detector (Lightning Detector in Space),” http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/otd_old.html (accessed 

January 12, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 86
ground, cloud to cloud, and intra-cloud lightning events. Aided 

scientists in determining the global distribution of lightning 

activity and thunderstorms and the characteristics of Earth’s 

electric circuit.235

Prime contractor ORBIMAGE

235 “Optical Transient Detector (Lightning Detector in Space).”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 87
Table 2-73. UARS Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site September 12, 1991/KSC

Launch vehicle Space Shuttle Discovery, STS-48

NASA role Performed mission management, furnished the MMS bus, designed the 

UARS ground station and data-handling facility, and participated in 

SOLSTICE, MLS, HALOE, and ACRIM development 

Responsible (lead) Center Goddard Space Flight Center

Mission objectives236 • To measure upper atmospheric dynamics; energy inputs; temperature; 

pressure; and key source, reservoir, and radical species concentrations 

on a global scale with accuracies close to or better than those defined 

as adequate in the UARS Science Working Group Final Report

• To carry out these measurements during significant portions of two 

Northern Hemisphere winter seasons 

• To make these measurements during significant portions of the time 

period in which the Antarctic ozone hole is formed 

• To process UARS data to level 3 and make it available to the general 

scientific community according to the schedule defined by the UARS 

Policy for Data Use and Sharing237

• To reveal and further understand the mechanisms controlling the 

structure and variability of the upper atmosphere, improve the 

predictability of ozone depletion, and define the role of the upper 

atmosphere in Earth’s climate system

Orbit characteristics238

Apogee 585 km (364 mi)

Perigee 585 km (364 mi)

Inclination (deg) 57

Period (min) 96

Weight 6,540 kg239 (14,418 lb)

Dimensions 35 ft (10.7 m) long × 15 ft (4.6 m) in diameter240

Power source One solar array and three 50 amp-hr batteries

236 “Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) Prelaunch Mission Operations Report,” 7. Also “Upper Atmosphere 

Research Satellite (UARS),” NASA Facts Online, Goddard Space Flight Center, 

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/uars.htm (accessed January 12, 2006). 237 Level 3 data is smoothed and gridded geophysical data. Variables are mapped on uniform space-time grid scales, 

usually with some completeness and consistency. (Earth Science Data Terminology and Formats, 

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/research/earth_science_formats.html (accessed February 1, 2007). 238 “UARS Science Highlights: A Summary of the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS),” 

http://uars.gsfc.nasa.gov/www_root/homepage/uars-science/science_highlights1.html (accessed January 12, 2006). 

Also “UARS,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1991-063B-traj.html (accessed February 

12, 2006).

239 “UARS Post-Launch Mission Operation Report,” Report 5-678-48-91-0, December 1994, p. 5. 240 “SVS Science Story: The Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 88
Instruments, Principal 

Investigators241

Chemistry Studies

Cryogenic Limb Array Etalon Spectrometer (CLAES) 

PI: Aidan E. Roache, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory 

Searched for spectra indicating the presence of certain chemicals. 

Determined concentrations and distributions by altitude of nitrogen and 

chlorine compounds, ozone, water vapor, and methane, all of which play a 

part in the chemistry of ozone depletion. Developed and operated by the 

Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center. 

Improved Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder (ISAMS) 

PI: Fred W. Taylor, University of Oxford, Department of Atmospheric 

Physics, Oxford, U.K. 

Studied atmospheric water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nitric 

acid, ozone, methane, and carbon monoxide. Also detected infrared 

radiation from the atmosphere and used it to derive information on 

atmospheric temperature and composition. An instrument team based at 

Oxford University, U.K., built ISAMS. 

MLS

PI: Joseph W. Waters, JPL

Provided the first global dataset on chlorine monoxide, the key 

intermediate compound in the ozone destruction cycle. Generated threedimensional maps of ozone distribution and detected water vapor in the 

microwave spectral range. Developed by JPL.

HALOE

PI: James M. Russell III, LRC

Observed the vertical distribution of hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, 

methane, carbon dioxide, ozone, water vapor, and members of the 

nitrogen family. Observed 28 solar occultations (that is, it looked through 

Earth’s atmosphere toward the Sun to measure the energy absorption of 

the Sun’s rays by these gases). HALOE was a collaborative project 

conducted by LRC; the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry (Germany); 

the University of Chicago; the University of Michigan; the University of 

California, Irvine; NOAA/Environmental Research Laboratory; and 

Imperial College (U.K.).

Dynamics

HRDI

PIs: Paul B. Hays and Wilbert R. Skinner, Space Physics Research 

Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

241 “40+ Years of Earth Science: Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS),” 

http://www.earth.nasa.gov/history/uars/uars.html. Also “Space Shuttle Mission STS-48 Press Kit,” September 1991, 

16, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_043_STS-048_Press_Kit.pdf (both accessed May 23, 2007). 

Also “HRDI/UARS: Personnel,” http://hrdi.engin.umich.edu/personnel.htm; “CLAES Home Page,” 

http://www.spasci.com/CLAES/; “Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE),” 

http://haloedata.larc.nasa.gov/home/index.php; “WINDII—The Wind Imaging Interferometer,” 

http://www.windii.yorku.ca/windii_e.html; “SUSIM: An NRL Program to Measure Solar Ultraviolet Irradiance,” 

http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/susim.html; “SOLSTICE,” http://lasp.colorado.edu/solstice/main.shtml; “NASA UARSPEM,” http://wwwpem.space.swri.edu/pem-science.html (all accessed January 12, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 89
Measured Doppler shifts of atmospheric chemicals. Specifically measured 

atmospheric winds between 6.2 mi and 28 mi (10 km and 45 km) and 

above 34 mi (55 km). This data was important for understanding the role 

of atmospheric motion on the distribution of chemicals in the upper 

atmosphere. Sponsored by the University of Michigan Space Physics 

Research Laboratory.

WINDII

PI: Gordon G. Shepherd, York University, Ontario, Canada 

Used a Doppler-shift measurement technique to develop altitude profiles 

of horizontal winds in the upper atmosphere. The measurements provided 

information about the winds at and above 49 mi (79 km). WINDII was an 

international project sponsored by the CSA, the French Centre National 

d’Études Spatiales, and NASA.

Energy Inputs

SUSIM

PI: Guenter E. Brueckner, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

Measured solar ultraviolet energy, the most important spectral range in 

ozone chemistry. NASA sponsored the SUSIM program of the Solar 

Physics Branch in the Space Science Division at the Naval Research 

Laboratory.

SOLSTICE

PI: Gary J. Rottman, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Conducted in-depth ultraviolet studies of the Sun. Compared the Sun’s 

ultraviolet energy with the ultraviolet radiation of bright blue stars, 

providing a standard against which the solar energy level could be 

measured in future long-term monitoring of the Sun. SOLSTICE was a 

NASA project operated by the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space 

Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado. 

PEM

PI: J. David Winningham, Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 

Researched the effect of energetic particles from the Sun on the upper 

atmosphere, detecting and measuring the particles as they entered the 

atmosphere. PEM used four primary instrument subunits to take detailed 

particle measurements in different energy ranges: the Atmospheric X-Ray 

Imaging Spectrometer (AXIS), High Energy Particle Spectrometer 

(HEPS), Medium Energy Particle Spectrometer (MEPS), and Vector 

Magnetometer (VMAG). PEM was sponsored by the Southwest Research 

Institute.

ACRIM II

PI: Dr. Richard Willson, JPL

Provided accurate monitoring of total solar activity for long-term climate 

studies. Though not a part of the UARS program, ACRIM II was added to 

UARS after the engineering team determined the spacecraft could fly a 

10th instrument. ACRIM II was sponsored by JPL.

Prime contractor GE Astro-Space Division

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 90
Table 2-74. ACRIM Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site December 20, 1999/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Pegasus

NASA role242 Mission management (GSFC). Managed instrument design, fabrication, 

and testing, as well as subcontract with Orbital Sciences (JPL)

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives243 • Continue the precision TSI database during solar cycle 23 for an EOS 

5-year minimum mission

• Determine its precise relationship to previous and successive 

experiments 

• Analyze TSI variability on all time scales with respect to their 

climatological and solar physics significance

Orbit characteristics244

Apogee 425 mi (685 km)

Perigee 425 mi (685 km)

Inclination (deg) 98.13

Period (min) 99

Weight AcrimSat: 253 lb (115 kg); ACRIM III instrument: 29 lb (13 kg)

Dimensions AcrimSat: 30.5 in (77.5 cm) wide × 26 in (66 cm) high; total span with 

solar arrays deployed: 70 in (178 cm) 

Power source Solar arrays

Instrument ACRIM: measured total solar irradiance precisely and continuously and 

solar energy in the far ultraviolet to far infrared wavelengths

Prime contractor JPL

242 “ACRIMSAT Mission Overview,” http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/mission.html (accessed January 23, 2007). 243 Richard C. Willson, “The ACRIMSAT/ACRIM III Experiment—Extending the Precision, Long-Term Total Solar 

Irradiance Climate Database,” The Earth Observer 13, no. 3 (May/June 2001): 14, 

http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Earth%20Observer_may_jun01.pdf (accessed January 23, 2007). 244 “AcrimSat Launch Press Kit,” December 1999, pp. 6, 17, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/acrimsat.pdf. 

Also “ACRIMSAT Fact Sheet,” http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/fact_sheet.html; “ACRIMSAT,” 

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_55.htm; and Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 

2000 Activities (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2001), p. 100, 

http://history.nasa.gov/presrep00/pdf_files/appndx_b.pdf (all accessed January 23, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 91
Table 2-75. AVIRIS Spectral Bands 

Spectrometer Wavelength, 

Micrometers

No. of Bands Bandwidth, 

Nanometers

1 0.41–0.70 31 9.4

2 0.68–1.27 63 9.4

3 1.25–1.86 63 9.7

4 1.84–2.45 63 9.7

Source: “Airborne Visible and Infrared Imaging Spectrometer,” 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dyden/research/AirSci/ER-2/aviris.html (accessed January 23, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 92
Table 2-76. TOMS Missions 

Nimbus-7 TOMS Meteor-3 

TOMS

TOMS-EP ADEOS TOMS

Launch 

date/launch site

October 24, 

1978/Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, CA

August 15, 

1991/Plesetsk, 

Russia

July 2, 

1996/Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, 

CA

August 17, 

1996/Tanegashima 

Space Center, 

Japan

Launch vehicle Delta 2910 Cyclone Pegasus-XL H-II

Data production November 1, 1978–

May 5, 1993 

August 22, 1991–

December 27, 

1994

July 25, 1996–

present 

September 11, 

1996–June 29, 

1997

NASA role NASA mission Provided 

instrument 

NASA mission Provided 

instrument 

Responsible 

(lead) Center

GSFC GSFC GSFC GSFC

Mission 

objectives

To observe gases and 

particulates in the 

atmosphere to 

determine the 

feasibility of mapping 

sources, sinks, and 

dispersion mechanisms 

of atmospheric 

pollutants. 

To make baseline 

measurements of 

variations in longwave 

radiation fluxes outside 

the atmosphere and 

atmospheric 

constituents to 

determine the effect of 

these variations on 

Earth’s climate.245

To continue 

monitoring global 

ozone levels by 

measuring the 

total ozone 

content in Earth’s 

atmosphere.246

To measure total 

ozone by 

observing both 

incoming solar 

energy and 

backscattered 

ultraviolet 

radiation at six 

wavelengths.247

To provide daily 

global coverage of 

the sunlit portions 

of Earth by 

scanning 

perpendicular to the 

suborbital track and 

measuring 

backscattered 

ultraviolet radiation 

at six discrete 

wavelength 

channels.248

Orbit 

characteristics

Sun-synchronous, near 

polar 

212-day 

precessing, near 

polar 

Polar Polar, Sunsynchronous 

245 “The Nimbus-7 Spacecraft System,” http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/nimbus7tech.html (accessed March 1, 

2006).

246 “Soviets To Launch NASA Instrument To Study Ozone Levels,” NASA News Release 91-127, August 12, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-127.txt (accessed March 1, 2006). 247 “Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer/Earth Probe (TOMS/EP-94),” NASA Facts, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, 

February 1994.

248 Arlin J. Krueger et al., “ADEOS Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) Data Products User’s Guide,” p. 1, 

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/datainfo/adeos_userguide.pdf (accessed March 2, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 93
Nimbus-7 TOMS Meteor-3 

TOMS

TOMS-EP ADEOS TOMS

Apogee 955 km (593 mi) 1,202 km (747 

mi)

515 km (320 

mi)/740 km (460 

mi)249

805 km250 (500 mi)

Perigee 955 km (593 mi) 1,202 km (747 

mi)

490 km (304 

mi)/740 km (460 

mi)

789 km (1,490 mi)

Inclination (deg) 99.1251 85.5 97.4/98.4252 98.6

Period (min) 104 109 96.6/99.65253 100.8

Weight 61.6 lb (28 kg) 61.6 lb (28 kg)254 34.3 kg (75.6 lb) 34.3 kg (75.6 lb)255

Dimensions 3.04 m (10 ft) high, 

1.52 m (5 ft) in 

diameter at the base, 

3.96 m (13 ft) wide 

with solar paddles fully 

extended256

26.4 in (66 cm) × 

13.2 in (33 cm) × 

19.6 in (49 cm)257

1.73 m (68 in) 

high × 1.11 m 

(43.76 in) in 

diameter258

1.73 m (68 in) high 

× 1.11 m (43.76 in) 

in diameter259

Power source Solar panels and 

batteries

Solar panels and 

batteries

Solar panels and 

batteries

Solar panels and 

batteries

Prime contractor Beckman Instruments, 

Inc. 

Beckman 

Instruments, Inc. 

Perkin Elmer Orbital Sciences 

Corp. 

249 Satellite was boosted into higher orbit in December 1997 after the failure of ADEOS in June 1997. “Earth Probe 

Satellite Information,” http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/epsat.html (accessed January 10, 2006). 250 “ADEOS TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information,” Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, 

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/adeos/adsat.html (accessed January 10, 2006). 251 “The Nimbus-7 Spacecraft System,” http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/nimbus7tech.html (accessed March 1, 

2006).

252 Inclination for higher orbit flown beginning in December 1997 after the failure of ADEOS in June 1997. 253 Period for higher orbit flown beginning in December 1997 after the failure of ADEOS in June 1997. 254 “NASA Meteor-3/TOMS Press Kit,” August 12, 1991, 5. 255 The design of the ADEOS TOMS was identical to that of the TOMS-EP. “README for the Total Ozone Mapping 

Spectrometer (TOMS), Level 2 Orbital Data Set,” http://disc1.gsfc.nasa.gov/FTP_DATA/toms/README.TOMSL2

(accessed March 2, 2006). 256 “The Nimbus-7 Spacecraft System.” 257 “NASA Meteor-3/TOMS Press Kit,” August 12, 1991, p. 5, NASA History Division electronic record 33757, 

Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

258 “Earth Probe TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer),” Ozone Processing Team—NASA/GSFC Code 613.3, 

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/eptech2.html (accessed March 1, 2006).

259 The design of the ADEOS TOMS was identical to that of the TOMS-EP.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 94
Table 2-77. TRMM Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site November 27, 1997/Tanegashima Space Canter, Japan

Launch vehicle H-II

NASA role260 Mission management. Provided the observatory (fabricated by GSFC) and 

support systems, four instruments, integration and test of the observatory, 

and the science data processing system. Operated TRMM via the TDRSS. 

GSFC provided two of the four instruments. LRC and MSFC provided the 

other two.

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives261 Science objectives:

• Obtain and study multiyear science datasets of tropical and 

subtropical rainfall measures

• Research how interactions among the sea, air, and land masses 

produce changes in global rainfall and climate

• Improve modeling of tropical rainfall processes and their influence on 

global circulation to predict rainfall and variability at various times

• Test, evaluate, and improve satellite rainfall measurement techniques

Orbit characteristics262

Apogee 351.8 km (218.6 mi)

Perigee 350.4 km (217.7 mi)

Inclination (deg) 35

Period (min) 92

Weight 7,290 lb263 (3,307 kg)

Dimensions 5.1 m (16.8 ft) × 14.7 m (48.1 ft) × 4.2 m (13.8 ft)264

Power source Gallium arsenide solar array/NiCd battery subsystem265

Instruments266 Visible Infrared Scanner (VIRS)

PI: William L. Barnes, GSFC

This scanning radiometer measured radiance in five bandwidths from the 

260 “TRMM Background,” http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/tsdis/tsdis_redesign/TRMMBackground.html (accessed on January 

12, 2006). Also “Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission Set for October 31 Launch,” NASA News Release 97-143, June 

25, 1997, NASA History Division electronic record, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

261 “TRMM Background,” http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/tsdis/tsdis_redesign/TRMMBackground.html (accessed January 12, 

2006).

262 “TRMM Injected into the Desired Orbit for Rainfall Measurement,” NASDA Press Release 1997/12, December 9, 

1997 (archived site), 

http://warp.ndl.go.jp/REPOSWP/000000001418/00000000000005995/www.nasda.go.jp/press/1997/12/trmm_971209_e

.html (accessed May 23, 2007). 263 “TRMM Background,” http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/tsdis/tsdis_redesign/TRMMBackground.html (accessed January 12, 

2006).

264 E-mail from Clyde Woodall, Deputy Project Manager, EOS Project, Goddard Space Flight Center, March 1, 2006, 

based on the TRMM Mission Readiness Review Package, October 10, 1997, and H-II Launch Vehicle Interface Control 

Document drawings.

265 “TRMM Instrument Overview,” http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/trmmrt/instov.htm (accessed January 12, 2006). 266 “TRMM Field Campaign Sounding Data Quality Control,” 

http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/trmm_soundings/soundings.html (accessed February 3, 2006). Also “NSSDC Master Catalog 

Display: Experiment List: TRMM,” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1997-074A&ex=*

(accessed February 3, 2006); “TRMM Background,” 

http://tsdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/tsdis/tsdis_redesign/TRMMBackground.html (accessed January 12, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 95
visible through the IR spectral regions, similarly to the Advanced Very 

High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on NOAA’s operational polarorbiting satellites. The VIRS had two thermal IR channels that permitted 

split-window techniques to be used to compute sea- and land-surface 

temperatures and to determine the atmospheric moisture content. VIRS 

provided 2-km (1.2-mi) resolution at nadir with a cross-track scan of 720 

km (447 mi) and an instantaneous field of view (FOV) of 5.72 mrad. 

TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI)

PI: Thomas T. Wilheit, Jr., GSFC

This nine-channel passive microwave radiometer combined signals 

measured rainfall with greatest accuracy over oceans and lesser accuracy 

over land. It was similar to the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) 

on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program series of satellites. TMI 

provided better rain remote sensing than previous microwave instruments 

by adding a channel at 10 GHz, where the brightness temperatures were 

nearly linearly related to the rain rate.

Precipitation Radar (PR)

PI: K. Okamoto, National Space Development Agency (NASDA) (Japan)

The PR determined the vertical distribution of precipitation by measuring 

the “radar reflectivity” of the cloud system and the weakening of a signal 

as it passed through the precipitation. When properly constrained by 

passive microwave measurements, the PR provided height profiles of 

precipitation content from which the profile of latent heat release could be 

obtained. The instrument was a single-frequency radar at 14 GHz. It had 

an instantaneous FOV of 5 km (3.1 mi) at nadir with a minimum vertical 

resolution of 250 m (820 ft). The instrument was able to detect rain rates 

of 0.5 mm per hour. 

Cloud and Earth Radiant Energy Sensor (CERES) 

PI: Bruce R. Barkstrom, LRC

This visible/infrared sensor measured energy rising from the surface of 

Earth and the atmosphere, including its constituents. This flight-ofopportunity instrument was an EOS-era instrument that was flown before 

the launch of the EOS spacecraft. It measured the longwave channel in 

addition to a total-wavelength channel to measure the radiant fluxes. The 

total channel covered the spectral region from 0.3 to 50 microns with a 

radiometric accuracy of 0.5 percent; the shortwave channel covered the 

wavelength range from 0.3 to 5 microns with a radiometric accuracy of 

1.0 percent; and the longwave channel covered the spectral region from 8 

to 12 microns with a radiometric accuracy of 0.3 percent. It provided 

measurements at 10-km (6.2-mi) resolution at nadir. The instrument was 

similar to the ERBE scanner flown on the ERBS and NOAA polarorbiting satellites.

Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) 

PI: Hugh J. Christian, Jr., MSFC 

This optical telescope and filter imaging system investigated the 

distribution and variability of both atmospheric and cloud-to-ground 

lightning over Earth. This flight-of-opportunity instrument was an EOSera instrument that was flown prior to the launch of the EOS spacecraft. It 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 96
was a calibrated optical instrument designed to measure global lightning 

and its correlation with rainfall. LIS detected both intracloud and cloudto-ground lightning at storm-scale resolution over Earth’s surface. It used 

an expanded optics wide FOV lens combined with a narrow-band 

interference filter to focus the image on a small, high-speed, chargecoupled device focal plane. The signal was read from the focal plane into 

a real-time processor for event detection and data compression. Four 

methods were used to measure lightning: 1) a spatial filter matched the 

instantaneous FOV of each detector element in the LIS focal plane (about 

10 km/6.2 mi), 2) spectral filtering was applied using a narrow-band 

interference filter centered on the optical emission line OI (1) at 777.4 nm 

in the lightning spectrum, 3) temporal filtering was applied to reduce the 

signal-to-noise ratio between the lightning event and the background, and 

4) a modified frame-to-frame background subtraction removed the slowly 

varying background signal from the raw data from the LIS focal plane. 

The LIS provided 3.8-km (2.4-mi) × 3.8-km (2.4-mi) resolution at nadir.

Prime contractor In-house NASA project

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 97
Table 2-78. NOAA Polar-Orbiting Satellite Instruments

Instrument/Mission NOAA-12 (D) NOAA-13 (I) NOAA-14 (J) NOAA-15 (K)

Advanced Very High 

Resolution Radiometer 

(AVHRR)

Five channels Five channels Five channels AVHRR/3 (six 

channels) 

TIROS Operational Vertical 

Sounder System (TOVS) 

Three-instrument 

suite

Threeinstrument 

suite

Three-instrument 

suite

No

High Resolution Infrared 

Radiation Sounder (HIRS)

HIRS/2I HIRS/2I HIRS/2I HIRS/3 (not part 

of TOVS)

Stratospheric Sounding Unit 

(SSU)

No (carried a 

dummy SSU)

Yes Yes No

Microwave Sounding Unit 

(MSU)

Yes Yes Yes No

Advanced Microwave 

Sounding Unit (AMSU)-A

No No No Yes

AMSU-B No No No Yes

Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet 

Radiometer (SBUV)/2

Yes Yes Yes No

Space Environment Monitor 

(SEM)

Yes Yes Yes SEM/2

Data Collection System 

(DCS)

Yes Yes Yes DCS/2

Search and Rescue Repeater 

(SARR)

No Yes Yes Yes

Search and Rescue Processor 

(SARP)

No Yes Yes Yes

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 98
Table 2-79. NOAA-12 (NOAA-D) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site May 14, 1991/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Atlas-E

NASA role Procuring and developing the spacecraft, instruments, and associated 

ground stations; launching the spacecraft; conducting on-orbit checkout of 

the spacecraft

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives267 To launch the spacecraft into a Sun-synchronous orbit of sufficient 

accuracy to enable it to accomplish its operational mission requirements, 

to conduct an in-orbit evaluation and checkout of the spacecraft, and, 

upon completion of this evaluation, to turn operational control of the 

spacecraft over to NOAA

Orbit characteristics

Apogee 833 km (518 mi)

Perigee 833 km (518 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.70

Period (min) 101.35

Weight At liftoff: 1,418 kg (3,127 lb); on-orbit: 735 kg (1,620 lb)

Dimensions Main body: 3.71 m (12.2 ft) long, 1.88 m (6.2 ft) in diameter; solar array: 

2.37 m (7.8 ft) × 4.91 m (16.1 ft)

Power source Solar arrays and batteries

Instruments268 AVHRR/2: A radiation-detection instrument that remotely determined 

cloud cover and surface temperature. It used five detectors that collected 

different bands of radiation wavelengths, allowing multispectral analysis 

to define hydrologic, oceanographic, and meteorological parameters more 

precisely. Provided by ITT.

HIRS/2: Detected and measured energy emitted by the atmosphere to 

construct a vertical temperature profile from Earth’s surface to an altitude 

of about 40 km (24.9 mi). Measurements were made in 20 spectral regions 

in the IR band (one frequency lay at the high end of the visible range). 

Provided by ITT. 

MSU: Detected and measured the energy from the troposphere to 

construct a vertical temperature profile to an altitude of about 10 km (6.2 

mi). Measurements were made by radiometric detection of microwave 

energy divided into four frequency channels. Each measurement was 

made by comparing the incoming signal from the troposphere with the 

ambient temperature reference load. Since MSU data was not seriously 

affected by clouds, the MSU was used in conjunction with the HIRS/2 to 

remove measurement ambiguity when clouds were present. Provided by 

JPL.

SEM: A multichannel charged-particle spectrometer that measured the 

population of Earth’s radiation belts and the particle precipitation 

phenomena resulting from solar activity contributing to the 

267 “NOAA-D Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. E-615-91-01, May 1991. 268 “NOAA-D,” NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pp. 5–10.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 99
solar/terrestrial energy interchange. Its objectives were to determine the 

energy deposited by solar particles in the upper atmosphere and provide a 

solar “warning system.” It consisted of two separate sensor units and a 

common data-processing unit. The lower-energy total-energy detector 

(TED) and proton and electron telescopes of the medium-energy 

proton/electron detector (MEPED) had pairs of sensors with different 

orientations because the direction of the particle fluxes was important for 

characterizing the energy interchanges taking place. Provided by 

Loral/NOAA Space Environmental Laboratory. 

Argos DCS: Consisted of approximately 2,000 platforms (buoys, freefloating balloons, and remote weather stations) that measured temperature, 

pressure, and altitude and transmitted the data to the satellite. The onboard DCS received the signal, measured the frequency and relative time 

of occurrence of each transmission, and transmitted the data to the central 

processing facility. The DCS information was decommutated and sent to 

the CNES Argos processing center for processing, distribution, and 

archiving on magnetic tape. Provided by France.

Prime contractor General Electric Astro Space Division269

269 “NASA To Launch NOAA-D Meteorological Satellite,” NASA News Release 91-72, May 9, 1991, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-060.txt (accessed February 22, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 100
Table 2-80. NOAA-13 (NOAA-I) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site August 9, 1993/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Atlas-E

NASA role Procuring and developing the spacecraft, instruments, and associated 

ground stations; launching the spacecraft; conducting on-orbit checkout of 

the spacecraft

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives270 • To maintain a two-satellite system that meets NOAA/NESDIS 

operational environmental requirements of providing continuous 

observation of Earth and its atmosphere from Sun-synchronous orbit 

• To procure, develop, test, and launch an operational polar-orbiting 

satellite system that meets stated NOAA/NESDIS requirements

• To continue research and development of low-Earth orbiting (LEO) 

satellite techniques as necessary to support NOAA/NESDIS

Orbit characteristics

Apogee 870 km (541 mi)

Perigee 870 km (541 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.86

Period (min) 102.12

Weight At liftoff: 1,712 kg (3,775 lb); on-orbit: 1,030 kg (2,288 lb)

Dimensions Main body: 4.18 m (13.7 ft) long, 1.88 m (6.2 ft) in diameter; solar array: 

2.37 m (7.8 ft) × 4.91 m (16.1 ft)

Power source Solar arrays and batteries

Instruments SBUV/2: A spectrally scanning ultraviolet radiometer measuring solar 

irradiance and scene radiance over the spectral range of 160 to 400 nm. 

This instrument made measurements from which the total concentration of 

atmospheric ozone could be determined to an absolute accuracy of 1 

percent and the vertical distribution of atmospheric ozone could be 

determined to an absolute accuracy of 5 percent.

TOVS: Consisted of three instruments: the HIRS/2I, SSU, and MSU. All 

three instruments measured radiant energy from various altitudes of the 

atmosphere. The data was used to determine the atmosphere’s temperature 

profile from Earth’s surface to the upper stratosphere.

SSU: Measured temperature in the upper stratosphere derived from 

radiance measurements made in three channels using a pressuremodulated gas (CO2) to accomplish selective bandpass filtration of the 

sampled radiances. The gas was of a pressure chosen to yield weighting 

functions peaking in the altitude range of 25 km (15.5 mi) to 50 km (31 

mi), where atmospheric pressure was 15.5 mbar to 1.5 mbar, respectively. 

The gas was contained in three cells, one of which was located in the 

optical path of each channel. Provided by Matra Marconi/U.K.

Search-and-Rescue Instruments: Consisted of a three-band (121.5, 243, 

and 406.05 MHz) SARR and a 406.025-MHz SARM. The SARR was 

provided by Canada, and the SARM was provided by France. See the 

270 “POES Project Plan, NOAA-H, -I, and -J,” p. 2-1.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 101
section on Search and Rescue later in this chapter for additional details.

Argos DCS: Consisted of approximately 2,000 platforms (buoys, freefloating balloons, and remote weather stations) that collected and 

transmitted relevant data to the satellite. The on-board DCS received the 

incoming signal and measured the frequency and relative time of 

occurrence of each transmission. The spacecraft then transmitted the data 

to the central processing facility. The DCS information was 

decommutated and sent to the Argos processing center for processing, 

distribution, and archiving on magnetic tape. Provided by France. 

Energetic Heavy Ion Composition Experiment (EHIC): Designed to 

measure the chemical and isotopic composition of energetic particles 

between hydrogen and nickel over the energy range of 0.5 million electron 

volts (MeV)/nucleon to 200 MeV/nucleon. It was to measure trapped 

energetic particles in the magnetosphere and energetic solar flare particles 

in the polar regions, where Earth’s magnetic field connected to the 

interplanetary field carried in the solar wind.271 Provided by the University 

of Chicago and the Canadian National Research Council Herzberg 

Institute of Astrophysics. 

Magnetospheric Atmospheric X-Ray Imaging Experiment (MAXIE): 

Designed to map the intensities and energy spectra of x-rays produced by 

electrons precipitating into the atmosphere. It would use mechanical 

scanning to obtain new high-resolution x-ray imaging data on auroral and 

substorm processes with a temporal resolution and repetition rate that 

were previously unavailable. Provided by the Lockheed Missiles and 

Space Company Palo Alto Research Laboratory, Aerospace Corporation, 

and the University of Bergen, Norway.272

Prime contractor Martin Marietta Astro Space273

271 Advanced TIROS-N (ATN), NOAA-I, Goddard Space Flight Center, pp. 15–16. Also “Energetic Heavy Ion 

Composition (EHIC),” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1993-

050A&ex=7 (accessed February 5, 2007). 272 Advanced TIROS-N (ATN), NOAA-I, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pp. 15–16. 273 “Investigation Panel Releases Report on NOAA-13 Failure,” NASA News Release 94-157, September 20, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-157.txt (accessed February 23, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 102
Table 2-81. NOAA-14 (NOAA-J) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site December 30, 1994/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Atlas-E

NASA role Procuring and developing the spacecraft, instruments, and associated 

ground stations; launching the spacecraft; conducting on-orbit checkout of 

the spacecraft

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives274 • To procure, develop, test, and launch an operational polar-orbiting 

satellite system that meets stated NOAA/NESDIS requirements

• To maintain a two-satellite system that meets NOAA/NESDIS 

operational environmental requirements of providing continuous 

observation of Earth and its atmosphere from Sun-synchronous orbit 

• To continue the research and development of low-Earth orbiting 

satellite techniques as necessary to support NOAA/NESDIS

Orbit characteristics

Apogee 870 km (541 mi)

Perigee 870 km (541 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.86

Period (min) 102.12

Weight At liftoff: 1,712 kg (3,775 lb); on-orbit: 1,030 kg (2,288 lb)

Dimensions Main body: 4.18 m (13.7 ft) long, 1.88 m (6.2 ft) in diameter; solar array: 

2.37 m (7.8 ft) × 4.91 m (16.1 ft)

Power source Solar arrays and batteries

Instruments SBUV/2: A spectrally scanning ultraviolet radiometer that measured solar 

irradiance and scene radiance over the spectral range of 160 to 400 nm. It 

made measurements from which total ozone concentration in the 

atmosphere could be determined to an absolute accuracy of 1 percent and 

the vertical distribution of atmospheric ozone could be determined to an 

absolute accuracy of 5 percent. 

Prime contractor Martin Marietta Astro Space275

274 “POES Project Plan, NOAA-H, -I, and -J,” p. 2-1. 275 “December 4 Launch Planned for NOAA-J,” NASA News Release 94-189, November 15, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-189.txt (accessed February 23, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 103
Table 2-82. NOAA-15 (NOAA-K) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site May 13, 1998/Vandenberg Air Force Base

Launch vehicle Titan II

NASA role Procuring and developing the spacecraft, instruments, and associated 

ground stations; launching the spacecraft; conducting on-orbit checkout of 

the spacecraft

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives To procure, develop, test, and launch an operational polar-orbiting 

satellite system that will meet the observational requirements as specified 

by NOAA and to develop and integrate instrument sets for the Metop 

spacecraft276

Orbit characteristics

Apogee 833 km (518 mi)

Perigee 833 km (518 mi)

Inclination (deg) 98.70

Period (min) 101.35

Weight At liftoff: 2,232 kg (4,920 lb), including 756.7 kg (1,668.2 lb) of 

expendable fuel

Dimensions Main body: 4.2 m (13.75 ft) long, 1.88 m (6.2 ft) in diameter; solar array: 

2.73 m (8.96 ft) × 6.14 m (20.16 ft)

Power source Solar arrays and batteries

Instruments AVHRR/3: A six-channel imaging radiometer monitoring reflected 

energy in the visible and near-IR portions of the electromagnetic spectrum 

to observe vegetation, clouds, lakes, shorelines, snow, aerosols, and ice. It 

also determined the radiative energy from the temperature of the land, 

water, and sea surface, as well as the clouds above them. Provided by ITT.

AMSU-A: Measured scene radiance in the microwave spectrum. Data 

from this instrument was used in conjunction with the HIRS to calculate 

global atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles from Earth’s 

surface to the upper stratosphere, approximately 48 km (28 mi). The data 

was also used to provide precipitation and surface measurements 

including snow cover, sea ice concentration, and soil moisture. AMSU-A 

was divided into two physically separate modules, each of which operated 

and interfaced with the spacecraft independently. Module A-1 contained 

13 channels, and Module A-2 contained two channels. Provided by 

Aerojet.

AMSU-B: Calculated vertical water vapor profiles from Earth’s surface to 

about 12 km (7.5 mi). It had five channels from 89 GHz to 183 GHz and 

completed one scan every 2.66 seconds. 

HIRS/3: An atmospheric sounding instrument that measured scene 

radiance in the IR spectrum. It had 1 visible channel, 7 shortwave IR 

channels, and 12 longwave IR channels. Data from the instrument was 

used in conjunction with the AMSU instruments to calculate the 

276 “Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) Program Plan,” GSFC-S-480-125, April 1999, NASA Goddard 

Space Flight Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 104
atmosphere’s vertical temperature profile from Earth’s surface to about 40 

km (24.9 mi) altitude. The data was also used to determine ocean surface 

temperatures, total atmospheric ozone levels, precipitable water, cloud 

height and coverage, and surface radiance. The instrument completed one 

scan line every 6.4 seconds. Provided by ITT. 

SEM/2: Provided measurements to determine the intensity of Earth’s 

radiation belts and flux of charged particles at satellite altitude. It provided 

information relating to solar-terrestrial phenomena and warned of solar 

wind occurrences that might impair long-range communication and highaltitude space operations, damage satellite circuits and solar panels, and 

cause changes in drag and magnetic torque on satellites. Consisted of two 

separate sensor units and a common data processing unit. The TED sensed 

and quantified the intensity of particles with energies ranging from 0.05 

keV to 20 keV in the sequentially selected energy bands. The MEPED 

sensed protons, electrons, and ions with energies from 30 keV to levels 

exceeding 6.9 MeV. Provided by Panametrics via the NOAA Space 

Environment Center. 

Search-and-Rescue Instruments: Consisted of a three-band (121.5, 243, 

and 406.05 MHz) SARR and the 406.050-MHz SARP-2. The instruments 

were part of the international Cospas-Sarsat system designed to detect and 

locate emergency locator transmitters (ELTs), emergency positionindicating radio beacons (EPIRBs), and personal locator beacons (PLBs) 

operating at 121.5, 243, and 406 MHz. The SARR was provided by 

Canada; the SARP was provided by France. Similar instruments were 

carried by the Russian COSPAS polar-orbiting satellites. See the section 

on Search and Rescue later in this chapter for additional details.

DCS: Consisted of platforms (buoys, free-floating balloons, and remote 

weather stations) that collected and transmitted relevant data to the 

satellite. The system measured environmental factors such as atmospheric 

temperature and pressure and velocity and direction of ocean and wind 

currents. The on-board DCS received the incoming signal and measured 

each transmission’s frequency and relative time of occurrence, and the 

spacecraft transmitted this data to the ground once per orbit. 

Subsequently, the data was sent to the Centre National d’Études Spatiales 

in Toulouse, France, and the Service Argos Facility in Lanham, MD, for 

processing, distribution to users, and archiving. Provided by France.

Prime contractor Martin Marietta Astro Space277

Source: “NOAA-K,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NASA Publication-1997-12-052-GSFC.

277 “December 4 Launch Planned for NOAA-J,” NASA News Release 94-189, November 15, 1994, 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-189.txt (accessed February 23, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 105
Table 2-83. GOES-8 (GOES-I) Mission Characteristics

Launch date/launch site April 13, 1994/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

Launch vehicle Atlas I

NASA role278 • Procurement, development, and verification testing of the spacecraft, 

instruments, and unique ground equipment 

• Activities at the launch site Payload Processing Facility and satellite 

performance testing at the launch site before and after mating 

operations with the launch vehicle

• Arranging for communications data lines and circuits during 

spacecraft launch simulations

• Providing engineering support to NOAA during the design and 

development of the ground telemetry and command system 

• Mission phase leading to injection into geostationary orbit after 

deployment of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle and initial inorbit satellite checkout and evaluation

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives279 • To maintain continuous service from a GOES system that meets the 

remote sensing requirements specified by NOAAM—that is, to 

provide for continuous observation of Earth and its atmosphere from a 

geosynchronous orbit 

• To continue the research and development of GOES techniques as 

appropriate to support NOAA

Orbit characteristics280

Apogee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Perigee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Inclination (deg) 0.41

Period (min) 1,436

Weight At liftoff: 2,105 kg (4,641 lb)

Dimensions 2.0 m (6.6 ft) × 2.1 m (6.9 ft) × 2.3 m (7.5 ft)

Power source Solar array and two NiCd batteries

Instruments Imager: This five-channel (one visible, four infrared) imaging radiometer 

simultaneously sensed radiant and solar reflected energy from sampled 

areas of Earth. By means of a servo-driven, two-axis gimbaled mirror 

scanning system along with a Cassegrain telescope, the Imager’s 

multispectral channels alternately swept an 8-km (5-mi) north-to-south 

swath along an east-to-west and west-to-east path at a rate of 20 degrees 

(optical) east-to-west per second. This translated into being able to scan a 

3,000 × 3,000 km (1,864 × 1,864 mi) “box” centered over the United 

States in 41 seconds.281 The Imager was developed by ITT 

Aerospace/Communications Division.282

278 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” April 1993, 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, p. 1-2.

279 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” pp. 2-2–2-3. 280 “NOAA’s Geostationary and Polar-Orbiting Weather Satellites,” http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/genlsatl.html 

(accessed February 24, 2006).

281 “GOES Imager Instrument,” http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/imager.html (accessed February 24, 2006). 282 GOES I-M Databook, Rev. 1, Space Systems/Loral, DRL 101-08, August 31, 1996, p. 5.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 106
Sounder: This 19-channel radiometer probed the atmosphere and 

measured radiated energy at different depths (altitudes). It recorded 

surface and cloud-top temperatures and ozone distribution for emitted 

radiation in one visible band and 18 thermal bands that were sensitive to 

temperature, moisture, and ozone, as well as to reflected solar radiation. 

The Sounder looked at conditions in “columns” of the atmosphere—

cylindrical sections extending from Earth’s surface to the upper reaches of 

the atmosphere. 

The Sounder operated by means of a scan mirror that stepped across the 

disk of Earth in a west-to-east and east-to-west direction along a north-tosouth path as a 28.2-cm (11.1-in) filter wheel rotated. Incoming radiation 

passed through a set of filters before reaching the detectors. The Sounder 

was developed by ITT Aerospace/Communications Division.

SAR Transponder: The SAR system on board each GOES satellite 

consisted of a dedicated transponder that detected the presence of distress 

signals broadcast by ELTs carried on general aviation aircraft and by 

EPIRBs aboard some classes of marine vessels. Search and rescue was 

performed by relaying the distress signals emitted from the ELT/EPIRBs 

via the GOES satellite to a SARSAT ground station located within the 

FOV of the spacecraft. Through a Rescue Coordination Center (RCC), 

help was dispatched to the downed aircraft or ship in distress.283

DCS: This system collected environmental data transmitted from more 

than 10,000 domestic and international data-collection platforms 

consisting of buoys and remote environmental monitoring stations. Each 

data-collection platform contained one or more sensors that gathered and 

transmitted the data at ultra high frequency to the GOES-East or -West 

spacecraft. To use the service, a data-collection platform had to be located 

within the footprint of a GOES. The data was used to develop analyses, 

warnings, and forecasts of environmental events such as tsunamis, tropical 

cyclones, floods, river stages, soil conditions, and snow depth.284

WEFAX Data Relay System: The NASA Wallops ground station 

retransmitted images and meteorological analyses to users through the 

WEFAX service. Data originated from the National Weather Service and 

NOAA image processing facilities and was provided to users 

appropriately configured with ground receiving stations.285

SEM: The SEM instruments consisted of a magnetometer, an x-ray sensor 

(XRS), a high energy proton and alpha detector (HEPAD), and an 

energetic particles sensor (EPS). All surveyed the Sun, measuring in situ 

its effect on the near-Earth solar-terrestrial electromagnetic environment 

and providing real-time data to the Space Environment Services Center 

(SESC). Changes in this “space weather” can affect the operational 

reliability of ionospheric radio; over-the-horizon radar; electric power 

transmission; and human crews of high-altitude aircraft, the Space Shuttle, 

283 GOES I-M Databook, Rev. 1, Space Systems/Loral, DRL 101-08, August 31, 1996, pp. 95–96. 284 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” p. 4-27. 285 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” p. 4-27.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 107
or a space station.

The XRS, mounted on an x-ray positioning platform, monitored the Sun’s 

total x-ray activity. The EPS and HEPAD detected energetic electron and 

proton radiation trapped by Earth’s magnetic field as well as direct solar 

protons, alpha particles, and cosmic rays. Two redundant three-axis 

magnetometers mounted on a deployed 3-m (9.8-ft) boom operated one at 

a time to monitor Earth’s geomagnetic field strength in the vicinity of the 

spacecraft and variations caused by ionospheric and magnetospheric 

current flows. Panametrics provided all the sensors except for the 

magnetometer, which was built by Schonstedt Instrument Company.286

Prime contractor Space Systems/Loral

286 GOES I-M Databook, Rev. 1, Space Systems/Loral, DRL 101-08, August 31, 1996, pp. iii, v, 6, 58,).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 108
Table 2-84. GOES-9 (GOES-J) Mission Characteristics

Launch date/launch site May 23, 1995/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

Launch vehicle Atlas I

NASA role287 • Procurement, development, and verification testing of the spacecraft, 

instruments, and unique ground equipment 

• Activities at the launch site Payload Processing Facility and satellite 

performance testing at the launch site before and after mating 

operations with the launch vehicle

• Arranging for communications data lines and circuits during 

spacecraft launch simulations

• Providing engineering support to NOAA during the design and 

development of the ground telemetry and command system 

• Mission phase leading to injection into geostationary orbit after 

deployment of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle and initial inorbit satellite checkout and evaluation

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives288 • To maintain continuous service from a GOES system that meets the 

remote sensing requirements as specified by NOAA, that is, to 

provide for continuous observation of Earth and its atmosphere from a 

geosynchronous orbit 

• To continue the research and development of GOES techniques as 

appropriate to support NOAA

Orbit characteristics289

Apogee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Perigee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Inclination (deg) 0.41

Period (min) 1,436

Weight At liftoff: 2,105 kg (4,641 lb)

Dimensions 2.0 m (6.6 ft) × 2.1 m (6.9 ft) × 2.3 m (7.5 ft)

Power source Solar array and two NiCd batteries

Instruments Same as GOES-8

Prime contractor Space Systems/Loral

287 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” p. 1-2. 288 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” pp. 2-2–2-3.

289 “NOAA’s Geostationary and Polar-Orbiting Weather Satellites,” http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/genlsatl.html

(accessed February 24, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 109
Table 2-85. GOES-10 (GOES-K) Characteristics

Launch date/launch site April 25, 1997/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

Launch vehicle Atlas I

NASA role290 • Procurement, development, and verification testing of the spacecraft, 

instruments, and unique ground equipment 

• Activities at the launch site Payload Processing Facility and satellite 

performance testing at the launch site before and after mating 

operations with the launch vehicle

• Arranging for communications data lines and circuits during 

spacecraft launch simulations

• Providing engineering support to NOAA during the design and 

development of the ground telemetry and command system

• Mission phase leading to injection into geostationary orbit after 

deployment of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle and initial inorbit satellite checkout and evaluation

Responsible (lead) Center GSFC

Mission objectives291 • To maintain continuous service from a GOES system that meets the 

remote sensing requirements as specified by NOAA, that is, to 

provide for continuous observation of Earth and its atmosphere from a 

geosynchronous orbit 

• To continue the research and development of GOES techniques as 

appropriate to support NOAA

Orbit characteristics292

Apogee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Perigee 22,236 mi (35,786 km)

Inclination (deg) 0.41

Period (min) 1,436

Weight At liftoff: 2,105 kg (4,641 lb)

Dimensions 2.0 m (6.6 ft) × 2.1 m (6.9 ft) × 2.3 m (7.5 ft)

Power source Solar array and two NiCd batteries

Instruments Same as GOES-8 and GOES-9

Prime contractor Space Systems/Loral

290 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” p. 1-2.

291 “Execution Phase Project Plan for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-I/M),” pp. 2-2–2-3.

292 “NOAA’s Geostationary and Polar-Orbiting Weather Satellites,” http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/genlsatl.html 

(accessed February 24, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 110
Table 2-86. TOPEX/Poseidon Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site August 10, 1992/Kourou, French Guiana

Launch vehicle Ariane 42P

NASA’s role Supplied the dual-frequency radar altimeter, the laser retroreflector array, 

the TOPEX microwave radiometer, and the global positioning receiver

Responsible (lead) Center JPL

Mission objectives293 To map ocean topography and circulation to better understand the 

oceans’ role in regulating global climate change

Orbit characteristics294

Apogee 1,336 km (830 mi)

Perigee 1,336 km (830 mi)

Inclination (deg) 66

Period (min) 112

Weight 2,402 kg295 (5,295 lb)

Dimensions 2.8 m (9.2 ft) × 5.5 m (18 ft); solar panel 3.3 m (10.8 ft) × 8.7 m (28.5 

ft)296

Power source Single solar panel and three batteries

Instruments and 

experiments297

Dual-Frequency (C- and Ku-band) Radar Altimeter: This was the

primary instrument. It measured wave and satellite-to-sea-surface 

heights, provided ionospheric corrections, and measured wind speed 

directly beneath the spacecraft. Provided by NASA. 

Single-Frequency (Ku-band) Solid-State Altimeter (SSALT): Was a lowpower, low-mass sensor that measured the height of the satellite above 

the sea. Designed and built by ALCATEL-ESPACE for CNES.

Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA): Was used to calibrate the other 

location systems (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated 

by Satellite [DORIS] and Turbo Rogue Space Receiver [TRSR]) on the 

satellite with a very high degree of precision. By measuring the length of 

time a laser beam took to travel from Earth to the spacecraft and back, 

scientists could calculate TOPEX/Poseidon’s orbital radial position. 

Designed and built by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics 

293 “Ocean Surface Topography from Space: MISSIONS—TOPEX/Poseidon Fact Sheet,” http://topexwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tp-fact-sheet.html (accessed January 12, 2006).

294 “Ocean Surface Topography from Space: MISSIONS—TOPEX/Poseidon Fact Sheet.” Also “TOPEX/Poseidon 

Mission Objectives,” http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/topex/index.html (accessed January 

12, 2006).

295 “Ocean Surface Topography from Space: MISSIONS—TOPEX/Poseidon Fact Sheet.”

296 “Current Missions—Topex/Poseidon,” http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/current/topex.html (accessed February 3, 

2006).

297 “Ocean Surface Topography from Space: Missions—TOPEX/Poseidon Fact Sheet.” “Ocean Surface Topography 

from Space: Technology,” http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/technology.html; “Ocean Surface Topography 

from Space: Technology—Instrument Description, Altimeter(s),” http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrumentaltimeter.html; “Ocean Surface Topography from Space: Technology—Instrument Description, LRA—Laser 

Retroreflector Array,” http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrument-lra.html; “Ocean Surface Topography from 

Space: Technology—Instrument Description, Radiometer,” http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/instrumentradiometer.html (all accessed January 12, 2006). “Topex/Poseidon,” NSSDC Master Catalog, 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1992-052A (accessed February 22, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 111
Laboratory for NASA.

TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR): Was a three-frequency sensor 

used to estimate the atmospheric water vapor content in the nadir column 

through which the altimeter signal travels. Radiometer data enabled 

researchers to determine how water vapor affects radar signal 

propagation. It was also used to study other atmospheric phenomena. 

Provided by NASA. 

GPS/TRSR: Supported precise, continuous orbit determination by the 

DORIS system by monitoring range and timing signals from up to six 

GPS spacecraft at the same time. Also helped improve gravity field 

models. Provided by NASA. 

DORIS Tracking System: Located the satellite on orbit in real time. 

Anchored by approximately 50 ground-based beacons, the DORIS 

receiver measured the Doppler shift of microwave signals to support 

precise orbit determination. Provided by CNES. 

Prime contractor Fairchild Space Company

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 112
Table 2-87. TOPEX/Poseidon Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Altimetry Analysis with Sea Floor Electric 

Data

P. Tarits, Institut de Physique du Globe Paris, France

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current D. Chelton, Oregon State University, U.S.

Data Assimilation by Ocean Models P. de Mey, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

Equatorial and Eastern Boundary Currents T. Strub, Oregon State University, U.S.

Geophysical Validation of Altimetry Y. Menard, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

Global Ocean Circulation C. Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

U.S.

Global Ocean Tides C. Le Provost, Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble, 

France

Global Ocean Tides B. Sanchez, Goddard Space Flight Center, U.S.

Gyres of the World Oceans L-L. Fu, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, U.S.

Hem Balance of Global Oceans T. Liu, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, U.S.

Marine Geodesy and Geophysics J. Segawa, University of Tokyo, Japan

Marine Geophysics A. Cazenave, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

Marine Research P. Woodworth, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, 

U.K.

Mean Sea Surface and Gravity R. Rapp, Ohio State University, U.S.

Mesoscale and Basin-Scale Ocean Variability J. Minster, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

The Mid-Latitude Western Boundary Currents J. Mitchell, Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Research Laboratory, U.S. 

The Nordic Seas L. Pettersson, University of Bergen, Norway

Ocean Circulation and the Geoid C. Koblinsky, Goddard Space Flight Center, U.S.

Ocean Circulation Modeling J. Schroeter, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and 

Marine Research, Germany

Ocean Dynamics and Geophysics R. Cheney, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey, U.S.

Ocean Surface Topography B. Tapley, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 

U.S.

Oceanic Effects on Earth’s Interior J. Wahr, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, U.S.

The Oceans Around South Africa M. Grundlingh, National Research Institute for 

Oceanography, South Africa 

Orbit Computation and Sea-Surface Modeling K. Wakker, Delft University of Technology, the 

Netherlands

Plate Motions A. Souriau, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

The South Atlantic Ocean M. Ollitrault, Institut Français de Recherche pour 

l’Exploration de la Mer, France

The South Pacific, Southern, and Indian 

Oceans

J. Church, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 

Research Organisation, Australia

Terrestrial Reference Systems C. Boucher, Institut Géographique National, France

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 113
Investigation Principal Investigator

The Pacific Ocean C. K. Tai, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey, U.S.

Tropical Atlantic Ocean E. Katz, Columbia University, New York, NY, U.S.

The Tropical Atlantic Ocean S. Amault, University of Paris VI, France

Tropical Ocean Dynamics R. Lukas, University of Hawai’i, U.S.

The Tropical Pacific Ocean J. Picaut, Groupe SURTROPAC, ORSTOM, New 

Caledonia

Weakly Defined Ocean Gyres G. Born, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, U.S.

Western Equatorial Atlantic Ocean Y. Desaubies, Institut Français de Recherche pour 

l’Exploration de la Mer, France

The Western Mediterranean Sea F. Barlier, Groupe de Recherches de Géodésie 

Spatiale, France

The Western North Pacific Ocean S. Imawaki, Kyushu University, Japan

The Yorth-Australian Tropical Seas D. Burrage, Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, 

Australia

Source: All Principal Investigator information: Lee-Lueng Fu, Edward Christensen, Charles Yamarone, Jr., 

“TOPEX/Poseidon Mission Overview,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, pp. 37–38, http://trsnew.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/34628/1/94-0983.pdf (accessed February 3, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 114
Table 2-88. NASA Scatterometer Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site August 16, 1996/Tanegashima Space Center, Japan

Launch vehicle H-II on ADEOS spacecraft

Mission objectives298 • Acquire all-weather high-resolution measurements of near-surface 

winds over the global oceans 

• Determine atmospheric influences, ocean response, and air–sea 

interactions on various spatial and temporal scales

• Develop improved methods of assimilating wind data into numerical 

weather and wave prediction models 

• Combine wind data with measurements from various scientific 

disciplines to understand processes of global climatic change and 

weather

NASA role Provided scatterometer

Responsible (lead) Center JPL

Orbit characteristics299

Apogee 805 km (500 mi)

Perigee 789 km (490 mi)

Inclination (deg.) 98.6

Period (min.) 100.8

Lead NASA Center JPL

Weight 280 kg (1,617 lb)

Dimensions With solar array paddle and NSCAT antenna deployed: 11 m (36 ft) 

high; with solar array extended: 29 m (95 ft)

Power source Solar array

Prime contractor Jet Propulsion Laboratory

298 “Missions—NSCAT, Winds—Measuring Ocean Winds from Space,” 

http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/nscat/index.cfm (accessed March 2, 2006).

299 “ADEOS TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information,” Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, 

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/adeos/adsat.html (accessed January 10, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 115
Table 2-89. ACTS Experiments (1993–2000) 

Investigation Principal Investigator

ACTS Adaptive Rain Fade Compensation Thom A. Coney, NASA Glenn Research Center

ACTS and Supercomputing in Remote, 

Cooperative Medical Triage Support and 

Radiation Treatment Planning

David Y. Y. Yun, University of Hawai’i

ACTS Autotrack Control Performance 

Experiment

Roberto Acosta, Glenn Research Center (GRC)

ACTS Demonstrations Various investigators for NASA and other 

organizations 

ACTS Fade Compensation Algorithm 

Characterization in I/O

Roberto Acosta, GRC

ACTS Mobile Terminal on a Guided Missile 

Cruiser (AMT/CG)

Roy Askew, Naval Research and Development (NRaD)

ACTS Multibeam Antenna Performance 

Verification Experiment

Roberto Acosta, GRC

ACTS Propagation Experiments in Alaska Charles Mayer, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

ACTS Propagation Measurements A. Karahisar, Teleglobe Canada

ACTS Propagation Measurements Program Louis Ippolito, Stanford Telecommunications

ACTS Propagation Project Bruce Dow, University of British Columbia

ACTS Propagation Studies Robert M. Manning, GRC

ACTS Triangulation Experiment Tina Cox, GRC/Analex Corporation

ACTS Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) 

Experiment/Demonstration 

Charles Shoemaker, ARPA/JPL

ACTS Uplink Transmit Power Control 

Measurement Experiment

Asoka Dissanayake, COMSAT Laboratories

ACTS Wide Area Diversity Experiment Asoka Dissanayake, COMSAT Laboratories

ACTS/AMT Telemedical Experiment Stephen J. Carter, University of Washington

Advanced Air Transportation Technology 

(AATT)

Konstantinos Martzaklis, GRC

Advanced Applications to Validate ACTS 

Technologies 

David Y. Y. Un, PACSPACE

Aeronautical Tracking and High Data Rate 

Experiment

Robert Sternowski, Rockwell International

Aero-X Experiment Plan Ernie Spisz, GRC

Antenna Characterization Using ACTS George O’Brien, Lockheed Martin Western 

Development Laboratories

Application of NASA ACTS System to the 

Group Practice: A Paradigm for Clinical 

Outreach Programs 

Bijoy Khandheria, Mayo Clinic Foundation

Application of the NASA ACTS System to the 

Practice of Medicine in an Integrated Group 

Practice

R. R. Hattery, Mayo Clinic Foundation

Applications of Small Earth Stations in

Conducting Telescience and Telemedicine

Gerald R. Taylor, Krug Life Sciences

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 116
Investigation Principal Investigator

Architecture and Protocols Testing Ben Bennington, Carnegie Mellon University

Army ACTS Experiments Peter Cafaro, U.S. Army Space Command

ATM/TCP Interaction Mark Allman, GRC

Coding Gain Evaluation Kerry D. Lee, Motorola Inc., Strategic Electronics 

Division

Communications Link Performance Roberto Acosta, GRC

Comparative Demo of Interactive Multimedia 

Services at Ku/Ka-band

Mohammed E. Ouid Yahya, INTELSAT

CO-OP 3D: NCAR (National Center for 

Atmospheric Research) Participation in the 

DARPA-NASA ACTS Project

William Kuo, National Center for Atmospheric 

Research

Demonstration of Advanced Networking 

Concepts

Asoka Dissanayake, COMSAT/INTELSAT

Depolarization–Propagation in Inclined Orbit Roberto Acosta, GRC

Digital Imaging and Communications in 

Medicine

Robert Kerczewski, GRC

Disaster Recovery, Backup and 

Communications Augmentation Experiment 

Using ACTS

Don Flournoy, Ohio University/Huntington Banks

Distance Learning in Hazardous Materials and 

Environment Safety

Sherry Randolph, Lockheed Space Operations/KSC

Distributed Global Climate Modeling Larry Bergman, NASA High Performance Computing 

and Communications (HPCC)

Emergency Medical Land Mobile Satellite 

Experiment

Bruce P. Jackson, EMSAT

Encryption and Error Correction Using 

Random Time Smearing Applications to 

Mobile and Personal Satcom

Kent Penwarden, Globalstar

Experiment Plan for 622 Mbps Network Tests 

Between ATDNeT and MAGIC via ACTS

Michael Zernic, GRC

Experimentation with Satellite-Based Personal 

Communications Services (PCS)

Richard Wolff, Bellcore

Experiments and Field Trials Using the ACTS Irene Triantafallou, AT&T Bell Labs

Frame Relay Experiment over ACTS: LAN 

Interconnection Services

Timothy Kirkwood, Maryland CCDS

Georgetown Hemispheric Intercultural 

Network for Knowledge (G-THINK)

Harold C. Bradley, Georgetown University

HBR SMSK Interference Experiment (INTEX) Robert Kerczewski, GRC

High Performance TCP/IP Investigations: The 

Foundation for Internet in Space 

Implementation

Michael Zernic, GRC

High Speed Data Traffic Measurements Over 

the ACTS HDR System

Steve Mainger, GRC/Bellcore

High Speed Global Satellite Experiment for 

Remote HDTV Post-Production

Frank Gargione, Lockheed Martin Aerospace

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 117
Investigation Principal Investigator

Inclined Orbit Link Performance Evaluation Roberto Acosta, GRC

Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) 

via Satellite

Jay Gowens, Army Research Laboratory (ARL)

Internet Protocol Performance and Coding 

Effects 

Hans Kruse, Ohio University/GRC

ISDN Experiment Moorthy Hariharan, COMSAT Labs

Isolated User Access Frank Dixon, National Communications System

Joint Advanced Comm Tech Satellite/Student 

Satellite Testbed

Alex Bordetsky, California State University–Hayward

Ka-Band Ground Experiment Kenneth L. Perko, GSFC

Ka-Band Ground Experiment Proposal Richard Reinhart, GRC/Analex Corporation

Ka-Band Product Validation Jared Smith, Raytheon Telecommunications

Ka-band Propagation Effects on 

Communication Link Performance

Roberto Acosta, GRC

Ka-Band Propagation Measurements 

Experiment Using ACTS Spacecraft

Asoka Dissanayake, COMSAT Laboratories

Ka-Band Propagation Studies Using ACTS 

Propagation Terminal and the CSU-CHILL 

Multiparameter Doppler Radar

V. N. Bringi, Colorado State University

Keck Telescope Data Acquisition, 

Visualization, and Control

Larry Bergman, HPCC

Land Mobile Satellite Measurements in Central 

Maryland & Alaska Using ACTS: Passive 

Antenna Tracking System & Mobile Receiver 

System

Julius Goldhirsh/Wolfhard Vogel, Johns Hopkins 

University/University of Texas

LBR Transmit Window Characterization Kerry D. Lee, Motorola Inc., Strategic Electronics 

Division

Lifelink Sterling Kinkler, Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)

Live from Antarctica 2 Ann Devereaux, JPL

Live from the Rain Forest Geoffrey Hines Stiles, GRC/Passport to Knowledge 

(PTK)

Low Cost SCADA Network R. A. Fernandes, Southern California Edison

MMIC (Monolithic Microwave Integrated 

Circuit) Arrays for Satellite Comm-on-theMove (MASCOM)

Konstantinos S. Martzaklis, GRC/Army

Mobile Experiments Tom Jedrey, JPL

Narrowband ISDN Applications Using ACTS Haniph A. Latchman, University of Florida

No title given (Product Service Enhancement 

Through Advanced SatComm) 

Saliba Shanine, Caterpillar

No title given (Testing New Modalities of 

Space Communications)

Martin Skudlarek, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. 

(LMSI)

Performance Measurements of Applications 

Using ISDN over ACTS

William Kissick, National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration/Institute for 

Telecommunication Science (NTIA/ITS) 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 118
Investigation Principal Investigator

Performance Study of a SONET/ATM 

(Synchronous Optical Network/Asynchronous 

Transfer Mode) Satellite and Terrestrial 

Network and Engine Inlet Simulation 

Saragur M. Srinidhi, GRC/Sterling Software

Propagation Experiments Using ACTS Rudolph Henning/Henry Helmken, University of South 

Florida/Florida Atlantic University

Protocol Evaluation for Advanced Space Data 

Interchange

Quoc T. Nguyen, MITRE Corporation

Prototype Intelsat Operations Alfred Goldman, Jr., COMSAT World Systems

PSN (Public Switched Network) Restoration Frank Dixon, National Communications System

PSN Trunking Frank Dixon, National Communications System

Quantifying ACTS End-to-End 

Communications System Performance

Marjorie Wiebel, National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration/Institute for 

Telecommunication Science (NTIA/ITS)

Rain Attenuation Statistics for the ACTS 

Propagation Experiment for Central Oklahoma

Robert Crane, University of Oklahoma

Real-Time Data/Video/Voice Uplink and 

Downlink for the Kuiper Airborne Observatory 

(KAO)

Wendy Whiting, Ames Research Center (ARC)

Real-Time, High-Bandwidth Data Links Stephen Horan, New Mexico State University

RF Propagation Effects and ACTS Satellite 

Channel Characterization

Paul Steffes, Georgia Technical Research Institute

Satellite and Wireless Networking Michael Rupar, Naval Research Laboratory

Satellite Communications for Transmission of 

Corrections GPS Users

Andrew Austin, U.S. Army Topographic Engineering 

Center

Satellite Networking Research in Scalable 

Networking Technology

Gretchen Bivens, Air Force Research Laboratory–

Rome Laboratory

Satellite Networking Research in Scalable 

Networking Technology

David Legare, USAF Rome Laboratory

Satellite News Vehicle (AMT) Robert Sisko, NBC Network Distribution Engineering

SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition) Testing

Roberto Acosta, GRC

Secure Mobile Communications Frank Dixon, National Communications System

Service Availability–Rain Only Thom A. Coney, GRC

Shipboard HDR ACTS Ka-band Experiment 

(SHAKE)

Michael Rupar, Naval Research Laboratory

Site Diversity Roberto Acosta, GRC

Small Telemammography Network (STN) 

Experiment 

Robert Kerczewski, GRC

T1VSAT Backhaul Experiment Robert Sisko, NBC Network Distribution Engineering

USAT Checkout Philip Sohn, GRC

VAMA: VSAT Access to Medical Archives Rodney Long, National Library of Medicine

Video Data Transmission Using ACTS Henry Helmken, Florida Atlantic University/FL CCDS

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 119
Investigation Principal Investigator

VSAT Statistical Performance in Inclined Orbit Roberto Acosta, GRC

Web Browsing Protocol Test Richard Gedney, ACT Corporation

Wideband Dispersion Experiment Roberto Acosta, GRC

Source: Paul R. McMasters, Analex Corporation, GRC, Science Division, 17 February 2006.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 120
Table 2-90. ACTS Characteristics 

Launch date/launch site September 12, 1993/Kennedy Space Center

Launch vehicle Space Shuttle Discovery, STS-51

NASA role Mission management; provided the Master Ground Station (MGS) at 

Lewis Research Center300

Responsible (lead) Center Lewis Research Center

Mission objectives • To prove that a Ka-band system with on-board switching could 

reliably provide digital integrated services for all types of applications 

and data rates and could operate seamlessly with terrestrial 

networks301

• To test and prove advanced communications technologies and 

evaluate the potential applications of the technologies302

Orbit characteristics303

Apogee 3,957 km (2,458 mi)

Perigee 323 km (201 mi)

Inclination (deg) 15.3

Period (min) 719

Weight 3,250 lb304

Dimensions305 47.1 ft (14.4 m) (including solar arrays) × 29.9 ft (8.9 m) (including main 

receiving and transmitting antenna reflectors) × 15.2 ft (4.6 m) (from 

spacecraft separation plane to the tip of the highest antenna) 

Power source Solar arrays and batteries

Instruments Multi-Beam Communications Package: This package performed 

receiving, switching, momentary storage, selectable coding and decoding, 

and amplifying and transmitting functions for Ka-band time division 

multiple access (TDMA) communications signals. The multi-beam 

antenna (MBA) had fixed beams and hopping spot beams to service traffic 

needs on a dynamic basis. The receiving antenna provided signals to the 

autotrack receiver, generating input error signals to the attitude control 

system for spacecraft pointing operations. Beam forming networks 

(BFNs) used hopping beams to provide independent coverage of the east 

and west scan sectors, plus coverage for isolated locations outside of 

either sector. The MBA also had three fixed spot beams. A steerable beam 

antenna had been incorporated into ACTS to provide antenna coverage of 

the entire disk of Earth as seen from l00°W longitude and to any aircraft 

300 “Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS): Technology, System Overview” 

http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/technology/index.shtml (accessed January 12, 2006). 301 “Applications,” On-Line Journal of Space Communication, Issue 8 (Fall 2005), 

http://satjournal.tcom.ohiou.edu/issue02/applications.html (accessed February 16, 2006). 302 “Switchboard in the Sky: The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS),” NASA Facts, FS-2002-06-

013-GRC, June 2002, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs13grc.html (accessed February 16, 2006). 303 “NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Spacecraft Launch/Orbital Information: ACTS,”

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1993-058B-traj.html (accessed February 13, 2006). Orbit was maintained at 100°W 

longitude.

304 “Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS): About ACTS, History,” 

http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/about/history.shtml (accessed January 12, 2006). 305 “Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS): Technology, Spacecraft,” 

http://acts.grc.nasa.gov/technology/spacecraft/index.shtml (accessed January 12, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 121
or low-Earth orbit spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle, within view of 

ACTS.306

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin

306 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-51 Press Kit,” July 1993, p. 15, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_057_STS-051_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed March 22, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 122
Table 2-91. SLS-1 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Cardiovascular/Cardiopulmonary System

Cardiovascular Adaptation to Microgravity C. Gunnar Blomqvist, University of Texas 

Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX

Inflight Study of Cardiovascular Deconditioning Leon E. Farhi, State University of New York at 

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

Influence of Weightlessness Upon Human 

Autonomic Cardiovascular Controls

Dwain L. Eckberg, Medical College of Virginia, 

Richmond, VA 

Pulmonary Function During Weightlessness John B. West, University of California, San Diego, 

San Diego, CA 

Renal/Endocrine System

Fluid-Electrolyte Regulation During Spaceflight Carolyn Leach-Huntoon, JSC

Blood System

Influence of Spaceflight on Erythrokinetics in 

Man

Clarence Alfrey, Baylor College of Medicine, 

Houston, TX

Regulation of Blood Volume During Spaceflight Clarence Alfrey, Baylor College of Medicine, 

Houston, TX

Regulation of Erythropoiesis in Rats During 

Spaceflight

Robert D. Lange, University of Tennessee Medical 

Center, Knoxville, TN

Immune System

Lymphocyte Proliferation in Weightlessness Augusto Cogoli, Swiss Federal Institute of 

Technology, Zurich, Switzerland

Musculoskeletal System

Bone, Calcium, and Spaceflight Emily Morey-Holton, ARC

Effects of Microgravity on Biochemical and 

Metabolic Properties of Skeletal Muscle in Rats

Kenneth M. Baldwin, University of California, 

Irvine, Irvine, CA

Effects of Microgravity on the Electron 

Microscopy, Histochemistry, and Protease 

Activities of Rat Hind-Limb Muscles

Danny A. Riley, Medical College of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee, WI

Pathophysiology of Mineral Loss During 

Spaceflight

Claude D. Arnaud, University of California–San 

Francisco, San Francisco, CA

Protein Metabolism During Spaceflight T. Peter Stein, University of Medicine and Dentistry 

of New Jersey, Camden, NJ

Skeletal Myosin Isoenzymes in Rats Exposed to 

Microgravity

Joseph Foon Yoong Hoh, University of Sydney, 

Sydney, Australia

Neurovestibular System

Effects of Microgravity-Induced Weightlessness 

on Aurelia Ephyra Differentiation and Statolith 

Synthesis 

Dorothy B. Spangenbert, Eastern Virginia Medical 

School, Norfolk, VA 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 123
Investigation Principal Investigator

Study of the Effects of Space Travel on 

Mammalian Gravity Receptors

Muriel Ross, ARC

Vestibular Experiments in Spacelab Laurence R. Young, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA

Source: “STS-40 Press Kit,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-40/sts-40-press-kit.txt (accessed July 12,

2005).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 124
Table 2-92. SLS-2 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Cardiovascular/Cardiopulmonary System

Cardiovascular Adaptation to Zero Gravity C. Gunnar Blomqvist, University of Texas 

Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX

Inflight Study of Cardiovascular Deconditioning Leon E. Farhi, State University of New York at 

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

Pulmonary Function During Weightlessness John B. West, University of California, San Diego, 

San Diego, CA 

Regulatory Physiology

Fluid-Electrolyte Regulation During Spaceflight Carolyn S. Leach, JSC, Houston, TX

Influence of Spaceflight on Erythrokinetics in 

Man

Clarence P. Alfrey, Baylor College of Medicine, 

Houston, TX

Regulation of Blood Volume During Spaceflight Clarence P. Alfrey, Baylor College of Medicine, 

Houston, TX

Regulation of Erythropoiesis in Rats During 

Spaceflight

Albert T. Ichiki, University of Tennessee Medical 

Center, Knoxville, TN

Neuroscience

Study of the Effects of Space Travel on 

Mammalian Gravity Receptors

Muriel D. Ross, ARC

Vestibular Experiments in Spacelab Daniel M. Merfeld (Acting), Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology, Cambridge, MA

Musculoskeletal System

Bone, Calcium, and Spaceflight Emily R. Morey-Holton, ARC

Effects of Zero Gravity on the Functional and 

Biochemical Properties of Antigravity Skeletal 

Muscle in Rats

Kenneth M. Baldwin, College of Medicine, 

University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Electron Microscopy, Electromyography, and 

Protease Activities of Rat Hindlimb Muscles

Dan A. Riley, Medical College of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee, WI

Pathophysiology of Mineral Loss During 

Spaceflight

Claude D. Arnaud, University of California, San 

Francisco, San Francisco, CA

Protein Metabolism During Spaceflight T. Peter Stein, University of Medicine and Dentistry 

of New Jersey, Camden, NJ

Source: “Spacelab Life Sciences 2 (SLS-2) Post Launch Mission Operation Report,” pp. 3–10, NASA History Division 

folder 00891, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, and “Space Shuttle Mission STS58 Press Kit,” September 1993, pp. 16–26.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 125
Table 2-93. IML-1 Hardware 

Hardware Developer

Materials Sciences Experiment Hardware

Critical Point Facility ESA

Cryostat Deutsche Agentur für Raumfahrtangelegenheiten 

(DARA) (German space agency)

Fluids Experiment System NASA

Mercury Iodide Crystal Growth CNES

Organic Crystal Growth Facility NASDA

Protein Crystal Growth NASA

Space Acceleration Measurement System NASA

Vapor Crystal Growth System NASA

Life Sciences Experiment Hardware

Biorack ESA

Biostack Deutschen Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR) 

(German Aerospace Center)

Gravitational Plant Physiology Facility NASA

Mental Workload and Performance Experiment NASA

Microgravity Vestibular Investigations NASA

Radiation Monitoring Container Device NASDA

Space Physiology Experiments CSA

Source: “ESA—IML-1,” European Space Agency Public Relations, NASA History Division folder 008629, Historical 

Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 126
Table 2-94. IML-1 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator/Provider

IML-1 Life Science Experiments

Biorack Facility ESA

Chondrogenesis in Micromass Cultures of Mouse 

Limb Mesenchyme Exposed to Microgravity 

(CELLS) 

P. J. Duke, Dental Science Institute, University of 

Texas, Houston, TX

Dosimetric Mapping Inside Biorack (DOSIMTR) G. Reitz, Institute for Flight Medicine, Cologne, 

Germany

Dynamic Cell Culture System (CULTURE) Augusto Cogoli, ETH Institute of Biotechnology 

Space Biology Group, Zurich, Switzerland

Effects of Microgravity and Mechanical Stimulation 

on the In-Vitro Mineralization and Resorption of 

Fetal Mouse Bones (BONES)

Jacobos-Paul Veldhuijzen, ACTA Free University, 

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Effects of Microgravity Environment on Cell Wall 

Regeneration, Cell Divisions, Growth and 

Differentiation of Plants From Protoplasts (PROTO)

Ole Rasmussen, Institute of Molecular Biology and 

Plant Physiology, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, 

Denmark

Effects of Space Environment on the Development of 

Drosophila melanogaster (FLY)

Roberto Marco, Department of Biochemistry, UAM 

Institute of Biomedical Investigations CSIC, Madrid, 

Spain

Embryogenesis and Organogenesis of Carausius

(MOROSUS)

H. Buecker, Institute for Flight Medicine, DLR, 

Cologne, Germany 

Genetic and Molecular Dosimetry of HZE Radiation 

(RADIAT)

Gregory A. Nelson, JPL

Genotype Control of Graviresponse, Cell Polarity, 

and Morphological Development of Arabidopsis 

thaliana in Microgravity (SHOOTS)

Edmund Maher, Open University of Scotland, 

Edinburgh, Scotland 

Greg Briarty, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 

England 

Gravity-Related Behavior of the Acellular Slime 

Mold Physarum polycephalum (SLIME)

Ingrid Block, Institute for Flight Medicine, DLR, 

Cologne, Germany

Growth and Sporulation in Bacillus subtilis Under 

Microgravity (SPORES)

Horst-Dieter Menningmann, Institute of 

Microbiology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am 

Main, Germany

Leukemia Virus Transformed Cells to Microgravity 

in the Presence of Dimethylsufoxide (DMSO)

Augusto Cogoli, ETH Institute of Biotechnology 

Space Biology Group, Zurich, Switzerland 

Microgravitational Effects on Chromosome Behavior 

(YEAST)

Carlo V. Bruschi, Cell and Molecular Biology 

Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, 

CA

Proliferation and Performance of Hybridoma Cells in 

Microgravity (HYBRID)

Augusto Cogoli, ETH Institute of Biotechnology 

Space Biology Group, Zurich, Switzerland

Studies on Penetration of Antibiotics in Bacterial 

Cells in Space Conditions (ANTIBIO) 

Rene Tixador, National Institute of Health and 

Medical Research, Toulouse, France

Transmission of the Gravity Stimulus in Statocyte of 

the Lentil Root (ROOTS)

Gerald Perbal, Laboratory of Cytology, Pierre et 

Marie Curie University, Paris, France

Why Microgravity Might Interfere With Amphibian Geertje A. Ubbels, Hubrecht Laboratory, Utrecht, the 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 127
Investigation Principal Investigator/Provider

Egg Fertilization and the Role of Gravity in 

Determination of the Dorsal/Ventral Axis in 

Developing Amphibian Embryos (EGGS)

Netherlands

Gravitational Plant Physiology Facility Experiments

Gravitational Plant Physiology Facility Provided by NASA

Gravity Threshold (GTHRES) Allan H. Brown, University of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, PA

Response to Light Stimulation: Phototropic 

Transients (FOTRAN)

David G. Heathcote, University City Science Center, 

Philadelphia, PA

Microgravity Vestibular Investigations Millard F. Reschke, JSC

Mental Workload and Performance Experiment Provided by NASA; PI: Harold L. Alexander, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 

MA

Canadian Space Physiology Experiments

Space Adaptation Syndrome Experiments (SASE) Douglas G. D. Watt, McGill University, Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada 

Proprioceptive Experiments

Rotation Experiment

Sled Experiment

Tactile Acuity Experiment

Visual Stimulator Experiment

Assessment of Back Pain in Astronauts (BPA) Peter C. Wing, University of British Columbia, 

University Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, 

Canada 

Energy Expenditure in Spaceflight (EES) Howard G. Parsons, University of Calgary, Calgary, 

Alberta, Canada 

Measurement of Venous Compliance (MVC) and 

Evaluation of an Experimental Anti-Gravity Suit

Robert B. Thirsk, CSA, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Phase Partitioning Experiment (PPE) Donald E. Brooks, University of British Columbia, 

University Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, 

Canada

Position and Spontaneous Nystagmus (PSN) Joseph A. McClure, London Ear Clinic, London, 

Ontario, Canada 

Biostack Apparatus (4 packages) H. Buecker, Institute for Flight Medicine, DLR, 

Cologne, Germany

Radiation Monitoring Container Device (RMCD) S. Nagaoka, NASDA, Tokyo, Japan

IML-1 Materials Science Experiments

Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) Charles E. Bugg, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 

Cryostat Facility DARA

Crystal Growth of the Electrogenic Membrane G. Wagner, University of Giessen Plant Biology 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 128
Investigation Principal Investigator/Provider

Protein Bacteriorhodopsin Institute 1, Giessen, Germany

Crystallization of Proteins and Viruses in 

Microgravity by Liquid-Liquid Diffusion

Alexander McPherson, University of California, 

Riverside, Riverside, CA

Single Crystal Growth of Beta-Galactosidase and 

Beta-Galactosidase/Inhibiter Complex

W. Littke, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Fluids Experiment System NASA

Optical Study of Grain Formation: Casting and 

Solidification Technology (CAST)

Mary H. McCay, University of Tennessee Space 

Institute, Tullahoma, TN

Study of Solution Crystal Growth in Low Gravity 

(TGS)

Ravindra B. Lal, Alabama A&M University, Normal, 

AL

Vapor Crystal Growth System (VCGS) NASA

Vapor Crystal Growth Studies of Single Mercury 

Iodide Crystals

Lodewijk van den Berg, EG&G, Inc., Goleta, CA

Mercury Iodide Crystal Growth (MICG) System CNES

Mercury Iodide Nucleations and Crystal Growth in 

Vapor Phase

Robert Cadoret, University of Clermont-Ferrand, 

Aubiere, France

Organic Crystal Growth Facility Dr. A. Kanbayashi, NASDA, Tokyo, Japan

Critical Point Facility (CPF) ESA

Critical Fluid Thermal Equilibration Experiment Allen Wilkinson, Lewis Research Center

Heat and Mass Transport in a Pure Fluid in the 

Vicinity of a Critical Point

Daniel Beysens, C.E.N., Saclay, France

Phase Separation of an Off-Critical Binary Mixture Daniel Beysens, C.E.N., Saclay, France

Study of Density Distribution in a Near-Critical 

Simple Fluid

Antonius C. Michels, Van der Waals Laboratory, 

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-42 Press Kit,” January 1992, pp. 17–39. Also “First International Microgravity 

Laboratory,” NASA, pp. 7–150, 58–59, NASA History Division folder 008629, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 129
Table 2-95. IML-2 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Life Sciences

Biorack

Activation Signals of T Lymphocytes in 

Microgravity (Adhesion)

A. Cogoli, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 

Zurich, Switzerland

Biological Investigations of Animal Multi-Cell 

Aggregates Reconstituted Under Microgravity 

Conditions (Aggregates)

U. A. O. Heinlein, Heinrich Heine Universität, 

Düsseldorf, Germany 

Cell Microenvironment and Membrane Signal 

Transduction in Microgravity (Signal)

P. Bouloc, University of Paris-Sud, Orsay, France

Effect of Microgravity and Varying Periods of 1-g 

Exposure on Growth, Mineralization, and 

Resorption in Isolated Fetal Mouse Long Bones 

(Bones) 

J. P. Veldhuijzen, Amsterdam Academic Center for 

Dentistry, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 

Effect of Microgravity on Cellular Activation in 

Lymphocytes: Protein Kinase C Signal 

Transduction (Phorbol) and Cytokine Synthesis 

(Cytokine)

D. A. Schmitt and J. P. Hatton, Laboratory of 

Immunology, CHU Rengueil, Toulouse, France 

Effect of Stirring and Mixing in a Bioreactor 

Experiment in Microgravity (Bioreactor)

A. Cogoli, Space Biology Group of ETH, Zurich, 

Switzerland

The Influence of Microgravity on Repair of 

Radiation-Induced DNA Damage in Bacteria and 

Human Fibroblasts (Repair and Kinetics)

G. Horneck, DLR, Institute for Aerospace 

Medicine, Cologne, Germany

Investigation of the Mechanics Involved in the 

Effects of Space Microgravity on Drosophila 

Development, Behavior, and Aging (Drosophila)

R. March, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 

Madrid, Spain 

Movements and Interactions of Lymphocytes in 

Microgravity (Motion)307

A. Cogoli, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 

Zurich, Switzerland

Plant Growth and Random Walk (Random) A. Johnsson, University of Trondheim, Dragvoll, 

Norway

Regulation of Cell Differentiation by Gravity in the 

Lentil Root (Lentil)

G. Perbal and D. Driss-Ecole, Pierre and Marie 

Curie University, Paris, France

Replication of Cell Growth and Differentiation by 

Microgravity: Retinoic Acid-Induced Cell 

Differentiation (Mouse)

S. W. de Laat, Netherlands Institute for 

Developmental Biology, Utrecht, the Netherlands 

The Role of Gravity in the Establishment of the 

Corso-Ventral Axis in the Amphibian Embryo 

(Eggs)

G. A. Ubbels, Hubrecht Laboratory, Utrecht, the 

Netherlands 

Root Orientation, Growth Regulation, Adaptation, 

and Agravitropic Behavior of Genetically 

Transformed Roots (Transform)

T.-H. Iversen, Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology, Dragvoll, Norway 

307 This experiment took place in both the Biorack and the NIZEMI facilities. The cells were activated with concavalirA and incubated in the 37°C (about 98.6°F) Biorack facility. The crew removed a lymphocyte cuvette from the 

incubation rack and placed the sample in the NIZEMI facility.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 130
Investigation Principal Investigator

Sea Urchin Larva, a Suitable Model for 

Biomineralization Studies in Space (Urchin)

H. J. Marthy, Centre National de la Recherche 

Scientifique (CNRS), Observatoire Océanologique, 

Banyuls Sur Mer, France

Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Program (EDOMP)

Airborne Microbiological Contamination D. L. Pierson, Life Sciences Research Laboratories, 

JSC

Lower Body Negative Pressure (LBNP): 

Countermeasure Investigation for Reducing 

Postflight Orthostatic Intolerance

J. B. Charles, Medical Sciences Division, JSC

Spinal Changes in Microgravity (SCM)

Spinal Changes in Microgravity J. R. Ledsome, University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver, Canada

Slow Rotating Centrifuge Microscope (NIZEMI)

Chara Rhizoids: Studies During a Long Period of 

Microgravity (Chara)

Andreas Sievers, M. Braun, and B. Buchen, 

University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Convective Stability of Solidification Fronts 

(Moni) (Materials Science Experiment)

K. Leonartz, Engineering, Aachen, Germany

Effects of Microgravity on Aurelia Ephyra 

Behavior and Development (Jellyfish) 

D. B. Spangenberg, Eastern Virginia Medical 

School, Norfolk, VA 

Graviorientation in the Flagellate Euglena gracillis 

Is Controlled by an Active Gravireceptor (Euglena) 

D.-P. Häedar, Friedrich-Alexander-University, 

Erlangen, Germany 

Graviresponse of Cress Roots Under Varying 

Gravitational Forces Below Earth Acceleration (1-

g) (Cress)

D. Wolkmann, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Gravisensitivity and Gravi(Geo)taxis of the Slime 

Mold Physarum polycephalum (Slide mold)

I. Block, DLR, Institute for Aerospace Medicine, 

Cologne, Germany

Influence of Accelerations on the Spatial 

Orientation of Loxodes and Paramecium (Loxodes) 

R. Hemmersbach, DLR, Institute for Space

Medicine, Cologne, Germany

Aquatic Animal Experiment Unit (AAEU)

Early Development of a Gravity-Receptor Organ in 

Microgravity

M. L. Wiederhold, University of Texas Health 

Science Center, San Antonio, TX

Fertilization and Embryonic Development of 

Japanese Newt in Space

M. Yamashita, Institute for Space and 

Astronomical Science, Kanagawa, Japan

Mating Behavior of the Fish (Medaka) and 

Development of Their Eggs in Space

K. Ijiri, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Mechanism of Vestibular Adaptation of Fish Under 

Microgravity

A. Takabayashi, Fujita Health University, Tokyo, 

Japan

Free Flow Electrophoresis Unit (FFEU)

Applications of Continuous Flow Electrophoresis 

to Rat Anterior Pituitary Particles (Part 1)

Feeding Frequency Affects Cultured Rat Pituitary 

Dr. W. C. Hymer, Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park, PA

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 131
Investigation Principal Investigator

Cells in Low Gravity (Part 2)

Experiments of Separating Animal Cell Culturing 

Solution in High Concentration in Microgravity

T. Okusawa, Hitachi, Ltd., Ibaraki, Japan

Separation of a Nematode C. elegans Chromosome 

DNA by FFEU

H. Kobayashi, Josai University, Saitama, Japan

Real-Time Radiation Monitoring Device (RRMD)

Measurement of LET Distribution and Dose 

Equipment on Board the Space Shuttle STS-65 

(IML-2) (RRMD, Part 1) 

Effect of Microgravity on DNA Repair of 

Deinococcus radiodurans (RRMD, Part 2)

T. Doke, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

Thermoelectric Incubator (TEI)/Cell Culture Kit (CCK)

Differentiation of Dictyostelium discoideum in 

Space

T. Ohnishi and K. Okaichi, Nara Medical 

University, Nara, Japan

Gravity and the Stability of the Differentiated State 

of Plant Somatic Embryos

A. D. Krikorian, State University of New York at 

Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY

Microgravity Effects on the Growth and Function 

of Rat Normal Osteoblasts

Y. Kumei, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 

Tokyo, Japan 

Performance Assessment Workstation (PAWS)

Microgravity Effects on Standardized Cognitive 

Performance Measures

S. G. Schiflett, USAF Armstrong Laboratory, 

Brooks Air Force Base, TX

Microgravity Science

Advanced Protein Crystallization Facilities (APCF)

Crystal Growth of a Thermophilic Aspartyl-tRNA 

Synthetase308

Richard Giege, IBMC of CNRS, Strasbourg, 

France

Crystal Growth of Ribonuclease S L. Sjolin, Chalmers University of Technology and 

Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden

Crystallization of Apocrustacyanin C1 N. E. Chayen, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial 

College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 

London, England

Crystallization of Bacteriorhodopsin G. Wagner, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, 

Giessen, Germany

Crystallization of Collagenase and Photoreaction 

Center Under Microgravity

I. Broutin, M. Ries, and A. Ducruix, LEBS, CNRS, 

Gif sur Yvette, France

Crystallization of Octarellins and Copper Oxalate J. Martial, Université de Liège Belgique, Brussels, 

Belgium

L. Wyns, Université de Bruxelles, Brussels, 

Belgium

308 This investigation was left out of the IML-2 Final Report. It was written up in “Second International Microgravity 

Laboratory (IML-2), Final Report,” http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/msad/iml-2_final_report.html (accessed 

January 25, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 132
Investigation Principal Investigator

Crystallization of Rhodopsin in Microgravity W. J. de Grip, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 

the Netherlands

Crystallization of Ribosomal Particles in Space A. Yonath, Max-Planck-Laboratory for Ribosomal 

Structure, Hamburg, Germany

Crystallization of RNA Molecules V. A. Erdmann and S. Lorenz, Institut für 

Biochemie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, 

Germany

Microgravity Effects on Macromolecule and Virus 

Crystallization

A. McPherson, University of California, Riverside, 

Riverside, CA

Studies of Lysozyme Protein Crystal Perfection 

from Microgravity Crystallization

J. R. Helliwell, University of Manchester, 

Manchester, England

Bubble, Drop and Particle Unit (BDPU)

Bubble Behavior Under Low Gravity A. Viviani, Seconda Università di Napoli, Aversa, 

Italy

Bubble Migration, Coalescence, and Interaction 

with the Solidification Front 

R. Monti, University of Napoli, Napoli, Italy

R. Fortezza, MARS Center, Napoli, Italy

Dynamics of Liquids in Edges and Corners D. Langbein, ZARM, University of Bremen, 

Bremen, Germany

Interfacial Phenomena I Multilayered Fluid 

Systems

J. N. Kosher and S. Biringen, University of 

Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Nucleation, Bubble Growth, Interfacial 

Phenomena, Evaporation, and Condensation 

Kinetics

J. Straub, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 

Germany

Thermocapillary Convection in a Multilayer 

System

J. C. Legros and Ph. Georis, Université Libre de 

Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Thermocapillary Migration and Interactions of 

Bubbles and Drops 

R. S. Subramanian, Clarkson University, Potsdam, 

NY

Critical Point Facility (CPF)

Critical Phenomena in Spaceflight Observed Under 

Reduced Gravity

D. Beysens, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, 

Grenoble, France

Density Equilibration Time Scales H. Klein, DLR, Institute for Space Simulation, 

Cologne, Germany

Heat Transport and Density Fluctuations in a 

Critical Fluid

A. C. Michels, University of Amsterdam, 

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Summary of Results from the Adiabatic Fast 

Equilibration (AFEQ) and Thermal Equilibration 

Bis (TEQB) Experiments

R. A. Ferrell, University of Maryland, College 

Park, MD

Large Isothermal Furnace (LIF)

Effect of Weightlessness on Microstructure and 

Strength of Ordered TiAl Intermetallic Alloys

A. Sato, National Research Institute for Metals, 

Tokyo, Japan

Liquid Phase Sintering in a Microgravity LIS 

Environment

R. M. German, Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park, PA

Mixing of a Melt of a Multicomponent Compound A. Hirata, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 133
Investigation Principal Investigator

Semiconductor

Applied Research on Separation Methods Using Space Electrophoresis (RAMSES)

Electrohydrodynamic Sample Distortion During 

Electrophoresis 

R. S. Snyder, MSFC

Purification of Biological Molecules by 

Continuous-Flow Electrophoresis in a Microgravity 

Environment 

V. Sanchez, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, 

France

B. Schoot, Roussel Uclaf, Romainville, France

Electromagnetic Containerless Processing Facility (TEMPUS)

Alloy Undercooling Experiments M. Flemings, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA

Containerless Processing in Space: The TEMPUS 

Team Results

I. Egry, DLR, Institute for Space Simulations, 

Cologne, Germany 

Effect of Nucleation by Containerless Processing R. Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Measurement of the Viscosity and Surface Tension 

of Undercooled Metallic Melts and Supporting 

MHD Calculations

J. Szekely, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cambridge, MA 

Non-Equilibrium Solidification of Deeply 

Undercooled Melts

D. M. Herlach, DLR, Institute for Space 

Simulations, Cologne, Germany

Structure and Solidification of Deeply Undercooled 

Melts of Quasicrystal-Forming Alloys

K. Urban, Institute for Solid State Physics Research 

Center, Julich, Germany

Thermodynamic and Glass Formation of 

Undercooled Metallic Melts

H. Fecht, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, 

Germany

Thermophysical Properties of Metallic Glasses and 

Undercooled Alloys 

W. Johnson, California Institute of Technology, 

Pasadena, CA

Microgravity Environment and Countermeasures

Quasi-Steady Acceleration Measurement (QSAM) H. Hamacher, DLR, Institute for Space Simulation, 

Cologne, Germany

Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) 

and Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment 

(OARE)

R. DeLombard, Lewis Research Center

Vibration Isolation Box Experiment System (VIBES)

Influence of G-Jitter on Convection and Diffusion H. Azuma, National Aerospace Laboratory, Chohushi, Japan

Thermally Driven Flow Experiments (TDFU) M. Furukawa, NASDA Tsukuba Space Center, 

Ibaraki, Japan

Source: R. S. Snyder, Compiler, Second International Microgravity Laboratory (IML-2) Final Report, NASA Reference 

Publication 1405, http://trs.nis.nasa.gov/archive/00000392/01/rp1405.pdf (accessed January 25, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 134
Table 2-96. ATLAS-1 Investigations 

Investigation Spectral 

Range

Selected Focus Principal Investigator

Atmospheric Science

Atmospheric Lyman-Alpha 

Emission (ALAE)

Far ultraviolet Ratio of atmospheric 

hydrogen to 

deuterium 

J. L. Bertraux, Service 

d’Aeronomie du CNRS, 

France

Atmospheric Trace Molecule 

Spectroscopy (ATMOS) 

Infrared Water vapor, ozone, 

methane, nitrogen 

compounds

M. Gunson, JPL, United 

States

Grille Spectrometer Infrared Water vapor, ozone, 

methane, nitrogen 

compounds 

M. Ackerman, Institut 

d’Aeronomie Spatiale de 

Belgique, Belgium 

Imaging Spectrometric 

Observatory (ISO)

Visible/ultraviol

et

Atmospheric 

temperature, 

nitrogen, oxygen, 

ions 

D. G. Torr, University of 

Alabama in Huntsville, 

United States

Millimeter Wave Atmospheric 

Sounder (MAS) 

Microwave Temperature, 

pressure, ozone, 

chlorine monoxide

G. Hartmann, Max Planck 

Institute for Aeronomy, 

Germany

Space Shuttle Backscatter 

Ultraviolet (SSBUV) 

Experiment 

Near ultraviolet Ozone E. Hilsenrath, GSFC, 

Greenbelt, MD

Solar Science

Active Cavity Radiometer 

Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM)

Total energy Solar constant R. Wilson, JPL, Pasadena, 

CA

Measurement of Solar 

Constant (SOLCON)

Total energy Solar constant D. Crommelynck, Institut 

Royal Météorologique de 

Belgique, Belgium

Solar Spectrum (SOLSPEC) Infrared to 

ultraviolet

Solar spectrum G. Thuillier, Service 

d’Aeronomy du CNRS, 

France

Solar Ultraviolet Spectral 

Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM)

Ultraviolet Solar spectrum G. Brueckner, Naval 

Research Laboratory, 

United States

Plasma Physics

Atmospheric Emissions 

Photometric Imager (AEPI)

Visible Natural aurora and 

airglow

S. Mende, Lockheed Palo 

Alto Research Laboratory, 

United States

Energetic Neutral Atom 

Precipitation (ENAP)

Visible/ultraviol

et

Use ISO data to 

study emissions 

from energetic 

atoms

B. Tinsley, University of 

Texas at Dallas, Dallas, 

TX

Space Experiments with 

Particle Accelerators 

— Response of plasmas 

to known 

J. Burch, Southwest 

Research Institute, United 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 135
Investigation Spectral 

Range

Selected Focus Principal Investigator

(SEPAC) disturbances States

Astrophysics

Far Ultraviolet Space 

Telescope (FAUST)

Far ultraviolet Large-scale 

astrophysical objects

S. Bowyer, University of 

California–Berkeley, 

United States, Berkeley, 

CA

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-45 Press Kit,” March 1992, p. 16, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_046_STS-045_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 28, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 136
Table 2-97. ATLAS-2 Investigations 

Investigation Spectral 

Range

Selected Focus Principal Investigator

Atmospheric Science

Atmospheric Trace Molecule 

Spectroscopy (ATMOS) 

Infrared Water vapor, ozone, 

methane, chlorine 

and nitrogen 

compounds, 

chlorofluorocarbons, 

others 

M. Gunson, JPL, Pasadena, 

CA

Millimeter-Wave 

Atmospheric Sounder (MAS)

Microwave Temperature, 

pressure, ozone, 

chlorine monoxide, 

water vapor

G. Hartmann, Max Planck 

Institute for Aeronomy, 

Germany

Shuttle Solar Backscatter 

Ultraviolet (SSBUV) 

Experiment

Near ultraviolet Ozone E. Hilsenrath, GSFC, 

Greenbelt, MD

Solar Science

Active Cavity Radiometer 

Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM)

Total energy Solar constant R. Willson, JPL, Pasadena, 

CA

Solar Constant (SOLCON) Total energy Solar constant D. Crommelynck, Belgian 

Royal Institute for 

Meteorology, Belgium

Solar Spectrum Measurement 

(SOLSPEC)

Infrared to 

ultraviolet

Solar spectrum G. Thuillier, Aeronomy 

Service for Scientific 

Research, France

Solar Ultraviolet Irradiance 

Monitor (SUSIM)

Ultraviolet Solar spectrum G. Brueckner, Naval 

Research Laboratory, United 

States

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-56 Press Kit,” May 1993, p. 14, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_054_STS-056_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed January 29, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 137
Table 2-98. ATLAS-3 Investigations 

Instrument Spectral 

Range

Selected Focus Principal Investigator

Atmospheric Science

Atmospheric Trace Molecule 

Spectroscopy (ATMOS) 

Infrared Water vapor, ozone, 

methane, chlorine and 

nitrogen compounds, 

chlorofluorocarbons, 

others

M. Gunson, JPL, Pasadena, 

CA

Millimeter-Wave 

Atmospheric Sounder 

(MAS)309

Microwave Temperature, 

pressure, ozone, 

chlorine monoxide, 

water vapor

G. Hartmann, Max Planck 

Institute for Aeronomy, 

Germany

Shuttle Solar Backscatter 

Ultraviolet (SSBUV) 

Experiment

Near ultraviolet Ozone E. Hilsenrath, GSFC, 

Greenbelt, MD

Solar Science

Active Cavity Radiometer 

Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM)

Total energy Solar constant R. Willson, JPL, Pasadena, 

CA

Solar Constant (SOLCON) Total energy Solar constant D. Crommelynck, Belgian 

Royal Institute for 

Meteorology, Belgium

Solar Spectrum Measurement 

(SOLSPEC)

Infrared to 

ultraviolet

Solar spectrum G. Thuillier, Aeronomy 

Service for Scientific 

Research, France

Solar Ultraviolet Irradiance 

Monitor (SUSIM)

Ultraviolet Solar spectrum G. Brueckner, Naval 

Research Laboratory, U.S.

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-66 Press Kit,” November 1994, pp. 16–25, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_066_STS-066_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 6, 2007).

309 This instrument failed on the first day of the mission but still obtained 10 hours of data—enough to acquire nearly 

global maps of ozone and water vapor in the stratosphere and mesosphere, as well as some information on the 

distribution of chlorine monoxide in the stratosphere.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 138
Table 2-99. USML-1 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Crystal Growth Furnace (CGF)

Crystal Growth of Selected II–VI Semiconducting 

Alloys by Directional Solidification

Sandor L. Lehoczky, MSFC

Orbital Processing of High-Quality Cadmium 

Telluride Compound Semiconductors

David J. Larson, Jr., Grumman CorporatION 

Research Center

The Study of Dopant Segregation Behavior During 

the Growth of Gallium Arsenide in Microgravity 

David Matthiesen, GTE Laboratories, Waltham, 

MA

Vapor Transport Crystal Growth of Mercury 

Cadmium Telluride in Microgravity

Herbert Wiedemeier, Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute, Troy, NY

Drop Physics Module (DPM)

Drop Dynamics Investigation Taylor G. Wang, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 

TN

Measurement of Liquid–Liquid Interfacial Tension 

and the Role of Gravity in Phase Separation 

Kinetics of Fluid Glass Melts

Michael C. Weinberg, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ 

Science and Technology of Surface-Controlled 

Phenomena 

Robert E. Apfel, Yale University, New Haven, CT

Surface Tension Driven Convection Experiment (STDCE) Apparatus

Surface Tension Driven Convection Experiment Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, OH 

Glovebox Facility (GBX)

Candle Flames in Microgravity Howard D. Ross, Lewis Research Center

Directed Orientation of Polymerizing Collagen 

Fibers

Louis S. Stodieck, Center for Bioserve Space 

Technologies, Boulder, CO 

Fiber Pulling in Microgravity Robert J. Naumann, University of Alabama in 

Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Interface Configuration Experiment Paul Concus, University of California–Berkeley 

and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA

Marangoni Convection in Closed Containers Robert J. Naumann, University of Alabama in 

Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Nucleation of Crystals from Solutions in a Low-g 

Environment

Roger L. Kroes, MSFC

Oscillatory Dynamics of Single Bubbles an 

Agglomeration in an Ultrasonic Sound Field in 

Microgravity

Philip L. Marston, Washington State University, 

Pullman, WA 

Oscillatory Thermocapillary Flow Experiment Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, OH

Particle Dispersion Experiment John R. Marshall, ARC

Passive Accelerometer System J. Iwan D. Alexander, University of Alabama in 

Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 139
Investigation Principal Investigator

Protein Crystal Growth Glovebox Experiment Lawrence J. DeLucas, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Smoldering Combustion in Microgravity A. Carlos Fernandez-Pello, University of 

California–Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

Solid Surface Wetting Experiment Eugene H. Trinh, JPL

Stability of a Double Float Zone Robert J. Naumann, University of Alabama in 

Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Wire Insulation Flammability Experiment Paul S. Greenberg, Lewis Research Center

Zeolite Glovebox Experiment Albert Sacco, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 

Worcester, MA

Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project310 J. Travis Brown, Project Manager, JSC

In-Flight Lower Body Negative Pressure

Blood Pressure Variability During Space Flight

Environmental Monitoring (Microbial Air 

Sampler)

Orthostatic Function During Entry, Landing, 

and Egress

Metabolic Responses

Visual-Vestibular Integration as a Function of 

Adaptation

Energy Utilization

Other Investigations

ASTROCULTURETM-1 Facility and Experiment Theodore W. Tibbitts, Wisconsin Center for Space 

Automation and Robotics, University of 

Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (GBA) Michael C. Robinson, Center for Bioserve Space 

Technologies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) Payload Charles E. Bugg, Center for Macromolecular 

Crystallography, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Solid Surface Combustion Apparatus and 

Experiment 

Robert A. Altenkirch, Mississippi State University, 

State College, MS

Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) Richard DeLombard, Project Manager, Lewis 

Research Center

Zeolite Crystal Growth (ZCG) Payload311 Albert Sacco, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 

Worcester, MA

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-50 Press Kit,” June 1982, pp. 10–34. Also “First United States Microgravity 

Laboratory (USML-1) Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” pp. 12–13.

310 The purpose of these experiments was to protect the health and safety of the crew during the mission. They took 

place in the Spacelab and in the middeck area of the orbiter. “First United States Microgravity Laboratory 1 (USML-1) 

Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Report No. S-420-50-92-01, Office of Space Science and Applications, p. 13, 

NASA History Division folder 008887, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

311 ZCG, PCG, GBA, and ASTROCULTURE experiments were sponsored by NASA’s Office of Commercial 

Programs. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 140
Table 2-100. USML-2 Investigations 

Investigation Primary Investigator

Crystal Growth Furnace (CGF)

Interface Demarcation Flight Test (IDFT) M. Lichtensteiger, Universities Space Research 

Association, Marshall Space Flight Center, 

Huntsville, AL

Orbital Processing of High-Quality Cadmium 

Zinc Telluride (CdZnTe) Compound 

Semiconductors

D. Larson, The State University of New York at 

Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 

The Study of Dopant Segregation Behavior 

During Crystal Growth of Gallium Arsenide 

(GaAs) in Microgravity

D. Matthiesen, Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, OH 

Vapor Transport Crystal Growth of MercuryCadmium-Telluride in MicrogravityH. Wiedemeier, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 

Troy, NY 

Drop Physics Module (DPM)

Drop Dynamics Experiment T. Wang, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Science and Technology of Surface-Controlled 

Phenomena 

R. Apfel, Yale University, New Haven, CT

Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell (GFFC) Instrument 

and Experiment

J. Hart, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Surface Tension Driven Convection Experiment 

Apparatus

S. Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, OH

Zeolite Crystal Growth Furnace and Experiment A. Sacco, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 

Worcester, MA

Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus

Brine Shrimp Development in Space A. Paulsen and B. S. Spooner, Kansas State 

University/BioServe Space Technologies, 

Manhattan, KS

CeReS-Mediated Cell Stabilization T. Johnson, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Development, Growth, and Activation of Bone 

Marrow Macrophages−Phase II

K. Chapes, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

E. coli Growth and Development D. Klaus, University of Colorado/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Boulder, CO 

Effect of Gravitational Unloading on Plant 

Gravity Response

J. Smith, University of Colorado/BioServe Space 

Technologies, Boulder, CO

Effects of Microgravity and Clinorotation on 

Ethylene Production in Mutants of Arabidoopsis

with Altered Starch Regulation

G. Gallegos and J. Guikema, Kansas State 

University/BioServe Space Technologies, 

Manhattan, KS

Effects of Microgravity on Auxin-Inducible Gene 

Expression in Arabidopsis

Y. Li, Kansas State University/BioServe Space 

Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Effects of Microgravity on the Growth and 

Development of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Biofilms

B. Manfredi, University of Colorado/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Boulder, CO 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 141
Investigation Primary Investigator

Effects of Microgravity on the LegumeRhizobium Nodulation ProcessP. Wong, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Effects of Space on Biochemical Reaction 

Kinetics

K. Chapes, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Plasmin Degradation of Fibrin Clots in 

Microgravity

T. Bateman and C. Nunes, University of 

Colorado/BioServe Space Technologies, 

Boulder, CO 

Pre-Metatarsal Development B. Klement and B. S. Spooner, Kansas State 

University/BioServe Space Technologies, 

Manhattan, KS

Starchless Arabidopsis Mutant E. Hilaire, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Viral Infection of Mammalian Cells in 

Microgravity

R. Consigli, Kansas State University/BioServe 

Space Technologies, Manhattan, KS

Advanced Protein Crystallization Facility

Crystal Structure Analysis of the Bacteriophage 

Lambda Lysozyme 

J. P. Declercq and C. Evrard, University of 

Louvain, Louvain, Belgium 

Crystallization in a Microgravity Environment of 

CcdB, a Protein Involved in the Control of Cell 

Death

L. Wyns, Free University of Brussels, Brussels, 

Belgium

Crystallization in Space of Designed and Natural 

(alpha/beta)-Barrel Structures

J. Martial, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

Crystallization of Apocrustacyanin C N. Chayen, Imperial College, London, England

Crystallization of Glutathione S-Transferase in 

Microgravity

L. Sjölin, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, 

Sweden

Crystallization of Photosystem I W. Saenger and P. Fromme, Technische 

Universität and Freie Universität, Berlin, 

Germany

Crystallization of Ribosomes A. Yonath, Max-Planck Laboratory for 

Ribosomal Structure, Hamburg, Germany

Crystallization of RNA Molecules Under 

Microgravity Conditions

V. Erdmann, University of Berlin, Berlin, 

Germany

Crystallization of the Epidermal Growth Factor 

(EGF) Receptor

W. Weber, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 

Germany

Crystallization of the Protein Grb2 and Triclinic 

Lysozyme

A. Ducruix, Laboratoire de Biologie Structurale, 

CNRS, Paris, France

Crystallization of the Visual Pigment Rhodopsin W. de Grip, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 

the Netherlands

Crystallization of Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus, 

Tomato Aspermy Virus, Satellite Panicum 

Mosaic Virus, Canavalin, Beef Liver Catalase, 

Concanavalin B, Thaumatin

A. McPherson, University of California, 

Riverside, Riverside, CA

Lower-Body Negative Pressure (LBNP)

Microgravity Crystallization of Sulfolobus 

solfataricus Alcohol Dehydrogenase

A. Zarari, Biocrystallographic Center, University 

of Naples, Naples, Italy

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 142
Investigation Primary Investigator

Microgravity Crystallization of Thermophilic 

Aspartyl-tRNA Synthetase and Thaumatin

R. Giegé, CNRS, Strasbourg, France

Protein Crystal Growth: Light-Driven Charge 

Translocation Through Bacteriorhodopsin

G. Wagner, University of Giessen, Giessen, 

Germany

ASTROCULTURETM Facility and Experiment R. J. Bula and T. W. Tibbits, University of 

Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Protein Crystal Growth (PCG)

Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) L. J. DeLucas, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Single-Locker Protein Crystal Growth (SPCG) D. Carter, MSFC

Glovebox Facility (GBX)

Colloidal Disorder-Order Transitions (CDOT) P. Chaikin, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Fiber Supported Droplet Combustion (FSDC) F. A. Williams, University of California, San 

Diego, San Diego, CA

Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) P. Concus, University of California–Berkeley, 

Berkeley, CA

Oscillatory Thermocapillary Flow Experiment 

(OTFE)

Y. Kamotani, Case Western Reserve University, 

Cleveland, OH 

Particle Dispersion Experiment (PDE) J. Marshall, ARC

Protein Crystal Growth–Glovebox (PCGG) L. J. DeLucas, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 

Zeolite Crystal Growth–Glovebox (ZCGG) A. Sacco, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 

Worcester, MA

Measuring Microgravity

Microgravity Acceleration Workstation (MAWS) L. French, Lead Engineer, Teledyne Brown 

Engineering, Huntsville, AL

Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment 

(OARE)

W. Wagar, Project Manager, Lewis Research 

Center

Space Acceleration Measurement System 

(SAMS)

R. Sicker, Project Manager, Lewis Research 

Center

Suppression of Transient Events by Levitation 

(STABLE)

G. S. Nurre and D. L. Edberg, MSFC and 

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Huntsville, AL 

Three-Dimensional Microgravity Accelerometer 

(3DMA)

J. Bijvoet, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 

Huntsville, AL

Source: “The Second United States Microgravity Laboratory 90-Day Science Report,” March 1996, 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usml2/90-day/usml-2-90day.pdf (accessed January 26, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 143
Table 2-101. Spacelab J Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

NASA Investigations

Microgravity Science

Protein Crystal Growth Charles E. Bugg, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Space Acceleration Measurement System A. Krikorizn, State University of New York at 

Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY

Life Sciences

Amphibian Development in Microgravity: The 

STS-47 Frog Embryology Experiment 

K. A. Souza, A. M. Ross, ARC; S. D. Black, 

Biology Department, Reed College; R. J. 

Wassersug, Department of Anatomy and 

Neurobiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie 

University

Countermeasure Against Orthostatic Intolerance 

After Space Flight: The Combination of Oral Fluid 

Loading and Lower Body Negative Pressure

John B. Charles, JSC

Inflight Demonstration of the Space Station 

Freedom Health Maintenance Facility Fluid 

Therapy System

Charles W. Lloyd, JSC

Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to 

Microgravity

Adrian LeBlanc, Baylor College of Medicine

Monitoring Astronauts’ Functional State: 

Autogenic Responses to Microgravity

Patricia S. Cowings, ARC

NASA/NASDA Cosponsored Investigations

Bone Cell Research Nicola C. Partridge, School of Medicine, 

University of St. Louis

Plant Cell Research Experiment on Spacelab J 

Mission. Mitotic Disturbances in Daylily 

(Hemerocallis) Somatic Embryos After an 8-Day 

Spaceflight

A. D. Krikorian, Stevania A. O’Connor, R. P. 

Kann, Department of Biochemistry and Cell 

Biology, State University of New York at Stony 

Brook, Stony Brook, NY

NASDA Investigations

Materials Science

Bubble Behavior in Thermal Gradient and 

Stationary Acoustic Wave

Hisao Azuma, National Aerospace Laboratory

Casting of Superconducting Composite Materials Kazumasa Togano, National Research Institute for 

Metals

Crystal Growth of Compound Semiconductors in a 

Low-Gravity Environment (InGaAs)

Masani Tatsumi, Sumitomo Electric Industries, 

Ltd.

Crystal-Growth Experiment on Organic Metals in 

Low Gravity

Hiroyuki Anzai, Electrotechnical LaboratoryHimeji Institute of Technology 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 144
Investigation Principal Investigator

Diffusion in Liquid State and Solidification of 

Binary System

Takehiro Dan, National Research Institute for 

Metals

Drop Dynamics in an Acoustic Resonant Chamber 

and Interference with the Acoustic Field

Tatsuo Yamanaka, National Aerospace Laboratory

Fabrication of Si-As-Te Semiconductor in 

Microgravity Environment

Yoshihiro Hamakawa, Osaka University

Fabrication of Ultra-Low-Density, High-Stiffness 

Carbon Fiber/Aluminum Alloy Composite 

Tomoo Suzuki, Hokkaido University

Formation Mechanism of Deoxidation Products in 

Iron Ingot Deoxidized with Two or Three Elements 

Akira Fukuzawa, National Research Institute for 

Metals

Gas-Evaporation in Low-Gravity Nobuhiko Wada, Faculty of Science at Nagoya 

University

Growth Experiment of Narrow Band-Gap 

Semiconductor Pb-Sn-Te Single Crystal in Space

Tomoaki Yamada, NTT Basic Research 

Laboratories

Growth of Pb-Sn-Te Single Crystal by Traveling 

Zone Method

Sohachi Iwai, The Institute of Physical and 

Chemical Research, RIKEN

Growth of Samarskite Crystal in Microgravity Shunji Takekawa, National Institute for Research 

in Inorganic Materials 

Growth of Semiconductor Compound Single 

Crystal InSb by Floating Zone Method

Isao Nakatani, National Research Institute for 

Metals

Growth of Silicon Spherical Crystals and the 

Surface Oxidation

T. Nishinaga, Faculty of Engineering, University of 

Tokyo

High-Temperature Behavior of Glass Naohiro Soga, Kyoto University

Marangoni-Effect Induced Convection in Material 

Processing Under Microgravity

Shintaro Enya, Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy 

Industries Co., Ltd.

Preparation of Optical Materials Used in NonVisible RegionJunji Hayakawa, Government Industrial Research 

Institute (GIRIO), Osaka

Preparation of Particle Dispersion Alloys Yuji Muramatsu, National Research Institute for 

Metals

Solidification of Eutectic System Alloys in Space Atsumi Ohno, Chiba Institute of Technology

Study of Solidification of Immiscible Alloy Akihiko Kamio, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo 

Institute of Technology

Study on Liquid Phase Sintering Shiro Kohara, Science University of Tokyo

Life Sciences

Circadian Rhythm of Conidiation in Neurospora 

crassa

Yahuhiro Miyoshi, University of Shizuoka

Comparative Measurement of Visual Stability in 

Earth and Cosmic Space

Kazuo Koga, SMRC/RIEM, Nagoya University

Crystal Growth of Enzymes in Low Gravity Yuhei Morita, Fuji Oil Co. R&D Center

Effect of Low Gravity on Calcium Metabolism and 

Bone Formation in Chick Embryo

Tatsuo Suda, Showa University, School of 

Dentistry

Electrophoretic Separation of Cellular Materials 

Under Microgravity

Teruhiko Akiba, The Institute of Physical and 

Chemical Research

Endocrine and Metabolic Changes in Payload 

Specialist During Spacelab J

Hisao Seo, Nagoya University Research Institute of 

Environmental Medicine

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 145
Investigation Principal Investigator

Genetic Effects of HZE and Cosmic Radiation Mituo Ikenaga, Radiation Biology Center, Kyoto 

University

Health Monitoring of Japanese Payload Specialist 

Autonomic Nervous and Cardiovascular Responses 

Under Reduced Gravity

Chiharu Sekiguchi, NASDA

Manual Control in Space Research on Perceptual 

Motor Functions Under Microgravity Condition 

Akira Tada, National Aerospace Laboratory

Neurophysiological Study of Visuo-Vestibular 

Control of Posture and Movement in Fish During 

Adaptation to Weightlessness

Shigeo Mori, Nagoya University Research Institute 

of Environmental Medicine 

Organ Differentiation from Cultured Plant Cells 

Under Microgravity

Atsushige Sato, Tokyo Medical and Dental 

University

Separation of Biogenic Materials by 

Electrophoresis Under Zero Gravity

Masao Kuroda, Osaka University Medical School

Studies on the Effects of Microgravity on the 

Ultrastructure and Function of Cultured 

Mammalian Cells

Atsushige Sato, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo 

Medical and Dental University

Study on the Biological Effects of Cosmic 

Radiation and Development of Radiation 

Protection Technology

Shunji Nagaoka, Space Experiment Group, 

NASDA

Study on the Effects of Microgravity on Cell 

Growth of Human Antibody-Producing Cells and 

Their Secretions

Toshio Suganuma, Laboratory of Biological 

Science, Mitsui Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Source: Final Science Results, Spacelab J (Washington, DC: Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and 

Applications, NASA Headquarters, 1995), pp. 3–77. Also “Spacelab J Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Report 

No. S-420-47-92-01, Office of Space Science and Applications, Appendix A-1 (NASA History Division electronic 

record 8650, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 146
Table 2-102. USMP-1 Investigations 

Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

Lambda-Point Experiment 

(LPE)

To perform a new test of the theory 

of cooperative phase transitions by 

making use of the microgravity 

environment of Earth orbit

John Lipa, Stanford University, 

Palo Alto, CA 

Matériel pour l’Étude des 

Phénomènes Intéressant la 

Solidification sur Terre et en 

Orbite (MEPHISTO)

To perform fundamental studies on 

the growth mechanisms during 

directional solidification of the 

metallic system tin-bismuth in a 

microgravity environment

Jean Jacques Favier, 

Commissariat à l’Énergie 

Atomique, Grenoble, France 

Space Acceleration 

Measurement System (SAMS)

To provide acceleration data in 

support of LPE and MEPHISTO

Charles Baugher, Project 

Scientist, MSFC

Source: “United States Microgravity Payload-1 Mission Operation Report,” Office of Space Science and Applications 

Report No. S-420-52-92-01, NASA History Division folder 11035, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 147
Table 2-103. USMP-2 Investigations 

Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

Advanced Automated 

Directional Solidification 

Furnace (AADSF)

To study the directional 

solidification of semiconductor 

materials in microgravity

S. Lehoczky, Space Science 

Laboratory, MSFC

Critical Fluid Light Scattering 

Experiment (ZENO) 

To measure properties of xenon 

100 times closer to the critical 

point than would be possible on 

Earth

R. Gammon, University of 

Maryland, College Park, MD

Isothermal Dendritic Growth 

Experiment (IDGE) 

To study dendritic solidification 

of molten materials in the 

absence of gravity-driven fluid 

flows

M. Glocksman, Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

MEPHISTO To explore the effect of 

directional solidification in 

microgravity on the temperature, 

velocity, and shape of the 

solidification front

R. Abbaschian, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Jean Jacques Favier, Centre 

d’Études Nucleaires de 

Grenoble, Grenoble, France 

SAMS To make accurate measurements 

of residual accelerations and 

vibrations that can affect 

sensitive microgravity 

investigations in support of 

USMP-2 experiments

M. Wargo, Project Scientist, 

NASA Headquarters

Source: “United States Microgravity Payload 2,” NASA History Division folder 11035, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 148
Table 2-104. USMP-3 Investigations 

Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

Cargo Bay MPESS Experiments

AADSF To study the directional 

solidification of semiconductor 

materials in microgravity to 

better understand how 

solidification influences the 

properties of semiconductors

Archibald L. Fripp, LRC

ZENO To measure properties of xenon 

100 times closer to the critical 

point than would be possible on 

Earth312

Robert Gammon, University of 

Maryland, College Park, MD

IDGE To study dendritic solidification 

of molten materials in the 

absence of gravity-driven fluid 

flows313

Martin Glicksman, Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

MEPHISTO To study the role of gravitydriven convection during the 

solidification of materials and 

explore the effect of directional 

solidification in microgravity on 

the temperature, velocity, and 

shape of the solidification front

J. J. Favier, Centre d’Études 

Nucleaires de Grenoble, 

Grenoble, France 

Orbital Acceleration Research 

Experiment (OARE) 

To accurately measure lowfrequency nanogravity on-orbit 

acceleration disturbances caused 

by atmospheric leaks, gravity 

gradients, converging orbital 

accelerations, out-of-orbitalplane movements, angular 

velocity, and other emissions314

Richard DeLombard, Project 

Scientist, Lewis Research 

Center, Cleveland, OH 

SAMS To accurately measure residual 

accelerations and vibrations that 

could affect sensitive 

microgravity investigations315

Richard DeLombard, Project 

Scientist, Lewis Research Center

Middeck Glovebox Experiments

Comparative Soot Diagnostics 

(CSD)

To examine the particulate 

formation from a variety of 

David L. Urban, Lewis Research 

Center

312 “Critical Fluid Light Scattering Experiment (ZENO),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp3/exp/Zeno.html (accessed January 31, 2006). 313 Isothermal Dendritic Growth Experiment (IDGE),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/IDGE.html

(accessed January 31, 2006).

314 “Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp3/exp/OARE.html (accessed January 31, 2006). 315 “Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp3/exp/SAMS.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 149
Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

particulate sources and to 

quantify the performance of 

several diagnostic techniques316

Flow Flamespreading Test (FFT) To identify the effect of lowspeed flows and bulk fuel 

temperature on the flammability, 

ignition, flame growth, and 

flame-spreading behavior of 

solid fuels in a microgravity 

environment317

Kurt R. Sacksteder, Lewis 

Research Center, Cleveland, OH

Radiative Ignition and Transition to 

Spread Investigation (RITSI)

To conduct an experimental 

study of the radiative ignition 

and subsequent transition to 

flame spread in low gravity in 

the presence of very low-speed 

air flows in two-dimensional and 

three-dimensional 

configurations318

Takashi Kashiwagi, National 

Institute for Standards and 

Testing, Gaithersburg, MD 

Source: “United States Microgravity Payload-3 (USMP-3),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/usmp-3/usmp3.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

316 “Comparative Soot Diagnostics (CSD),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/CSD.html (accessed 

January 31, 2006).

317 “Forced Flow Flamespreading Test (FFFT),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp-3/exp/FFFT.html

(accessed January 31, 2006).

318 “Radiative Ignition and Transition to Spread Investigation (RITSI),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/sts-75/usmp3/exp/RITSI.html (accessed January 31, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 150
Table 2-105. USMP-4 Investigations 

Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

Cargo Bay MPESS Experiments

AADSF

1) Compound Semiconductor 

Growth in a Low-g Environment

2) Growth of Solid Solution Single 

Crystals

To determine how gravity-driven 

convection affects the 

composition and properties of 

alloys

Archibald Fripp, Jr., LRC

Sandor Lehoczky, MSFC

Confined Helium Experiment 

(CHeX)

To study one of the basic 

influences on the behavior and 

properties of materials by using 

liquid helium, confined between 

solid surfaces, and the 

microgravity environment of 

space

John Lipa, Stanford University, 

Stanford, CA 

IDGE To study the dendritic 

solidification of molten materials 

in the microgravity environment

Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

MEPHISTO

In Situ Monitoring of Crystal 

Growth Using MEPHISTO

To explore the effect of 

directional solidification in 

microgravity on the temperature, 

velocity, and shape of the 

solidification front of samples 

growing under identical 

conditions 

Reza Abbashian, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, FL 

OARE To accurately measure quasisteady accelerations aboard the 

Space Shuttle and sense 

disturbances caused by mass 

emissions from the orbiter and by 

payload bay activities

Melissa J. B. Rogers, Project 

Scientist, Tal-Cut Company, 

Lewis Research Center

SAMS To sense and record vibrations at 

several locations during a Space 

Shuttle mission

Melissa J. B. Rogers, Project 

Scientist, Tal-Cut Company, 

Lewis Research Center

Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) Experiments

Enclosed Laminar Flames (ELF) To improve our fundamental 

understanding of the effects of 

the flow environment on flame 

stability319

Lea-Der Chen, University of 

Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Dennis Stocker, Lewis Research 

Center

Particle Engulfment and Pushing 

by a Solid/Liquid Interface (PEP)

To obtain a fundamental 

understanding of the interaction 

between the interface and the 

particles and thereby propose 

methods and techniques for 

Doru Stefanescu, University of 

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL

Subhayu Sen and Brij Dhindaw, 

USRA, MSFC

319 “Enclosed Laminar Flames (ELF), http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/science/elf_obj.html (accessed February 

1, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 151
Investigation Objective Principal Investigator

processing superior composite 

materials320

Wetting Characteristics of 

Immiscibles (WCI)

To use transparent materials to 

simulate a molten metal so 

scientists can see how the liquids 

interact with each other and with 

their container321

Barry Andrews, University of 

Alabama at Birmingham, 

Birmingham, AL 

Source: “The Fourth United States Microgravity Payload,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/brochure.pdf 

(accessed February 1, 2006).

320 “Particle Engulfment & Pushing by a Solid/Liquid Interface (PEP),” 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/science/pep_obj.html (accessed February 1, 2006). 321 Wetting Characteristics of Immiscibles (WCI),” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/usmp4/science/wci_obj.html

(accessed February 1, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 152
Table 2-106. Spacelab D-2 Investigations 

Materials Science Experiment Double Rack for Experiment Modules and Apparatus 

(MEDEA)

Cellular-Dendritic Solidification with Quenching of Aluminum-Lithium Alloys

Diffusion of Nickel in Liquid Copper-Aluminum and Cooper-Gold Alloys

Directional Solidification of Ge/GaAs Eutectic Composites

Floating-Zone Crystal Growth of Gallium-Doped Germanium

Floating-Zone Growth of GaAs

Growth of GaAs from Gallium Solutions

Hysteresis of the Specific Heat CV During Heating and Cooling Through the Critical Point

Thermoconvection at Dendritic-Eutectic Solidification of an Al-Si Alloy

Werkstofflabor (WL) Material Sciences Laboratory

Cellular-Dendritic Solidification at Low Rate of Aluminum-Lithium Alloys

Convective Effects on the Growth of GaInSb Crystals

Crystallization of Nucleic Acids and Nucleic Acid-Protein Complexes

Crystallization of Ribosomal Particles

Directional Solidification of the LiF-LiBaF3-Eutectic

Heating and Remelting of an Allotropic Fe-C-Si Alloy in a Ceramic Skin and the Effect of the Volume 

Change on the Mold’s Stability

Higher Modes and Their Instabilities of Oscillating Marangoni Convection in a Large Cylindrical Liquid 

Column

Immiscible Liquid Metal Systems

Impurity Transport and Diffusion in InSb Melt Under Microgravity Environment

Liquid Columns’ Resonances

Marangoni Convection in a Rectangular Cavity

Marangoni-Benard Instability

Nucleation and Phase Selection During Solidification of Undercooled Alloys

Onset of Oscillatory Marangoni Flows

OSIRIS: Oxide Dispersion Strengthened Single Crystalline Alloys Improved by Resolidification in Space

Separation Behavior of Monotectic Alloys

Solution Growth of GaAs Crystals Under Microgravity

Stability of Long Liquid Columns

Stationary Interdiffusion in a Non-Isothermal Molten Salt Mixture

Transport Kinetics and Structure of Metallic Melts

Vapor Growth of InP-Crystal with Halogen Transport in a Closed Ampoule

Holographic Optics Laboratory (HOLOP)

IDILE: Measurements of Diffusion Coefficients in Aqueous Solution

Interferometric Determination of the Differential Interdiffusion Coefficient of Binary Molten Salts

Marangoni Convection in a Rectangular Cavity

NUGRO: Phase Separation in Liquid Mixtures with Miscibility Gap

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 153
Baroreflex (BA)

Residual Acceleration in Spacelab D2

Transfer Function Experiment

Robotics Experiment (ROTEX)

Anthrorack (AR)

Adaptation to Microgravity and Readaptation to Terrestrial Conditions

Cardiovascular Regulation at Microgravity

Cardiovascular Regulation in Microgravity

Central Venous Pressure During Microgravity

Changes in the Rate of Whole-Body Nitrogen Turnover, Protein Synthesis, and Protein Breakdown Under 

Conditions of Microgravity

Determination of Segmental Fluid Content and Perfusion

Effects of Microgravity on Glucose Tolerance

Effects of Microgravity on the Dynamics of Gas Exchange, Ventilation, and Heart Rate in Submaximal 

Dynamic Exercise

Effects of Spaceflight on Pituitary-Gonad-Adrenal Function in the Humans

Left Ventricular Function at Rest and Under Stimulation

Leg Fluid Distribution at Rest and Under Lower-Body Negative Pressure

Peripheral and Central Hemodynamic Adaptation to Microgravity During Rest, Exercise, and LowerBody Negative Pressure in Humans

Pulmonary Perfusion and Ventilation in Microgravity Rest and Exercise

Regulation of Volume Homeostasis in Reduced Gravity, Possible Involvement of Atrial Natriuretic 

Factor Urodilatin and Cyclic GMP

Tissue Thickness and Tissue Compliance Along Body Axis Under Microgravity Conditions

Tonometry–Intraocular Pressure in Microgravity

Ventilation Distribution in Microgravity

Biolabor (BB)

Antigen-Specific Activation of Regulatory T-Lymphocytes to Lymphokine Production

Comparative Investigations of Microgravity Effects on Structural Development and Function of the 

Gravity-Perceiving Organ of Two Water-Living Vertebrates

Connective Tissue Biosynthesis in Space: Gravity Effects on Collagen Synthesis and Cell Proliferation of 

Cultured Mesenchymal Cells

Culture and Electrofusion of Plant Cell Protoplasts Under Microgravity: Morphological/Biochemical 

Characterization

Development of Vestibulocular Reflexes in Amphibians and Fishes with Microgravity Experience

Enhanced Hybridoma Production Under Microgravity

Fluctuation Test on Bacterial Cultures

Gravisensitivity of Cress Roots

Growth of Lymphocytes Under Microgravity Conditions

Immunoelectron Microscopic Investigation of Cerebellar Development at Microgravity

Influence of Conditions in Low-Earth Orbit on Expression and Stability of Genetic Information in 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 154
Bacteria

Influence of Gravity on Fruiting Body Development of Fungi

Productivity of Bacteria

Significance of Gravity and Calcium Ions on the Production of Secondary Metabolites in Cell 

Suspensions 

Structure and Function-Related Neuronal Plasticity of the Central Nervous System of Aquatic Vertebrates 

During Early Ontogenetic Development Under Microgravity Conditions

Yeast Experiment HB-L29/Yeast: Investigations on Metabolism

Cosmic Radiation Experiments

Biological Hze-Particle Dosimetry with Biostack

Biological Response to Extraterrestrial Solar UV Radiation and Space Vacuum

Chromosome Aberration

Measurement of the Radiation Environment Inside Spacelab at Locations Which Differ in Shielding 

Against Cosmic Radiation

Personal Dosimetry: Measurement of the Astronaut’s Ionizing Radiation Exposure

User Support Structure Payloads

Atomic Oxygen Exposure Tray (AOET)

Galactic Ultrawide-Angle Schmidt System (GAUSS)

Gas Bubbles in Glass Melts

Material Science Autonomous Payload (MAUS)

Module Optoelectronic Multispectral Stereo Scanner (MOMS)

Pool Boiling

Reaction Kinetics in Glass Melts Payload (RKGM)

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-55 Press Kit,” February 1993, pp. 15–38, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_055_STS-055_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 1, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 155
Table 2-107. Spacelab D-2 Payload 

Facility Contributor

Materials Sciences

Holographic Optics Laboratory (HOLOP) RWTH Aachen

Materialwissenschaftliche Autonome Experimente unter 

Schwerelosigkeit (MAUS)

University of Clausthal-Zellerfeld

Materials Sciences Experiment Double-Rack for 

Experiment Modules and Apparatus (MEDEA)

DLR, Cologne, Germany

Parabolic-Ellipsoid Heating Facility (ELI) University of Freiburg

Gradient Furnace with Quenching Device (GFQ) University of Hamburg/ACCESS

High Precision Thermostat (HPT) Technical University of Munich

Werkstofflabor (WL) DLR, Cologne, Germany

Advanced Fluid Physics Module (AFPM) ESA

Cryostat (CRY) Free University of Berlin

Gradient Heating Facility (GHF) CNES

Heating Facility for Turbine Blade-Line Technology 

(HFT)

University of Hamburg/DLR, 

Cologne, Germany

High Temperature Thermostat (HTT) Technical University of Berlin

Isothermal Heating Facility (IHF) University of Hamburg/DLR, 

Cologne, Germany

Life Sciences

Anthrorack ESA

Baroreflex NASA

Biolab DLR, Cologne, Germany

Radiation Complex DLR, Cologne, Germany

Technology Experiments

Crew Telesupport Experiment (CTE) ESA

Microgravity Measurement Assembly (MMA) ESA

Robotic Technology Experiment (ROTEX) DLR, Cologne, Germany

Astronomy/Earth Observations

Galaktisches Ultraweitwinkel Schmidt System (GAUSS) University of Bochum

Modular Opto-electronic Multispectral Scanner (MOMS) DLR, Cologne, Germany

Outside Experiments

Atomic Oxygen Exposure Tray (AOET) DLR, Cologne, Germany

Bremen Universität Satellite (BREMSAT) ZARM Technik AG

Source: “ESA-D-2: The European Space Agency’s Role in the German D-2 Spacelab Mission,” ESA Public Relations, 

NASA History Division folder 008888, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 156
Table 2-108. SIR-C/X-SAR System Characteristics

Parameter L-Band C-Band X-Band

Wavelength 0.235 m (0.77 ft) 0.058 m (0.19 ft) 0.031 m (0.10 ft)

Swath Width 15–90 km (9–56 mi) 15–90 km (9–56 mi) 15–40 km (9–25 mi)

Pulse Length 33.8, 16.9, 8.5 33.8, 16.8, 8.5 40

Data Rate 90 Mbits/sec 90 Mbits/sec 45 Mbits/sec

Data Format 8,4 bits/word

(8,4) BFPQ322

8,4 bits/word

(8,4) BFPQ 

8,4 bits/word

(8,4) BFPQ 

Source: “What Is SIR-C/X-SAR?” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/SIRCdesc.html (accessed February 2, 2006).

322 BFPQ—Block Floating Point Quantization—is a form of data compression from 8 bits per sample to 4 bits per 

sample.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 157
Table 2-109. SIR-C/X-SAR Discipline Areas and Supersites 

Discipline Supersites Backup Supersites

Calibration Flevoland, the Netherlands; 

Kerang, Australia; 

Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany; 

Western Pacific (rain experiment)

Matera, Italy; Sarobetsu, Japan; 

Palm Valley, Australia; Eastern 

Pacific

Ecology Manaus, Brazil; Raco, MI; Duke 

Forest, NC 

Amazon Survey, Brazil; Prince 

Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada; 

Howland, ME; Altona, Manitoba, 

Canada 

Electromagnetic Theory Safsaf, Sudan

Geology Galapagos Islands, Sahara; Death 

Valley, CA; Andes Mountains, 

Chile

Hawai’i; Saudi Arabia; Hotien 

East, China 

Hydrology Chickasha, OK; Ötztal, Austria; 

Bebedouro, Brazil; Montespertoli, 

Italy

Mahantango, PA; Mammoth 

Mountain, CA 

Oceanography East-North Atlantic Gulf Stream, 

Southern Ocean

Equatorial Pacific, North Sea

Source: “SIR-C/X Supersites,” 

http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/cdrom/sirced03/cdrom/DOCUMENT/HTML/SLIDES/MODULE03/SUPERSIT.HTM

(accessed January 17, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 158
Table 2-110. LITE Geophysical Parameters 

Tropospheric 

Aerosols

Stratospheric 

Aerosols

Clouds Surface Reflectance

Aerosol scattering ratio 

and wavelength 

dependence 

Aerosol scattering ratio 

and wavelength 

dependence 

Vertical distribution, 

multilayer structure

Albedo

PBL height and 

structure

Averaged integrated 

backscatter

Fractional cloud cover Multiangle backscatter 

(+/–30 degrees)

PBL optical depth Stratospheric density 

and temperature

Optical depth —

Source: “LITE Overview,” http://www-lite.larc.nasa.gov/n_overview.html (accessed January 24, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 159
Table 2-111. Spacelab-Mir Science Investigations

Investigation Investigators323

Metabolic Research

Dynamics of Calcium Metabolism and Bone Tissue Helen Lane, V. Ogonov, Irina Popova

Fluid and Electrolyte Homeostasis and Its Regulation Helen Lane, Anatoly Grigoriev

Humoral Immunity Clarence Sams, Irina Konstantinova

Metabolic Response to Exercise Helen Lane, Irina Popova

Metabolism of Blood Cells Helen Lane, Svetlana Ivanova

Peripheral Mononuclear Cells Clarence Sams, Irina Konstantinova

Physiologic Alterations and Pharmacokinetic 

Changes During Space Flight

Lakshmi Putcha, I. Goncharov

Red Blood Cell Mass and Survival Helen Lane, Svetlana Ivanova

Renal Stone Assessment Peggy Whitson, German Arzamozov, Sergey 

Kreavoy

Viral Reactivation Duane Pierson, Irina Konstantinova

Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research

Evaluation of Thermoregulation During Spaceflight Suzanne Fortney, Valeriy Mikhaylov

Maximal Aerobic Capacity Using Graded Bicycle 

Ergometry

Steven Siconolfi, Suzanne Fortney, Valeriy 

Mikhaylov, Alexander Kotov

Physiological Responses During Descent of Space 

Shuttle

John Charles, Valeriy Mikhaylov

Studies of Mechanisms Underlying Orthostatic 

Intolerance Using Ambulatory Monitoring Baraflex 

Testing and Valsalva Maneuver

Janice Yelle, John Charles, Valeriy Mikhaylov

Studies on Orthostatic Tolerance With the Use of 

Lower Body Negative Pressure

John Charles, Valeriy Mikhaylov

Sensory-Motor and Neuromuscular Function and Exercise Research

Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance and 

Characteristics

Steven Siconolfi, John McCarthy, Inessa 

Kozlovskaya, Yury Koryak, N. M. Kharitonov

Eye-Head Coordination During Target Acquisition M. Reschke, J. Bloomberg, W. Paloski, Boris 

Shenkman, Inessa Kozlovskaya, L. Kornilova, V. 

Barmin, A. Sokolov, B. Babayev 

Morphological, Histochemical, and Ultrastructural 

Characteristics of Skeletal Muscle

Daniel Feeback, Boris Shenkman

Posture and Locomotion J. Bloomberg, W. Paloski, M. Reschke, D. Harm, 

Inessa Kozlovskaya, A. Voronov, I. Tchekirda, 

M. Borisov

Hygiene, Sanitation, and Radiation Research

Inflight Radiation Measurements G. D. Badwhar, Vladislav Petrov

Measurements of Cytogenetic Effects of Space T. C. Yang, B. Fedorenko

323 No institutional affiliations were provided in source material.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 160
Investigation Investigators323

Radiation

Microbiology Duanne L. Pierson, Richard Sauer, Natalia 

Novokova, Vladimir Skuratov

Trace Chemical Contamination John James, Richard Sauer, L. Mukhamedieva, 

Yuri Sinyak

Microgravity Research

Protein Crystallization Methods Stan Koszelac, Alexander Malkin, O. Mitichkin

Space Acceleration Measurement System Richard DeLombard, S. Tyaboukha

Behavior and Performance Research

The Effectiveness of Manual Control During 

Simulation of Flight Tasks (PILOT)

Deborah L. Harm, V. P. Salnitskiy

Fundamental Biology Research

Incubator Biospecimen Sharing Program, T. S. Guryeva, 

Olga Dadasheva

Source: George C. Nield and Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, eds., “Phase 1 Program Joint Report,” NASA Special 

Publication-6108 (in English), January 1999, pp. 257–264, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttlemir/references/documents/phase1-joint-report.pdf (accessed February 2, 2006). Also “Spacelab-Mir,” brochure, NASA 

History Division folder 008895, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 161
Table 2-112. LMS Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Microgravity Science–Advanced Gradient Heating Facility (AGHF)

Coupled Growth in Hypermonotectics J. Barry Andrews, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Directional Solidification of Refined Al–1.5 wt. % 

Ni Alloys

Henri Nguyen Thi, Université d’Aix-Marseille 

III, Marseille, France

Directional Solidification of Refined Al–4 wt. % Cu 

Alloys

Denis Camel, DEM/SES, Grenoble, France

Effects of Convection on Interface Curvature During 

Growth of Concentrated Ternary Compounds 

Thierry Duffar, DEM/SES, Grenoble, France

Interactive Response of Advancing Phase 

Boundaries to Particles

Ulrike Hecht, ACCESS, Aachen, Germany

Particle Engulfment and Pushing by Solidifying 

Interfaces

Doru Stefanescu, University of Alabama, 

Tuscaloosa, AL

Microgravity Science–Advanced Protein Crystallization Facility

Analysis of Thaumatin Crystals Grown on Earth and 

in Microgravity

Alexander McPherson, University of California, 

Irvine, Irvine, CA

Comparative Analysis of Aspartyl tRA-Synthetase 

and Thaumatin Crystals Grown on Earth and in 

Microgravity

Richard Giegé, CNRS, Strasbourg, France

Crystallization and X-Ray Analysis of 5S rRNA and 

the 5S rRNA Domain A

Volker Erdmann, Free University of Berlin, 

Berlin, Germany

Crystallization in a Microgravity Environment of 

CcdB, a Protein Involved in the Control of Cell 

Death

Lode Wyns, Free University of Brussels, 

Brussels, Belgium

Crystallization of Apocrustacyanin C1 Naomi Chayen, Imperial College, London, 

England 

Crystallization of EGFR-EGF Christian Betzel, European Molecular Biology 

Lab, Hamburg, Germany

Crystallization of Photosystem I Wolf Schubert, Free University of Berlin, 

Berlin, Germany

Crystallization of Sulfolobus solfataricus Adriana Zagari, University of Naples, Naples, 

Italy

Crystallization of the Nucleosome Core Particle Timothy Richmond, ETH Zürich, Zürich, 

Switzerland

Growth of Lysozyme Crystals at Low Nucleation 

Density

Juan Garcia-Ruiz, University of Granada, 

Granada, Spain 

Lysosome Crystal Growth in the Advanced Protein 

Crystallization Facility Monitored via Mach-Zehnder 

Interferometry and CCD Video

John Helliwell, University of Manchester, 

Manchester, England

Mechanism of Membrane Protein Crystal Growth: 

Bacteriorhodopsin–Mixed Micelle Packing at the 

Consolution Boundary, Stabilized in Microgravity

Gottfried Wagner, Justus-Liebig Universität, 

Giessen, Germany

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 162
Investigation Principal Investigator

Microgravity Science: Bubble, Drop, and Particle Unit (BDPU)

Boiling on Small Plate Heaters Under Microgravity 

and a Comparison with Earth Gravity

Johannes Straub, Technical University Munich, 

Munich, Germany

Bubbles and Drop Interaction with Solidification 

Front

Rodolfo Monti, Università degli Studi di Napoli, 

Naples, Italy

A Liquid Electrohydrodynamics Experiment Dudley Saville, Princeton University, Princeton, 

NJ

Nonlinear Surface Tension Driven Bubble Migration Antonio Viviani, Seconda Università di Napoli, 

Naples, Italy

Oscillatory Thermocapillary Instability Jean-Claude Legros, Université Libre de 

Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Thermocapillary Convection in Multilayer Systems Jean-Claude Legros, Université Libre de 

Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Thermocapillary Migration and Interactions of 

Bubbles and Drops

Shankar Subramanian, Clarkson University 

Potsdam, NY

Microgravity Science: Accelerometers–Characterizing the Microgravity Environment

Microgravity Measurement Assembly (MMA) Maurizio Nati, Project Manager, ESA European 

Space Research and Technology Center, 

Noordwijk, the Netherlands 

Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE) Roshanak Hakimzadeh, Project Scientist, NASA 

Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH

Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) Roshanak Hakimzadeh, Project Scientist, NASA 

Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH

Life-Sciences Experiments: Animal Enclosure Module

Role of Corticosteroids in Bone Loss During 

Spaceflight

Tom Wronski, University of Florida, 

Gainesville, FL

Life-Sciences Experiments–Johnson Space Center Human Physiology Experiments: 

Musculoskeletal Investigations

An Approach to Counteract Impairment of 

Musculoskeletal Function in Space (Ground Study) 

Dr. Per Tesch, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, 

Sweden

Direct Measurement of the Initial Bone Response to 

Spaceflight in Humans 

Christopher Cann, University of California, San 

Francisco, San Francisco, CA 

Effects of Microgravity on Skeletal Muscle 

Contractile Properties

Paolo Cerretelli, Université de Genève, Geneva, 

Switzerland

Effects of Microgravity on the Biomechanical and 

Bioenergetic Characteristics of Human Skeletal 

Muscle

Pietro di Prampero, Università degli Studi di 

Udine, Udine, Italy 

Effects of Weightlessness on Human Single Muscle 

Fiber Function 

Robert Fitts, Marquette University, Milwaukee, 

WI

Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to 

Microgravity (Ground Study)

Adrian LeBlanc, Methodist Hospital, Houston, 

TX

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 163
Investigation Principal Investigator

Relationship of Long-Term Electromyographic 

Activity and Hormonal Function to Muscle Atrophy 

and Performance

Dr. V. Reggie Edgerton, University of 

California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Life-Sciences Experiments–Johnson Space Center Human Physiology Experiments: 

Metabolic Investigations

Measurement of Energy Expenditures During 

Spaceflight Using the Doubly Labeled Water Method 

Peter Stein, University of Medicine and 

Dentistry of New Jersey, Stratford, NJ 

Life-Sciences Experiments–Johnson Space Center Human Physiology Experiments: 

Pulmonary Investigations 

Extended Studies of Pulmonary Function in 

Weightlessness

John B. West, University of California, San 

Diego, La Jolla, CA

Life-Sciences Experiments–Johnson Space Center Human Physiology Experiments: Human 

Behavior and Performance Investigations 

Human Sleep, Circadian Rhythms and Performance 

in Space 

Timothy Monk, University of Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Microgravity Effects on Standardized Cognitive 

Performance Measures

Sam Schiflett, USAF Armstrong Laboratory, 

Brooks Air Force Base, TX

Life-Sciences Experiments–Johnson Space Center Human Physiology Experiments: 

Neuroscience Investigations

Torso Rotation Experiment Douglas Watt, McGill University, Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada 

Canal and Otolith Integration Studies (COIS) Millard Reschke, NASA Johnson Space Center, 

Houston, TX

Life-Sciences Experiments: Plant Growth Facility (PGF)

Compression Wood Formation in a Microgravity 

Environment

Norman Lewis, Washington State University, 

Pullman, WA

Space Tissue Loss Configuration B (SLB-B)

Development of the Fish Medaka in Microgravity Debra Wolgemuth, Columbia College of 

Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY

Source: J. P. Downey, compiler, Life and Microgravity Spacelab (LMS) Final Report, NASA Contractor Publication 

CP-1998-206960, February 1998. Also “Space Shuttle Mission STS-78 Press Kit,” June 1996, pp. 15–27, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_078_STS-078_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 5, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 164
Table 2-113. MSL-1 Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator/Hardware Developer

Large Isothermal Furnace (LIF)

Hardware Developer: Toshihiko Oida, NASDA 

Project Scientists: Shinichi Yoda, NASDA; Thomas Glasgow and Alfonso Velosa, Lewis Research 

Center

Diffusion in Liquid Lead-Tin-Telluride Misako Uchida, Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy 

Industries, Tokyo, Japan

Diffusion of Liquid Metals Toshio Itami, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan

Diffusion Processes in Molten Semiconductors David N. Matthiesen, Case Western Reserve 

University, Cleveland, OH

Impurity Diffusion in Ionic Metals Tsutomu Yamamura, Tohoku University, Sendai, 

Japan

Liquid Phase Sintering II Randall German, Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park, PA

Measurement of Diffusion Coefficient by Shear 

Cell Method

Shinichi Yoda, NASDA, Tsukuba, Japan

Expedite the Processing of Experiments to the Space Station (EXPRESS) Rack

Hardware Developer: Annette Sledd, MSFC

Astro/Plant Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus 

(AstroPGBA)

Louis Stodieck, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Physics of Hard Sphere Experiment Paul Chaikin, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Electromagnetic Containerless Processing Facility (TEMPUS)

Hardware Developer: Wolfgang Dreier, DARA

Project Scientists: Ivan Egry, DLR; Jan Rogers, MSFC

AC Calorimetry and Thermophysical Properties 

of Bulk Glass-Forming Metallic Liquids

W. L. Johnson, California Institute of Technology, 

Pasadena, CA

Alloy Undercooling Experiments Merton Flemings, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA

Experiments on Nucleation in Different Flow 

Regimes

Robert Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Measurement of Surface Tension and Viscosity 

of Undercooled Liquid Metals 

Julian Szekely, Merton Flemings, and Gerardo 

Trapaga, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cambridge, MA

Measurement of the Surface Tension of Liquid 

and Undercooled Metallic Melts by Oscillating 

Drop Technique

Martin G. Grohberg, Technical University, Berlin, 

Germany

Study of the Morphological Stability of 

Growing Dendrites by Comparative Dendrite 

Velocity Measurements on Pure Ni and a Dilute 

Ni-C Alloy in the Earth and Space Laboratory

D. M. Herlach, DLR, Cologne, Germany

Thermal Expansion of Glass Forming Metallic 

Alloys in the Undercooled State

K. Samwer, Institute for Physics, University of 

Augsburg, Germany 

Thermophysical Properties of Advance Hans F. Fecht, Technical University, Berlin, Germany

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 165
Investigation Principal Investigator/Hardware Developer

Materials in the Undercooled Liquid State

Thermophysical Properties of Undercooled 

Metallic Melts

Ivan Egry, German Aerospace Research Establishment 

(DLR, Cologne, Germany)

Undercooled Melts of Alloys with 

Polytetrahedral Short-Range Order

D. M. Herlach, DLR, Cologne, Germany

Combustion Module-1 (CM-1)

Laminar Soot Processes Gerard Faeth, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Structure of Flame Balls at Low Lewis Number 

(SOFBALL)

Paul Romney, University of Southern California, Los 

Angeles, CA

Droplet Combustion Apparatus

Hardware Developer: John B. Haggard, Lewis Research Center

Project Scientist: Vedha Nayagam, Analex Corporation

Droplet Combustion Experiment Forman Williams, University of California, San Diego, 

San Diego, CA 

Fiber-Supported Droplet Combustion Forman Williams, University of California, San Diego, 

San Diego, CA

Middeck Glove Box

Hardware Developer: David Jex, MSFC

Project Scientist: Don Reiss, MSFC

Bubble and Drop Nonlinear Dynamics L. G. Leal, University of California, Santa Barbara, 

Santa Barbara, CA

Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures Peter Voorhees, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

Internal Flows in a Free Drop S. S. Sadhal, University of Southern California, Los 

Angeles, CA

A Study of Fundamental Operation of a 

Capillary-driven Heat Transfer (CHT) Device 

in Microgravity

Kevin P. Hallinan, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH

Protein Crystallization Apparatus

Handheld Diffusion Test Cells Alexander McPherson, University of California, 

Riverside, Riverside, CA

Hardware Developer: Ron King, MSFC 

Project Scientist: Bill Witherow, MSFC

Protein Crystallization Apparatus for 

Microgravity

Dan Carter, New Century Pharmaceuticals, Huntsville, 

AL

Hardware Developer: Keith Higginbotham, MSFC 

Project Scientist: Robert Snyder, MSFC

Second Generation Vapor Diffusion Apparatus Larry DeLucas, Center for Macromolecular 

Crystallography, University of Alabama at 

Birmingham 

Hardware Developer: John Nordness, Center for 

Macromolecular Crystallography

Project Scientist: Laurel Karr, NASA Marshall Space 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 166
Investigation Principal Investigator/Hardware Developer

Flight Center

Measuring Microgravity

Microgravity Measurement Assembly (MMA) Project Scientist: Hans Hamacher, German Aerospace 

Research Establishment, DLR, Cologne, Germany 

Hardware Developer: Maurizio Nati, ESA

Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment 

(OARE)

Project Scientist: Peter Tschen, Lewis Research Center

Hardware Developer: William Wagar, Lewis Research 

Center

Quasi-Steady Acceleration Measurement 

(QSAM)

Project Scientist: Hans Hamacher, German Aerospace 

Research Establishment, DLR, Cologne, Germany 

Hardware Developer: Hans-Ewald Richter, German 

Aerospace Research Establishment, DLR, Cologne, 

Germany

Space Acceleration Measurement System 

(SAMS)

Project Scientist: Peter Tschen, Lewis Research Center

Hardware Developer: Ron Sicker, Lewis Research 

Center

Source: “Space Shuttle Mission STS-94 Press Kit,” pp. 19–30, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_085_STS-094_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 5, 2006). Also 

“NASA’s Microgravity Science Laboratory: Illuminating the Future,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Payload 

Projects Office, NASA History Division folder 17676, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, 

Washington, DC. Also at http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttle/msl/brochure.pdf (accessed February 7, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 167
Table 2-114. Neurolab Investigations 

Investigation Principal Investigator

Blood Pressure Control

Blood Pooling and Plasma Filtration in the Thigh in 

Microgravity (Artificial Neural Networks and 

Cardiovascular Regulation)

Friedhelm J. Baisch, DLR Institute of Aerospace 

Medicine, Cologne, Germany

The Human Sympathetic Nervous System Response 

to Spaceflight (Autonomic Neurophysiology in 

Microgravity)

David Robertson, Vanderbilt University, 

Nashville, TN

The Influence of Microgravity on Arterial Baroreflex 

Responses Triggered by Valsalva’s Maneuver 

(Autonomic Neuroplasticity in Weightlessness)

Dwain L. Eckberg, Virginia Commonwealth 

University, Richmond, VA 

Neural Control of the Cardiovascular System in 

Space (Integration of Neural Cardiovascular Control 

in Space)

C. Gunnar Blomqvist, University of Texas 

Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX

Sensory Integration and Navigation

The Brain as a Predictor: On Catching Flying Balls 

in Zero-g (Frames of Reference and Internal Models)

Alain Berthoz, CNRS/College de France, Paris, 

France

Ensemble Neural Coding of Place in Zero-g Bruce L. McNaughton, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ

The Role of Visual Cues in Microgravity Spatial 

Orientation

Charles M. Oman, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge, MA 

Visual-Motor Coordination During Spaceflight Otmar Bock, German Sport University, Köln, 

Germany

The Balance System

The Effect of Spaceflight on the Ultrastructure of the 

Cerebellum (Anatomical Studies of Central 

Vestibular Adaptation)

Gay R. Holstein, Mount Sinai School of 

Medicine, New York, NY

Gene Expression in the Rat Brain During Spaceflight Ottavio Pompeiano, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Neural Re-adaptation to Earth’s Gravity Following 

Return from Space (Chronic Recording of Otolith 

Nerves in Microgravity)

Stephen M. Highstein, Washington University 

School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

Ocular Counter-Rolling During Centrifugation and 

Static Tilt (Spatial Orientation of the VestibuloOcular Reflex)

B. Cohen, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New 

York, NY

Perception of the Spatial Vertical During 

Centrifugation and Static Tilt (Visual-Otolithic 

Interactions in Microgravity)

G. R. Clement, Centre National de la Recherche 

Scientifique/College de France, Paris, France

Ribbon Synaptic Plasticity in Gravity Sensors of 

Rats Flown on Neurolab (Multidisciplinary Studies 

of Neural Plasticity in Space)

Muriel D. Ross, ARC

Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Respiration

The Effects of Spaceflight on the Rat Circadian Charles Fuller, University of California at Davis, 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 168
Investigation Principal Investigator

Timing System (Central Nervous System Control of 

Rhythms and Homeostasis During Spaceflight)

Davis, CA

Sleep and Respiration in Microgravity John B. West, University of California, San 

Diego, La Jolla, CA

Sleep, Circadian Rhythms, and Performance During 

Space Shuttle Missions (Clinical Trial of Melatonin 

as Hypnotic for Neurolab Crew)

C. Czeisler, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 

Nervous System Development in Weightlessness

Development of an Insect Gravity Sensory System in 

Space; Crickets in Space (CRISP)

Eberhard R. Horn, University of Ulm, Ulm, 

Germany

Development of the Aortic Baroreflex in 

Microgravity (Postnatal Development of Aortic 

Nerves in Space)

Tsuyoshi Shimizu, Fukushima Medical University 

School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan

Development of the Vestibular System in 

Microgravity (Microgravity and Development of 

Vestibular Circuits)

Jacqueline Raymond, Université Montpellier II, 

Montpellier, France

Early Development of Gravity-Sensing Organs in 

Microgravity (Development of Vestibular Organs in 

Microgravity)

Michael L. Wiederhold, University of Texas 

Health Science Center at San Antonio, San 

Antonio, TX

Effect of Weightlessness on the Developing Nervous 

System (Reduced Gravity: Effects in the Developing 

Nervous System)

Richard S. Nowakowski, University of Medicine 

and Dentistry of New Jersey; Robert Wood 

Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 

Gravity Plays an Important Role in Muscle 

Development and the Differentiation of Contractile 

Protein Phenotype (Neuro-Thyroid Interaction on 

Skeletal Isomyosin Expression in Zero Gravity)

Kenneth Baldwin, College of Medicine, 

University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Motor System Development Depends on 

Experience: A Microgravity Study of Rats (Effects 

of Gravity on Postnatal Motor Development)

Kerry D. Walton and Rodolfo R. Llinás, New 

York University School of Medicine, New York, 

NY 

Neural Development Under Conditions of 

Spaceflight 

Kenneth S. Kosik, Brigham and Women’s 

Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 

Neuromuscular Development Is Altered by 

Spaceflight (Effects of Microgravity on 

Neuromuscular Development)

Danny A. Riley, Medical College of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee, WI

Source: Jay C. Buckey, Jr., and Jerry L. Homick, eds., The Neurolab Spacelab Mission: Neuroscience Research in 

Space: Results from the STS-90 Neurolab Spacelab Mission (Washington, DC: NASA SP-535, 2003). Also “Space 

Shuttle Mission STS-90 Press Kit,” April 1998, pp. 16–29, 

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_090_STS-090_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed February 7, 2006). Several 

investigation titles listed in the press kit, which was published before the mission, differed from those used in the 

Neurolab Spacelab Mission. The titles from the press kit are shown in parentheses in the table. Also “Benefits of 

Neurolab Science” (Archived Site), 

http://web.archive.org/web/20021218070259/http://neurolab.jsc.nasa.gov/benefits.htm (accessed May 23, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 169
Chapter 3

Table 3-1. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (thousands of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Aeronautical R&T 309,200 442,598 512,000 788,192 769,362 844,200 823,500 853,900 844,200 920,100

Transatmospheric 

R&T

69,400 59,027 95,000 4,100 — 20,000 — — — —

Space R&T 285,900 284,029 286,900 309,172 — — — — — —

Advanced Space 

Transportation324

— — — — 114,600 109,100 162,100 234,000 336,700 417,100

Spacecraft and 

Remote Sensing

— — — — 140,800 183,300 174,900 — — —

Flight Programs — — — — 115,000 140,900 3,500 — — —

Space 

Communications 

33,100 — — — — —

Space Processing — — — — 31,900 19,500 33,300 — — —

Advanced Smallsat 

Technology 

— — — — — 12,500 61,900 — — —

Launch Vehicles 

Support 

— — — — — 37,100 —325 — — —

Total Space R&T 285,900 284,029 286,900 309,172 435,400 69,100 95,200 234,000

326

336,700 417,100

324 Beginning in FY 1993, space R&T activities were funded by different organizations: the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT) until FY 1995, 

the Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT) until FY 1997, and the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology beginning in FY 1997. 

These organizations included activities not directly related to space R&T, such as commercial programs and technology transfer. In addition, in some years, all space 

R&T activities were included in the category of advanced space transportation. In other years, they were several categories shown in addition to advanced space 

transportation. Whenever possible, this is indicated in the table.

325 Discontinued as separate budget category. Included with Expendable Launch Vehicles and Services.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 170
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Aeronautics and 

Space R&T

664,500 785,654 893,900 1,101,46

4 

1,204,76

2 

1,366,60

0 

1,259,200 1,087,900 1,180,900 1,337,20

0 

Change 121,154 108,246 207,564 103,298 161,838 –107,400 –171,300 93,000 156,300

Percent Change — 15.4 12.1 18.8 8.6 11.8 –8.5 –15.7 7.9 11.7

326 Included funding only for Delta Clipper, X-33, X-34, and Advanced Space Transportation programs. Other programs relating to space R&T were redistributed 

into the Space Science, Mission to Planet Earth, Aeronautics, and Life and Microgravity Sciences programs. This reallocation reflected the distribution of technology 

into the benefiting programs.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 171
Table 3-2. Aeronautics R&T Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 414,200/404,200327 309,200

1990 462,800/449,756328 442,598

1991 512,000/512,000 512,000

1992 591,200/774,600329 788,192

1993 890,200/865,587 769,362

1994 1,020,700/1,082,200 844,200

1995 898,500/860,000 823,500

1996 911,900/845,900 865,900

1997 857,800/844,200 844,200

1998 920,100/907,100 920,100

327 The reduction of $10.0 million resulted from congressional action on the FY 1989 budget request. This reduction 

was reflected in the advanced composites program under materials and structures systems technology. 328 The decrease of $13.1 million reflected a $7.3 million general reduction and $5.8 million sequestration.

329 The net increase of $183.4 million resulted from a reduction of $26.7 million. This included a general reduction of 

$17.0 million directed by Congress, a reallocation of $9.7 million to transatmospheric R&T, and an increase of $210.0 

million for the transfer of research operations support previously funded as operation of installation in the Research and 

Program Management (R&PM) appropriation.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 172
Table 3-3. R&T Base (Aeronautics) Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 314,200330/315,563331 309,563

1990 335,700/326,122 321,764

1991 353,400/336,400332 336,400

1992 375,600/360,700 343,297

1993 394,000/436,478333 451,547

1994 448,300/418,300 420,300

1995 342,800334/366,300335 354,300

1996 354,700/350,300 430,600

1997 354,400/404,200 404,200

1998 418,300/428,300 428,300

330 Included funding for fluid and thermal physics, applied aerodynamics, propulsion and power research, information 

sciences, controls and guidance, human factors, flight systems R&T, and systems analysis. The increase from the 

estimate for FY 1988 of $251.6 million to $314.2 million was due to increases in all categories except human factors, 

which decreased slightly.

331 In the R&T base, a number of realignments were made as a result of implementing new charging algorithms for 

program support requirements in the scientific and technical automatic data processing and facilities areas. This change, 

which allocated costs to benefiting programs, was an outgrowth of the appropriation realignment activity of the previous 

year. The increase of $1.4 million in the R&T base program reflected the realignment of funding from the numerical 

aerodynamic simulation program in the systems technology area for priority program requirements in the R&T base.

332 The R&T base was reduced by $17.0 million, which was reallocated to the systems technology area to support the 

high-performance computing program. 333 A new discipline research program for hypersonic research was established to consolidate total funding for these 

activities and give visibility to the program. The space R&T portion of hypersonic funding ($5.1 million) was 

reallocated to the aeronautics R&T base.

334 For FY 1995, the 18 percent reduction in the R&T base resulted from reductions ($47.5 million) to facilities and 

operations support and technical services along with reductions in the R&T base research activities, discontinuing the 

one-time adjustment for aeronautics facilities research and development included in FY 1994 into FY 1995 ($19.0 

million), and consolidating the Small Business Innovative Research activities ($9.0 million) into the Advanced 

Concepts and Technology budget.

335 The rotorcraft industry technology program was eliminated from the R&T base following a review of the program. 

The hypersonics program was added to the R&T base.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 173
Table 3-4. Systems Technology/Focused Programs (Aeronautics) Funding History (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 100,000336/88,637337 88,637

1990 127,100/123,634338 120,834

1991 158,600/175,600339 175,600

1992 215,600/203,800 212,122

1993 253,000/280,284 265,215

1994 428,900340/451,900341 423,900

1995 533,700/493,700 469,200

1996 557,200/495,600342 435,300

1997 503,400/440,000343 440,000

1998 501,800/491,800 491,800

336 This amount included funding for materials and structures systems technology, rotorcraft systems technology, highperformance aircraft systems technology, advanced propulsion systems technology, and numerical aerodynamic 

simulation. The increase from FY 1998 funding of $83.2 million was due largely to the establishment of a new budget 

category—advanced composite materials technology in the broader materials and structures systems technology area—

and the accompanying funding of $20 million. 337 The decrease was due to congressional action on the FY 1989 budget request. The decrease was reflected in the 

advanced composites program under materials and structures systems technology.

338 A new budget line was established for the high-speed research program (previously included under highperformance aircraft systems technology), reflecting its importance and increased research emphasis. Funding was 

realigned from the high-performance aircraft systems technology program.

339 As a result of congressional action on the FY 1991 budget request, NASA was directed to absorb $15.0 million in 

aeronautics for application to high-performance computing. This $15.0 million, when combined with $2.0 million 

previously identified by NASA within the aeronautics R&T base for precursor work in high-performance computing, 

resulted in a total of $17.0 million in FY 1991. The funding was reallocated from the R&T base, and a new program 

within systems technology was created for high-performance computing. 340 The increased submission in FY 1994 reflected restructuring to include $10,523,000 transferred from advanced hightemperature engine materials (materials and structures systems technology) into the materials and structures portion of 

the R&T base, $5.28 million transferred from advanced rotorcraft (rotorcraft systems technology) into the aerodynamics 

portion of the R&T base, and $9.57 million transferred from high-performance flight research (high-performance 

aircraft systems technology) transferred into the flight systems portion of the R&T base. Also in the advanced 

propulsion systems technology program, $15,246,000 was transferred from advanced turboprop systems into advanced 

subsonic technology and $3,085,000 was transferred from general aviation/commuter engine technology into the 

materials and structures portion of the R&T base.

341 The hypersonic technology component of the system technology program moved to the R&T base. Materials and 

structures systems technology was renamed “advanced composite technology.” This category also included highperformance computing and communications, advanced composite technology, numerical aerodynamic simulation, 

high-speed research, and advanced subsonic technology programs. 342 The budget category was renamed “focused programs.” Individual programs remained unchanged, with the 

exception of advanced composites technology, which was transferred to the composites element of the advanced 

subsonic technology program. Technology efforts related to the fuselage were transferred into the materials and 

structures R&T base element. The advanced composite technology program concluded at the end of FY 1995.

343 This did not include the numerical aerodynamic simulation program, which was included in the information 

technology segment of the R&T base program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 174
Table 3-5. Research Operations Support Funding History (in thousands of dollars)344

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1992 (281,812)345/210,100346 232,773

1993 243,200/148,825 —

1994 143,500/—347 —

344 Research Operations Support (ROS) provided support to the civil service workforce and the physical plant at the 

Centers and NASA Headquarters.

345 Previously funded in the R&PM appropriation. Reflected congressional reduction in R&PM funds and increase in 

R&D funds.

346 Reflected the change from R&PM/Operation of Installation appropriation to Research and Development (R&D) 

appropriation. FY 1992 congressional action sharply reduced the requested funding for these activities and authorized 

their transfer into the R&D and SFC&DC appropriations. That transfer allowed the reduction to be accommodated with 

minimal impact by allowing the programs to fund some of the activities previously covered by R&PM funds.

347 No submission.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 175
Table 3-6. Construction of Facilities (Aeronautics) Funding History (in thousands of dollars)348

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 52,600

1994 —/212,000 203,000349

1995 22,000350 22,000351

348 Included National Aeronautical Facilities and Aeronautical Facilities Revitalization.

349 Included National Aeronautical Facilities ($172 million) and Aeronautical Facilities Revitalization ($25 million). 350 Aeronautics Facilities Revitalization. Funding for modernization of the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Complex at 

NASA Ames Research Center. National Aeronautical Facilities was made into a separate budget category.

351 Included Aeronautical Facilities Revitalization, specifically modernization of the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel 

Complex at Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 176
Table 3-7. Transatmospheric R&T (Aeronautics) Funding History (in thousands of dollars)352

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 84,400/69,400 69,400

1990 127,000/59,027 59,027

1991 119,000/95,000 95,000

1992 72,000/20,000 4,100

1993 80,000/—353 —

1994 80,000/20,000354 20,000355

352 NASP program. 353 No revised estimate submitted. 354 The transatmospheric R&T program concluded in FY 1994. A restructured hypersonic technology program began in 

FY 1995.

355 In 1994, Congress directed the conclusion of the NASP program while it was in the technology-development phase.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 177
Table 3-8. National Aeronautical Facilities (Aeronautics) Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1995 —/400,000356 35,000357

356 Removed from Construction of Facilities and included in a separate budget line item. 357 The administration decided not to pursue development of the National Wind Tunnel Complex, given anticipated 

budget constraints. The National Wind Tunnel Project Office at Lewis Research Center completed a Systems Design 

Review followed by archiving of the collected data and a phase-down of the program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 178
Table 3-9. Space R&T Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 390,900358/295,900359 285,900

1990 338,100/285,871360 284,029

1991 532,900361/290,400 286,900

1992 421,800362/309,000 309,172

1993 332,000/272,729363 —

1994 298,200364/—365 —

358 The increase from FY 1988 of $167.3 million reflected greater emphasis on focused technology (CSTI and 

Pathfinder) and university space research programs. See the tables below for further details.

359 The decrease of $95.0 million reflected congressional action on the FY 1989 budget request. 360 The reduction reflected congressionally directed decreases in the IN-STEP, CSTI, and exploration technology 

programs; general budget reduction; and sequestration of funds. See the individual tables below for details. 361 The funding request reflected the addition of $37.0 million for Exploration Mission Studies to the Space R&T 

program for consolidation in a single budget element. See the Exploration and Mission Studies funding table below. 

The increase from the FY 1990 budget request reflected larger amounts for the Exploration Technology and CSTI 

programs. See the individual funding tables below.

362 The amount reflected $82.9 million to fund a new budget category of space automation and telerobotics, which was 

previously part of the CSTI program. 363 In 1993, the Office of Commercial Programs and the space R&T program merged to create the new OACT. The 

reduction of $59.3 million was the result of a congressional general reduction of $65.0 million, a reallocation of $5.1 

million of hypersonic funding to the aeronautical R&T base, and a reallocation of $0.1 million to research operations 

support in the aeronautics R&T budget. This was offset by the transfer of $10.9 million due to the redistribution of the 

research operations support funding program. 364 This included the R&T base program and CSTI program, which included research in five categories: 1) space 

science technology thrust, 2) planetary surface technology thrust, 3) transportation technology thrust, 4) space platforms 

technology thrust, and 5) operations technology thrust.

365 The space R&T budget category was eliminated. Individual program categories became part of Advanced Concepts 

and Technology.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 179
Table 3-10. R&T Base (Space) Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 134,100366/134,100 124,100

1990 130,100/124,961 125,033

1991 125,700/125,700367 125,688

1992 141,600/141,800368 140,850

1993 173,800369/158,113370 —

1994 160,800/—371 —

366 The R&T base funding category included 1) aerothermodynamics, 2) space energy conversion, 3) propulsion, 4) 

materials and structures, 5) space data and communications, 6) information sciences, 7) controls and guidance, 8) space 

human factors, 9) spaceflight, 10) systems analysis, and 11) university space research programs. 367 Budget categories were realigned as programs in space data and communications R&T, and information sciences 

R&T. Controls and guidance were combined into one program: information and controls. Human factors R&T was 

combined with life-support work, previously carried in the space energy conversion R&T program, and renamed human 

support R&T.

368 The R&T base programs included 1) aerothermodynamics, 2) space energy conversion, 3) propulsion, 4) materials 

and structures, 5) spaceflight, 6) in-space technology experiments, 7) systems analysis, 8) university space research, 9) 

information and controls technology, 10) human support technology, and 11) space communications.

369 The increase reflected the addition of IN-STEP, formerly a separate budget category. 370 The decrease of $15.7 million was the net result of the distribution of the appropriations general reduction of $18.5 

million, reallocation of $5.1 million of hypersonic research funding to the aeronautics R&T base, and reallocation of 

$0.1 million to ROS in the Aeronautical R&T budget offset by the transfer of $8.0 million due to the redistribution of 

ROS funding. The reduction directed by Congress affected planned activities within the NASA Field Centers as well as 

universities and industry.

371 The budget category was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 180
Table 3-11. IN-STEP Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 —372 19,800

1990 16,200373/10,200 10,155

1991 19,800/11,200374 11,200

1992 16,000/15,500 15,074

1993 —375 —

372 No budget submission for this category. 373 New program. 374 This program was reduced by $8.6 million as a result of congressional action on the FY 1991 budget request, 

resulting in the delay and/or cancellation of several NASA and industry/university experiments. 375 Transferred into the R&T base funding category, focused on supporting technology flight experiments selected from 

announcements of opportunity, and later funded by the flight programs budget.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 181
Table 3-12. CSTI Program Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 156,800376/121,800 121,800

1990 144,500/123,810377 121,373

1991 171,00/119,000378 119,000

1992 114,300/79,800379 82,948

1993 158,200380/114,616381 —

1994 137,400/—382 —

376 CSTI research focused on technologies to enable reliable and lower-cost access to space and to support space 

operations and science missions. The funding category included automation and robotics, propulsion, vehicle, 

information technology, large structures and control, and high-capacity power. 377 The decrease reflected congressional action on the FY 1990 budget request: a reduction of $17.5 million spread 

across Earth-to-orbit technology ($8.5 million), telerobotics ($1.0 million), artificial intelligence ($1.0 million), and 

control of flexible structures ($1.0 million), as well as the deletion of the total effort in booster technology ($6.0 

million). In addition, the sequestration resulted in a further reduction of $3.2 million, which included a reduction of $0.7 

million in telerobotics, $0.3 million in artificial intelligence, $1.3 million in control of flexible structures, $0.4 million 

in science sensor technology, and $0.5 million in high rate/capacity data.

378 CSTI funding was reduced by $52.0 million, which included a decrease of $49.5 million as a result of congressional 

action on the FY 1991 budget request and a reallocation of $2.5 million to support exploration mission studies. The 

reduction was accommodated by decreasing the operations area by $5.7 million and the transportation area by $43.8 

million. The reallocation of $2.5 million to support exploration mission studies resulted in reductions of $1.5 million 

from the operations area, $0.8 million from transportation, and $0.2 million from sensor technology in the science area.

379 The reduction reflected an increase of $1.0 million in CSTI operations and a decrease of $35.5 million in the CSTI 

transportation area, reflecting the termination of the aeroassist flight experiment in accordance with congressional 

direction and a reduction of $0.7 million in the Earth-to-orbit propulsion program for reallocation to transatmospheric 

R&T.

380 In FY 1993, the CSTI program was restructured to include all elements of the ongoing CSTI, exploration technology, 

and space automation and telerobotics programs. It focused on research in five thrust areas: 1) space science, 2) 

planetary surface, 3) transportation, 4) space platforms, and 5) operations. It incorporated elements of the previous 

exploration technology program and the space automation and telerobotics program.

381 The reduction of $43.6 million in the CSTI budget was the net result of a congressional reduction of $46.5 million 

partially offset by a transfer of $2.9 million due to the redistribution of research operations support funding. 382 The budget category was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 182
Table 3-13. Exploration Technology (Pathfinder) Program Funding History (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 100,000383/40,000384 40,000

1990 47,300385/26,900386 27,468387

1991 179,400388/27,500389 27,500

1992 52,000/29,000390 28,900

1993 —391 —

383 First year of the Pathfinder program. The budget category included programs in exploration technology, operations 

technology, humans-in-space technology, transfer vehicle technology, and mission studies. 384 The Pathfinder program was reduced by $60.0 million as a result of congressional action on the FY 1989 budget. 

This resulted in a change in scope or deferred start-up of essentially all Pathfinder activities. 385 Added programs in surface exploration and in-space operations, replacing exploration technology and operations 

technology.

386 Pathfinder (Exploration Technology) funding was reduced by a total of $20.4 million as a result of congressional 

action on the FY 1990 budget request. This necessitated reductions in all areas of this program. 387 The program name changed to Exploration Technology. 388 This focused technology program was organized into the technology areas of space transportation, in-space

operations, surface operations, human support, lunar and Mars science, information systems and automation, nuclear 

propulsion, and innovative technologies and systems analysis. The increase reflected the initiation of a number of new 

programs.

389 The decrease reflected a $151.9 million reduction directed by Congress. This included reductions of $32.0 million in 

space transportation, $21.0 million in in-space operations, $48.2 million in surface operations, $21.9 million in human 

support, $3.8 million in lunar and Mars science, $10.5 million in information systems and automation, $10.5 million in 

nuclear propulsion, and $4.0 million in innovative technologies and exploration technology analysis.

390 The Exploration Technology program was reduced as a result of congressional action that reduced the program by 

$25.0 million and provided an additional $2.0 million for laser power beaming research.

391 In FY 1993, the Exploration Technology program was transferred into two thrusts of the restructured CSTI program, 

specifically planetary surface technology and transportation technology. The Exploration Technology budget category 

was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 183
Table 3-14. Space Automation and Telerobotics Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 —392 (128,534)

1992 82,900393/37,900394 37,900

1993 —395 —

392 No submission in this category. Included in the CSTI program.

393 This budget category included the technology demonstration elements of the flight telerobotics servicer program 

(previously conducted as part of the Space Station Freedom program) and the telerobotics and artificial intelligence 

programs (previously conducted as part of the CSTI program).

394 In FY 1993, the majority of budget items in the space automation and telerobotics funding category, specifically the 

telerobotics and artificial intelligence categories, transferred into the CSTI operations technology thrust. Funding for the 

program was reduced by $45.0 million, which reflected the termination of the flight telerobotic servicer program ($55.0) 

planned for Space Station Freedom, as directed by Congress, with $10.0 million redirected to the telerobotics program 

for advanced competitive robotics efforts.

395 The budget category was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 184
Table 3-15. Exploration Mission Studies Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1991 37,000396/7,000397 —398

1992 15,000399/5,000400 3,500

1993 31,800401/—402 —

396 FY 1991 was the first year of direct funding for exploration study activities in a consolidated budget line item. Prior 

year funding for exploration mission studies was contained within the space R&T, space science and applications, and 

space transportation budgets.

397 Although funds were authorized in FY 1991 for exploration mission studies, no funds were appropriated. In 

accordance with the language contained in the October 18, 1990, Conference Report, a subsequent reprogramming 

request of $7.0 million was submitted to continue preliminary SEI conceptual design studies.

398 No amount indicated in budget documents.

399 Focused on providing the technical, programmatic, and cost analyses required to select an SEI architecture. 400 Budgeted under space R&T. 401 The Office of Exploration acquired management responsibility for FY 1991 and FY 1992 exploration mission 

studies requirements, which were formerly budgeted under space R&T. This amount included a new budget element to 

develop and conduct several small-scale, robotic/automated precursor missions. 402 The budget category was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 185
Table 3-16. Space Access and Technology Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 — 109,100

1995 —403/162,100 605,400

1996 193,000/641,300 —

1997 725,000/—404 —

403 The program was not established at the time of the initial budget submission. 404 Funds for activities budgeted in the Space Access and Technology program were redistributed into the Space 

Science, Mission to Planet Earth, Aeronautics, and Life and Microgravity Sciences programs. A reallocation of $487.3 

million was made from space access and technology to the new aeronautics and space transportation technology 

program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 186
Table 3-17. Advanced Space Transportation Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —405 114,600406

1994 —407/121,900408 109,100

1995 103,100/162,100409 162,100

1996 193,300/188,500 234,000

1997 324,700410/336,700411 336,700412

1998 396,600413/417,100 417,100414

405 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 406 Included as part of the OACT budget. 407 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission. 408 Advanced space transportation included funds for technology assessment and development, advanced technology 

maturation, in-space transportation, new launch system, and a single-engine Centaur. The advanced space transportation 

program combined space transportation technology efforts that previously were distributed among several programs: 

advanced concepts and technology (space transportation), space systems development (advanced programs, specifically 

advanced transportation, the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program [SPIP], advanced launch technology, and the singleengine Centaur).

409 The budget category moved from OACT with the merger of OACT into the new OSAT. 410 The increase in the budget submission reflected an increase in the budget request for the reusable launch vehicle–

initial flight demonstration program from $109 million to $266.1 million and the initiation of the advanced space 

transportation technology program ($42.0 million). Other changes were decreases due to the elimination of the reusable 

launch vehicle–systems engineering and analysis program (–$0.5 million) and reusable launch vehicle–technology 

program (–$49.5 million) and a decrease in the transportation technology support program from $29.5 million to $16.6 

million.

411 The program was now part of the new aeronautics and space transportation technology program. Of the $336.7 

million, $324.7 million was reallocated from the former OSAT and $12.0 million was added to augment funding for the 

low-cost booster technology program, as directed in House Report 104-812. 412 Aeronautics and space transportation technology funding. 413 The program was restructured to include the Delta Clipper, X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator, and 

Advanced Space Transportation programs.

414 The program included the reusable launch vehicle flight demonstration program ($345.0 million), future launch 

studies ($10.0 million), and advanced space transportation technology ($62.1 million).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 187
Table 3-18. Spacecraft and Remote Sensing Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 140,800

1994 —415/156,000416 183,300

1995 143,300417/144,300418 174,900

1996 177,500/174,100419 —

1997 151,000/—420 —

415 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission. 416 Included in the Advanced Concepts and Technology program. 417 Included Earth applications systems, space and planetary systems, and space platforms systems. 418 Added the partnership for next generation vehicle and communications systems line items to the budget category. 

The separate communications systems budget category was eliminated. Part of the new Space Access and Technology 

program.

419 The budget category was restructured to include spacecraft systems technology, instrument/sensing technology, 

autonomy and operations, telerobotics, communications, and the SBIR funding allocation. The IN-STEP program 

moved to spacecraft and remote sensing from the flight programs category ($30.1 million), and on-board propulsion 

moved to spacecraft and remote sensing from the advanced space transportation budget category ($4.5 million). The net 

reduction of $3.4 million reflected a reduction of $28.3 million consistent with congressional direction and a reduction 

of $5.2 million to cover increases in the cost of the Lewis spacecraft in the advanced Smallsat technology budget 

element. These reductions were offset by an increase of $30.1 million due to budget restructuring. The reduction of 

$28.3 million was accommodated by a reduction in funding for the Partnership for a Next Generation Vehicle of $7.0 

million and a reduction of $21.3 million to the remainder of spacecraft and remote sensing, reflecting congressional 

direction.

420 In accordance with the realignment of funding, $133.6 million of spacecraft and remote sensing funding was 

redistributed to the space science budget in order to integrate the science goals and technology requirements of the 

space science programs. The exact reallocation of the remaining $17.4 million was unspecified, but budget documents 

indicate that it went to Mission to Planet Earth.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 188
Table 3-19. Flight Programs (Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History (in thousands 

of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 115,000

1994 —421/117,400422 140,900

1995 91,600/49,100 3,500

1996 76,000/8,800423 —

421 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission. 422 Included program definition; flight experiments; space station utilization; experiment carriers, transporters, and 

preparation; integration; and mission management.

423 The reduction reflected the transfer of IN-STEP program funds to spacecraft and remote sensing, as well as the 

transfer of space station utilization funding to space processing budget categories in FY 1996. Remaining activities 

funded in the flight programs budget line were completed in FY 1996.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 189
Table 3-20. Space Communications (Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 33,100

1994 —424/31,000425 —

1995 23,700426/—427 —

424 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission. 425 Included near-Earth communication systems, deep space communication systems, space terrestrial hybrid systems, 

and application experiments.

426 The decrease in funding reflected the reduction in the near-Earth communications systems program and applications 

experiments program due to the completion of the development of the high data rate and T1-VSAT terminals for the 

Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) experiments.

427 Space communications added to spacecraft and remote sensing budget category.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 190
Table 3-21. Space Processing Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 31,900

1994 —428/16,500429 19,500

1995 19,200/18,300 33,300430

1996 18,100/54,000431 —

1997 41,800/—432 —

428 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission.

429 Included materials processing and biotechnology programs. Part of the advanced concepts and technology program. 430 Reflected the addition of funds for space station utilization. 431 The increase reflected the addition of funds for space station utilization. 432 Funding was reallocated due to the dissolution of the space access and technology program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 191
Table 3-22. NASA Technology Transfer/Commercial Technology Programs Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 29,500

1994 —433/27,800434 27,800

1995 36,800435/45,800 33,800

1996 40,400/27,400436 27,400

1997 24,200/25,800 25,800

1998 20,000/20,000 25,200

433 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial budget submission. 434 New initiative in FY 1994. Included in the advanced concepts and technology programs. 435 Approximately 50 percent of the total program funding required to meet the schedule of contract-to-launch in 24 and 

36 months, respectively, for two technology-demonstration missions. 436 The reduction reflected the transfer of AdaNET, the Rural State Technology Transfer Center, and the National 

Technology Transfer Center to a new budget category: technology transfer agents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 192
Table 3-23. Advanced Smallsat Technology (Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 —437 12,500

1995 —438/61,900 61,900

1996 33,900439/39,100 —

1997 30,000/—440 —

437 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 438 The budget category was not established at the time of the initial submission.

439 The decrease in funding reflected the completion of the detailed design of the Lewis and Clark spacecraft. 440 Funding was reallocated due to the dissolution of the space access and technology program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 193
Table 3-24. Industry Technology Program (Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — —

1994 —441/19,700 19,700

1995 18,900/(18,900)442 —

441 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 442 The budget category was eliminated.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 194
Table 3-25. Construction of Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — —

1994 —/12,500443 12,500444

1995 47,900445/— —

443 Funds for the rehabilitation of the rocket engine test facility at Lewis Research Center. 444 Included in the Advanced Concepts and Technology budget. 445 Funds for the rehabilitation of the rocket engine test facility at Lewis Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 195
Table 3-26. Small-Business Innovation Research and Small-Business Technology Transfer 

(Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — (98,825)446

1994 —/(111,511)447 (110,900)

1995 123,900448/123,900 123,900

1996 129,100/125,700 125,000

1997 142,200/125,000 125,00

1998 100,000/100,000 101,500

446 Funding was included in the Office of Commercial Programs budget. 447 Funding was included in the Office of Commercial Programs budget. 448 Moved from the disbanded Office of Commercial Programs.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 196
Table 3-27. Technology Transfer Agents Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1995 —449 12,000

1996 —/17,100450 17,100

1997 7,300/7,800 7,800

1998 7,800/7,800 20,000

449 No budget submission in this category indicated in budget documents. 450 New budget category included funds for AdaNET, the Rural State Technology Transfer Center, and the National 

Technology Transfer Center, previously included with the Commercial Technology Programs budget line.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 197
Table 3-28. Launch Vehicles Support (Advanced Concepts and Technology) Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 — 37,100

1995 —/37,000 —

1996 37,600/—451 —

451 Discontinued as a separate budget category. Included with Expendable Launch Vehicles and Services.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 198
Table 3-29. Advanced Concepts Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1995 (3,000)

1996 —/6,600452 —

1997 3,800/—453 —

452 Provided start-up funding to pay for the initiation of early concept/technology-driven and challenge-driven projects 

while the process for outside input was being definitized.

453 Funding was reallocated due to the dissolution of the Space Access and Technology program. The program was 

managed by the NASA Chief Technologist.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 199
Table 3-30. Tu-144LL Flight Experiments 

Surface/Structure Equilibrium Temperature Verification (Experiment 1.2). This experiment 

identified areas of temperature increase to help researchers determine what materials to use on a future 

supersonic passenger transport and how to manage the heat that builds on it. 

Engine Airflow and Heat (Experiment 1.5). This experiment provided data on the temperatures within 

an engine compartment at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. Engines built for supersonic flight must 

be durable enough to stand up to the tremendous heat generated when flying for long periods.

Slender Wing Ground Effects (Experiment 1.6). When an airplane is landing, air pressure builds up 

between the plane and the ground. This “ground effect” pushes back at the plane and is a factor in a 

pilot’s handling of the aircraft. This experiment helped researchers understand more about how ground 

effects would affect supersonic aircraft because the shape of the wings on the Tu-144LL resembled the 

shape envisioned for future supersonic aircraft. Additionally, data from wind tunnel ground effect tests 

matched data taken on the Tu-144LL flight, indicating that the wind tunnel tests were a valid way to 

generate accurate supersonic transport ground effects data.

Structure/Cabin Noise (Experiment 2.1). Researchers conducted noise-measurement experiments to 

learn how airflow over the surface of the fuselage generated noise inside the passenger cabin and how to 

design an efficient way to reduce the noise level.

Handling Quality Assessment (Experiment 2.4). Researchers studied the flight controls of the Tu144LL to make future supersonic aircraft as easy to fly as possible.

Coefficient of Friction and Pressure—Boundary Layer Measurement (Experiment 3.3). This 

experiment measured pressures, skin friction, and other aerodynamic characteristics on the wing of the 

Tu-144LL to enable researchers to calibrate their computational tools to better predict and improve the 

performance of future supersonic passenger aircraft with the aim of reducing aerodynamic drag.

Source: “High-Speed Research—The Tu-144LL, A Supersonic Flying Laboratory,” FS-1996-09-18-LaRC, September 

1996, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/TU-144.html (accessed July 10, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 200
Table 3-31. Perseus A Characteristics

Owner NASA

Manufacturer Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.

Fuselage length 26.2 ft (8 m)

Wingspan 58.7 ft (18 m)

Wing area 172 ft (52.4 m)

Aspect ratio 20

Takeoff weight 1,400–1,825 lb (635–828 kg)

Payload 110 lb (50 kg)

Altitude Maximum altitude attained: 50,125 ft (15,278 m) on August 13, 1994

Mission duration 6 hr

Structure Graphite epoxy, Nomex honeycomb, and Kevlar aero surfaces; tubular steel frame 

fuselage

Engine Rotax 912 horizontally opposed four-cylinder core modified to operate closedcycle using liquid oxygen

Engine horsepower 80

Source: “Past Projects–ERAST, Perseus A,” Dryden Flight Research Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/perseusa.html (accessed June 8, 2006). 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 201
Table 3-32. Perseus B Characteristics

Owner Aurora Flight Sciences

Designer/manufacturer Aurora Flight Sciences

Fuselage length 25 ft (7.6 m)

Height 12 ft (3.6 m)

Wingspan 71.5 ft (21.8 m)

Wing area 194 ft2 (18 m2)

Wing aspect ratio 26.4

Gross takeoff weight 2,200 lb (998 kg) with full internal fuel

Fuel capacity 100 gal (378.5 L), including 40 gal internal (151.4 L) and 60 gal (227.1 L) in 

underwing auxiliary tanks, standard aviation gasoline

Payload Up to 264 lb (119.7 kg) of sensors and instruments in nose compartment; typical 

payload approximately 175 lb (79.3 kg) 

Maximum altitude Approx. 62,000 ft (19,000 m)

Mission duration 8–24 hr depending on payload and altitude

Airspeed Approx. 60 mph (96.5 km/hr) cruise, 70 mph (112.7 km/hr) never-exceed speed

Structure Primarily composite materials such as graphite epoxy, Nomex honeycomb, and 

Kevlar aero surfaces; tubular steel frame fuselage

Engine Rotax 914 horizontally opposed four-cylinder piston engine modified to operate 

with a three-stage turbocharger capable of providing sea-level air pressure at 

60,000 ft (18,288 m). Was integrated with an Aurora-designed three-stage 

turbocharger driving a tail-mounted, lightweight, two-blade pusher propeller via 

an 8-ft (2.4-m) driveshaft.

Engine horsepower Flat-rated at 105 hp to 60,000 ft (18,288 m) altitude

Propeller Two-blade constant-speed propeller designed for high-altitude operation, 8.9-ft 

(2.7-m) diameter

Source: “Past Projects–ERAST, Perseus B,” Dryden Flight Research Center, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/perseusb.html (accessed June 8, 2006). Also “Perseus 

B,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-059-DFRC.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 202
Table 3-33. Pathfinder and Pathfinder-Plus Characteristics

Pathfinder Pathfinder-Plus

Wingspan 98.4 ft (29.5 m) 121 ft (36.3 m)

Length 12 ft (3.6 m)

Wing chord 8 ft (2.4 m) 8 ft (2.4 m)

Wing aspect ratio 12 to 1 15 to 1

Gross weight Approx. 560 lb (252 kg) Approx. 700 lb (315 kg)

Payload Up to 100 lb (45 kg) Up to 150 lb (67.5 kg)

Airspeed Approx. 17–20 mph (27.4–32.2 km/hr) cruise

Power (arrays of solar 

cells)

Maximum output approx. 7,500 W Maximum output approx. 12,500 W

Motors Six electric motors, 1.5 kW maximum 

each

Eight electric motors, 1.5 kW 

maximum each

Endurance Approx. 14–15 hr, daylight limited with 2–5 hr on backup batteries

Glide ratio (power off) 18 to 1 21 to 1

Manufacturer AeroVironment, Inc.

Primary materials Carbon fiber, Nomex, Kevlar, plastic sheeting, plastic foam

Source: “Pathfinder Solar-Powered Aircraft,” Fact Sheet, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-034-

DFRC.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 203
Table 3-34. Altus Characteristics

Owner General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., and NASA

Manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.

Fuselage length 23.6 ft (7.2 m)

Wingspan 55.3 ft (16.8 m)

Wing area 132 ft2 (12.3 m2)

Aspect ratio 22.2

Maximum takeoff weight 2,150 lb (980 kg)

Wing loading at gross weight 16.3 lb/ft2 (80 kg/m2)

Payload 330 lb (150 kg) in nose compartment

Fuel capacity 92 gal (348 L)

Airspeed 100 knots (115 mph) maximum; 70 knots (80 mph) cruise; 

speed varied with altitude

Maximum altitude 68,000 ft (20,736 m)

Mission duration 30 hr

Structure Composite construction

Engine Rear-mounted Rotax 912-2T four-cylinder piston engine 

integrated with a thermo-mechanical systems turbocharger

Engine horsepower 100 hp at 52,000 ft (15,850 m)

Propeller A two-blade pusher 84-in (213-cm)-diameter propeller 

was used for flights up to about 53,000 ft (16,154 m) 

altitude; a larger 100-in (254-cm)-diameter lightweight 

carbon-fiber propeller was installed for flights above that 

altitude.

Source: Past Projects–ERAST: Altus,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/altus.html

(accessed July 11, 2006). Also “Altus II,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-058-DFRC.html

(accessed July 11, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 204
Table 3-35. Raptor D-2 Demonstrator Characteristics 

Owner BMDO/DOE transferring to NASA

Manufacturer Scaled Composites Inc.

Fuselage length 25 ft (7.6 m)

Wingspan 66 ft (20.1 m)

Wing area 187.9 ft2 (17.5 m2)

Aspect ratio 20

Takeoff weight 1,880 lb (852.8 kg)

Wing loading 10.0 lb/ft2 (48.8 kg/m2)

Payload 75 lb (34 kg)

Altitude 65,000 ft (19,812 m)

Mission duration 4–8 hr

Structure Carbon over Nomex honeycomb and foam

Propulsion Rotax 912 horizontally opposed four-cylinder engine modified to operate with 

twin turbocharging in series with intercooler

Power 100 hp

Propeller 4.27-m (14-ft) diameter

Source: “D-2 Demonstrator,” Past Projects–ERAST, Dryden History, 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Erast/d2.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 205
Table 3-36. X-29 Characteristics 

Length 48.1 ft (14.7 m)

Wingspan 27.2 ft (8.3 m)

Propulsion General Electric F404-GE-400 engine

Thrust 16,000 lb (7,257 kg)

Weight (empty) 13,600 lb (6,169 kg)

Takeoff weight 17,600 lb (7,983 kg)

Maximum operating altitude 50,000 ft (15,240 m)

Maximum speed Mach 1.6

Flight endurance time Approx. 1 hr

Materials External wing structure: composite materials

Wing substructure and basic airframe: aluminum and titanium

Manufacturer Grumman Aircraft Corp.

Source: “X-29,” Fact Sheet, Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS008-DFRC.html (accessed August 3, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 206
Table 3-37. X-31 Characteristics 

Wingspan 23.83 ft (7.26 m)

Fuselage length 43.33 ft (13.2 m)

Power source GE F404-GE-400 turbofan engine

Thrust 16,000 lb (71.2 kN)

Takeoff weight 16,100 lb (7,303 kg) including 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of fuel

Design speed Mach 0.9

Maximum speed reached Mach 1.28 at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)

Altitude capability 40,000 ft (12,192 m)

Manufacturers Rockwell International and Deutsche Aerospace

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 207
Table 3-38. F-18 HARV Characteristics 

Overall length 56 ft (17.1 m)

Wingspan 37.4 ft (11.4 m)

Weight 31,980 lb (14,506 kg), modified to 36,099 lb (16,374 kg) for Phase 2

Wing area 400 ft2 (37.2 m2)

Wing aspect ratio 3.5

Propulsion Two modified General Electric F404-GE-400 afterburning turbofan engines

Thrust Each engine rated at approx. 16,000 lb (71.2 kN) at sea level

Materials Advanced composite materials (largely graphite/epoxy), aluminum, steel, and 

titanium

Manufacturer McDonnell Douglas Corp. and Northrop Corp.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 208
Table 3-39. SR-71 Blackbird Characteristics 

Length 107.4 ft (32.73 m)

Wingspan 55.6 ft (16.94 m)

Height 18.5 ft (5.63 m) from the ground to the top of the rudders when parked

Takeoff weight 140,000 lb (52,253 kg), including a fuel weight of 80,000 lb (29,859 kg)

Structure Titanium and titanium alloys

Maximum speed In excess of Mach 3.2454

Range 2,000 miles (3,218.68 km) unrefueled

Altitude Over 85,000 ft (25,908 m)455

Endurance More than 1 hr at Mach 3 (as a research platform)

Manufacturer Lockheed Skunk Works

454 Exact maximum speed was not provided. 455 Exact maximum altitude was not provided.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 209
Table 3-40. NASA’s Wind and Propulsion Tunnels, 1989–1998 

Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

Ames Research Center

14-Foot (4.3-Meter) 

Transonic Tunnel

Mach 0.5 to 

Mach 1.2

2.6 to 4.2 × 

106/ft

13.5 ft (4.1 m) × 

13.71 ft (4.2 m) 

× 33.75 ft 

(10.29 m) 

Used primarily for 

performance and 

stability and control 

testing of aircraft 

configurations

7 × 10-Foot (2.1 × 3-

Meter) Subsonic 

Tunnel

Mach 0 to Mach 

0.33 

0 to 2.1 × 106/ft 7 ft (2.1 m) × 10 

ft (3 m) × 15 ft 

(4.6 m)

Used primarily for lowspeed aircraft and 

V/STOL configurations

Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Complex

11 × 11-Foot (3.4 × 

3.4-Meter) Transonic 

Tunnel 

Mach 0.20 to 

Mach 1.45

0.30 to 9.6 × 

106/ft

11 ft (3.4 m) × 

11 ft (3.4 m) × 

22 ft (6.7 m) 

Used primarily for 

force, moment, and 

pressure tests of aircraft 

configurations or 

specific aircraft 

components

9 × 7-Foot (2.7 × 

2.1-Meter) 

Supersonic Tunnel

Mach 1.55 to 

Mach 2.55

0.50 to 5.7 × 

106/ft

7 ft (2.1 m) × 9 

ft (2.7 m) × 18 ft 

(5.5 m) 

(effective 

length: 11 ft [3.4 

m])

Used primarily for 

force, moment, and 

pressure tests of aircraft 

configurations or 

specific aircraft 

components

8 × 7-Foot (2.4 × 

2.1-Meter) 

Supersonic Tunnel

Mach 2.4 to 

Mach 3.5

0.6 to 5.0 × 

106/ft

8 ft (2.4 m) × 7 

ft (2.1 m) × 16 ft 

(4.9 m) 

Used primarily for 

force, moment, and 

pressure tests of aircraft 

configurations or 

specific aircraft 

components 

12-Foot (3.7-Meter) 

Pressure Tunnel

Mach 0.05 to 

Mach 0.55

0.1 to 12 × 

106/ft

11.3 ft (3.4 m) × 

28 ft (8.5 m) 

Used primarily for high 

Reynolds number 

testing

National Full Scale 

Aerodynamic 

Complex: 40 × 80 × 

120-Foot (12.2 × 

24.3 × 36.6-Meter) 

Subsonic Tunnel

40 × 80 section: 

Mach 0.45 (504 

ft/sec); 80 × 120 

section: Mach 

0.15 (168 ft/sec) 

40 × 80 section: 

0 to 30 × 106/ft; 

80 × 120 

section: 0 to 1.1 

× 106

/ft

40 ft (12.2 m) × 

80 ft (24.3 m) 

and 80 ft (24.3 

m) × 120 ft 

(36.6 m) × 190 

ft (57.9 m)

The largest known wind 

tunnel in the world 

Langley Research Center

0.3-Meter (1-Foot) 

Transonic Cryogenic 

Tunnel 

Mach 0.2 to 

Mach 0.9

1 to 100 × 

106/ft

13 in (33 cm) × 

13 in (33 cm) × 

69 in (175 cm)

Used for testing twodimensional airfoil 

sections and other 

models at high 

Reynolds numbers

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 210
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

8-Foot (2.4-Meter) 

Transonic Pressure 

Tunnel 

Mach 0.2 to 1.4 0.1 to 6 × 106/ft 7.1 ft (2.2 m) × 

7.1 ft (2.2 m) 

A continuous-flow, 

variable-pressure tunnel 

14 × 22-Foot (4.3 × 

6.7-Meter) Subsonic 

Tunnel 

Mach 0 to Mach 

0.3 

0 to 2.1 × 106/ft 14.5 ft (4.4 m) × 

21.75 ft (6.6 m) 

× 50 ft (15.2 m) 

Used for low-speed 

tests of powered and 

unpowered models of 

various fixed- and 

rotary-wing civil and 

military aircraft

30 × 60-Foot (9.1 × 

18.3-Meter) FullScale Tunnel 

38 ft/sec (11.5 

m/sec) to 132 

ft/sec (40.2 

m/sec)

0 to 1 × 106/ft 30 ft (9.1 m) × 

60 ft (18.3 m) × 

56 ft (17.1 m) 

Designed to test fullscale models and actual 

airplanes at operational 

flight speeds

7 × 10-Foot (2.1 × 3-

Meter) High Speed 

Tunnel 

Mach 0.2 to 0.9 0.1 to 3.2 × 

106/ft

6.6 ft × 9.6 ft A closed-circuit, singlereturn, continuous-flow 

tunnel 

Low Turbulence 

Pressure Tunnel

Mach 0.05 to 

Mach 0.5 

0.4 to 15 × 

106/ft

7.5 ft (2.3 m) × 

3 ft (0.9 m) × 

7.5 ft (2.3 m) 

Provided flight 

Reynolds number 

testing capability for 

two-dimensional 

airfoils and a lowturbulence environment 

for laminar flow control 

and transition studies 

and the testing of lowdrag airfoils

National Transonic 

Facility

Mach 0.1 to 

Mach 1.2

4 to 146 × 

106/ft

8.2 ft (2.5 m) × 

8.2 ft (2.5 m) × 

25 ft (7.6 m) 

Provided the highestquality flight Reynolds 

number aeronautical 

data to the research, 

industry, and DOD 

communities

Unitary Plan Wind 

Tunnel 

Two test 

sections: 1) 

Mach 1.5 to 

Mach 2.9; 2) 

Mach 2.3 to 

Mach 4.6

Two test 

sections: 1) 0.5 

to 6 × 106

/ft; 2) 

0.5 to 11 × 

106

/ft

Both test 

sections are 4 ft 

(1.2 m) × 4 ft 

(1.2 m) × 7 ft 

(2.1 m) 

Typical tests included 

force and moment, 

surface pressure 

measurements, and flow 

visualization of on- and 

off-surface flow 

patterns. Other tests 

involved jet effects, 

dynamic stability, 

model deformation, 

global surface and offbody flow 

measurements, and heat 

transfer

16-Foot (4.9-Meter) 

Transonic Dynamics 

Mach 0.1 to 1.2 Air: 0.03 to 3 × 

106/ft

16 ft (4.9 m) × 

16 ft (4.9 m) × 

Specially dedicated to 

investigating flutter 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 211
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

Tunnel R-134a: 0.2 to 

10 × 106/ft

17 ft (5.2 m) problems of fixed-wing 

aircraft

16-Foot (4.9-Meter) 

Transonic Tunnel

Mach 0.2 to 1.25 1 to 4 × 106/ft 15.5 ft (4.7 m) 

(octagonal) × 22 

ft (37.2 m) long 

Used for inlet, nozzle, 

and aerodynamic testing 

across the transonic 

speed range at 

atmospheric conditions 

20-Foot (6.1-Meter) 

Vertical Spin Tunnel

0 to 85 ft/sec 

(25.9 m/sec) 

0 to 0.15 × 

106/ft

20 ft (6.1 m) in 

diameter × 25 ft 

(7.6 m) high 

A closed-throat, 

annular-return wind 

tunnel operating in 

atmospheric conditions; 

used to investigate 

spinning, tumbling, and 

free-fall characteristics 

of aircraft and 

spacecraft

12-Foot (3.7-Meter) 

Low-Speed Tunnel 

0 to 77 ft/sec 

(23.5 m/sec) 

0 to 0.5 × 106/ft 12 ft (3.7 m) × 

15 ft (4.6 m) 

An atmosphericpressure, open-circuit 

tunnel enclosed in a 60-

ft (18.3-m)-diameter 

sphere used to 

investigate static, 

dynamic, and free-toroll characteristics of 

mostly new 

configuration concepts

20-Inch (50.8-

Centimeter) 

Supersonic Wind 

Tunnel 

Mach 1.6 to 5.0; 

Mach 0.035 to 

0.75 for airfoils 

Twodimensional: 

1.0 × 105

 to 20 

× 106

/ft; 0.35 × 

105 to 20 × 

106

/ft

20 in (50.8 cm) 

× 18 in (45.7 

cm)

Located in the Gas 

Dynamics Facility, this 

tunnel offered a wide 

variety of wind tunnel 

conditions and 

measurement 

techniques for basic 

research by means of 

conventional 

configuration testing 

over the supersonic 

Mach range of 1.6 to 

5.0 at relatively low 

cost

Supersonic Low 

Disturbance Tunnel

Mach 3.5 1.7 × 106 to 20 

× 106/ft 

(depending on 

extent of quiet 

core flow)

6 in (15.2 cm) × 

10 in (25.4 cm) 

× 15 in (38.1 

cm)

Provided a lowdisturbance, free-stream 

environment for highspeed transition 

research

8-Foot (2.4-Meter) 

High-Temperature 

Tunnel

Mach 4, 5, and 7 0.3 to 5.1 × 

106/ft

8 ft (2.4 m) in 

diameter × 12 ft 

(3.7 m)

Simulated true enthalpy 

at hypersonic flight 

conditions to test 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 212
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

advanced large-scale, 

flight-weight 

aerothermal, structural, 

and propulsion concepts

Arc-Heated Scramjet 

Test Facility

Mach 4.7 to 8.0 0.4 to 2.2 × 

106/ft

4 ft (1.2 m) in 

diameter × 11 ft 

(3.35 m) 

Part of the NASA 

Langley Scramjet Test 

Complex, the facility 

was used to test 

complete subscale, 

scramjet component 

integration models in 

conditions simulating 

flight Mach numbers 

from 4.7 to 8

Combustion-Heated 

Scramjet Test 

Facility

Mach 3.5 to 6.0 1.0 to 6.8 × 

106/ft

42 in (107 cm) × 

30 in (76 cm) × 

96 in (243.8 cm)

Part of the NASA 

Langley Scramjet Test 

Complex, this facility 

offered the capability to 

test subscale propulsive 

flowpaths of hypersonic 

vehicles at conditions 

simulating flight Mach 

numbers from 3.5 to 6.0

Direct Connect 

Supersonic 

Combustion Test 

Facility

Mach 4.0 to 7.5 1.8 to 31.0 × 

106/ft

Mach 2 nozzle: 

1.52 in (3.86 

cm) × 3.46 in 

(8.79 cm); Mach 

2.7 nozzle: 1.50 

in (3.81 cm) × 

6.69 in (16.99 

cm)

Part of the NASA 

Langley Scramjet Test 

Complex, this facility 

was used to test ramjet 

or scramjet combustors 

at conditions simulating 

flight Mach numbers 

from 4 to 7.5 

Hypersonic PULSE 

(HYPULSE)

Mach 5.0 to 21.0 0.50 to 2.5 × 

106/ft

Chamber: 7 ft 

(2.1 m) in 

diameter × 19 ft 

(5.8 m); nozzle: 

18 in (45.7 cm) 

to 26 in (66 cm)

Located and operated 

by the GASL Division 

of Allied Aerospace 

Industries, Inc., in 

Ronkonkoma, NY 

Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory

15-Inch (38-

Centimeter) Mach 6 

High Temperature 

Tunnel 

Mach 6 0.5 to 8.0 × 

106/ft

15-in (38-cm) 

diameter; test 

core size: 8- to 

10-in (20- to 25-

cm) diameter

An open-jet facility 

with superior optical 

access and hightemperature capability; 

ideally suited for 

developing and 

applying advanced 

nonintrusive optical 

surface and flowfield 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 213
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

measurement test 

techniques

20-Inch (50.8-

Centimeter) Mach 6 

CF4 Tunnel 

Mach 6 0.05 to 0.7 × 

106/ft

20-in (50.8-cm) 

diameter; test 

core size: 14-in 

(35.6-cm) 

diameter

The only operational, 

conventional type 

hypersonic facility in 

the United States that 

simulated dissociative 

real-gas phenomena 

associated with 

hypersonic flight. CF4 

test media provided a 

normal shock density 

ratio of 12 (simulating 

Mach 13–18 flight) and 

enabled the 

determination of realgas effects on vehicle 

aerodynamics.

20-Inch (50.8-

Centimeter) Mach 6 

Tunnel 

Mach 6 0.5 to 8.0 × 

106/ft

20 in (50.8 cm) 

× 20 in (50.8 

cm); test core 

size: 12 in (30.5 

cm) × 12 in 

(30.5 cm) 

A versatile hypersonic 

facility used for 

aerodynamic and 

aeroheating testing of 

advanced access to 

space and planetary 

vehicles, as well as 

exploring basic fluid 

dynamic phenomena, 

including boundary 

layer transition

31-Inch (78.7-

Centimeter) Mach 10 

Tunnel 

Mach 10 Mach 100.2 to 

2.2 × 106/ft

31 in (78.7 cm) 

× 31 in (78.7 

cm); test core 

size: 14 in (35.6 

cm) × 14 in 

(35.6 cm) 

A hypersonic facility 

with a large temperature 

driver that was ideal for 

heat-transfer studies. 

With its extremely 

uniform flow quality, it 

was considered to be 

excellent for CFD code 

calibration experiments, 

as well as aerodynamic 

performance testing.

General Description

Jet Exit Test Facility A ground test stand consisting of a dual-flow test apparatus connected to 

two separate heated-air supply systems

Langley Acoustic Wind Tunnel Facilities

Anechoic Noise Research 

Facility

8.4-m (27.6-ft) × 8.2-m (26.9-ft) × 7.3-m (24-ft) anechoic chamber

Flow Impedance Test Raylometer, normal incidence impedance tube, grazing flow impedance 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 214
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

Facility tube (Mach 0.5, 160 dB)

Jet Noise Lab 8-m (26.2-ft) × 30-m (98.4-ft) × 7-m (23-ft) open jet anechoic wind 

tunnel (Mach 0.32) with dual-stream jet engine simulator (1/10 scale 

exhaust nozzle)

Quiet Flow Facility 6.1-m (20-ft) × 7.3-m (24-ft) × 9.2-m (30.2-ft) anechoic open jet wind 

tunnel 

Structural Acoustics Loads 

and Transmission Facility

337 m3 (11,901 ft3) anechoic chamber, 278 m3 (9,817 ft3) reverberation 

chamber, 1.4-m (4.6-ft) × 1.4-m (4.6-ft) transmission loss window 

Thermal Acoustic Fatigue 

Apparatus

Progressive wave tube test facility, 40–500 Hz, 172 dB, 360 kW quartz 

lamp heating system

Jet Exit Test Facility An indoor engine/nozzle test stand that combined multiple-flow air 

propulsion simulation with high-pressure and high-mass flow capabilities

Lewis Research Center

Abe Silverstein 10 × 

10-Foot (3 × 3-

Meter) Supersonic 

Tunnel 

Propulsion 

cycle: Mach 2.0 

to Mach 3.5; 

aero cycle: 0 to 

Mach 0.36

Propulsion 

cycle: 2.1 to 2.7 

× 106

/ft; aero 

cycle: 0.12 to 

3.4 × 106/ft

10 ft (3 m) × 10 

ft (3 m)

Can be configured in 

either closed-loop or 

vented-loop mode 

1 × 1-Foot (0.3 × 

0.3-Meter) 

Supersonic Tunnel

Mach 1.3 to 

Mach 6.0 (10 

discrete 

airspeeds)

0.4 to 16.5 × 

106/ft

12.2 in (31 cm) 

× 12 in (30.4 

cm) × 8 ft (2.4 

m)

Designated an 

International Historic 

Mechanical 

Engineering Landmark 

by the American 

Society of Mechanical 

Engineers

Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Complex

8 × 6-Foot (2.4 × 

1.8-Meter) 

Supersonic Tunnel

Mach 0.25 to 

Mach 2.0

3.6 × 4.8 × 

106/ft

8 ft (2.4 m) × 6 

ft (1.8 m)

Air sucked through 

holes in the walls of the 

test section prevents 

shock waves from 

interfering with test 

models 

9 × 15-Foot (2.7 × 

4.6-Meter) LowSpeed Tunnel

Mach 0 to Mach 

0.23 

0 5 to 1.4 × 

106/ft

9 ft (2.7 m) × 15 

ft (4.6 m)

Built in return leg of 8 × 

6-ft tunnel 

Hypersonic Tunnel 

Facility

Mach 5 to Mach 

7 

0.97 to 2.3 × 

106/ft

Test section is 

adjustable from 

10 ft (3 m) to 14 

ft (4.3 m) in 

length

Used to test large-scale 

hypersonic airbreathing propulsion 

systems

Icing Research 

Tunnel 

50 to 350 mph 0 to 3.3 × 106/ft 6 ft (1.8 m) × 9 

ft (2.7 m) × 20 ft 

(6.1 m) 

Used to study the 

effects of icing on 

aircraft components and 

perform detailed studies 

of basic icing 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 215
Facility Name Speed Range Reynolds 

Number

Dimensions Comments

phenomena and icing 

instrumentation

Marshall Space Flight Center

14 × 14-Inch (35.6 × 

35.6-Centimeter) 

Trisonic Tunnel

Transonic test 

section: Mach 

0.25 to 1.3, 1.46, 

1.96; supersonic 

test section: 

Mach 2.74 to 

4.96

1 to 18 × 106/ft 14 in (35.6 cm) 

× 14 in (35.6 

cm) × 24 in (61 

cm)

Capable of running 

subsonic, transonic, and 

supersonic tests

Hot Gas Facility Mach 4.1 Not applicable 16 in (40.6 cm) 

× 16 in (40.6 

cm) × 40 in 

(101.6 cm)

Used for testing solid 

rocket booster and 

external tank thermal 

protection system 

materials and 

configurations 

High Reynolds Flow 

Facility (Wind 

Tunnel Complex) 

Mach 0.3 to 3.5 7 to 200 × 

106/ft

32-in (81.2-cm) 

diameter

Provided the capability 

to measure model 

forces and pressure 

distributions at high 

Reynolds numbers

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 216
Table 3-41. OAST-2 Investigations456

Investigation Principal Investigator Objective

Solar Array Module Plasma 

Interaction Experiment 

(SAMPIE)

Dale C. Ferguson, Lewis 

Research Center, Cleveland, OH

To determine the arcing and 

current collection behavior of 

different types, sizes, and shapes of 

solar cells, solar modules, and 

spacecraft materials

Thermal Energy Storage (TES) D. Namkoong, Lewis Research 

Center, Cleveland, OH 

To determine the microgravity 

behavior of two different thermal 

energy storage salts that undergo

repeated melting and freezing

Experimental Investigation of 

Spacecraft Glow (EISG)

G. Swenson, Lockheed 

Corporation

To develop an understanding of the 

physical processes leading to the 

spacecraft glow phenomena by 

studying infrared, visible, and far 

ultraviolet emissions as a function 

of surface temperature and orbital 

altitude

Spacecraft Kinetic InfraRed 

Test (SKIRT)

D. Jennings, Goddard Space 

Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

Emulsion Chamber 

Technology (ECT)

J. Gregory, University of 

Alabama in Huntsville, 

Huntsville, AL 

To measure background cosmic 

ray radiation as a function of 

shielding thickness and radiation 

energy using photographic films

CRYogenic Two Phase 

(CRYOTP)

M. Stoyanof, U.S. Air Force 

Phillips Laboratory; M. Bello, 

Aerospace Corporation; M. 

Buchko, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, Greenbelt, MD 

To determine the microgravity 

behavior of two thermal control 

technologies: nitrogen space heat 

pipe and cryogenically cooled, 

vibration-free, phase change 

material

456 “OAST-2 Prelaunch Mission Operation Report,” Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, Report No. C-237-

94-62-01, NASA History Division folder 11034, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, 

DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 217
Chapter 4

Table 4-1. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–FY 1998) (thousands of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Space and Ground 

Network, 

Communications 

and Data Systems 

(SFC&DC)

717,300 797,478 828,789 903,275 825,100

457

— — — — —

Tracking and Data 

Advanced Systems 

(R&D)

18,800 19,328 20,000 22,000 23,273458 19,600459 — — — —

Mission 

Communication(s) 

Services (SAT)

— — — — 546,488

460

581,981

461

481,200 449,500 418,600 400,800

Ground 

Network

227,100 251,476 260,700 283,300 306,601 309,300 273,400 259,500 245,600 221,600

Communicat

ions and Data 

Systems

233,300 224,867 257,989 281,400 156,914 206,481 175,800 162,800 147,100 148,100

Space 

Communications 

Services (MS)462

— — — — 333,715

463

248,192 225,000 255,400 291,400 194,200

Space 

Network

256,900 321,135 310,100 338,875 199,106 117,674 110,100 157,200 185,100 111,700

457 Reflected former budget structure. 458 Reflected restructured appropriations. Included in the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT) appropriation as part of Mission Communication Services.

459 Included in the SAT appropriation as part of Mission Communication Services. 460 Reflected new budget structure. Included an additional $31.8 million previously funded under the Construction of Facilities (CofF) appropriation. 461 Included an additional $15.6 million previously funded under the CofF appropriation. 462 NASA’s appropriations were reconfigured in FY 1993, eliminating the Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications (SFC&DC) and R&D appropriations 

and replacing them with the Mission Support (MS) and SAT appropriations. Some Agency funding categories remained intact and were placed entirely into a new 

appropriation, while others were reconfigured or in some way split between more than one budget category and sometimes even split between appropriations. 463 Reflected new budget structure.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 218
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Telecommu

nications

— — — — 134,609 130,518 114,900 98,200 106,300 82,500

Total Networks and 

Tracking Budget

736,100 816,806 848,789 925,275 848,373

464

830,173 706,200 704,900 710,000 595,000

Change –

161,200

465

80,706 31,983 76,486 –76,902 –18,200 –123,973 –1,300 5,100 –115,000

464 This figure shows the total using the former budget structure (including reprogrammed CofF funds). In the reconfigured appropriations, total networks and 

tracking categories totaled funding of $830,173,000. The discrepancy of $18.2 million is unexplained and unaccounted for in budget documents.

465 Almost the entire drop in funding reflected a reduction in funds for the Space Network (SN), which dropped from $433.4 million in FY 1988 to $256.9 million in 

FY 1989. No explanation is given in funding documents for the drop.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 219
Table 4-2. Space and Ground Network, Communications and Data Systems Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 1,035,300466/945,300467 717,300

1990 1,102,100/975,200468 797,478

1991 868,800/828,800469 828,789

1992 953,873/918,275470 903,275

1993 921,000/836,230471 825,100

1994 820,500/761,300 —472

466 Included SN, GN, and Communications and Data Systems elements. Provided funding for TDRSS operations, 

spacecraft production, and launch support; operations and maintenance of the tracking, data acquisition, mission 

control, data processing, and communications facilities; and engineering services and procurement of equipment to 

sustain and modify the various systems to support continuing, new, and changing flight project requirements.

467 The reduction of $90 million resulted from congressional action on the FY 1989 budget request. The size of the 

reduction required significant changes to program plans. Major schedule changes were required in the TDRSS 

replacement spacecraft and second TDRSS ground terminal (STGT) programs. Additionally, many other program 

elements were subjected to reduced support capabilities, rephased implementation plans, and deferrals.

468 The reduction of $127 million below the original budget estimate was consistent with congressional action on the FY 

1990 budget. It reflected a general reduction of $100 million, a reduction of $11.4 million for sequestration, and a pro 

rata share of the general reduction directed in P.L. 101-144 of $15.6 million.

469 The $40 million reduction was consistent with congressional action. The reduction was accommodated through a 

TDRSS contract restructuring and a rephasing of some activities. Some work on TDRS-6 was moved to FY 1992, and 

upgrading of the Spacelab Data Processing Facility was delayed. 470 The decrease of $35.6 million below the original budget request was consistent with congressional action. It included 

a $32.8 million reduction to Communications and Data Systems, which was achieved mainly by combining the 

Customer Data and Operations System (CDOS) with the Earth Science and Applications/Earth Observing System Data 

Information System (EOSDIS) program and reducing the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) requirements 

due to a launch delay. Other changes included an $8.7 million reduction in GN funding, which was accommodated by 

reducing Cassini requirements based on a launch slip and by deferring some other activities. The FY 1992 budget also 

reflected a $5.9 million increase to SN funding to support additional requirements in the TDRS replacement and STGT 

programs, which were partially offset by deferring the start of development in the TDRS II program (formerly the 

Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite [ATDRS]).

471 The decrease of $84.8 million below the original budget request was consistent with congressional action. The 

funding level included an increase of $5.2 million due to the redistribution of the Research Operations Support (ROS) 

account offset by the directed reduction of $65.0 million for TDRS II and a general reduction of $25.0 million. The 

general reduction was accommodated within the SN (–$4.9 million), GN (–$8.3 million), and Communications and 

Data Systems (–$11.8 million). 472 Budget restructured from the SFC&DC appropriation into the MS and SAT appropriations. See the Mission 

Communications Services table below for MS totals.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 220
Table 4-3. Space Network Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed

1989 538,900473/483,900 256,900

1990 582,300/530,707474 321,135

1991 331,200/310,100475 310,100

1992 347,973/353,875 338,875

1993 298,200/230,085476 199,106477

1994 173,900/83,500478 117,674

1995 154,000/94,000479 110,100

1996 206,700/156,700 157,200

473 SN funding included funding repayment of the loans extended by the Federal Financing Bank for TDRSS 

development; maintenance and operation of the White Sands, NM, complex and other NASA elements of the SN; 

support activities such as systems engineering, documentation, and mission planning; equipment modification and 

replacement; analytical studies to define the spacecraft required for the next-generation TDRSS; the development and 

integration of an additional spacecraft to replace the TDRS lost in the Challenger accident; and the implementation of a 

second ground terminal at White Sands.

474 The decrease of $40.4 million reflected program adjustments made to provide a transfer of funds to the TDRS 

Replacement budget category and to accommodate a portion of the general reductions specified by Congress and a 

reduction for sequestration. This was accomplished by a major crew reduction following the checkout of TDRS-4 on 

orbit and the deferral of assembly and test activities planned for TDRS-5 and TDRS-6. In addition, the White Sands 

complex sustaining equipment modifications were eliminated for FY 1990.

475 The decrease of $14.3 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reduction specified by Congress. This included TDRSS contract restructuring, staffing reductions at the White Sands 

complex, reduced logistics expenditures, and moving some work on TDRS-6 into FY 1992. 476 The decrease reflected increased funding requirements of $28.6 million for the STGT, an additional $6.1 million for 

systems engineering, and an increase of $1.8 million transferred from the ROS account. This was offset by reducing 

funding requirements of $14.0 million for the basic TDRSS and operations, reducing Replacement Spacecraft by $10.8 

million, and deleting $9.9 million associated with the suspended procurement of the TDRS II replenishment spacecraft. 

As directed by Congress, $15 million was allocated for upgrading the existing Network Control Center (NCC). 477 Included TDRSS, Space Network Services (new budget category), TDRS Replacement Spacecraft, TDRS 

Replenishment Spacecraft, and the STGT.

478 This amount referred to SN funding only in the MS appropriation. An additional $30 million, formerly funded in SN 

under the old SFC&DC appropriation, moved to the Space Network Customer Service budget category. In FY 1995, the 

SN was split between the SAT appropriation and the MS appropriation. MS funding included TDRSS, TDRS 

Replacement Spacecraft, TDRS Replenishment Spacecraft, and the STGT, as well as the new budget category of Space 

Network Services. The SAT appropriation included specific elements of Space Network Operations and Systems 

Engineering that were combined in a new budget category called Space Network Customer Service. See individual 

tables below.

479 The amount in the “Changes” section of the FY 1996 Budget Estimate shows that FY 1995 funding was reduced by 

$60 million to $94 million. According to comments, “This funding level reflects congressional direction to reduce 

funding for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) Replenishment.” To augment funding for TDRS 

Replenishment (which was $42 million), House Report 103-715 indicated that NASA could reallocate up to $25 million 

of reimbursement funding and underruns as long as this did not result in any involuntary reductions-in-force in 1995 in 

the Space or Mission Communications Services programs. In other SN funding, $7.2 million was transferred from the 

TDRSS to the Space Network Services program to consolidate funding for the operation and support of the White Sands 

Ground Terminal (WSGT) with funding for the Space Network Services program. As the STGT became operational and 

the WSGT was taken off line for refurbishment and upgrade, funding for the support of these two operations was 

provided in this consolidated program element. The operations of the two ground terminals were combined under a 

single contract beginning in FY 1996. Within the STGT program, increased funding to support the six-month slip was 

accommodated within program reserves. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 221
1997 185,100/185,100 185,100

1998 161,200/114,200 111,700

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 222
Table 4-4. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Funding History (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 313,900480/295,800481 —

1990 320,800482/280,400483 43,325

1991 77,200484/62,900 54,700

1992 51,100/47,700485 30,731

1993 46,200/32,116 25,817

1994 23,300486/10,100 —

1995 7,200487/—488 —

480 Approximately $227 million was for the repayment of the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) loan. The remainder ($86.9 

million) was for continuing spacecraft activities, service payments, and operating and maintaining the WSGT. 481 The decrease of $18 million from the original estimate resulted from a deferral of the buildup of the sixth spacecraft 

and reduced equipment replacement funding for the WSGT.

482 The budget category included $227 million for repayment of the FFB loan. The remainder ($93.8 million) was for 

continuing spacecraft activities, service payments, and operating and maintaining the WSGT.

483 The decrease of $40.4 million reflected program adjustments made to provide a transfer of funds to the TDRS 

Replacement and to accommodate a portion of the general reductions specified by Congress and a reduction for 

sequestration. This was accomplished by a major staff reduction following the checkout of TDRS-4 on orbit and the 

deferral of assembly and test activities planned for TDRS-5 and TDRS-6. In addition, the White Sands complex 

sustaining equipment modifications were eliminated for FY 1990.

484 The budget category no longer included funds for repayment of the FFB loan, as directed by the administration. The 

outstanding debt was to be paid off in FY 1991 based on an inter-appropriation nonexpenditure transfer authorization. 485 The decrease of $2.4 million reflected program savings achieved mainly from contract negotiations due to the 

acceleration of the TDRS-6 contract. 486 The decrease of $14.1 million reflected $14.6 million in program savings achieved as a result of contract negotiations 

and crew sharing with the Replacement Spacecraft program, reduced ground operations indirect costs, and an increase 

of $0.5 million to accommodate the ROS transfer.

487 During FY 1995, operations and maintenance of the WSGT ceased when the STGT became fully operational. At that 

time, the original terminal underwent modification. The TDRSS program supported the removal of existing equipment 

and the preparation of the WSGT for modernization. Remaining TDRSS funding provided for the operations and 

maintenance staff who removed and installed equipment and conducted the testing and calibration of the new equipment 

suite. Future funding requirements for the operation of the White Sands complex was provided by the Space Network 

Services program.

488 The budget category did not appear in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 223
Table 4-5. Federal Financing Bank Payment Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1992 32,673489/32,675 —490

489 In FY 1991, the outstanding debt to the FFB was paid off. FY 1992 funding repaid the outstanding accrued interest 

and premiums related to the early payoff of the loan.

490 No amount shown in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 224
Table 4-6. Space Network Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 42,700/34,800491 34,800

1990 39,600/31,507492 33,320

1991 41,600/39,000493 36,437

1992 46,500/44,900494 40,968

1993 61,900/58,163495 —

1994 36,700/—496 —

491 The decrease of $11.9 million resulted primarily from reduced contractor support and lower-than-anticipated labor 

rates for the period.

492 The decrease of $8.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reductions specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. This was accomplished through reductions in 

funding for vendor-supplied troubleshooting expertise and on-call maintenance, software maintenance, and advanced 

planning and documentation for future flight missions. In addition, some support contract staffing reductions were 

made.

493 The decrease of $2.6 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reductions specified by Congress and accomplished through reductions in support contract staffing in the Flight 

Dynamics Facility (FDF), the NASA Ground Terminal (NGT), and NCC software maintenance.

494 The decrease of $1.6 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reductions specified by Congress and was accomplished through reductions in the FDF, NGT, and NCC.

495 The decrease of $3.7 million included an increase of $0.6 million transferred from the ROS account and a decrease 

of $4.3 million in program adjustments to accommodate a portion of the reductions specified by Congress accomplished 

by reducing training, documentation, NGT operations, and various other activities.

496 Elements of this budget category were combined with Systems Engineering and Support in a new budget category, 

Space Network Customer Services, under the SAT appropriation. See the Space Network Customer Services table 

below.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 225
Table 4-7. Systems Engineering and Support Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 25,600/31,600497 31,600

1990 32,400/27,400498 26,511

1991 34,000/35,400499 36,496

1992 51,700/48,000500 44,001

1993 59,900/66,706501 —

1994 32,500/—502 —

497 The increase of $6 million was to provide continued advanced planning to support the development of space station 

operational concepts, interface definition for data handling and distribution, and support requirements definition. It was 

also to initiate hardware and software modifications in the NCC to provide the necessary interface to operate with the 

STGT at White Sands.

498 The decrease of $5.0 million reflected the program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reductions specified by Congress. These reductions entailed deferring the NCC central computer replacement, reducing 

software development, and deferring the replacement of the high data rate recorders for the NGT.

499 The increase of $1.4 million reflected a program adjustment needed for a software augmentation to the NCC required 

to interface with the STGT.

500 The decrease of $3.7 million reflected the program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reductions specified by Congress. It was accomplished mainly by reducing Space Station Freedom (SSF)-related 

activities once the SSF data processing and communication requirements were simplified as a result of the restructuring 

activity.

501 The increase of $6.8 million reflected the addition of $9.8 million to develop implementation systems for improved 

Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) data retrieval, an increase of $0.7 million transferred from the ROS 

account, and a decrease of $3.8 million in the cancellation of and reductions to studies and long-range planning and 

analytical engineering efforts.

502 Elements of this budget category were combined with Space Network Operations in a new budget category, Space 

Network Customer Services, under the SAT appropriation. See the Space Network Customer Services table below.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 226
Table 4-8. TDRS Replacement Spacecraft Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 78,800/58,600503 59,600

1990 44,400/72,000504 89,629

1991 50,200/54,600505 51,889

1992 34,200/43,900506 43,5768

1993 10,800/—507 —

1994 5,700/5,700 5,700

1995 22,200/22,200508 17,200

1996 —509 —

503 The decrease of $20.2 million reflected congressional action on the NASA FY 1989 budget request. The reduction 

was accomplished by terminating most of the long-lead parts procurement for an additional spacecraft and by delaying

the launch readiness date of the replacement TDRS from December 1991 to December 1992.

504 The increase of $27.6 million reflected the internal realignment of network funding to maintain the replacement 

spacecraft schedule and avoid substantial additional cost increases. 505 The increase of $4.4 million reflected unexpected development problems with new power amplifiers for TDRS-7 

that were required due to obsolescence concerns with the parametric amplifiers used in the previous TDRS.

506 The increase of $9.7 million reflected an unexpected development problem with new power amplifiers for TDRS-7 

that were required due to obsolescence and reliability concerns with the traveling wave tube amplifiers used in the 

previous TDRS.

507 The decrease of $10.8 million was due to the restructuring of the integration and test (I&T) phase of TDRS-7 to a 

later period. The restructuring reflected the sharing of the crew with the TDRSS program during the TDRS-6 launch 

activities. FY 1993 activities were to be carried out with prior year funding planned for the earlier I&T schedule. 508 Funded from MS appropriation.

509 Funding discontinued.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 227
Table 4-9. TDRS Replacement Spacecraft Launch Services Funding History (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 —510 34,673

1995 —/15,587511 15,600512

1996 — —

510 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 511 Funded from MS appropriation. 512 The TDRS-7 deployment in August 1995 was followed by on-orbit checkout and characterization testing.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 228
Table 4-10. Second TDRSS Ground Terminal (STGT)/White Sands Ground Terminal (WSGT) 

System Replacement Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 70,000/59,100513 82,100

1990 139,100514/117,200515 126,200

1991 100,000/92,800516 103,898

1992 118,000/130,200517 140,100

1993 44,500/73,100518 73,100

1994 27,700/19,000 19,000

1995 18,600/18,600519 18,600

1996 200/—520 —

513 The decrease of $10.9 million reflected congressional action and resulted in an anticipated slip of the planned 

program completion to June 1993 (approximately six months).

514 $15.5 million specifically allotted for WSGT Replacement. 515 The decrease of $21.9 million was due largely to a three-month delay in the definitization of the contract. This 

caused a slower buildup of staffing and materials, differences between the executed contract and the government 

estimate, and increased savings related to the addition of equipment for the modernization of the existing terminal to the 

STGT contract, providing reduced acquisition costs through large lot buys of hardware and the avoidance of nonrecurring engineering costs for the modernization. The decrease also accommodated a portion of the general reductions 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration.

516 The decrease of $7.2 million reflected a slightly slower-than-planned buildup of staffing and materials. Workarounds 

were developed to maintain the overall work schedule.

517 The increase of $12.2 million reflected hardware and software development delays that affected assembly and test 

schedules and resulted in increased costs. 518 The increase of $28.6 million was to accommodate the cost growth incurred during FY 1993. The cost growth was 

driven by a lack of engineering model hardware, underestimating the complexity of hardware and software 

development, and subcontractor technical problems.

519 Funded from MS appropriation. 520 Funding discontinued.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 229
Table 4-11. Advanced TDRS (ATDRS)/Tracking and Data Relay Satellite II Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 4,000/4,000 4,000

1990 6,000/2,200521 2,150

1991 28,200/25,400522 26,770

1992 14,800/6,500523 6,832

1993 74,900524/—525 —

521 The decrease of $3.8 million was due to the delay in initiating the Phase B (definition phase) studies. The Request 

for Proposal was released in the first quarter of FY 1990. The selection of at least three contractors to conduct design 

studies and prepare design/development proposals late in FY 1990 was expected.

522 The decrease of $2.8 million was due to reducing the number of Phase B (definition phase) design study contractors 

from four to three along with a reallocation of funds. 523 The budget category was redesignated Tracking and Data Relay Satellite II (TDRS II). The decrease of $8.3 million 

was due to a delay in starting the TDRS II development contract, which had been planned for September 1992.

524 Intended to provide for preliminary design, development of contractor work packages, contractor make/buy studies, 

and negotiated subcontracts with a planned “schedule need date” of June 1997 for the first TDRS II.

525 The decrease of $74.9 million reflected a directed congressional reduction and subsequent cancellation of the TDRS 

II procurement. The procurement of six spacecraft was first suspended to assess alternatives, including an unsuccessful 

effort to procure a single spacecraft of the existing design. A search for more affordable alternatives led to the 

cancellation of TDRS II and the initiation of procurement of spacecraft that would be functionally equivalent to the 

existing design as an interim solution to NASA’s requirements.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 230
Table 4-12. TDRS Replenishment Spacecraft Funding History (in thousands of dollars)526

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1994 48,000527/2,600528 2,600

1995 100,000529/42,000530 45,000

1996 195,800/147,200531 147,200

1997 162,100/162,100 162,100

1998 107,000/61,000 56,000

526 Successor to the canceled ATDRS/TDRS II program. 527 Funding was to provide for a fixed-price development contract award in mid-1994. The launch of the first 

replenishment spacecraft was expected in mid-1998. 528 Minimal funding was requested to initiate procurement activities leading up to the contract award early in FY 1995.

529 Funding was requested to initiate the development of TDRS-8 through TDRS-10 to ensure continuity of network 

services. Funded from the MS appropriation.

530 This funding level reflected congressional direction to reduce funding for the TDRS replenishment spacecraft by $60 

million. Since the funding shown here was $42 million (below the $60 million level), Congress authorized a reallocation 

of funding from underruns in other areas and the use of reimbursable funds as long as it did not result in involuntary 

reductions in personnel.

531 Of the $45.4 million reduction, $40.4 million was available as a result of the latest contract negotiation of the TDRS 

Replenishment program and $5.0 million was available from the FY 1995 TDRS Replacement program following the 

successful launch of TDRS-7. The remaining reduction of $4.6 million was accommodated by reducing the flexibility to 

meet unexpected changes in implementing, maintaining, and operating the communications systems and facilities.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 231
Table 4-13. TDRS Replenishment Launch Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1995 — 500

1996 —532/3,200 3,200

1997 17,900/17,900 17,900

1998 50,500/49,500 52,000

532 No funding indicated in the budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 232
Table 4-14. Space Network Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —533 93,889

1994 —/46,100 55,701

1995 6,000534/13,200 13,200

1996 10,700/6,300 6,800

1997 5,100/5,100 5,100

1998 3,700/8,800 3,700

533 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 534 Funding for the operation of the SN ground facilities began to be transferred to the Space Network Services program 

under the MS appropriation. This budget category combined activities, which supported multiple customers, previously 

performed under the Space Network Operations and the Systems Engineering and Support programs, in addition to the 

WSGT operations performed under the TDRSS contract.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 233
Table 4-15. Ground Network Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 248,100535/228,100 227,100

1990 269,600/233,576 251,476

1991 267,800/260,700 260,700

1992 291,700/283,000 283,000

1993 314,600/306,901 306,601

1994 315,980/311,300 309,300

1995 273,400/273,400536 273,400

1996 268,800/257,700537 259,500

1997 255,600/245,600 245,600

1998 227,700/224,700 221,600

535 The GN included funding for Earth orbital spaceflight, planetary and solar system exploration, and the AB&SR 

program. It provided for operating and maintaining the worldwide tracking facilities, engineering support, and 

procurement of hardware and software to sustain and modify network capabilities as required for new missions. Its 

elements were the DSN, managed by JPL; STDN, managed by Goddard; the AB&SR tracking and data acquisition 

facilities, managed by GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF); and the Western Aeronautical Test Range (WATR), 

managed by Ames Research Center (ARC)/Dryden Flight Research Facility (DFRF).

536 Although the total budget submission for the GN did not change from the original to the revised submission, funding 

increases were made for DSN Systems Implementation and the STDN budget categories. Offsetting reductions were 

taken for DSN Operations, the AB&SR program, and STDN Operations.

537 The decrease of $11.1 million reflected deferring the 34-m (111-ft) arraying capability at Goldstone until FY 1998, 

deleting the 200-watt S-band transmitters for the 26-m (85-ft) subnet, and deleting the asynchronous transfer mode

(ATM) upgrade for network communications.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 234
Table 4-16. STDN Systems Implementation Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 6,200/4,500538 4,300

1990 4,400/3,700539 6,400

1991 3,200/2,800540 2,800

1992 3,600/3,100541 3,100

1993 5,500/5,526542 5,526

1994 6,100/3,400 3,400

1995 1,900/9,200543 4,600

1996 8,500/5,100 6,100

1997 2,400/2,400 2,400

1998 3,000/3,000 3,000

538 The decrease of $1.7 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

539 The decrease of $700,000 reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

540 The decrease of $400,000 reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease delayed the replacement of the intrasite communication systems at Bermuda and 

Merritt Island.

541 The decrease of $500,000 reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease delayed the replacement of UHF air-to-ground voice communication systems at 

Bermuda and Merritt Island that were needed for Space Shuttle missions.

542 The increase in funds reflected the transfer of funds from the ROS account. 543 The increase of $7.3 million in STDN Systems was required to support automation of the Bermuda and Merritt 

Island tracking facilities. To offset this requirement, funding for the AB&SR Systems was reduced $3.2 million, which 

was accommodated by deferring radar refurbishment activities at WFF and deferring equipment purchases for the 

WATR.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 235
Table 4-17. STDN Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 65,700/64,600544 64,500

1990 66,600/58,411545 55,083

1991 55,200/55,600546 55,600

1992 58,700/56,200547 56,040

1993 64,500/61,596548 62,386

1994 60,700/56,400 55,055

1995 32,200/29,000 28,700

1996 25,300/21,400 22,200

1997 18,600/19,300 19,300

1998 17,100/17,100 16,800

544 The decrease of $1.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. 545 The decrease of $8.2 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration.

546 The increase of $400,000 reflected program adjustments necessary to accommodate the final closure of the 

Ascension Island station. Although actual operations ceased in FY 1990, cleanup activity continued until April 1991, 

when the site was restored to its original condition.

547 The decrease of $2.5 million was necessary to accommodate a portion of the general reduction specified by 

Congress. It resulted in a drawdown of logistics depot materials.

548 The decrease of $2.9 million included a decrease of $3.0 million to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress achieved by a drawdown of spare parts from the logistics depot and an increase of $0.1 million 

from the transfer of ROS funds.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 236
Table 4-18. DSN Systems Implementation Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 50,100/39,700549 39,900

1990 63,400/57,400550 62,650

1991 60,700/61,900551 61,200

1992 82,400/79,300552 79,560

1993 82,600/80,301553 78,175

1994 89,900/97,500 98,324

1995 86,800/103,800554 106,000

1996 107,000/101,700 102,000

1997 102,900/92,900555 98,648

1998 80,900/79,100 78,700

549 The decrease of $10.4 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reduction specified by Congress. The reduction resulted in stretching out several major program implementations, 

including those supporting Ocean Topography Experiment (TOPEX), the microwave observing project, and the 

development of an improved planetary radar capability. 550 The decrease of $6.0 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The reduction was achieved by deferring the replacement of 

obsolete equipment.

551 The increase of $1.2 million reflected program adjustments made to modify the 70-m (230-ft) antennas to permit 

rapid access for repair. Without the modifications, certain types of 70-m antenna failures could require extensive 

downtime to repair.

552 The decrease of $3.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

553 The decrease of $2.3 million reflected program adjustments made by deferring and delaying various activities to 

accommodate a portion of the general reduction specified by Congress. 554 The increase reflected a reallocation from DSN Operations following a decision to consolidate funding for systems 

management, engineering, and sustaining investment. Funding was increased $9.0 million for advanced systems 

technology activities, $1.8 million for an additional system capability in Australia in support of the Galileo mission, and 

$3.6 million for the continued outfitting of a 34-m (111-ft) antenna transferred to NASA from the Department of the 

Army. As an offset to these increases, funding was reduced by $15.4 million, principally accommodated by the deferral 

of Cassini X-band emergency services at the Goldstone 70-m (230-ft) antenna (–$3.7 million), by descoping several 

DSN automation projects (–$2.5 million), and by the deferral of upgrades for the Very Long Baseline Interferometry 

(VLBI) and radio science programs (–$2.8 million). The remainder of the reduction was accommodated through the 

deferral of planned activities.

555 The reduction of $10 million was achieved by implementing engineering efficiencies and economies that would have 

a minimal impact on DSN mission support services.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 237
Table 4-19. DSN Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 99,000/95,700556 95,000

1990 103,500/89,361557 98,553

1991 108,900/105,200558 105,800

1992 109,700/109,700 106,750

1993 119,000/118,000559 115,496

1994 112,100/102,900 100,371

1995 106,100/88,200560 85,100

1996 85,200/84,900 84,600

1997 87,500/87,500 82,952

1998 80,600/82,800 80,500

556 The decrease of $3.3 million reflected the rephasing of activities to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

557 The decrease of $14.1 million reflected the rephasing of network activities supporting a variety of Agency programs 

to accommodate a portion of the general reduction specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration.

558 The decrease of $3.7 million reflected the slowdown of several network enhancement activities and a reduction in 

technical support to accommodate a portion of the general funding reduction specified by Congress.

559 The decrease of $1.0 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

560 Funding for DSN Operations was reduced by $17.9 million, which represented the reallocation of funding for 

systems management to DSN Systems Implementation.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 238
Table 4-20. Aeronautics, Balloons, and Sounding Rocket (AB&SR) Support Systems Implementation 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 9,300/6,800561 6,800

1990 11,800/7,700562 10,400

1991 18,400/14,600563 14,800

1992 14,700/12,600564 15,700

1993 17,600/17,591565 21,386

1994 20,500/26,300 27,250

1995 20,000/16,800 23,400

1996 17,700/19,600 19,600

1997 19,400/19,400 19,200

1998 20,000/13,100 12,400

561 The decrease of $2.5 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The reduction was accomplished by deferring system, supply, and support services 

procurements.

562 The decrease of $4.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The reduction was partially achieved by deferring system 

implementations of aging radar systems at DFRF and S-band systems at WFF. 563 The decrease of $3.8 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease was accommodated by deferring the replacement of aging radar systems at DFRF 

and WFF.

564 The decrease of $2.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease was accommodated by deferring the replacement of balloon facility telemetry 

equipment and radar and communications systems at DFRF and WFF. 565 The decrease reflected program adjustments to accommodate a portion of the general reduction specified by 

Congress, mostly offset by an increase due to the transfer of funds from the ROS account.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 239
Table 4-21. AB&SR Support Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed 

1989 17,800/16,800566 16,600

1990 19,900/17,004567 18,390

1991 21,400/20,600568 20,500

1992 22,600/22,100569 21,850

1993 25,400/23,887570 23,622

1994 26,680/24,800 24,900

1995 26,400/26,400 25,600

1996 25,100/25,000 25,000

1997 24,800/24,100 23,100

1998 23,100/29,600 30,200

566 The decrease of $1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

567 The decrease of $2.9 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. 568 The decrease of $800,000 reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease reduced the level of tracking, telemetry, and communications available for 

AB&SR programs. The programs reduced their level of operations.

569 The decrease of $500,000 reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress, requiring rephasing of the depot upgrade of a DFRF tracking radar system.

570 The total decrease of $1.5 million reflected an increase of $0.4 million resulting from the transfer of funds from the 

ROS account along with $1.9 million in program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease required reductions in operations, engineering, and logistics at the WFF, as well as 

reductions in spares and test equipment at the WATR.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 240
Table 4-22. Communications and Data Systems/Mission Control and Data Systems Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 248,300571/233,300 233,300

1990 250,200/210,867 224,867

1991 269,800/258,000 257,989

1992 314,200/281,400 281,400

1993 308,200/299,244 156,914572

1994 330,620/205,600573 206,481

1995 175,800/175,800 175,800

1996 162,200/153,300574 162,800

1997 135,800/147,100 147,100

1998 145,000/145,000 148,100

571 Funds provided for implementing and operating facilities and systems required for data transmission, mission 

control, and data processing support for spaceflight systems.

572 Funding reflected the restructuring of appropriations. This budget category, now called Mission Control and Data 

Systems and part of the SAT appropriation, no longer included Communications Systems Implementation and 

Communications Operations, which moved to the MS appropriation. Mission Control and Data Systems provided for 

developing and operating facilities and systems required for mission control and data processing for spaceflight 

missions conducted by Goddard. 573 The submission reflected the restructuring of appropriations. This budget category, now called Mission Control and 

Data Systems and part of the SAT appropriation, no longer included Communications Systems Implementation and 

Communications Operations, which moved to the MS appropriation. 574 The decrease of $8.9 million was accomplished by achieving operational efficiencies and reducing maintenance and 

operations staffing through normal attrition and as reengineering efforts took effect, which included extensive reuse of 

software.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 241
Table 4-23. Communications Systems Implementation Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 12,100/10,400575 10,400

1990 12,500/11,400576 9,535

1991 13,500/11,600577 11,600

1992 10,300/10,300 10,300

1993 8,700/8,769578 8,694

1994 14,600/11,800579 —

1995 9,800/—580 —

575 The decrease of $1.7 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. Implementation of the facility communications for the STGT was slipped for six months as part 

of this accommodation.

576 The decrease of $1.7 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration.

577 The decrease of $1.9 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. As a result, the planned replacement of the Shuttle video system was canceled.

578 The decrease reflected the transfer of funds from the ROS account.

579 Restructuring of appropriations placed this budget category in the MS appropriation. 580 The budget category no longer appeared in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 242
Table 4-24. Communications Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 116,300/108,400581 109,300

1990 115,500/99,737582 106,054

1991 120,300/118,200583 118,189

1992 129,600/123,400584 122,640

1993 131,200/128,054585 125,915

1994 124,520/119,100586 —

1995 105,100/—587 —

581 The decrease of $7.9 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The adjustments included delaying the implementation of new requirements on the PSCN and 

savings associated with the revised Shuttle manifest.

582 The decrease of $15.8 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reduction specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The adjustments included delaying the 

implementation of new requirements on the PSCN and NASCOM. New requirements on NASCOM were met by timesharing existing circuitry at the expense of operational performance. 583 The decrease of $2.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The adjustments included delaying the implementation of new capabilities in requirements on 

the PSCN and NASCOM by time-sharing existing circuitry. 584 The decrease of $6.2 million reflected program adjustments to the PSCN, including delaying implementation of new 

requirements and deferring planned improvements to existing services. The adjustments also reflected fewer Shuttle 

missions and the sharing of existing resources. Planned augmentations, such as the upgrade of the Time Division 

Multiple Access (TDMA) system in the NASCOM network, were deferred until FY 1994 to coincide with anticipated 

new service requirements in preparation for Space Station Freedom (SSF).

585 The decrease of $3.1 million reflected an increase of $1.6 million transferred from the ROS account with program 

adjustments to the PSCN, including delaying the implementation of new requirements and deferring planned 

improvements to existing services. Planned augmentation was deferred until FY 1995.

586 Restructuring of appropriations placed this budget category in the MS appropriation. 587 The budget category no longer appeared in budget documents.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 243
Table 4-25. Space Communications Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars)588

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —589 333,715590

1994 —591/214,400 248,192

1995 268,900/226,487 225,000

1996 319,400/269,400592 255,400

1997 291,400/277,700 291,400

1998 245,700/194,200593 194,200

588 Consisted of SN and Telecommunications budget categories in the MS appropriation.

589 The old budget structure was still in effect at the time of the budget submission.

590 Reflected a new budget structure that included the SN and Telecommunications budget categories.

591 The new budget structure with this budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

592 The decrease reflected a $50.0 million general reduction as directed by Congress.

593 The decrease reflected a pending reduction of $4.5 million.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 244
Table 4-26. Telecommunications Funding History (in thousands of dollars)594

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —595 134,609

1994 139,120596/130,900 130,518

1995 114,900/114,900 114,900

1996 112,700/112,700 98,200

1997 106,300/92,600 106,300

1998 84,500/84,500597 82,500

594 Telecommunications was included in the new MS appropriation as of FY 1995. Telecommunications supported the 

operation, maintenance, and improvement of the NASCOM network and the PSCN. 

595 The new budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

596 The amount was the total of amounts requested for Communications Systems Implementation and Communications 

Operations under the previous appropriation structure. This category was placed in the new MS appropriation in FY 

1995.

597 The budget category name was changed to NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN), a consolidation of the 

NASCOM network and the PSCN.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 245
Table 4-27. Mission Communication(s) Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —598 546,488

1994 —599/589,100600 581,981601

1995 481,200/481,200 481,200

1996 461,300/441,300602 449,500

1997 420,600/418,600603 418,600

1998 400,800/395,800604 400,800

598 The new budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission.

599 The former budget appropriation structure was still in effect at the time of the initial budget submission. See above 

table.

600 Reflected restructured budget structure in the SAT appropriation consisting of the GN, Mission Control and Data 

Systems, Space Network Customer Services, Advanced Systems, and CofF budget elements. 601 Reflected restructured budget. 602 The reduction of $20 million reflected a general reduction as directed by Congress. The reduction was accomplished 

by implementing economies in support service contractor staffing levels and achieving operational efficiencies in areas 

such as engineering activities, mission and strategic planning, quality assurance, logistics, documentation, and 

configuration management.

603 The reduction of $2 million reflected a reduction of $10 million within the GN program offset by a reallocation of $8 

million to the Mission Control and Data Systems program from the Space Access and Technology program.

604 Reflected a pending reduction of $5.0 million as part of the transfer authority from the SAT appropriation to the 

Human Space Flight (HSF) appropriation.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 246
Table 4-28. Mission Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 8,800/8,800 7,000

1990 7,800/8,300605 10,220

1991 11,100/9,000606 8,800

1992 22,000607/14,000608 14,000

1993 17,100/14,241609 14,241

1994 18,500/17,500610 16,600

1995 14,300/12,000 12,000

1996 11,300/10,300 10,800

1997 9,300/10,500 10,000

1998 13,400/13,400 13,400

605 The increase of $0.5 million reflected the start of development of an integrated mission control capability for the 

Small Explorer (SMEX) missions after an adjustment to accommodate a portion of the general reductions specified by 

Congress.

606 The decrease of $2.1 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The reduction resulted in a delay in the development of AXAF, SMEX, the Fast Auroral 

Snapshot Explorer (FAST), and the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS) spacecraft control centers, as 

well as the deferral of planned replacements of some aging control center equipment.

607 The increase from FY 1991 to FY 1992 reflected the deferral of work from FY 1991 plus implementation activities 

required by the increasing queue of scheduled new missions.

608 The decrease of $8 million reflected a rephasing of the AXAF program mainly due to a launch delay and planned 

efficiencies in the development of the SMEX Payload Operations Control Center (POCC) to be gained through the 

reuse of the SMEX 1 POCC systems for SMEX 2.

609 The decrease of $2.9 million reflected program adjustments made by deferring and delaying various activities to 

accommodate a portion of the general reduction directed by Congress.

610 The budget category changed to Mission Control Systems.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 247
Table 4-29. Mission Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 32,000/31,200611 30,900

1990 38,700/29,036612 27,200

1991 40,800/41,400613 41,400

1992 44,900/48,400614 48,400

1993 52,500/50,336615 48,336

1994 52,700/52,700616 54,000

1995 51,000/51,300 52,500

1996 45,300/45,300 43,200

1997 41,700/43,700 43,700

1998 46,500/46,000 47,300

611 The decrease of $0.8 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The reduction resulted in a slowdown of software development in FY 1989 for the Upper 

Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS), Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), Global Geospace Satellite (GGS), and 

Collaborative Solar Terrestrial Research (COSTR) spacecraft.

612 The decrease of $9.7 million largely reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reduction specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The reductions resulted in a slow-down of the unique 

software development for EUVE, GGS, and COSTR, as well as the deferral of the buildup of institutional capabilities to 

support the workload resulting from the flight manifest. 613 The increase of $600,000 was required for the increased number of operating personnel required for new missions—

the Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO), UARS, and EUVE—that became operational in FY 1991 and early FY 1992. 614 The increase of $3.5 million was needed to start the POCC software development required for the July 1995 Solar 

and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) launch date, provide adequate software maintenance for the software used to 

control the on-orbit spacecraft, and provide software for new institutional systems needed to accommodate the 

increasing number and complexity of spacecraft controlled by the POCCs.

615 The decrease of $2.2 million included an increase of $0.3 million associated with the ROS account transfer along 

with a decrease of $2.5 million resulting from a rephasing of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) mission 

control software and deferral of institutional software systems.

616 The budget category name changed to Mission Control Operations.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 248
Table 4-30. Data Processing Systems Implementation Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 25,800/25,500617 26,700

1990 20,900/18,000618 18,391

1991 22,800/22,000619 22,400

1992 39,800/23,600620 24,360

1993 30,000/30,670621 29,460

1994 33,600/44,400 46,381

1995 40,600/42,500 42,300

1996 41,400/38,300 46,800

1997 30,900/40,400 41,300

1998 39,700/41,700 3,000

617 The decrease of $0.3 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress.

618 The decrease of $2.9 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The reductions were in the Mission Operations Data Systems 

Information Network (MODSIN) and also deferred generalized attitude application software and data processing 

development.

619 The decrease of $0.8 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The decrease delayed the Spacelab data processing hardware replacement.

620 The decrease of $16.2 million reflected simplification of data processing and communication requirements of the 

SSF program as a result of the program’s restructuring and the reduction of the need for a Customer Data and 

Operations System (CDOS)-type system. CDOS was combined with the EOSDIS program and was to be managed by 

the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). The SSF program was to provide the necessary data processing 

capability within its communications system. The decrease reflected the reassignment of CDOS and associated 

communications capability from the data processing systems program to the Earth Observing System (EOS) and SSF. 621 The increase of $0.7 million included $0.2 million transferred from the ROS account plus $0.5 million for the 

Hubble Space Telescope Data Capture Facility (HSTDCF) software conversion to the extended Packet Data Processor 

(PACOR) system. Conversion of HSTDCF software to the multimission PACOR system would allow operation of the 

stand-alone HSTDCF to be discontinued.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 249
Table 4-31. Data Processing Operations Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 53,300/49,000622 49,000

1990 54,800/44,394623 53,467

1991 61,300/55,800624 55,600

1992 67,600/61,700625 61,700

1993 68,700/67,174626 64,877

1994 86,700/91,000 89,500

1995 69,900/70,000 69,000

1996 64,200/59,400 62,000

1997 53,900/52,500 52,100

1998 45,400/43,900 84,400

622 The decrease of $4.3 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. The budget reduction affected operational support in FY 1989 by reducing staffing at the 

Telemetry On-line Processing System (TELOPS) Facility and scaling back Spacelab mission support in FY 1989, 

resulting in the delayed delivery of data from missions that required TELOPS or Spacelab Data Processing Facility 

(SLDPF) support.

623 The decrease of $10.4 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general 

reduction specified by Congress and a reduction for sequestration. The reduction resulted in the delayed delivery of data 

from some of the missions supported. Reductions were also made in data systems prototyping, operations, and 

maintenance of computer operations and attitude support activities. 624 The decrease of $5.5 million reflected program adjustments made to accommodate a portion of the general reduction 

specified by Congress. Reductions were made in data systems, computer operations, and maintenance and resulted in 

the delayed delivery of some mission data.

625 The decrease of $5.9 million reflected reductions made in data systems, computer operations, and maintenance and 

deferral of the replacement computer system used for spacecraft simulation and software research and development. 

Reductions were also made in the SLDPF consistent with fewer Shuttle missions.

626 The decrease of $1.5 million reflected a $0.7 million increase due to the transfer from the ROS account along with 

reductions of $2.2 million in operations and maintenance in the SLDPF.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 250
Table 4-32. Space Network Customer Services Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 —627 27,900

1994 —/30,000 30,000

1995628 32,000/32,000 32,000

1996 30,300/30,300 27,200

1997 29,200/25,900629 25,900

1998 31,100/31,100 31,100

627 The budget category was not established at the time of the budget submission. 628 Beginning in FY 1995, funding previously provided under Space Network Operations and Systems Engineering and 

Support programs was combined. Capabilities representing the services needed to provide user access to the SN were 

combined in the Space Network Customer Services program under the SAT appropriation. This program provided 

access to the multimission communications network servicing all TDRS-compatible Earth-orbiting missions. It 

provided for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the ground systems and facilities at Goddard, including 

the NCC, required to schedule user services and to control and operate the SN system.

629 The decrease of $3 million reflected a reallocation from Space Network Customer Services to Mission Control and 

Data Systems based on reassessment of program requirements.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 251
Table 4-33. Tracking and Data Advanced Systems/Advanced Technology Funding History (in 

thousands of dollars)630

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1989 18,800/18,800 18,800

1990 19,900/19,345631 19,328

1991 20,000/20,000 20,000

1992 22,000/22,000 22,000

1993 23,200/23,273632 23,273

1994 24,600/24,600 19,600

1995633 —634/— —

630 R&D appropriation. 631 The reduction of $555,000 reflected the general reduction provision of P.L. 101-144 and was accommodated through 

the deferral of activities planned for FY 1990.

632 The increase of $73,000 was due to a transfer of funds from the ROS account. 633 The name was changed to Advanced Technology; the category was included in the SAT appropriation. 634 No longer funded as a separate budget element. Essential activities were included within the Mission 

Communication Services program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 252
Table 4-34. Construction of Facilities Funding History (in thousands of dollars)635

Year 

(Fiscal)

Submission Programmed

1993 — 31,800636

1994 —/17,600637 15,600

1995 —638/— —

635 SAT appropriation funding. 636 FY 1993 funding provided for construction of two 34-m (111-ft) high-efficiency beam wave guide (BWG)-type 

multifrequency antennas at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex.

637.FY 1994 funding provided for an additional 34-m (111-ft) BWG antenna at the Canberra Deep Space 

Communications Complex.

638 No Construction of Facilities funds were requested in FY 1995.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 253
Table 4-35. Tracking and Data Acquisition Stations, 1989–1998 

Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

Alaska Ground Station (AGS), Chatanika, AK,640 or Poker Flat Tracking Station (PFTS)

Transportable 

Orbital 

Tracking 

System 

(TOTS)

65°07'N

147°27'W 

X 1992 8-m (26-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band; 

one- and two-way Doppler 

and antenna autotracking 

angle

Supported low-data-rate 

polar-orbiting spacecraft 

and sounding rocket 

launches. 

AGS641 65°07'N

147°27'W 

X 1995 11.3-m (37-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

at S-band while receiving at 

S- and X-bands; one- and 

two-way Doppler and 

antenna autotracking angle

Supported primarily 

high-data-rate polarorbiting spacecraft. 

Low-Earth 

Orbiter 

Terminal 

(LEO-T)

65°07'N

147°44'W 

X 1995 5-m (16-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band 

Provided automated 

tracking system for lowdata-rate orbital support.

Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF), Fairbanks, AK642

ASF

Downlinked, processed, 

archived, and distributed 

synthetic aperture radar 

(SAR) data from the 

European Space Agency 

(ESA), the National 

Space Development 

639 Rounded to the nearest minute. 640 Space Communications Program Office, Ground Network (GN) Users’ Guide, Revision 1 (Greenbelt, MD: Goddard Space Flight Center, 2005), pp. 6-1–6-10, 

http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/gnusersguide3.pdf (accessed September 18, 2006). 641 Also known as the EOS Polar Ground Station. 642 Alaska Satellite Facility, http://www.asf.alaska.edu/about_asf/receiving.html (accessed September 18, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 254
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

Agency of Japan 

(NASDA), and 

Canadian Space Agency 

(CSA) satellites.

64°51'N

147°50'W

X 1990 10-m (33-ft) antenna 

received at X- and S-bands 

64°51'N

147°51'W 

X 1990 11.3-m (37-ft) antenna 

transmitted at S-band, 

received at X- and S-bands 

Ascension 

Island (South 

Atlantic)

ACN 7°57'S

14°35'W 

X X 1967 1989 9-m (29-ft) USB; VHF 

telemetry links; FM

remoting telemetry; 

decommutators; telemetry 

recording; data processing, 

communications (voice, 

VHF air-to-ground, 

teletype, video, and highspeed data); 9-m (29-ft) 

DSN antenna

Primary USB station for 

near-Earth Apollo 

operations. DOD also 

operated a station on 

Ascension Island. DSN 

operations were phased 

out in 1969. 

Bermuda 

(Atlantic)

BDA 32°15'N

64°50'W 

X 1961 1997643 C-band radar; 9-m (29-ft) 

USB; VHF telemetry links; 

FM remoting telemetry; 

decommutators; telemetry 

recording; data processing; 

communications (voice, 

VHF air-to-ground, teletype 

video, high-speed data)

Data received at 

Bermuda helped decide 

whether the Shuttle was 

“go” or “no-go” for 

orbital insertion. Also 

provided reentry 

tracking for Atlantic 

recovery situations.

Canberra (southeastern Australia) (CAN)

643 “Tracking Stations: STDN’s Final Years,” http://www.bfec.us/bfectxt8a.htm (accessed March 26, 2007). NASA did not conduct any activities on Bermuda after 

1997, although a small number of staff remained at the site until 2001 (Sunny Tsiao, e-mail to author, March 29, 2007).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 255
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

33 35°24'S

148°59'E 

X 1996 2002 11-m (36-ft) antenna; 

OVLBI antenna supported 

X- and Ku-band uplink and 

downlink 

Used orbiting very long 

base interferometer 

(OVLBI) technique, 

which allowed 

communication with 

space-based 

interferometer elements.

34 35°24'S

148°59'E 

X 1997644 34-m (111-ft) BWG 

antenna; transmitted at Xand S-bands, received at X-

, S-, and Ka-bands 

Transmission and 

reception equipment was 

underground, which 

reduced the weight of 

the dish and allowed for 

maintenance while the 

antenna tracked.

42 Weemala 35°24'S

148°59'E 

X 1964645 1999 34-m (111-ft) antenna; Sand X-band transmit and 

receive

This antenna was 

extended from a 26-m 

(85-ft) antenna. Was 

decommissioned in 1999 

and removed in 2000. 

Supported the Voyager 

spacecraft.

43 Ballima 35°24'S

148°59'E 

X 1987 70-m (230-ft) antenna; 

transmitted and received in 

S- and X-bands; received at 

L-, X-, S-, K-, and Kubands 

This antenna was 

extended from the 

original 64-m (210-ft) 

antenna in 1987 to 

support Voyager 2’s 

encounter with Neptune. 

644 Glen Nagle, Education and Outreach Manager, Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, e-mail to author, September 19, 2006. DSS-34 was 

commissioned in February 1997. Construction was completed in December 1996 per Douglas Mudgway, e-mail to author, September 20, 2006. 645 “People, Antennas and Equipment,” Canberra Space Centre Fact Sheet, http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/PDFs/cdscc_people.pdf (accessed September 26, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 256
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

45 35°24'S

148°58'E 

X 1986 34-m (111-ft) antenna; 

transmitted at X-band, 

received at X- and S-bands 

Supported the Voyager 2 

spacecraft.

46 35°24'S

148°59'E 

X 1984 USB 26-m (85-ft) antenna; 

main antenna transmitted 

and received at S-band; 

acquisition aid antenna 

received at X-band646

This antenna was moved 

from Honeysuckle 

Creek in 1983 and 

transferred from STDN 

in 1985.

Parkes Radio 

Telescope 

(Australia)

33°0'S

148°16'E 

X647 1961 64-m (210-ft) used as a 

receiving station when 

arrayed with DSN 

telescopes

Arrayed with DSN 

stations.

Dakar 

(Senegal)

DKR 14°43'N

17°08'W 

X 1981 1993648 4.3-m (14-ft) command and 

receive antenna; UHF voice 

air-to-ground, command 

and receive antenna

Supported early Shuttle 

missions.

Dryden 

Western 

Aeronautical 

Test Range

WATR 34°56'N

117°54'W 

X 1978 Two high-accuracy R-716 

C-band radars provided 

time-space position 

information in support of 

research aircraft and lowEarth-orbiting spacecraft to 

This facility began 

operating in 1978 for the 

Shuttle program. 

Previously, it had 

provided aeronautics 

tracking. It received one 

646 “Deep Space Station 46,” Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/Pages2/pg01i_history.html (accessed September 18, 

2006). DSS 46 receives at X-band, but only from an “acquisition aid” antenna that is actually a feed horn mounted on the edge of the main reflector. It has a wide 

beam width and significantly lower gain than the main antenna. It is used to acquire spacecraft during launch and early orbit phase. It does not have enough gain to 

allow the reception of telemetry and is receive only. It is used to acquire the signal under launch conditions when uncertainties in pointing could result in acquisition 

difficulties at the 34-meter antennas. James Hodder, Deep Space Mission System Service Management Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, e-mail to author, 

September 26, 2006.

647 Australian telescope used in arrays with NASA deep space telescopes. 648 Had been scheduled to close in 1989 but remained open until FY 1994 because of the delay in the new TDRS resulting from the Challenger accident and loss of 

TDRS-B.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 257
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

the mission control room 

complex; 4.3-m (14-ft) Sband antenna; 7-m (23-ft) 

antenna systems supported 

downlinked telemetry and 

video signals in L-, S-, and 

C-bands while sending 

uplinked commands in Lor S-band; an additional 

antenna system operated in 

L- and S-bands only649

4.3-m (14-ft) S-band 

antenna from the 

Buckhorn Lake site in 

1985, resulting in a total 

of two 4.3-m (14-ft) 

antennas at the site.

Goldstone (California) This complex, in the 

Mojave Desert, was the 

largest concentration of 

NASA tracking and data 

acquisition equipment. 

ECHO

12 

35°18'N

116°44'W 

X 1960 1996 34-m (111-ft) STD antenna; 

transmitted and received

The original 26-m (85-

ft) antenna was extended 

to 34 m (11 ft) in 1979.

VENUS 13 35°15'N

116°48'W 

X 1991 9-m (30-ft) antenna (not in 

use); 34-m (111-ft) BWG 

antenna, supported uplink 

in S-, X-, and Ka-bands and 

downlink in S-, X-, Ka-, 

and Ku-bands

The first BWG antenna

replaced a 26-m (85-ft) 

antenna in 1991. It was 

used as a DSN research 

and development 

facility.

MARS 14 35°26'N

116°54'W 

X 1966 70-m (230-ft) antenna 

transmitted and received in 

S- and X-bands and 

This antenna replaced 

the 64-m (210-ft) 

antenna in 1988 to 

649 “About WATR: Telemetry Tracking Systems,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Facilities/WATR/about5.html. Also “About WATR: Space 

Positioning Systems: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Facilities/WATR/about4a.html (both accessed October 2, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 258
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

received at L-, X-, and Sbands. L- and Ku-bands 

(22-GHz receive-only) 

were in a special cone on 

the antenna used for radio 

astronomy 

support Voyager 2’s 

encounter with Uranus. 

URANUS 15 35°25'N

116°54'W 

X 1984 34-m (111-ft) HEF antenna; 

supported X-band uplink 

and X- and S-band 

downlink 

Was used for the first 

time in 1986 to support 

the Voyager spacecraft. 

Also used for very-long 

baseline interferometry 

(VLBI) and radio-source 

catalog maintenance.

16 35°20'N

116°53'W 

X 1965 USB 26-m (85-ft) antenna, 

supported X-band uplink 

and downlink 

Equipment was moved 

from STDN in 1985. 

Used for rapidly 

tracking Earth-orbiting 

spacecraft.

17 35°21'N

116°53'W

X 1967 USB 9-m (30-ft) antenna; 

backup for DSS 16 

Transferred from STDN 

in 1985. 

23 35°20'N

116°53'W 

X 1996 11-m (36-ft) OVLBI 

antenna supported X- and 

Ku-band uplink and 

downlink

Primary purpose of the 

11-m (36-ft) subnet was 

to support OVLBI 

satellites.

24 35°20'N

116°53'W 

X 1995 34-m (111-ft) BWG 

antenna, supported X- and 

S-band uplink and 

downlink

25 35°20'N

116°53'W

X 1996 34-m (111-ft) BWG 

antenna, supported uplink 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 259
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

and downlink in X-band 

and Ka-band

26 35°20'N

116°53'W 

X 1996 34-m (111-ft) BWG, 

supported uplink and 

downlink in X-band and 

downlink in Ka-band

27 35°14'N

116°47'W 

X 1995 34-m (111-ft) high-speed 

BWG (HSB) antenna, 

supported S-band uplink 

and downlink650

28 35°14'N

116°47'W 

X 2000 34-m (111-ft) BWG HSB 

antenna supported S-band 

uplink and downlink 

Was built in 1996 but 

did not become 

operational until 2000 

due to funding delay.651

Goddard 

Space Flight 

Center 

(Greenbelt, 

MD)652

Network Test 

and Training 

Facility 

(NTTF)

38°59'N

76°51'W 

X X 1966 1998 9-m (30-ft) antenna 

supported S-band uplink 

and downlink; small Xband piggybacked onto 

main 9-m S-band dish; 4.3-

m (14-ft) S-band antenna 

Orbital tracking 11-m 

antenna was transferred 

to WFF in 1986. Facility 

was used to sustain 

ground network for 

testing through 1998. 

Antenna was dismantled 

in 2005. Some smallscale S-band antenna 

testing being conducted 

using a 4.3-m antenna 

(2007). 

GRO Remote GRTS 35°22'S X 1994 1996 4.5-m (15-ft) antenna; 11-m Built to support the 

650 HSB—high (angular-tracking) speed beam waveguide (antenna). 651 Douglas Mudgway, e-mail to author, October 16, 2006. Also Mudgway, Uplink-Downlink, p. 438. 652 Robin Dixon, former data communications engineer at the Goddard facility, telephone conversation, November 2, 2006, and e-mail to author, March 27, 2007.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 260
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

Terminal 

System

148°58'E (36-ft) antenna Gamma Ray 

Observatory in 

communicating to Earth 

via TDRSS. Closed the 

TDRSS zone-ofexclusion over the 

Indian Ocean. Located 

at Canberra DSN 

Complex. Occasionally 

supported Shuttle 

missions and the Hubble 

Space Telescope as they 

passed over the Indian 

Ocean and Australia.

Guam 

Remote 

Ground 

Terminal

GRGT 13°36'N

144°51'E 

X 1998 Space to Ground Link 

Terminal (SGLT); 11-m 

(36-ft) antenna; end-to-end 

test 4.5-m (15-ft) antenna. 

Provided an S-band and 

Ku-band TDRS TT&C link, 

two S-band single-access 

(SA) forward and return 

links, and two Ku-band SA 

forward and return links

Replaced GRO Remote 

Terminal System 

(GRTS).

Guam 

(Pacific)

GWM 13°18'N

144°44'E 

X 1966 1989 9-m (29-ft) USB command 

and receive; VHF telemetry 

links; FM remoting 

telemetry; decommutators; 

telemetry recording; data 

Last mission support 

was for the Solar 

Maximum Mission on 

June 29, 1989.653

653 Henry Iuliano, “NASA Phases Down Guam Tracking Station,” Goddard News (September 1989): p. 8, NASA History Division folder 6534, Historical Reference 

Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 261
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

processing; voice, UHF airto-ground, teletype, video, 

and high-speed data 

communications

Indian Ocean 

in the 

Seychelles 

Islands 

INDI654 or IOS 04°40'S

55°28'E 

X 1981 1996 One 18-m (59-ft) antenna This military site 

supported the Shuttle 

and other spacecraft, 

e.g., GOES. Deactivated 

when the U.S. 

government and the 

local Seychelles 

government could not 

agree on the annual rent 

for the property.

Kauai 

(Hawaii)

KAUAIH

or HAW

22°07'N

157°40'W 

X 1961 1989 Two Yagi command; 4.3-m 

(14-ft) antenna; C-band 

radar; 9-m (29-ft) USB 

command and receive 9-m 

(30-ft) S-band antenna; 

VHF telemetry links; FM 

remoting telemetry 

recording; communications 

(voice, VHF air-to-ground, 

teletype, video, and highspeed data)

The Manned Space 

Flight Network (MSFN) 

station began operations 

in 1961 and Data 

Acquisition Network in 

1965. 

Madrid (Spain)

53 40°26'N

4°15'W

X 1996 11-m (36-ft) OVLBI 

antenna, supported uplink 

Primary purpose of 11-

m (36-ft) subnet was to 

654 Schriever Air Force Base Historian, e-mail to author, October 10, 2006. Also “Kodiak Tracking Station,” http://www.kadiak.org/af_track/bob_afscf_1-2.html

(accessed October 5, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 262
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

and downlink at X- and Kubandsupport OVLBI 

satellites.

54 40°25'N

4°16'W 

X 1997 34-m (111-ft) BWG 

antenna, supported uplink 

in S- and X-band, downlink 

in S-, X- and Ka-bands

61 Robledo-I 40°26'N

4°15'W 

X 1965 1999 34-m (111-ft) STD antenna; 

transmitted at S-band and 

received at S-band and Xband

Expanded from 26 

meters.

63 Robledo-II 40°26'N

4°15'W 

X 1987 70-m (230-ft) antenna, 

transmitted and received in 

S- and X-bands; received at 

L-band, X-band, and Sband 

Original 64-m (210-ft) 

antenna operational in 

1973 expanded to 70 m 

(230 ft) in 1987 to 

support the Voyager 

spacecraft.

65 Robledo-III 40°26'N

4°16'W 

X 1987 34-m (111-ft) HEF; 

transmitted at X-band and 

received at X-band and Sband 

Supported the Voyager 

spacecraft.

66 Robledo-IV 40°26'N

4°16'W 

X 1985 26-m (85-ft) antenna; 

supported X-band uplink 

and downlink

Transferred from STDN 

in 1985. 

McMurdo 

(Antarctica)

655

MGS 77°50'S

193°20'W 

X 1995 10-m (33-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

at S-band while receiving at 

S-band and X-band 

Designed to collect SAR 

image data. Supported 

Canadian SAR mapping 

of Antarctica. Used 

TDRS relay, which 

supported serial clock 

655 Ground Network (GN) Users’ Guide, Revision 1, pp. 5-1–5-5, http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/gnusersguide3.pdf. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 263
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

and data and other 

interfaces.

Merritt 

Island, FL 

(MILA)656 

MIL 28°25'N

80°40'W 

X 1966 Spacecraft communicating 

antennas:657

• Two 9-m (30-ft) S-band 

command and receive 

antennas to track 

moving space vehicles

• Two 3-m (10-ft) 

antennas primarily to 

relay data between 

KSC projects and 

TDRS

• Two teltrac and quad 

helix UHF tracking 

antennas for voice 

communication with 

astronauts in the Shuttle

• Two 1.2-m (4-ft) 

antennas (one S-band, 

one Ku-band) to 

communicate with DSN 

payloads during KSC 

processing 

• 4.3-m (14-ft) S-band 

command and receive 

antenna connected 

whenever a 9-m (30-ft) 

Located near the Cape 

Kennedy launch 

complex, the station was 

established to provide 

Earth orbital support to 

the Apollo program. 

Used for Shuttle 

launches and landings.

656 “MILA” was derived from Merritt Island Launch Annex to Cape Canaveral, the previous name of the area that became known as Kennedy Space Center. “The 

MILA Story,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/mila/milstor.html (accessed September 15, 2006). 657 Ibid.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 264
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

antenna was removed 

from service for 

refurbishing

Support antennas:

• Two 1.2-m (4-ft) Sband antennas and a 

smaller Ku-band 

antenna to calibrate and 

test the steerable 

antennas

• 1.8-m (6-ft) microwave 

antenna to 

communicate with the 

PDK tracking station

• Two stationary discone 

UHF antennas to 

monitor the moveable 

UHF tracking antennas 

• Shortwave antenna to 

monitor the calibrated 

timing station 

• C-band radar; VHF 

telemetry links; FM 

remoting telemetry; 

decommutators; 

telemetry recording; 

data processing; 

communications (voice, 

UHF air-to-ground, 

teletype, video, and 

high-speed data)

Merritt PDL 29°4'N X 1979 4.3-m (14-ft) antenna, Used only for Shuttle 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 265
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

Island “Wing 

Site” at 

Ponce de 

Leon, FL 

80°54'W simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band; 

fixed UHF cross-dipole 

antenna to back up the Sband system658

support, this station was 

located to provide 

communications with 

the Shuttle during the 

launch ascent when the 

solid rocket motor 

plume blocked signals to 

the MILA Tracking 

Station at KSC.659

Santiago, 

Chile

AGO 33°09'S

70°40'W 

X 1957 1989 9-m (29-ft) antenna; 12-m 

(39-ft) antenna; GRARR; 

USB; 2 SATAN receivers; 

1 SATAN command; Yagi 

command; MOTS 

Santiago tracking station 

was transferred to the 

Universidad de Chile in 

October 1989.660 NASA 

purchased services from 

its Center for Space 

Studies.661

South Pole 

TDRSS 

Relay 

System

SPTR 89°59'S

157°47'W662

X 1997 7.2-m (24-ft) antenna Transmitted science data 

to WSGT via TDRS

Svalbard 

Satellite 

Station 

(Norway)

SvalSat 78°13'N663

15°23'E 

1997 11-m (36-ft) antenna, 

downlinked at S- and X 

band, uplinked at S-band 

Most northerly ground 

station in the world. This 

commercial Norwegian 

enterprise acquired data 

658 Ground Network (GN) Users’ Guide, Revision 1, p. 7-5, http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/gnusersguide3.pdf. 659 “Tracking Stations,” http://www.bfec.us/bfectxt7.htm (accessed October 18, 2006). 660 Center for Space Studies, Universidad de Chile, Santiago Satellite Tracking Station User’s Guide, http://www.cee.uchile.cl/public/manual/brief_en.htm (accessed 

September 19, 2006).

661 “GN Facilities—Chile,” http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/chile.htm (accessed September 14, 2006). 662 David Israel, Leader, Advanced Technology Development Group, Goddard Space Flight Center, e-mail to author, September 29, 2006. 663 Debbie Richards, EUMETSAT User Services, e-mail to author, October 5, 2006.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 266
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

from NASA on-board 

instruments.

Wallops Flight Facility (Virginia)664 1959 WFF began providing 

ground station support 

for scientific satellites in 

1986.

Automated Wallops Orbital Tracking Station 

(AWOTS)

X

Wallops 

Ground 

Station

WGS 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 11.3-m (37-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

at S-band while receiving at 

S-band and X-band

Low-EarthOrbit 

Terminal

LEO-T 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 5-m (16-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band

Transportabl

e Orbital 

Tracking 

System

TOTS 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 8-m (26-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band 

Other WFF Tracking

9-Meter 

Ground 

Station

37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 1959 9-m (29-ft) antenna 

simultaneously transmitted 

and received at S-band

Medium 

Gain 

Telemetry 

Antenna 

System

MGTAS 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 1959 Two 7.3-m (24-ft) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antennas

664 Ground Network (GN) Users’ Guide, Revision 1, pp. 4-1–4-69, http://scp.gsfc.nasa.gov/gn/gnusersguide3.pdf. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 267
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

Satellite 

Automatic 

Tracking 

Antenna 

SATAN 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 1959 One transmit array and two 

VHF receive array antennas 

for simultaneously 

transmitting and receiving 

at VHF

Small 

Command 

Antenna on a 

Medium 

Pedestal

SCAMP 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X 1959 One VHF transmit-only 

antenna array

Meteorologic

al Satellite

METEOSAT 37°55'N

75°28'W 

X One 7.3-m (24-ft) L-band 

receive-only antenna 

18-Foot 

Mobile 

System

Varies X One 5.5-m (18-foot) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antenna

20-Foot 

Mobile 

System

Varies X One 6.1-m (20-ft) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antenna

10-Foot 

Mobile 

System

Varies X One 3.0-m (10-ft) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antenna

8-Foot 

Mobile 

System

Varies X One 2.4-m (8-ft) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antenna

23-Foot 

Mobile 

System

Varies X One 7.0-m (23-ft) L-band 

and S-band receive-only 

antenna 

UHF 

Command 

Systems

1) 37°52'N

75°30'W 

X 1) Two Orbit quad-helix 

UHF transmit-only 

antennas

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 268
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

2) Varies 2) Two Taco single-helix 

UHF transmit-only 

antennas

WFF Fixed 

and Mobile 

Radar 

Systems

Fixed:

• 37°51'N 

75°30'W 

• 37°51'N 

75°30'W 

• 37°56'N 

75°28'W 

• 37°50'N 

75°29'W 

• 37°50'N 

75°29'W 

• 37°51'N 

75°30'W 

• 37°56'N 

75°27'W 

X Fixed:

• 18.3-m (60-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 18.3-m (60-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 5.33-m (17-ft) × 2.74-m 

(9-ft) radar antenna

• 3.67-m (12-ft) by 0.15-

m (0.5-ft) radar antenna

• 3.67-m (12-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 8.84-m (29-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 4.88-m (16-ft) radar 

antenna 

Mobile: 

• 2.38-m (8-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 2.38-m (8-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 3.67-m (12-ft) radar 

antenna 

• 3.67-m (12-ft) radar 

antenna

Consisted of seven fixed 

radar systems and four 

mobile radar systems.

VHF Ground 

Stations

37°N

75°W 

X Two Quad Yagi antennas 

for simultaneously 

transmitting and receiving 

voice at VHF

Used only to support the 

International Space 

Station (ISS) and Soyuz 

spacecraft.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 269
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

White Sands Space Network Complex (New Mexico) Comprised ground 

segment of SN; site of 

the TDRSS ground 

station. Located on the 

Army’s White Sands 

Missile Range.

White Sands 

Ground 

Terminal 

(Cacique) 

WSGT 32°21'N

106°22'W 

X 1983 After refurbishment: 

• Two 18.3-m (60-ft) Kuand S-band antennas 

(upgraded from original 

19-m [62-ft] antennas) 

• Two 4.5-m with S- and 

Ku-band antennas 

• One 6.1-m (20-ft) Sband telemetry and 

command antenna 

• C-band radar; 

communications (voice 

and teletype)665

Decommissioned for 

upgrades in 1995. 

Upgrades completed in 

1996 and returned to 

service.

Second 

TDRSS 

Ground 

Terminal 

(Danzante)

STGT 32°21'N

106°22'W 

X 1993 • Three 19-m (62-ft) Kuand S-band antennas 

• Three 4.5-m S- and Kuband antennas 

VHF 

Air/Ground 

(A/G) 

Stations

VHF-1

VHF-2 

32°N

106°W 

X • VHF-1: Single Yagi 

antenna 

• VHF-2: Quad Yagi for 

simultaneously 

Supported the ISS and 

Soyuz spacecraft.

665 “White Sands Complex Is Hub of NASA Worldwide Satellite Communications,” NASA Facts, Release No. 91-38, May 9, 1991, NASA History Division folder 

6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 270
Station 

(Location)

Code Name 

or Number

Latitude/Longitu

de639

Type of 

Station

Establishe

d

Phase

d Out

Equipment/Capabilities Remarks

STD

N

DSN

transmitting and 

receiving voice at VHF

NASA 

Ground 

Terminal

NGT X Provided the interfaces with 

the common carrier and 

monitored the quality of the 

service from the TDRSS

Colocated with the 

WSGT. Abolished when 

WSGT was shut down 

for refurbishment. 

Replaced by Data 

Interface System (DIS).

Yarragadee 

(Australia)

29°08'S

115°21'E 

X 1980 1991 UHF voice air-to-ground 

command and receive 

antenna

Provided STS deorbit 

burn coverage. 

Apollo 

Range 

Instrumentati

on Aircraft 

ARIA X 1966 2001 10-ft (3-m) radome housing 

a 7-ft (2-m) steerable dish 

antenna; could receive in S-

, C-, L-, and P-bands 

Eight instrumented 

aircraft were used as 

communications relays 

to support Apollo 

operations. Last aircraft 

discontinued in 2001. 

Were DOD owned, 

operated under a 

reimbursable agreement 

for NASA.

Source: Linda Ezell, NASA Historical Data Book, Volume III, 1969–1978, Programs and Projects (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4012, 1988), pp. 415–423. Also 

Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book, Volume VI, 1979–1988 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4012, 2000), pp. 342–349.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 271
Table 4-36. TDRSS 1-7 Baseline Service

TDRSS 1-7 Baseline 

Service

Service

Single access (SA) S-band FWD 370 kbps

RTN 6 Mbps

Ku-band FWD 25 Mbps

RTN 300 Mbps

Number of links per spacecraft 2 S-band single access

2 Ku-band single access

Number of multiple-access (MA) links per 

spacecraft

FWD 1 at 300 kbps (8 dB over TDRSS)

RTN 5 at 300 kbps

Customer tracking 150 m (492 ft)

3 sigma

Source: “TDRS/TDRS H, I, J Baseline Service Comparison,” http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/services.html (accessed 

September 11, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 272
Table 4-37. TDRS-4 (TDRS-D) Characteristics

Launch date March 13, 1989

Launch vehicle STS-29, Space Shuttle Discovery

Range Kennedy Space Center

Program objectives To provide and maintain improved tracking and data acquisition services for 

spacecraft in low-Earth orbit through a system of two telecommunications 

satellites in geosynchronous orbits, with one or more additional satellites to serve 

as system spares666

Mission objectives To deliver a third TDRS satellite to stationary geosynchronous orbit with

sufficient stationkeeping fuel on board to complete the on-orbit constellation and 

meet the NASA requirement to provide full-capability TDRSS user support 

services

Program management NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Orbit 

characteristics667

Apogee 35,808 km (22,250 mi)

Perigee 35,768 km (22,225 mi)

Inclination (deg) 0.0

Period (min) 1,436.1

Location 41°W longitude (as of May 1995)

Mass Deployed: 4,637 lb (2,103 kg)

Dimensions 57.2 ft (17.4 m) across the solar panels; 46.6 ft (14.2 m) across the antennas

Communications668 Two 50-lb (23-kg), 16-ft (4.9-m)-diameter SA high-gain parabolic S-band and 

Ku-band antennas, 30-element MA S-band phased-array antenna, 6.5-ft Ku-band 

space-to-ground link steerable antenna; 4.8-ft C-band and 3.7-ft K-band antennas

Power source Solar panels provided 1,700 W; nickel cadmium (NiCd) rechargeable batteries 

provided full power when the satellite was in Earth’s shadow

Propulsion Liquid monopropellant propulsion for on-orbit use

Contractors TRW

Remarks Also known as TDRS-East. The combination of TDRS-1 and TDRS-4 provided 

the TDRS-West satellite capability.669

666 Office of Space Operations, “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-E,” Mission Operation Report, Report No. O313-91-43-05, June 6, 1991, p. 2, NASA History Division folder 6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

667 Space Log 1996, volume 32 (Redondo Beach, CA: TRW, 1997), p. 270. 668 “The Era of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,” NASA Facts Online, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/tdrss.htm (accessed September 19, 2006). 669 “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Overview,” Release No. 91-41, June 7, 1991.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 273
Table 4-38. TDRS-5 (TDRS-E) Characteristics

Launch date August 2, 1991

Launch vehicle STS-43, Space Shuttle Atlantis

Range Kennedy Space Center

Program objectives To provide and maintain improved tracking and data acquisition services for 

spacecraft in low-Earth orbit through a system of two telecommunications 

satellites in geosynchronous orbits, with one or more additional satellites to serve 

as system spares670

Mission objectives To replace TDRS-3 by delivering a fourth TDRS satellite to stationary 

geosynchronous orbit with sufficient stationkeeping fuel on board to complete 

the on-orbit constellation and meet the NASA requirement to provide fullcapability TDRSS user support services671

Program management NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Orbit 

characteristics672

Apogee 35,805

Perigee 35,774

Inclination (deg) 0.0

Period (min) 1,436.3

Location 174°W longitude (as of May 1995)

Mass Deployed: 4,637 lb (2,103 kg)

Dimensions 57.2 ft (17.4 m) across the solar panels; 46.6 ft (14.2 m) across the antennas

Communications673 Two 50-lb (23-kg), 16-ft (4.9 m)-diameter SA high-gain parabolic S-band and 

Ku-band antennas, 30-element MA S-band phased-array antenna, 6.5-ft Ku-band 

space-to-ground link steerable antenna; 4.8-ft C-band and 3.7-ft K-band antennas

Power source Solar panels provided 1,700 W; NiCd rechargeable batteries provided full power 

when the satellite was in Earth’s shadow

Propulsion Liquid monopropellant propulsion for on-orbit use

Contractors TRW

Remarks As a result of on-orbit experience with TDRS-3, this spacecraft was modified to 

provide multiple fusing of critical coaxial and waveguide switches in each Single 

Access Compartment (SAC).674

670 Office of Space Operations, “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-E,” Mission Operation Report, Report No. O313-91-43-05, June 6, 1991, p. 2, NASA History Division folder 6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

671 Ibid. 672 Space Log 1996, volume 32 (Redondo Beach, CA: TRW, 1997), p. 291. 673 “The Era of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,” NASA Facts Online, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/tdrss.htm (accessed September 19, 2006). 674 Office of Space Operations, “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-E,” Mission Operation Report, Report No. O313-91-43-05, June 6, 1991, p. 2, NASA History Division folder 6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 274
Table 4-39. TDRS-6 (TDRS-F) Characteristics

Launch date January 13, 1993

Launch vehicle STS-54, Space Shuttle Endeavour

Range Kennedy Space Center

Program objectives To provide and maintain improved tracking and data acquisition services for 

spacecraft in low-Earth orbit through a system of two telecommunications 

satellites in geosynchronous orbits, with one or more additional satellites to serve 

as system spares675

Mission objectives To deliver a fifth TDRS satellite to stationary geosynchronous orbit with 

sufficient stationkeeping fuel on board to complete the on-orbit constellation and 

meet the NASA requirement to provide full-capability TDRSS user support 

services

Program management NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Orbit 

characteristics676

Apogee 35,792 km (22,240 mi)

Perigee 35,779 km (22,232 mi)

Inclination (deg) 0.6

Period (min) 1,436

Location 62°W (as of May 1995)

Weight Deployed: 4,637 lb (2,103 kg)

Dimensions 57.2 ft (17.4 m) across the solar panels; 46.6 ft (14.2 m) across the antennas

Communications677 Two 50-lb (23-kg), 16-ft (4.9-m)-diameter SA high-gain parabolic S-band and 

Ku-band antennas, 30-element MA S-band phased-array antenna, 6.5-ft Ku-band 

space-to-ground link steerable antenna; 4.8-ft C-band and 3.7-ft K-band antennas

Power source Solar panels provided 1,700 W; NiCd rechargeable batteries provided full power 

when the satellite was in Earth’s shadow

Propulsion Liquid monopropellant propulsion for on-orbit use

Contractors TRW

Remarks This mission replaced S-band return parametric amplifiers with solid-state, lownoise amplifiers.678

675 Office of Space Operations, “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-E,” Mission Operation Report, Report No. O313-91-43-05, June 6, 1991, p. 15, NASA History Division folder 6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. (No TDRS-F MOR available.) The program objectives for TDRS-F remained the same 

as for earlier missions.

676 Space Log 1996, volume 32 (Redondo Beach, CA: TRW, 1997), p. 302. 677 “The Era of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,” NASA Facts Online, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/tdrss.htm (accessed September 19, 2006). 678 “TDRS-F,” NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc_1993-003B (accessed 

August 29, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 275
Table 4-40. TDRS-7 (TDRS-G) Characteristics

Launch date July 13, 1995

Launch vehicle STS-70, Space Shuttle Discovery

Range Kennedy Space Center

Program objectives To provide and maintain improved tracking and data acquisition services for 

spacecraft in low-Earth orbit through a system of two telecommunications 

satellites in geosynchronous orbits, with one or more additional satellites to serve 

as system spares679

Mission objectives To deliver a sixth TDRS satellite to stationary geosynchronous orbit with 

sufficient stationkeeping fuel on board to complete the on-orbit constellation and 

meet the NASA requirement to provide full-capability TDRSS user support 

services

Program management NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Orbit 

characteristics680

Apogee 35,795 km (22,242 mi)

Perigee 35,774 (22,229 mi)

Inclination (deg) 0.3

Period (min) 1,436

Location 171°W longitude

Weight Deployed: 4,637 lb (2,103 kg)

Dimensions 57.2 ft (17.4 m) across the solar panels; 46.6 ft (14.2 m) across the antennas

Communications681 Two 50-lb (23-kg), 16-ft (4.9-m)-diameter SA high-gain parabolic S-band and 

Ku-band antennas, 30-element MA S-band phased-array antenna, 6.5-ft Ku-band 

space-to-ground link steerable antenna; 3.7-ft K-band antennas

Power source Solar panels provided 1,700 W; NiCd rechargeable batteries provided full power 

when the satellite was in Earth’s shadow

Propulsion Liquid monopropellant propulsion for on-orbit use

Contractor TRW

Remarks The satellite was a replacement for TDRS-B, which was destroyed on Challenger

in January 1986.

679 Office of Space Operations, “Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRS-E,” Mission Operation Report, Report No. O313-91-43-05, June 6, 1991, p. 2, NASA History Division folder 6546, Historical Reference Collection, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC. (No TDRS-G MOR available.) The program objectives for TDRS-G remained the same 

as for earlier missions.

680 Space Log 1996, volume 32 (Redondo Beach, CA: TRW, 1997), p. 322. 681 “The Era of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,” NASA Facts Online, NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/tdrss.htm (accessed September 19, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 276
Chapter 5 

Table 5-1. Centers of Excellence and Mission Areas682

Field Center Designated Center of 

Excellence Area

Prime Mission Areas

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA

Information Technology Aviation Operations Systems, 

Astrobiology

Dryden Flight Research Center

Edwards, CA

Atmospheric Flight 

Operations 

Flight Research

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, MD

Scientific Research Earth Science, Physics and Astronomy

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

Pasadena, CA

Deep Space Systems Planetary Science and Exploration

Johnson Space Center

Houston, TX

Human Operations in Space Human Exploration, Astro Materials

Kennedy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center, FL

Launch and Cargo Processing 

Systems

Space Launch

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA

Structure and Materials Airframe Systems, Atmospheric 

Science

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, OH

Turbomachinery Aeropropulsion

Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, AL 

Space Propulsion Transportation Systems Development, 

Microgravity

Stennis Space Center

Stennis Space Center, MS

Rocket Propulsion Testing Propulsion Test

682 NASA Strategic Management Handbook, October 1996, p. 15.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 277
Table 5-2A. Property: In-House and Contractor-Held: FY 1989–FY 1993 (dollar amount in 

thousands) 

Category 1989683 1990 1991 1992 1993

1. Total Real Property Value 4,216,135 4,408,147 4,628,918 4,928,101 5,091,767

Percentage Change 4.1 4.6 5.0 6.5 3.3

Land Value 117,287 117,295 121,446 121,727 124,289

Percentage Change * * 3.5 0.2 2.1

Building Value 2,367,585 2,522,610 2,672,903 2,900,031 3,024,472

Percentage Change 3.8 6.5 6.0 8.5 4.7

Other Structures and Facilities Value 1,729,127 1,766,906 1,833,222 1,904,995 1,941,657

Percentage Change 4.9 2.2 3.8 3.9 1.9

Leasehold Improvement Value 2,136 1,336 1,347 1,348 1,349

Percentage Change –1.6 –37.4 0.8 0.07 0.07

2. Capitalized Equipment Value 3,505,844 3,697,072 4,081,665 8,069,808 4,561,020

Percentage Change 10.0 5.5 10.4 97.7 –43.5

3. Fixed Assets-in-Progress Value 497,330 538,624 599,273 634,791 677,369

Percentage Change 6.3 8.3 11.3 5.9 6.7

4. Total Investment Value (1+2+3) 8,219,309 8,643,843 9,309,856 13,632,700 10,330,156

Percentage Change 6.7 5.2 7.7 46.4 –24.2

5. Number of Acres of Land 134,828 134,828 136,125 136,465 136,493

Percentage Change * * 1.0 0.2 *

Number of Buildings 2,695 2,728 2,784 2,833 2,849

Percentage Change 1.6 1.2 2.1 1.8 0.6

Number of Square Feet of Buildings 36,065,563 36,817,351 37,649,117 38,762,153 39,493,534

Percentage Change 0.9 2.1 2.3 3.0 1.9

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, 

Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 1999; “NASA Real Property Locations by Accountable Reporting Installations,” FY 

1989–FY 1998, NASA Facilities Engineering Division.

683 1989 percentage change figures are based on FY 1988 amounts stated in Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data 

Book, Volume VI, 1979–1998 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4012, 2000), p. 405.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 278
Table 5-2B. Property: In-House and Contractor-Held: FY 1994–FY 1998 (dollar amount in 

thousands) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

1. Total Real Property Value 5,548,254 5,848,779 5,942,850 6,116,578 5,825,595

Percentage Change 9.0 5.4 1.6 2.9 –4.8

Land Value 128,273 128,204 124,352 125,546 124,523

Percentage Change 3.2 * –0.3 1.0 –0.8

Building Value 3,333,267 3,570,165 3,601,010 3,711,219 3,614,752

Percentage Change 10.2 7.1 0.9 0.3 –2.6

Other Structures and Facilities Value 2,085,159 2,149,454 2,216,532 2,278,857 2,085,709

Percentage Change 7.4 3.0 3.1 2.8 –8.5

Leasehold Improvement Value 1,555 956 956 956 611

Percentage Change 15.2 –38.5 * * –36.1

2. Capitalized Equipment Value 4,343,131684 4,793,484 4,955,842 4,987,438 2,625,073685

Percentage Change –4.8 10.4 3.4 0.6 –47.4

3. Fixed Assets-in-Progress Value 599,916 472,372 4,883,299 6,441,291 6,095,587

Percentage Change –11.4 –21.3 933.8 31.9 –5.5

4. Total Investment Value (1+2+3) 10,491,321 11,114,635 15,781,991 17,545,307 14,546,255

Percentage Change 1.6 5.9 42.0 11.2 –17.1

Special Tooling686 — — — — 340,128

Percentage Change — — — — —

Special Test Equipment687 — — — — 466,510

Percentage Change — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property688 — — — — 8,169,476

684 This figure differs from the amount stated for Capitalized Equipment Value in the “Recorded Value of Capital 

Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)” because the amount for the 

JPL Capitalized Equipment Value was misstated in full dollars ($3,918,821) rather than in K dollars in the report. The 

percent change from FY 1993 to FY 1994 and FY 1995 to FY 1994 for JPL’s Capitalized Equipment Value was 

adjusted to be based on the correct figure. The Total Investment Value and Percentage Change from FY 1993 to FY 

1994 and FY 1994 to FY 1995 were also adjusted to reflect the correct amount for JPL’s Capitalized Equipment Value. 

(The adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property 

Division, NASA Headquarters.)

685 The dollar amount (and percentage change) may not be meaningful because previous years’ capitalized equipment 

may have included elements now included in the Special Tooling, Special Test Equipment, or Agency-Peculiar Property 

categories.

686 This category was added in the September 30, 1998, report and had not been included in earlier reports. It was 

defined as “equipment and manufacturing aids (and their components and replacements) of such a specialized nature 

that, without substantial modification or alteration, their use is limited to development or production of particular 

supplies or parts, or performance of particular services. Examples include jigs, dies, fixtures, molds, patterns, taps, and 

gauges.” “Subpart 1845.71—Forms Preparation,” NASA Far Supplement, 

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/1044033main_finalrule.pdf (accessed November 2, 2006). 687 This category was added in the September 30, 1998, report and not included in earlier reports. It was defined as 

“equipment used to accomplish special purpose testing in performing a contract, and items or assemblies of equipment.” 

“Subpart 1845.71—Forms Preparation,” NASA Far Supplement, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/1044033main_finalrule.pdf

(accessed November 2, 2006).

688 The category was added in the September 30, 1998, report and was not included in earlier reports. It was defined as 

“completed items, systems and subsystems, spare parts and components unique to NASA aeronautical and space 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 279
Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Percentage Change — — — — —

5. Number of Acres of Land 130,962 130,980 129,682 187,240 243,908

Percentage Change –4.1 * –1.0 44.4 30.3

Number of Buildings 3,027 2,999 2,927 2,230 2,269

Percentage Change 6.2 –0.9 –2.4 –23.8 1.7

Number of Square Feet of Buildings 43,761,272 44,684,559 43,017,331 41,206,746 41,651,238

Percentage Change 10.8 2.1 –3.7 –4.2 1.1

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, 

Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 1999. FY 1998 report was not included with FY 2000 Budget Estimate; it was provided 

by the Headquarters Financial Management Division. “NASA Real Property Locations by Accountable Reporting 

Installations,” FY 1989–FY 1998, NASA Facilities Engineering Division.

programs. Examples include research aircraft, reusable space vehicles, ground support equipment, prototypes, and 

mock-ups.” “Subpart 1845.71—Forms Preparation,” NASA Far Supplement, 

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/1044033main_finalrule.pdf (accessed November 2, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 280
Table 5-3. Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total Real Property: In-House and Contractor-Held (FY 1989–FY 

1998) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1

Buildings 56.2 57.2 57.7 58.8 59.4 60.1 61.0 60.6 60.7 62.0

Other structures 

and facilities

41.0 40.1 39.6 38.7 38.1 37.6 36.8 37.3 37.3 35.8

Total real 

property value689

100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 99.9

Source: Table 5-2.

689 Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 281
Table 5-4A. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1989): In-House and Contractor-Held

Facility

Total Real 

Property Value

Capitalized 

Equipment

Fixed Assetsin-ProgressTotal 

Investment

Each Center’s 

Percentage of NASA 

Total Investment

NASA Headquarters 0 50,295 0 50,295 6.1

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 1,134,414 737,617 44,426 1,916,457 23.3

Johnson Space Center 333,493 485,980 18,695 838,168 10.2

Marshall Space Flight Center 477,593 523,260 2,582 1,003,435 12.2

Stennis Space Center 330,263 32,812 0 363,075 4.4

Total 2,275,763 1,779,669 65,703 4,121,135 50.1

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center690 488,725 391,125 160,753 1,040,603 12.7

Dryden Flight Research Center691 — — — — —

Langley Research Center 587,185 235,135 25,076 830,617 10.1

Lewis Research Center 332,838 182,863 62,820 578,521 7.0

Total 1,408,748 809,123 248,649 1,409,138 29.8

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 293,719 460,067 69,739 823,525 10.0

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 237,905 406,690 113,239 575,906 7.0

Total 531,624 866,757 182,978 1,399,431 17.0

NASA Total 4,216,135 3,505,844 497,330 8,219,309

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

690 Includes Dryden.

691 Included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 282
Table 5-4B. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1990–FY 1992): In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; in 

thousands of dollars) 

Total Real Property Value Capitalized Equipment

Facility 1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992

NASA Headquarters 0 0 0 53,064 69,201 65,301

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center692 1,159,657 1,176,840 1,208,500 814,215 840,997 4,596,904

Johnson Space Center693 344,343 370,540 415,026 515,498 588,985 670,891

Marshall Space Flight Center694 494,464 519,768 551,727 563,179 701,871 783,945

Stennis Space Center695 352,005 363,404 368,999 35,492 37,144 40,378

Total 2,350,469 2,430,552 2,544,252 1,928,384 2,168,997 6,092,118

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center696 534,439 565,931 616,469 380,929 395,797 417,041

Dryden Flight Research Center697 — — — — — —

Langley Research Center698 610,728 637,603 665,705 242,267 258,377 305,673

Lewis Research Center699 340,802 385,918 405,445 210,896 222,056 246,020

Total 951,530 1,023,521 1,071,150 834,092 876,230 968,734

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center700 331,730 353,902 398,671 460,203 502,230 570,252

692 Includes Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL; Western Test Range, Lompac, CA; and various locations.

693 Includes Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX; White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM; and various locations.

694 Includes Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Michoud Assembly Facility, LA; Slidell Computer Complex, LA; and various locations.

695 Includes Stennis Space Center, MS; and various locations. 696 Includes Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Dryden Flight Facility (through 1995); and various locations. 697 Included with Ames Research Center.

698 Includes Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, and various locations. 699 Includes Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH; Plum Brook, Sandusky, OH; and various locations. 700 Includes Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; the Tracking Stations Network, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA; and various locations.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 283
Total Real Property Value Capitalized Equipment

Facility 1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992

Jet Propulsion Laboratory701 239,979 255,012 297,247 421,329 465,007 373,403

Total 571,709 608,914 695,918 881,532 967,237 943,655

NASA Total 3,873,708 4,062,987 4,311,320 3,697,072 4,081,665 8,069,808

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

701 Includes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, and the Deep Space Network.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 284
Table 5-4B. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1990–FY 1992): In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; in 

thousands of dollars) (continued) 

Fixed Assets-in-Progress Total Investment Each Center’s Percentage of 

NASA Total Investment

Facility 1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992

NASA Headquarters 0 0 0 53,064 69,201 65,301 0.6 0.7 0.4

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 43,665 58,549 103,818 2,017,537 2,076,386 5,909,222 23.3 22.3 43.3

Johnson Space Center 28,968 35,148 26,223 888,809 994,673 1,112,140 10.3 10.7 8.2

Marshall Space Flight Center 13,895 5,606 10,218 1,071,538 1,227,245 1,345,890 12.4 13.2 9.9

Stennis Space Center 0 18,889 29,715 307,497 419,431 439,092 3.6 4.5 3.2

Total 86,528 118,192 169,974 4,285,381 4,717,735 8,806,344 49.6 50.7 64.6

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center702 153,830 184,860 231,434 1,069,198 1,146,588 1,265,256 12.4 12.3 9.3

Dryden Flight Research Center703 — — — — — — — — —

Langley Research Center 24,094 31,551 42,661 877,889 927,531 1,014,039 10.2 10.0 7.4

Lewis Research Center 85,583 65,132 58,549 637,281 673,106 710,014 7.4 7.2 5.2

Total 263,507 281,543 332,644 2,584,368 2,747,225 2,989,309 29.9 29.5 21.9

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 59,421 56,043 73,987 851,354 912,175 1,042,910 9.8 9.8 7.7

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 128,368 143,501 58,186 789,676 863,520 728,836 9.1 9.3 5.3

Total 187,789 199,544 132,173 1,641,030 1,775,695 1,771,746 19.0 19.1 13.0

NASA Total 537,824 599,279 634,791 8,563,843 9,309,856 13,632,700

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

702 Includes Dryden. 703 Included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 285
Table 5-4C. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1993–FY 1995): In-House and Contractor-Held

Total Real Property Value Capitalized Equipment

Facility 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994 1995

NASA Headquarters 17 218 0 58,592 47,085 54,401

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 1,247,885 1,272,178 1,374,748 893,976 877,600 898,669

Johnson Space Center 437,475 477,733 500,631 724,493 835,686 775,154

Marshall Space Flight Center 583,230 755,868 742,616 788,983 812,048 803,338

Stennis Space Center 383,127 397,760 404,164 48,140 58,135 56,758

Total 2,651,010 2,903,539 3,022,159 2,455,592 2,583,469 2,533,919

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center704 638,469 735,561 840,188 401,475 422,998 452,186

Dryden Flight Research Center705 — — — — — —

Langley Research Center 667,995 681,884 708,069 327,435 350,737 345,652

Lewis Research Center 421,276 457,714 475,163 263,969 267,542 270,076

Total 1,727,740 1,875,159 2,023,420 992,879 1,041,277 1,067,914

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 416,702 452,111 472,617 645,274 667,381 753,451

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 295,591 317,227 330,583 408,683 3,919706 383,799

Total 712,293 769,338 803,200 1,053,957 671,300 1,137,250

NASA Total 5,091,767 5,548,254 5,848,779 4,561,020 4,343,131 4,793,484

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

704 Includes Dryden. 705 Included with Ames Research Center. 706 This figure differs from the amount stated for Capitalized Equipment Value in the “Recorded Value of Capital Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of 

September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)” because the amount for the JPL Capitalized Equipment Value was misstated in full dollars ($3,918,821) rather than in 

K dollars as in the report. The total Capitalized Equipment Value and NASA Total were adjusted to reflect the correct figure for JPL Capitalized Equipment. (The 

adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters.) 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 286
Table 5-4C. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1993–FY 1995): In-House and Contractor-Held (continued) 

Fixed Assets-in-Progress Total Investment Each Center’s 

Percentage of NASA’s 

Total Investment

Facility 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994707 1995

NASA Headquarters 0 0 0 58,609 47,303 54,401 0.6 0.5 0.5

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 136,516 143,912 109,572 2,278,377 2,293,690 2,382,989 22.0 21.9 21.4

Johnson Space Center 40,208 25,941 49,826 1,202,176 1,339,360 1,325,611 11.6 12.8 11.9

Marshall Space Flight Center 15,103 13,003 10,036 1,387,316 1,580,796 1,555,990 13.4 15.1 14.0

Stennis Space Center 31,617 46,533 47,899 462,884 502,428 508,821 4.5 4.8 4.6

Total 223,444 229,389 217,333 5,330,753 5,716,274 5,773,411 51.6 54.5 51.9

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center708 249,486 139,732 81,113 1,289,430 1,298,291 1,373,487 12.5 12.4 12.4

Dryden Flight Research Center709 — — — — — — — —

Langley Research Center 64,785 75,393 54,855 1,060,215 1,108,014 1,108,576 10.3 10.6 10.0

Lewis Research Center 80,996 106,540 96,485 766,241 831,796 841,724 7.4 7.9 7.6

Total 395,267 321,665 232,453 3,115,886 3,238,101 3,323,787 30.2 30.9 30.0

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 58,658 48,862 22,586 1,120,634 1,168,354 1,248,654 10.8 11.1 11.2

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 0 0 0 704,274 4,236,048

710

714,382 6.8

3.1

6.4

707 Each Center’s percentage of NASA’s total investment is calculated based on the correct amount for the FY 1994 JPL Capitalized Equipment Value rather than the 

misstated amount in the “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)”. (The 

adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters.) 708 Includes Dryden.

709 Included in Ames Research Center. 710 This figure differs from the amount stated for Capitalized Equipment Value in the “Recorded Value of Capital Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of 

September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)” because the amount for the JPL Capitalized Equipment Value was given in full dollars ($3,918,821) rather than in K 

dollars and thus was misstated in the report. The NASA total for FY 1994 was also adjusted to reflect the corrected JPL Capitalized Equipment Value, as was the 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 287
Fixed Assets-in-Progress Total Investment Each Center’s 

Percentage of NASA’s 

Total Investment

Facility 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994707 1995

Total 58,658 48,862 22,586 1,824,908 5,404,402 1,963,036 17.7 14.2 17.7

NASA Total 677,369 599,916 472,372 10,330,156 14,406,203 11,114,635

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

Office of Space Science and Applications total. (The adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property 

Division, NASA Headquarters.)

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 288
Table 5-4D. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1996–FY 1998): In-House and Contractor-Held

Total Real Property Value Capitalized Equipment

Facility 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998

NASA Headquarters 6 0 0 50,696 41,626 35,136

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 1,406,687 1,437,132 1,473,533 833,003 236,272 79,517

Johnson Space Center 521,351 581,282 625,893 815,465 1,394,617 889,131

Marshall Space Flight Center 618,577 629,906 577,923 781,813 772,503 381,134

Stennis Space Center 420,084 425,364 300,169 54,800 58,900 29,467

Total 2,966,699 3,073,684 2,977,518 2,485,081 2,462,292 1,379,249

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center 784,407 786,403 640,255 353,898 348,899 263,916

Dryden Flight Research Center 107,384 107,785 111,340 256,554 279,785 254,295

Langley Research Center 731,509 741,569 722,116 347,699 373,152 133,033

Lewis Research Center 477,435 480,714 422,215 276,212 273,239 73,461

Total 2,100,735 2,116,471 1,895,926 1,234,363 1,275,075 724,705

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 492,649 830,380 534,141 824,315 830,380 390,716

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 382,761 401,927 421,010 361,387 378,251 95,267

Total 875,410 1,232,307 955,151 1,185,702 1,208,631 485,983

NASA Total 5,942,850 6,116,578 5,825,595 4,955,842 4,987,438 2,625,073

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 289
Fixed Assets-in-Progress Total Investment Each Center’s 

Percentage of NASA’s 

Total Investment

Facility 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 1998711 1996 1997 1998

NASA Headquarters 41,720 44,687 0 92,422 86,313 35,136 0.6 0.5 0.1

Office of Space Flight

Kennedy Space Center 141,679 83,068 39,343 2,381,369 1,756,472 1,806,074 15.1 10.0 7.7

Johnson Space Center 231,207 862,968 1,205,129 1,568,023 2,838,867 10,292,068 10.6 10.0 43.8

Marshall Space Flight Center 1,396,268 1,843,091 2,079,438 2,796,658 3,245,500 3,982,835 17.7 16.2 16.9

Stennis Space Center 60,350 67,620 30,550 535,234 551,874 360,186 3.4 3.1 1.5

Total 1,829,504 2,856,747 3,354,460 7,281,284 8,392,713 16,441,163 46.1 47.8 69.9

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

Ames Research Center 93,299 133,738 10,865 1,231,604 1,269,640 928,554 7.8 7.2 3.9

Dryden Flight Research Center 0 5,732 23,140 0 393,126 389,683 0 2.0 1.7

Langley Research Center 75,489 294,728 198,016 1,154,697 1,409,449 1,067,019 7.3 8.0 4.5

Lewis Research Center 141,172 118,462 121,389 894,819 872,415 626,797 5.7 5.0 2.7

Total 309,960 552,660 353,410 3,281,120 3,944,630 3,012,053 20.8 22.5 12.8

Office of Space Science and Applications

Goddard Space Flight Center 971,428 1,116,601 1,638,960 2,288,392 2,471,477 2,758,218 14.5 14.1 11.7

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1,724,702 1,870,596 748,757 2,468,850 2,650,774 1,275,799 15.6 15.1 5.4

Total 2,696,130 2,987,197 2,387,717 4,757,242 5,122,251 4,034,017 30.1 29.2 17.1

NASA Total 4,883,299 6,441,291 6,095,587 15,781,991 17,545,307 23,522,369

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

711 Total Investment includes amounts for special tooling, special test equipment, and Agency-peculiar property, not specified in this table. These categories were 

introduced in FY 1998.

Table 5-4D. NASA Facilities Total Investment Value (FY 1996–FY 1998): In-House and Contractor-Held (continued)

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 290
Table 5-5. Land Owned by Field Center and Fiscal Year in Acres: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 432.5712 432.0 432.0 432.0 432.0 3,387.2713 3,411.1 3,411.1 3,400.0 3,400.0

Dryden Flight Research 

Center714

— — — — — — — 0 0 0

Goddard Space Flight Center 18,576.5715 18,576.5 18,576.5 18,576.5 18,597.8 10,097.0716 10,105.0717 10,105.0 13,315 13,315

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8

Johnson Space Center 1,821.0718 1,821.0 1,821.0 1,783.9 1,783.9 1,783.9 1,783.9 1,783.9 1,764.0 1,764.0

White Sands Test Facility 1,409.0 1,409.0 1,409.0 1,786.3 1,786.3 1,786.3 1,786.3 1,786.3 1,786.3

719

1,786.3720

Kennedy Space Center 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,943.0 82,822.0 139,490.0

Langley Research Center 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 808.0 808.0

Lewis Research Center 6,804.8721 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 7,120.0 7,120.0

Marshall Space Flight Center 1,255.9722 1,255.9 2,553.4723 2,553.4 2,553.4 2,553.4 2,539.4724 1,241.9725 2,715.0 2,715.0

Stennis Space Center 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,355.0 20,355.0

Total 134,827.8 134,827.8 136,125.3 136,465.5 136,498.3 130,961.7 130,979.6 129,682.1 113,8200 170,488

Source: “NASA Real Property Locations by Accountable Reporting Installations,” 1989–1998, Facilities Engineering Division.

712 Includes Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Camp Parks, Pleasanton, CA; and Crow’s Landing, CA. 713 Reflects the addition of Moffett Airfield, Moffett Field, CA. 714 FY 1989–1995 included with Ames Research Center. 715 Includes Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA; Antenna Tracking Station, Fairbanks, AK; and Antenna Test 

Range, Las Cruces, NM.

716 Reflects the transfer of the Alaska Tracking Station, Fairbanks, AK, from NASA to NOAA. 717 Reflects the addition of the Balloon Launching Facility, Ft. Sumner, NM. 718 Includes Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, and industrial plant at Downey, CA.

719 White Sands Test Facility Land Report as of 1997 (Acres) prepared by NASA Headquarters Facilities Engineering Division. 720 White Sands Test Facility Land Report as of 1998 (Acres) prepared by NASA Headquarters Facilities Engineering Division. 721 Includes Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, and Plum Brook Operating Division, Sandusky, OH. 722 Includes Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, LA; and Slidell Computer Complex, Slidell, LA. 723 Reflects the addition of the Yellow Creek Facility, Iuka, MS. 724 Reflects the transfer of Slidell Computer Complex to Slidell, LA. 725 Reflects the closure of the Yellow Creek Facility.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 291
Table 5-6. Number of Buildings Owned by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 161 174 175 176 176 355 355 355 261 261

Dryden Flight Research Center 67 67 65 70 73 80 80 85 55 55

Goddard Space Flight Center 466 472 458 455 448 401 402 398 295 301

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 314 308 303 307 307 309 314 294 239 262

Johnson Space Center 299 302 315 316 323 324 332 338 266 267

Kennedy Space Center 577 580 606 607 610 617 556 614 338 339

Langley Research Center 179 183 184 182 205 221 233 229 198 200

Lewis Research Center 258 262 262 261 261 261 262 262 249 249

Marshall Space Flight Center 253 255 284 308 319 334 277 237 223 226

Stennis Space Center 121 125 132 141 127 125 125 115 106 109

Total 2,695 2,728 2,784 2,833 2,849 3,027 2,999 2,927 2,230 2,269

Source: “NASA Real Property Locations by Accountable Reporting Installations,” 1989–1998, Facilities Engineering Division.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 292
Table 5-7. Number of Square Feet of Buildings Owned by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 2,710,774 2,785,040 2,786,080 2,823,540 2,823,540 5,528,665 5,752,354 5,507,349 5,483,208 5,483,208

Dryden Flight Research 

Center

551,945 558,183 557,663 688,461 695,238 692,608 735,354 727,086 848,896 848,896

Goddard Space Flight 

Center

3,683,130 4,115,561 4,132,431 4,320,894 4,386,619 4,528,157 4,592,142 4,566,509 3,433,180 4,547,975

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

2,055,578 2,044,930 2,122,807 2,450,296 2,453,388 2,526,915 2,589,583 2,547,316 2,472,199 2,501,109

Johnson Space Center 5,342,797 5,385,045 5,472,512 5,700,352 5,759,089 6,021,187 6,031,297 6,068,619 4,720,016 4,743,529

Kennedy Space Center 6,732,193 6,469,694 6,504,376 7,202,125 7,347,401 7,398,971 7,847,008 7,258,667 7,184,308 7,306,308

Langley Research 

Center

2,273,819 2,277,802 2,317,910 2,351,630 2,515,311 2,526,402 2,596,035 2,593,110 3,380,269 3,382,202

Lewis Research Center 3,212,305 3,289,763 3,296,491 3,280,853 3,302,583 3,302,583 3,357,111 3,357,111 3,328,834 3,284,198

Marshall Space Flight 

Center

7,682,590 7,480,931 8,178,360 8,245,165 8,294,171 9,478,586 9,397,886 8,059,942 7,789,619 7,828,631

Stennis Space Center 1,556,143 1,603,125 1,645,885 1,679,828 1,742,371 1,757,198 1,785,272 1,781,278 1,703,553 1,018,026

Total 36,065,563 36,817,351 37,649,117 38,762,153 39,493,534 43,761,272 44,684,559 43,017,331 41,206,746 41,651,238

Source: “NASA Real Property Locations by Accountable Reporting Installations,” 1989–1998, Facilities Engineering Division.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 293
Table 5-8. Total Real Property Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; in 

thousands of dollars) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 17 218 0 6 0 0

Ames Research Center726 488,725 534,439 565,931 616,781 638,469 735,561 840,188 784,407 786,403 640,255

Dryden Flight Research 

Center727

— — — — — — — 107,384 107,785 111,340

Goddard Space Flight Center728 293,719 331,730 353,902 398,671 416,702 452,111 472,617 492,649 524,496 534,141

Jet Propulsion Laboratory729 237,905 239,979 255,012 297,247 295,591 317,227 330,583 382,761 401,927 421,010

Johnson Space Center730 485,980 344,343 370,540 415,026 437,475 477,733 500,631 521,351 581,282 625,893

Kennedy Space Center731 1,134,414 1,159,657 1,176,840 1,208,500 1,247,885 1,272,178 1,374,748 1,406,687 1,437,132 1,473,533

Langley Research Center732 587,185 610,728 637,603 665,705 667,995 681,884 708,069 731,509 741,569 722,116

Lewis Research Center733 332,838 340,802 385,918 405,445 421,276 457,714 475,163 477,435 480,714 422,215

Marshall Space Flight Center734 477,593 494,464 519,768 551,727 583,230 755,868 742,616 618,577 629,906 574,923

Stennis Space Center 330,263 352,005

735

363,404 368,999 383,127 397,760 404,164 420,084 425,364 300,169

Total 4,216,135 4,408,147 4,628,918 1,904,995 5,091,767 5,548,254 5,848,779 5,942,850 6,116,578 5,825,595

Source: Table 5-4.

726 Includes Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Dryden Flight Facility (through 1995); and various locations. 727 FY 1989–1995 included with Ames Research Center. 728 Includes Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; the Tracking Stations Network, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA; and various locations.

729 Includes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, and the Deep Space Network. 730 Includes Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX; White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM; and various locations. 731 Includes Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL; Western Test Range, Lompac, CA; and various locations. 732 Includes Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, and various locations. 733 Includes Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH; Plum Brook, Sandusky, OH; and various locations. 734 Includes Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Michoud Assembly Facility, LA; Slidell Computer Complex, LA; and various locations. 735 Includes Stennis Space Center, MS, and various locations.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 294
Table 5-9. Land Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; in thousands of dollars) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ames Research Center 2,929 2,929 2,929 2,929 2,929 6,865736 6,865 6,865 6,865 3,936

Dryden Flight Research Center737 — — — — — — — 0738 0 0

Goddard Space Flight Center 2,872 2,880 2,880 3,096 3,311 3,341 3,341 3,351 3,351 5,483

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,046

Johnson Space Center 10,944 10,944 11,324 11,238 11,238 11,256 11,256 11,256 12,450 12,367

Kennedy Space Center 71,345 71,345 71,345 71,345 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672

Langley Research Center 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156

Lewis Research Center 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621

Marshall Space Flight Center 7,171 7,171 10,942 11,093 11,093 11,093 11,024739 7,162740 7,162 7,162

Stennis Space Center 18,061 18,061 18,061 18,061 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080

Total 117,287 117,295 121,446 121,727 124,289 128,273 128,204 124,352 125,546 124,523

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

736 The increase in value reflects the closure of Moffett Air Field and acquisition by NASA. 737 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center. 738 Land not owned by NASA.

739 Slidell Computer Complex was transferred to the City of Slidell, LA, on December 14, 1994. 740 The decrease reflects the transfer of the Yellow Creek Facility to the state of Mississippi in accordance with Public Law 104-99, Making Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 1996 To Make a Down Payment Toward a Balanced Budget, and for Other Purposes, 104th Congress, 2nd session, January 26, 1996.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 295
Table 5-10. Building Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; in thousands of 

dollars) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

Ames Research Center 428,349 497,880 527,303 574,152 589,056 636,696 737,166 708,043 709,871 589,948

Dryden Flight Research 

Center741

— — — — — — — 73,405 73,806 77,361

Goddard Space Flight Center 120,462 206,195 226,332 267,094 281,447 308,365 325,756 340,181 348,747 353,845

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 125,798 125,591 138,088 180,630 179,555 200,271 209,564 229,340 242,480 243,355

Johnson Space Center 237,851 245,112 259,747 297,914 312,943 344,021 359,409 374,443 417,183 458,247

Kennedy Space Center 537,011 573,390 581,948 601,650 623,719 629,905 712,590 716,024 735,445 770,456

Langley Research Center 194,080 208,777 217,354 226,670 231,727 248,527 258,007 269,534 275,852 246,866

Lewis Research Center 237,506 245,394 277,420 291,986 305,940 334,673 349,173 350,122 353,262 316,078

Marshall Space Flight Center 306,669 311,288 331,079 342,013 369,289 496,079 481,868 402,248 412,990 413,481

Stennis Space Center 104,698 109,043 113,632 117,922 130,796 134,730 136,632 137,664 141,583 144,215

Total 2,367,585 2,522,610 2,672,903 2,900,031 3,024,472 3,333,267 3,570,165 3,601,010 3,711,219 3,614,752

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

741 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 296
Table 5-11A. Other Structures and Facilities Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and 

Contractor-Held (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 0

Ames Research Center 32,217 33,630 35,699 39,700 46,484

Dryden Flight Research Center742 — — — — —

Goddard Space Flight Center 120,462 122,655 124,679 128,470 131,944

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 109,024 112,165 114,641 114,333 113,756

Johnson Space Center 84,593 88,182 99,364 105,769 113,189

Kennedy Space Center 526,058 514,922 523,547 535,505 550,494

Langley Research Center 392,941 401,795 420,093 438,879 436,112

Lewis Research Center 92,575 92,651 105,741 110,702 112,579

Marshall Space Flight Center 163,753 176,005 177,747 198,621 202,848

Stennis Space Center 207,504 224,901 231,711 233,016 234,251

Total 1,729,127 1,766,906 1,833,222 1,904,995 1,941,657

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, 

Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

742 FY 1989–FY 1993 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 297
Table 5-11B. Other Structures and Facilities Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and 

Contractor-Held (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Field Center 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 0

Ames Research Center 92,000 96,157 69,499 69,667 46,371

Dryden Flight Research Center743 — — 33,979 33,979 33,979

Goddard Space Flight Center 140,405 143,520 149,117 172,398 174,813

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 114,671 119,164 151,566 157,592 176,239

Johnson Space Center 122,351 129,812 135,498 151,495 155,174

Kennedy Space Center 568,601 588,486 616,991 628,015 629,405

Langley Research Center 433,201 449,906 461,819 465,561 475,094

Lewis Research Center 120,284 123,233 124,556 124,695 102,480

Marshall Space Flight Center 248,696 249,724 209,167 209,754 154,280

Stennis Space Center 244,950 249,452 264,340 265,701 137,874

Total 2,085,159 2,149,454 2,216,532 2,278,857 2,085,709

743 FY 1994–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 298
Table 5-12A. Capitalized Equipment Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and 

Contractor-Held (FY 1989–FY 1993) (at end of fiscal year; in thousands of dollars) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Headquarters744 50,295 53,064 69,201 65,301 58,592

Ames Research Center 391,125 380,929 395,797 417,041 401,475

Dryden Flight Research Center745 — — — — —

Goddard Space Flight Center 460,067 460,203 502,230 570,252 645,274

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 406,690 421,329 465,007 373,403 408,683

Johnson Space Center 485,980 515,498 588,985 670,891 724,493

Kennedy Space Center 737,617 814,215 840,997 4,596,904 893,976

Langley Research Center 235,135 242,267 258,377 305,673 327,435

Lewis Research Center 182,863 210,896 222,056 246,020 263,969

Marshall Space Flight Center 523,260 563,179 701,871 783,945 788,983

Stennis Space Center 32,812 35,492 37,144 40,378 48,140

Total 3,505,844 3,697,072 4,081,665 8,069,808 4,561,020

Source: Table 5-4.

744 Includes NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, and various locations. 745 FY 1989–FY 1993 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 299
Table 5-12B. Capitalized Equipment Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and 

Contractor-Held (FY 1994–FY 1998) (at end of fiscal year; in thousands of dollars) 

Field Center 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998746

Headquarters747 47,085 54,401 50,696 41,626 35,136

Ames Research Center 422,998 452,186 353,898 348,899 263,916

Dryden Flight Research Center748 — — 256,554 279,785 254,295

Goddard Space Flight Center 667,381 753,451 824,315 830,380 390,716

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 3,919749 383,799 361,387 378,251 95,267

Johnson Space Center 835,686 775,154 815,465 1,394,617 889,131

Kennedy Space Center 877,600 898,669 833,003 236,272 79,517

Langley Research Center 350,737 345,652 347,699 373,152 133,033

Lewis Research Center 267,542 270,076 276,212 273,239 73,461

Marshall Space Flight Center 812,048 803,338 781,813 772,503 381,134

Stennis Space Center 58,135 56,758 54,800 58,890 29,467

Total 4,343,131 4,793,484 4,955,842 4,987,438 2,625,073

746 Does not include special tooling, special test equipment, and Agency-peculiar property included for first time in FY 

1998.

747 Includes NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, and various locations. 748 FY 1994–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

749 This figure differs from the amount stated for Capitalized Equipment Value in the “Recorded Value of Capital 

Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)” because the amount for the 

JPL Capitalized Equipment Value was misstated in full dollars ($3,918,821) rather than in K dollars as in the report. 

The total FY 1994 NASA Total was adjusted to reflect the correct figure for JPL Capitalized Equipment. (The 

adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, 

NASA Headquarters.)

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 300
Table 5-13. Land Value as a Percentage of Total Real Property Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and Contractor-Held

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6

Dryden Flight Research Center750 — — — — — — — 0751 0 0

Goddard Space Flight Center 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.0

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

Johnson Space Center 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0

Kennedy Space Center 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0

Langley Research Center * * * * * * * * * *

Lewis Research Center 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6

Marshall Space Flight Center 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2

Stennis Space Center 5.5 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 6.0

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Tables 5-24, 5-29, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-48, 5-53, 5-58, 5-63, 5-68.

750 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center. 751 Land not owned by NASA.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 301
Table 5-14. Building Value as a Percentage of Total Real Property Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: In-House and ContractorHeld (at end of fiscal year) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Ames Research Center 92.8 93.1 93.2 93.0 92.3 86.6 87.8 90.2 90.3 92.1

Dryden Flight Research Center752 — — — — — — — 68.4 68.5 69.5

Goddard Space Flight Center 58.0 62.2 64.0 67.0 67.5 68.2 69.0 69.1 66.5 66.2

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 52.9 52.3 54.1 60.8 60.7 63.1 63.4 60.0 60.3 57.9

Johnson Space Center 71.3 71.2 70.1 71.8 71.5 72.0 71.8 71.8 71.8 73.2

Kennedy Space Center 47.3 49.4 49.5 49.8 50.0 49.5 51.8 50.9 51.2 52.3

Langley Research Center 33.1 34.2 34.1 34.0 34.7 36.4 36.4 36.8 37.2 34.2

Lewis Research Center 71.4 72.0 71.9 72.0 72.6 73.1 73.5 73.3 73.5 75.1

Marshall Space Flight Center 64.2 63.1 73.7 62.0 63.3 65.6 64.9 65.0 65.6 71.9

Stennis Space Center 31.7 31.0 31.3 32.0 34.1 33.9 33.8 32.8 33.3 48.0

Source: Tables 5-24, 5-29, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-48, 5-53, 5-58, 5-63, 5-68.

752 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 302
Table 5-15. Other Structures and Facilities Value as a Percentage of Total Real Property Value by Field Center and Fiscal Year: InHouse and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year) 

Field Center 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.4 7.3 12.5 11.4 8.9 8.9 7.2

Dryden Flight Research Center753 — — — — — — — 31.6 31.5 30.5

Goddard Space Flight Center 41.0 37.0 35.2 32.2 31.7 31.1 30.4 30.3 32.9 32.7

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 45.8 46.7 45.0 38.5 44.6 36.1 36.0 40.0 39.2 41.8

Johnson Space Center 25.4 25.6 26.8 25.5 23.7 25.6 25.9 26.0 26.1 24.8

Kennedy Space Center 46.4 44.4 44.5 44.3 44.1 44.7 42.8 43.9 43.7 42.7

Langley Research Center 67.0 65.8 65.9 65.9 64.0 63.5 63.5 63.1 62.8 65.8

Lewis Research Center 27.8 27.2 27.4 27.4 26.7 26.3 25.9 26.1 25.9 24.3

Marshall Space Flight Center 34.3 35.6 34.2 36.0 36.8 32.9 33.6 33.8 33.3 26.8

Stennis Space Center 62.8 63.9 63.8 63.1 61.1 61.6 61.7 62.9 62.5 45.9

Source: Tables 5-24, 5-29, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-48, 5-53, 5-58, 5-63, 5-68.

753 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 303
Table 5-16. Real Property Value of Field Centers Ranked by Percentage of Total Real Property 

Value: In-House and Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year; selected years)

Ranking 1989 1992 1996 1998

1 Kennedy 26.9 Kennedy 24.5 Kennedy 23.7 Kennedy 25.3

2 Langley 13.9 Langley 13.5 Ames 13.2 Langley 12.4

3 Ames 11.6 Ames 12.5 Langley 12.3 Ames 11.0

4 Marshall 11.3 Marshall 11.2 Marshall 10.4 Johnson 10.7

5 Johnson 7.9 Johnson 8.4 Johnson 8.8 Marshall 10.0

6 Lewis 7.9 Lewis 8.2 Goddard 8.3 Goddard 9.2

7 Stennis 7.8 Goddard 8.1 Lewis 8.0 JPL 7.2

8 Goddard 7.0 Stennis 7.5 Stennis 7.1 Lewis 7.2

9 JPL 5.6 JPL 6.0 JPL 6.4 Stennis 5.2

10 Dryden754 — Dryden — Dryden 1.8 Dryden 1.9

Total755 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.1

Source: Tables 5-24, 5-29, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-48, 5-53, 5-58, 5-63, 5-68.

754 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center. 755 May not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 304
Table 5-17. Capitalized Equipment Value of Field Centers Ranked by Percentage of Total Capitalized Equipment Value: In-House and 

Contractor-Held (at end of fiscal year, selected years)

Ranking 1989 1992 1996 1998756 1998757

1 Kennedy 21.0 Kennedy 57.0 Johnson 33.9 Johnson 33.9 Johnson 72.9

2 Marshall 14.9 Marshall 9.7 Goddard 14.9 Goddard 14.9 Marshall 11.5 

3 Johnson 13.9 Johnson 8.3 Marshall 14.5 Marshall 14.5 Goddard 5.0

4 Goddard 13.1 Goddard 7.1 Ames 10.1 Ames 10.1 Kennedy 2.5

5 JPL 11.6 Ames 5.2 Dryden 9.7 Dryden 9.7 Ames 2.4

6 Ames 11.2 JPL 4.6 Langley 5.1 Langley 5.1 Dryden 2.2

7 Langley 8.1 Langley 3.8 JPL 3.6 JPL 3.6 Langley 1.3

8 Lewis 5.2 Lewis 3.0 Kennedy 3.0 Kennedy 3.0 JPL 0.9

9 Headquarters 1.4 Headquarters 0.8 Lewis 2.8 Lewis 2.8 Lewis 0.7

10 Stennis 0.9 Stennis 0.5 Headquarters 1.3 Headquarters 1.3 Headquarters 0.3

11 Dryden758 — Dryden — Stennis 1.1 Stennis 1.1 Stennis 0.3

Total759 101.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Tables 5-20, 5-24, 5-29, 5-34, 5-39, 5-43, 5-48, 5-53, 5-58, 5-63, 5-68; also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of 

September 30, 1998.”

756 Ranking excluding special tooling, special test equipment, and Agency-peculiar property, included for the first time in FY 1998. 757 Ranking including special tooling, special test equipment, and Agency-peculiar property. 758 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

759 May not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 305
Table 5-18. Budget Plan Distributed by Appropriation and Field Center: FY 1998 (in thousands of 

dollars; percentage of total budget plan in parentheses) 

Field Center Human 

Space 

Flight760

Science, Aeronautics 

and Technology761

Mission 

Support762

Total 

Budget 

Plan763

Ames Research Center 22,052 381,594 179,053 582,699

(3.8) (65.5) (30.7) (100)

Dryden Flight Research Center 5,800 140,327 61,820 207,947

(2.8) (65.5) (29.7) (98)

Goddard Space Flight Center 13,269 2,048,068 411,012 2,472,349

(0.5) (82.8) (16.6) (99.9)

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 702 1,077,650 23,478 1,101,830

* (97.8) (2.1) (99.9)

Johnson Space Center 3,856,106 94,820 342,525 4,293,451

(89.8) (2.2) (8.0) (100)

Kennedy Space Center 303,458 245,646 248,364 797,468

(38.1) (30.8) (31.1) (100)

Langley Research Center 7,352 418,067 226,182 651,601

(1.1) (64.2) (34.7) (100)

Lewis Research Center 31,350 374,334 261,368 667,052

(4.7) (56.1) (39.2) (100)

Marshall Space Flight Center 1,263,768 686,553 379,988 2,330,309

(54.2) (29.5) (16.3) (100)

Stennis Space Center 47,216 60,890 49,637 157,743

(29.9) (38.6) (31.5) (100)

Headquarters 8,427 162,051 192,877 363,355

(2.3) (44.6) (53.1) (100)

Undistributed

Construction of Facilities: 

various locations

— — 3,721 3,721

(100.0) (100)

Inspector General — — — 18,152

Total 5,559,500 5,690,000 2,380,025 13,647,677

(40.7) (41.7) (17.4)

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: NASA Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Estimates.

760 Includes International Space Station, Russian Program Assurance, Space Shuttle, and Payload Utilization and 

Operations.

761 Includes Space Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Earth Science, Aero-Space Technology, 

Academic Programs, and Mission Communications Services programs.

762 Includes Safety, Mission Assurance, Engineering, and Advanced Concepts; Space Communication Services;

Research and Program Management; and Construction of Facilities programs.

763 Total percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 306
Table 5-19. NASA Headquarters Major Organizations 

Code Title

1989

A Office of the Administrator

B Office of the Comptroller

C Office of Commercial Programs

D Office of Headquarters Operations

E Office of Space Science and Applications

G Office of General Counsel

H Office of Procurement

K Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

L Office of Communications

M Office of Space Flight

N Office of Management

P Office of the Chief Scientist

Q Office of Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and Quality Assurance

R Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

S Office of Space Station

T Office of Space Operations

U Office of Equal Opportunity Programs

W Office of Inspector General

X Office of External Relations

Z Office of Exploration

1998

A Office of the Administrator

B Office of the Chief Financial Officer

C Office of Headquarters Operations

E Office of Equal Opportunity Programs

F Office of Human Resources and Education

G Office of the General Counsel

H Office of Procurement

I Office of External Relations

J Office of Management Systems and Facilities

K Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

L Office of Legislative Affairs

M Office of Space Flight

P Office of Public Affairs

Q Office of Safety and Mission Assurance

R Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology

S Office of Space Science

U Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 307
Code Title

W Office of Inspector General

Y Office of Earth Science

Z Office of Policy and Plans

Source: 1989 and 1998 Headquarters Telephone Directories.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 308
Table 5-20. Headquarters Capitalized Equipment Value 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

50,295 53,064 69,201 65,301 58,592 47,085 54,401 50,696 41,626 35,136

Source: “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held,” Annual NASA Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1991–Fiscal Year 2000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 309
Table 5-21. Headquarters Personnel (end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees764 1,727 1,966 2,092 1,998 1,927 1,676 1,502 1,341 1,028 941

Nonpermanent Employees 140 187 203 418 368 314 355 350 290 312

Total Employees 1,867 2,153 2,295 2,416 2,295 1,990 1,857 1,691 1,318 1,253

Occupational Code Groups (full-time permanent only)

200, 700, and 900765 502 571 590 588 571 470 407 328 250 225

600766 854 970 1,047 959 930 840 786 721 568 536

500767 360 415 447 417 394 338 287 271 196 170

300768 5 7 6 5 6 6 2 2 3 2

100769 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, 

Excepted770

224771 243772 272 263 258 222 200 179 127 116 

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees773

406 482 532 508 489 456 415 389 298 275

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

755 867 938 903 869 775 725 668 506 462

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007). 

764 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees. 765 200—Support Engineering and Related Positions; 700—Aero-Space Technology Scientific and Engineering; 900—Life Science Support. 766 600—Professional Administrative. 767 500—Clerical and Nonprofessional Administrative. 768 300—Technical Support. 769 100—Wage System (Trade and Labor). 770 Full-time permanent. 771 Includes SES, NASA Excepted Public Law 3104(a), Executive Pay Act, and GS-16 and above employees. 772 Includes SES, NASA Excepted, Public Law 3104(a), Executive Pay Act, and GS-16 and above employees. Total of 243 comes from “Senior Executive Service 

Excepted and Supergrade Employment,” The Civil Service Workforce, Fiscal Year 1990, p. 8. The Fiscal Year 1991 Workforce Report, p. 13, lists a total of 241 

people in “positions above the GS/GM-15 level” at the end of FY 1990, “Positions above the GS/GM-15 Level by Pay Plan and Installation.” No explanation for the 

revised number is given.

773 Minority consists of all non-white groups listed by NASA (Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 310
Table 5-22. Headquarters Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 456,694 517,669 682,703 875,010 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 344,100 97,600 60,209 51,674 15,049 8,427

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

81,522 68,787 86,790 161,291 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 657,889 713,062 647,887 550,870 144,416 162,051

Research and Program 

Management

263,609 274,822 300,774 174,501 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 16,100 3,272 8,642 1,936 — — — — — —

Mission Support774 — — — — 338,137 310,915 289,292 246,349 230,057 192,877

Total 817,925 864,550 1,078,909 939,399 1,340,126 1,121,577 997,388 848,893 389,522 363,355

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

774 Includes Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance, Space Communication Services, Research and Program Management, and Construction of Facilities.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 311
Table 5-23. Headquarters Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 600.0 730.6 954.8 808.6 863.4 811.7 774.5 578.6 217.2 168.8

Percentage of NASA Total 5.5 5.8 7.3 6.0 6.6 6.3 5.8 4.6 1.7 1.3

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 312
Table 5-24. Ames Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of 

dollars) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 432.5775 432.0 432.0 432.0 432.0 3,387.2776 3,411.1 3,411.1 3,400 3,400

Number of Buildings 161 174 175 176 355 355 355 355 261 261

Area of Buildings (square feet) 2,710,774 2,785,040 2,786,080 2,823,540 2,823,540 5,528,665 5,752,354 5,507,349 5,483,208 5,483,208

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 2,929 2,929 2,929 2,929 2,929 6,865777 6,865 6,865 6,865 3,936

Buildings 482,349 497,880 527,303 574,152 589,056 636,696 737,166 708,043 709,871 589,948

Other Structures and Facilities 32,217 33,630 35,699 39,700 46,484 92,000 96,157 69,499 69,667 46,371

Total Real Property Value 488,725 534.439 565,931 616.469 638,884 735,561 840,188 784,407 786,403 640,255

Capitalized Equipment Value 391,125 380,929 395,797 417,041 401,475 422,998 452,186 353,898 348,899 263,916

Special Tooling778 — — — — — — — — — 0

Special Test Equipment779 — — — — — — — — — 0

Agency-Peculiar Property780 — — — — — — — — — 13,518

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

775 Includes Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Camp Parks, Pleasanton, CA; and Crow’s Landing, CA. 776 Reflects addition of Moffett Airfield, Moffett Field, CA. 777 The increase in value reflects the closure of Moffett Air Field and acquisition by NASA. 778 Category introduced in FY 1998 “Recorded Value of Property” report. 779 Category introduced in FY 1998 “Recorded Value of Property” report. 780 Category introduced in FY 1998 “Recorded Value of Property” report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 313
Table 5-25. Ames Research Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands 

of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6

Buildings 92.8 93.1 93.2 93.0 92.3 86.6 87.8 90.2 90.3 92.1

Other Structures and Facilities 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.4 7.3 12.5 11.4 8.9 8.9 7.2

Total Real Property Value 488,725 534,439 565,931 616,469 638,469 735,561 840,188 784,407 786,403 640,255

Source: Table 5-24.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 314
Table 5-26. Ames Research Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees781 2,151 2,205 2,263 2,273 2,201 1,715 1,575 1,504 1,414 1,321

Nonpermanent Employees 66 74 143 169 177 89 101 97 130 183

Total Employees782 2,217 2,279 2,406 2,442 2,378 1,804 1,676 1,601 1,544 1,504

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 1,164 1,183 1,212 1,202 1,178 968 913 871 837 789

600 307 345 364 368 368 307 289 283 281 279

500 223 216 221 210 186 160 134 122 103 84

300 138 139 150 171 179 107 93 97 91 92

100 319 322 316 295 267 164 138 124 95 72

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 43 39 45 48 44 35 34 34 32 34

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

433 459 491 494 486 414 386 370 353 344

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

520 547 574 572 548 464 423 403 380 365

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

781 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees. 782 FY 1989–FY 1993: includes Dryden personnel.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 315
Table 5-27. Ames Research Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 288,416 307,941 349,951 427,959 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 7,200 0 0 26,296 14,935 22,052

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

16,700 18,700 18,600 18,900 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 475,175 447,756 456,122 390,835 354,383 381,594

Research and Program 

Management

177,775 187,340 211,155 158,860 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 29,098 45,019 27,550 62,748 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 217,673 184,914 174,975 173,609 186,791 179,053

Total 511,989 559,000 607,256 646,129 700,018 632,670 631,097 590,740 556,109 582,699

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 316
Table 5-28. Ames Research Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994783 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 450.6 482.8 520.2 568.0 567.2 594.1 560.8 533.3 507.1 493.1

Percentage of NASA Total 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.9

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

783 FY 1994 and previous year awards included awards to Dryden.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 317
Table 5-29. Dryden Flight Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in thousands 

of dollars) 

Category 1989784 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) — — — — — — — 0 0 0

Number of Buildings 67 67 65 70 73 80 80 85 55 55

Area of Buildings (square feet) 551,945 558,183 557,663 688,461 695,238 692,608 735,354 727,086 848,896 848,896

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land — — — — — — — 0 0 0

Buildings — — — — — — — 73,405 73,806 77,361

Other Structures and Facilities — — — — — — — 33,979 33,979 33,979

Total Real Property Value — — — — — — — 107,384 107,785 111,340

Capitalized Equipment Value — — — — — — — 256,554 279,785 254,295

Special Tooling — — — — — — — — — 0

Special Test Equipment — — — — — — — — — 908

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — — — — — — 0

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

784 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 318
Table 5-30. Dryden Flight Research Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in 

thousands of dollars) 

Component 1989785 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land786 — — — — — — — 0 0 0

Buildings — — — — — — — 68.4 68.5 69.5

Other Structures and Facilities — — — — — — — 31.6 31.5 30.5

Total Real Property Value — — — — — — — 107,384 107,785 111,340

Source: Table 5-29.

785 FY 1989–FY 1995 included with Ames Research Center. 786 NASA does not own the land at Dryden.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 319
Table 5-31. Dryden Flight Research Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993787 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees — — — — — 447 433 452 478 507

Nonpermanent Employees — — — — — 47 39 45 97 85

Total Employees — — — — — 494 472 497 575 592

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 — — — — — 177 174 189 202 224

600 — — — — — 79 83 88 101 101

500 — — — — — 29 26 24 21 18

300 — — — — — 106 105 120 123 143

100 — — — — — 50 40 28 28 18

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted — — — — — 6 7 9 10 10

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

— — — — — 100 98 108 119 127

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

— — — — — 106 101 103 108 106

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

787 FY 1989–FY 1993 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 320
Table 5-32. Dryden Flight Research Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars)788

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Human Space Flight — — — — — 5,700 6,100 5,600 5,400 5,800

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — — 51,700 62,119 86,697 93,905 140,327

Mission Support — — — — — 39,764 49,335 43,867 59,284 61,820

Total — — — — — 97,164 117,554 136,164 158,589 207,947

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

788 FY 1989–FY 1993 included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 321
Table 5-33. Dryden Flight Research Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994789 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards — — — — — — 96.0 108.4 132.4 156.6

Percentage of NASA Total — — — — — — 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

789 FY 1994 and previous years’ awards included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 322
Table 5-34A. Goddard Space Flight Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of 

fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres)790 18,576.5 18,576.5 18,576.5 18,576.5 18,597.8

Number of Buildings 466 472 458 455 448

Area of Buildings (square feet) 3,683,130 4,114,561 4,132,431 4,302,894 4,386,619

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 2,872 2,880 2,880 3,096 3,311

Buildings 170,385 206,195 226,332 267,094 281,447

Other Structures and Facilities 120,462 122,655 124,679 128,470 131,944

Leasehold Improvements 0 0 11 11 0

Total Real Property Value 293,719 331,730 353,902 398,660 416,702

Capitalized Equipment Value 460,067 460,203 502,230 570,252 645,274

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

790 Includes Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA; the Antenna 

Tracking Station, Fairbanks, AK; and the Antenna Test Range, Las Cruces, NM.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 323
Table 5-34B. Goddard Space Flight Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of 

fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres)791 10,097.0

792

10,105.0

793

10,105.0 13,315 13,315

Number of Buildings 401 402 398 295 301

Area of Buildings (square feet) 4,528,157 4,592,142 4,566,509 3,433,180 4,547,975

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 3,341 3,341 3,351 3,351 5,483

Buildings 308,365 325,756 340,181 348,747 353,845

Other Structures and Facilities 140,405 143,520 149,117 172,398 174,813

Leasehold Improvements 0 0 0 0 0

Total Real Property Value 452,111 472,617 492,649 524,496 534,141

Capitalized Equipment Value 667,381 753,451 824,315 830,380 390,716

Special Tooling — — — — 6,666

Special Test Equipment — — — — 79,682

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 108,053

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

791 Includes Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD; Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA; and the 

Antenna Test Range, Las Cruces, NM.

792 Reflects the transfer of Alaska Tracking Station, Fairbanks, AK, from NASA to NOAA.

793 Reflects the addition of the Balloon Launching Facility, Ft. Sumner, NM.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 324
Table 5-35. Goddard Space Flight Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in 

thousands of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.0

Buildings 58.0 62.2 64.0 67.0 67.5 68.2 69.0 69.1 66.5 66.2

Other Structures and Facilities 41.0 37.0 35.2 32.2 31.7 31.1 30.4 30.3 32.9 32.7

Total Real Property Value 293,719 331,730 353,902 398,671 416,702 452,111 472,617 492,649 524,496 534,141

Source: Table 5-34.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 325
Table 5-36. Goddard Space Flight Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees794 3,735 3,873 3,999 4,014 3,974 3,880 3,595 3,526 3,411 3,218

Nonpermanent Employees 125 119 166 190 187 160 118 111 107 126

Total Employees 3,860 3,992 4,165 4,204 4,161 4,040 3,713 3,637 3,518 3,344

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 2,014 2,136 2,240 2,233 2,224 2,208 2,106 2,077 1,976 1,867

600 750 786 819 831 827 806 754 732 776 771

500 435 434 439 436 420 387 338 325 288 231

300 458 442 433 408 390 364 291 280 264 241

100 78 75 68 65 69 70 67 68 67 63

SES, Senior, Technical, Excepted 47 48 59 60 69 65 63 64 57 57

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

585 629 661 687 712 738 726 719 731 694

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

1,044 1,112 1,176 1,182 1,178 1,167 1,113 1,094 1,102 1,051

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

794 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 326
Table 5-37. Goddard Space Flight Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 641,839 921,290 1,153,016 1,156,939 — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 14,400 9,200 12,050 10,365 8,500 13,269

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

548,259 632,636 674,180 665,623 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 1,669,133 1,825,311 2,123,862 1,975,293 2,190,562 2,048,068

Research and Program 

Management

254,502 264,677 303,006 249,989 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 14,104 30,067 36,942 44,502 — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 590,653 486,860 494,415 525,697 548,359 411,012

Total 1,458,704 1,848,670 2,167,144 2,117,153 2,274,186 2,321,371 2,539,327 2,511,355 2,747,421 2,472,349

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 327
Table 5-38. Goddard Space Flight Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 1,606.7 1,823.6 2,003.8 2,044.3 2,181.2 2,221.8 2,354.4 2,381.7 2,719.6 2,752.7

Percentage of NASA Total 14.8 14.4 15.2 15.2 16.6 17.2 17.6 18.8 21.3 21.9

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 328
Table 5-39A. JPL In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in 

thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8

Number of Buildings 314 308 303 307 307

Area of Buildings (square feet) 2,055,578 2,044,930 2,122,807 2,450,296 2,453,388

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,189

Buildings 125,798 125,591 138,088 180,630 179,555

Other Structures and Facilities 109,024 112,165 114,641 114,333 113,756

Leasehold Improvements 1,895 1,035 1,095 1,096 1,091

Total Real Property Value 237,905 239,979 255,012 297,247 295,591

Capitalized Equipment Value 406,690 421,329 465,007 373,403 408,683

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 329
Table 5-39B. JPL In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in 

thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8 155.8

Number of Buildings 309 314 294 239 262

Area of Buildings (square feet) 2,526,915 2,589,583 2,547,316 2,472,199 2,501,109

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,046

Buildings 200,271 209,564 229,340 242,480 243,355

Other Structures and Facilities 114,671 119,164 151,566 157,592 176,239

Leasehold Improvements 1,096 621 666 666 370

Total Real Property Value 317,227 330,538 382,761 401,261 421,010

Capitalized Equipment Value 3,919795 383,799 361,387 378,251 95,267

Special Tooling — — — — 568

Special Test Equipment — — — — 0

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 10,197

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

795 This figure differs from the amount stated for Capitalized Equipment Value in the “Recorded Value of Capital 

Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1994 (Dollars in Thousands)” because the amount for the 

JPL Capitalized Equipment Value was misstated in full dollars ($3,918,821) rather than in K dollars as in the report. 

(The adjustment was made per Jay Rosenthal, Resources Team Leader, Facilities Engineering and Real Property 

Division, NASA Headquarters.)

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 330
Table 5-40. JPL Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands of dollars)

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

Buildings 52.9 52.3 54.1 60.8 60.7 63.1 63.4 60.0 60.3 57.9

Other Structures and Facilities 45.8 46.7 45.0 38.5 44.6 36.1 36.0 40.0 39.2 41.8

Total Real Property Value 237,905 239,979 255,012 297,247 295,591 317,227 330,583 382,761 401,927 420,640

Source: Table 5-39.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 331
Table 5-41. JPL Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 583,621 572,450 649,292 670,556 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 1,500 400 15 2,600 2,750 702

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

124,669 153,966 150,399 177,739 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 778,524 878,652 923,045 1,037,248 845,965 1,077,650

Research and Program 

Management

— — — — — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 4,376 12,141 34,562 12,399 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 27,152 23,209 22,174 30,097 29,292 23,478

Total 712,666 738,557 834,253 860,694 807,176 902,261 945,243 1,069,945 878,007 1,101,830

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 332
Table 5-42. NASA Resident Office/JPL Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 1,063.3 1,138.5 1,173.8 1,263.7 1,068.4 1,118.1 1,162.9 1,211.3 1,140.1 1,192.0

Percentage of NASA Total 9.8 9.1 8.9 9.4 8.1 8.7 8.7 9.5 8.9 9.5

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 333
Table 5-43A. Johnson Space Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; 

money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 3,230.0796 3,230.0 3,230.0 3,570.2 3,570.2

Number of Buildings 299 302 315 316 323

Area of Buildings (square feet) 5,342,797 5,385,045 5,472,512 5,700,352 5,759,089

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 10,944 10,944 11,324 11,238 11,238

Buildings 237,851 245,112 259,747 297,914 312,943

Other Structures and Facilities 84,593 88,182 99,364 105,769 113,189

Leasehold Improvements 105 105 105 105 105

Total Real Property Value 333,493 344,238 370,435 414,921 437,370

Capitalized Equipment Value 485,980 515,498 588,985 670,891 724,493

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

796 Includes Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX; White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, NM; and an industrial plant at 

Downey, CA.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 334
Table 5-43B. Johnson Space Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; 

money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 3,570.2 3,570.2 3,570.2 3,570.2 3,570.2

Number of Buildings 324 332 338 266 267

Area of Buildings (square feet) 6,021,187 6,031,297 6,068,619 4,720,016 4,743,529

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 11,256 11,256 11,256 12,450 12,367

Buildings 344,021 359,409 374,443 417,183 458,247

Other Structures and Facilities 122,351 129,812 135,498 151,495 155,174

Leasehold Improvements 105 105 105 105 105

Total Real Property Value 477,628 500,477 521,197 581,128 625,893

Capitalized Equipment Value 835,686 775,154 815,465 1,394,617 889,131

Special Tooling — — — — 43,654

Special Test Equipment — — — — 224,449

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 7,303,812

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 335
Table 5-44. Johnson Space Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands 

of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0

Buildings 71.3 71.2 70.1 71.8 71.5 72.0 71.8 71.8 71.8 73.2

Other Structures and Facilities 25.4 25.6 26.8 25.5 23.7 25.6 25.9 26.0 26.1 24.8

Total Real Property Value 333,388 344,343 370,540 415,026 437,475 477,733 500,631 521,351 581,282 625,893

Source: Table 5-43.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 336
Table 5-45. Johnson Space Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees797 3,578 3,615 3,677 3,646 3,636 3,536 3,407 3,352 3,151 2,991

Nonpermanent Employees 126 112 174 273 285 210 177 193 200 249

Total Employees 3,704 3,727 3,851 3,919 3,921 3,746 3,584 3,545 3,351 3,240

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200,700, and 900 2,340 2,360 2,402 2,390 2,382 2,368 2,296 2,258 2,143 2,044

600 576 611 649 645 661 636 604 611 557 529

500 452 446 430 417 406 374 357 339 303 272

300 201 189 188 175 169 149 140 134 126 120

100 9 9 8 6 4 3 3 2 1 1

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 51 54 61 67 69 73 76 75 76 80

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

574 604 641 664 676 688 695 699 672 663

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

1,122 1,167 1,216 1,222 1,226 1,193 1,148 1,135 1,043 996

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

797 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 337
Table 5-46. Johnson Space Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 561,678 1,036,648 1,161,735 1,419,927 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 2,329,400 1,604,300 2,804,237 3,073,329 3,802,521 3,856,106

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

1,049,250 1,129,200 1,185,700 1,297,921 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 167,812 231,081 146,897 103,969 90,571 94,280

Research and Program 

Management

299,435 320,630 338,460 245,944 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 24,925 59,746 53,891 31,523 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 350,434 354,634 376,023 370,764 378,280 342,525

Total 1,935,288 2,546,224 2,739,786 2,979,315 2,847,646 2,190,015 3,327,157 3,548,062 4,271,372 4,293,451

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 338
Table 5-47. Johnson Space Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 2,304.0 2,760.4 2,641.9 2,686.9 2,644.4 1,952.4 1,754.0 3,291.7 3,998.4 3,958.4

Percentage of NASA Total 21.2 22.0 20.1 19.9 20.1 15.1 13.1 25.9 31.3 31.5

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 339
Table 5-48. Kennedy Space Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of 

dollars) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,943 82,822 139,490

Number of Buildings 577 580 606 607 610 617 556 614 338 339

Area of Buildings (square feet) 6,732,193 6,469,694 6,504,376 7,202,125 7,347,401 7,398,971 7,847,008 7,258,667 7,184,308 7,306,308

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 71,345 71,345 71,345 71,345 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672 73,672

Buildings 537,011 573,390 581,948 601,650 623,719 629,905 712,590 716,024 735,445 770,456

Other Structures and Facilities 526,058 514,922 523,547 535,505 550,494 568,601 588,486 616,991 628,015 629,405

Total Real Property Value 1,134,414 1,159,657 1,176,840 1,208,500 1,247,885 1,272,178 1,374,748 1,406,687 1,437,132 1,473,533

Capitalized Equipment Value 737,617 814,215 840,997 4,596,904 893,976 877,600 898,669 833,003 236,272 79,517

Special Tooling — — — — — — — — — 1,239

Special Test Equipment — — — — — — — — — 58,227

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 340
Table 5-49. Kennedy Space Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands 

of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0

Buildings 47.3 49.4 49.5 49.8 50.0 49.5 51.8 50.9 51.2 52.3

Other Structures and Facilities 46.4 44.4 44.5 44.3 44.1 44.7 42.8 43.9 43.7 42.7

Total Real Property Value 1,134,414 1,159,657 1,176,840 1,208,500 1,247,885 1,272,178 1,374,748 1,406,687 1,437,132 1,473,533

Source: Table 5-48.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 341
Table 5-50. Kennedy Space Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees798 2,423 2,466 2,571 2,555 2,513 2,364 2,208 2,113 1,894 1,749

Nonpermanent Employees 81 76 113 226 250 190 155 107 105 109

Total Employees 2,504 2,542 2,684 2,781 2,763 2,554 2,363 2,220 1,999 1,858

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 1,434 1,468 1,553 1,549 1,520 1,450 1,371 1,302 1,164 1,071

600 392 406 416 419 429 414 417 426 400 377

500 328 319 319 300 286 255 204 179 141 126

300 266 268 277 274 265 234 207 199 185 171

100 3 5 6 6 6 5 2 0 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 33 34 32 31 30 28 25 24 27 28

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

302 322 364 376 380 387 380 367 344 322

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

685 716 761 763 760 741 700 664 606 555

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

798 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 342
Table 5-51. Kennedy Space Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 112,020 150,278 210,292 269,752 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight 1,250,200 1,125,200 1,024,560 935,249 281,400 303,458

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

824,200 857,300 923,700 1,081,700 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 37,495 40,040 50,462 28,334 35,285 245,646

Research and Program 

Management

268,723 277,438 298,955 155,464 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 24,571 60,602 66,633 61,078 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 277,030 278,806 257,364 251,359 246,440 248,364

Total 1,229,514 1,345,618 1,499,580 1,567,295 1,564,725 1,444,046 1,332,386 1,214,942 563,125 797,468

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 343
Table 5-52. Kennedy Space Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 1,179.5 1,275.9 1,409.7 1,484.6 1,415.4 1,315.0 1,257.2 1,090.8 446.3 454.7

Percentage of NASA Total 10.8 10.2 10.7 11.0 10.8 10.2 9.4 8.6 3.5 3.6

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 344
Table 5-53A. Langley Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal 

year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6 787.6

Number of Buildings 179 183 184 182 205

Area of Buildings (square feet) 2,273,819 2,277,802 2,317,910 2,351,630 2,515,311

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 156 156 156 156 156

Buildings 194,088 208,777 217,354 226,670 231,727

Other Structures and Facilities 392,941 401,795 420,093 438,879 436,112

Total Real Property Value 587,185 610,728 637,603 665,705 667,995

Capitalized Equipment Value 285,135 242,267 258,377 305,673 327,435

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 345
Table 5-53B. Langley Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal 

year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 787.6 787.6 787.6 808 808

Number of Buildings 221 233 229 198 200

Area of Buildings (square feet) 2,526,402 2,596,035 2,593,110 3,380,269 3,382,202

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 156 156 156 156 156

Buildings 248,527 258,007 269,534 275,852 246,866

Other Structures and Facilities 433,201 449,906 461,819 465,561 475,094

Total Real Property Value 681,884 708,069 731,509 741,569 722,116

Capitalized Equipment Value 350,737 345,652 347,699 373,152 133,033

Special Tooling — — — — 8,358

Special Test Equipment — — — — 3,524

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 1,972

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 346
Table 5-54. Langley Research Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in 

thousands of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land * * * * * * * * * *

Buildings 33.1 34.2 34.1 34.0 34.7 36.4 36.4 36.8 37.2 34.2

Other Structures and Facilities 67.0 65.8 65.9 65.9 64.0 63.5 63.5 63.1 62.8 65.8

Total Real Property Value 587,185 610,728 637,603 665,705 667,995 681,884 708,069 731,509 741,569 722,116

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Table 5-53.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 347
Table 5-55. Langley Research Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees799 2,864 2,961 2,969 2,975 2,879 2,802 2,520 2,489 2,423 2,259

Nonpermanent Employees 139 152 204 250 235 219 231 161 149 135

Total Employees 3,003 3,113 3,173 3,225 3,114 3,021 2,751 2,650 2,572 2,394

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 1,363 1,434 1,443 1,434 1,402 1,371 1,256 1,240 1,218 1,146

600 287 304 308 326 323 311 278 288 305 298

500 284 281 275 269 249 245 219 205 196 172

300 917 930 933 918 885 861 753 739 689 632

100 13 12 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 34 39 40 46 52 45 44 44 49 42

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

380 410 418 440 436 438 432 428 418 401

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

667 699 721 731 712 716 664 647 636 609

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

799 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 348
Table 5-56. Langley Research Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 241,296 250,980 279,441 341,978

Human Space Flight 3,400 1,600 1,521 5,167 8,700 7,352

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

14,300 3,800 330 201 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 312,313 443,964 376,798 390,138 424,036 419,067

Research and Program 

Management

189,190 197,879 214,531 172,851 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 29,217 25,515 33,955 31,355 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 227,885 229,256 227,805 212,500 220,279 226,182

Total 474,003 478,174 528,257 546,385 543,598 674,820 606,124 607,805 653,015 651,601

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 349
Table 5-57. Langley Research Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 384.0 399.7 404.6 436.0 436.1 507.0 528.9 489.3 544.7 501.4

Percentage of NASA Total 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.0

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 350
Table 5-58A. Lewis Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; 

money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 6,804.8800 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8

Number of Buildings 258 262 262 261 261

Area of Buildings (square feet) 3,212,305 3,289,763 3,296,491 3,280,853 3,302,583

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621

Buildings 237,506 245,394 277,420 291,986 305,940

Other Structures and Facilities 92,575 92,651 105,741 110,702 112,579

Leasehold Improvements 136 136 136 136 136

Total Real Property Value 332,838 340,666 385,782 405,309 421,140

Capitalized Equipment Value 182,863 210,896 222,056 246,020 263,969

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

800 Includes Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, and Plum Brook Operating Division, Sandusky, OH.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 351
Table 5-58B. Lewis Research Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; 

money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 6,804.8 6,804.8 6,804.8 7,120.0 7,120.0

Number of Buildings 261 262 262 249 249

Area of Buildings (square feet) 3,302,583 3,357,111 3,357,111 3,328,834 3,284,198

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621

Buildings 334,673 349,173 350,122 353,262 316,978

Other Structures and Facilities 120,284 123,233 124,556 124,695 102,480

Leasehold Improvements 136 136 136 136 136

Total Real Property Value 457,578 475,027 477,299 480,578 422,215

Capitalized Equipment Value 267,542 270,076 276,212 273,239 73,461

Special Tooling — — — — 1,308

Special Test Equipment — — — — 894

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 7,530

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 352
Table 5-59. Lewis Research Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands 

of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6

Buildings 71.4 72.0 71.9 72.0 72.6 73.1 73.5 73.3 73.5 75.1

Other Structures and Facilities 27.8 27.2 27.4 27.4 26.7 26.3 25.9 26.1 25.9 24.3

Total Real Property Value 332,702 340,802 385,918 405,445 421,276 457,714 475,163 477,435 480,714 420,079

Source: Table 5-58.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 353
Table 5-60. Lewis Research Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees801 2,749 2,728 2,835 2,861 2,799 2,522 2,324 2,264 2,123 1,998

Nonpermanent Employees 83 92 106 83 44 61 46 35 41 46

Total Employees 2,832 2,820 2,941 2,944 2,843 2,583 2,370 2,299 2,164 2,044

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 1,509 1,500 1,612 1,592 1,550 1,401 1,309 1,263 1,169 1,099

600 270 284 301 315 325 296 271 296 294 280

500 258 243 237 224 208 183 159 142 118 104

300 234 297 327 337 349 315 287 290 274 252

100 478 404 358 329 301 260 235 214 206 202

Not Classified — — — — 0 1 7 7 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 38 39 45 46 47 34 25 24 28 38

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

358 381 456 475 467 456 442 430 407 396

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

561 572 615 621 613 559 519 513 484 462

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

801 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 354
Table 5-61. Lewis Research Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 389,314 497,888 554,493 679,608 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 364,200 132,300 17,500 44,136 20,299 31,350

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

11,000 56,400 122,760 46,500 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 388,804 557,467 497,670 428,097 472,620 374,334

Research and Program 

Management

196,188 206,006 230,060 172,326 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 26,683 33,804 43,262 22,765 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 249,629 240,281 221,675 222,192 234,938 261,368

Total 623,185 794,098 950,575 939,399 1,002,633 930,048 736,845 694,425 727,857 667,052

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 355
Table 5-62. Lewis Research Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 542.5 686.5 812.4 831.6 873.5 776.5 759.2 635.9 592.9 583.5

Percentage of NASA Total 5.0 5.5 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.0 5.7 5.0 4.6 4.7

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 356
Table 5-63A. Marshall Space Flight Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of 

fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1989–FY 1993) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 1,255.9802 1,255.9 2,553.4803 2.553.4 2,553.4

Number of Buildings 253 255 284 308 319

Area of Buildings (square feet) 7,682,590 7,480,931 8,178,360 8,245,165 8,294,171

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 7,171 7,171 10,942 11,093 11,093

Buildings 306,669 311,288 331,079 342,013 369,289

Other Structures and Facilities 163,753 176,005 177,747 198,621 202,848

Total Real Property Value 477,593 494,464 519,768 551,727 583,230

Capitalized Equipment Value 523,260 563,179 701,871 783,945 788,983

Special Tooling — — — — —

Special Test Equipment — — — — —

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — —

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12.

802 Includes Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL; Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, LA; and Slidell 

Computer Complex, Slidell, LA.

803 Reflects the addition of the Yellow Creek Facility, Iuka, MS.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 357
Table 5-63B. Marshall Space Flight Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of 

fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) (FY 1994–FY 1998) 

Category 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 2,553.4 2,539.4 1,241.9 2,715 2,715

Number of Buildings 334 277 237 223 226

Area of Buildings (square feet) 9,478,586 9,397,886 8,059,942

804

7,789,619 7,828,631

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 11,093 11,024805 7,162806 7,162 7,162

Buildings 496,079 481,868 402,248 412,990 413,481

Other Structures and Facilities 248,696 249,724 209,167 209,754 154,280

Total Real Property Value 755,868 742,616 618,577 629,906 574,923

Capitalized Equipment Value 812,048 803,338 781,813 772,503 381,134

Special Tooling — — — — 278,335

Special Test Equipment — — — — 98,826

Agency-Peculiar Property — — — — 570,179

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and 

Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

804 Reflects the closure of the Yellow Creek Facility. 805 Slidell Computer Complex was transferred to the city of Slidell, LA, on December 14, 1994. 806 Decrease reflects the transfer of the Yellow Creek Facility to the state of Mississippi in accordance with Public Law 

104-99, Making Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 To Make a Down Payment Toward a Balanced Budget, and for 

Other Purposes, 104th Congress, 2nd session, January 26, 1996.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 358
Table 5-64. Marshall Space Flight Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in 

thousands of dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2

Buildings 64.2 63.1 73.7 62.0 63.3 65.6 64.9 65.0 65.6 71.9

Other Structures and Facilities 34.3 35.6 34.2 36.0 36.8 32.9 33.6 33.8 33.3 26.8

Total Real Property Value 477,593 494,464 519,768 551,727 583,230 755,868 742,616 618,577 629,906 577,923

Source: Table 5-63.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 359
Table 5-65. Marshall Space Flight Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees807 3,609 3,619 3,788 3,739 3,653 3,325 3,123 3,086 2,888 2,727

Nonpermanent Employees 94 115 190 237 221 140 99 59 62 66

Total Employees 3,703 3,734 3,978 3,976 3,874 3,465 3,222 3,145 2,950 2,793

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 2,351 2,376 2,514 2,462 2,410 2,236 2,117 2,101 1,968 1,854

600 597 605 620 629 626 568 531 546 517 510

500 481 466 476 452 421 353 320 295 265 233

300 180 172 178 178 176 157 145 136 130 122

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 51 56 61 61 67 62 60 59 60 58

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

382 396 435 438 436 434 437 430 426 420

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

1,101 1,138 1,226 1,216 1,178 1,101 1,057 1,042 983 931

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007). 

807 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 360
Table 5-66. Marshall Space Flight Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 946,419 960,375 966,059 962,507 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight 2,316,600 1,887,100 1,537,508 1,502,684 1,463,046 1,263,768

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

1,760,400 1,677,138 1,937,275 1,678,301 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 412,920 518,889 612,523 609,852 713,427 686,553

Research and Program 

Management

253,417 269,267 286,155 231,657 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 37,269 30,629 63,671 56,459 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 375,132 432,584 378,722 353,140 378,707 379,988

Total 2,997,505 2,937,409 3,253,160 3,144,023 3,104,652 2,838,573 2,528,753 2,465,676 2,555,180 2,330,309

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 361
Table 5-67. Marshall Space Flight Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 2,649.4 3,154.6 3,124.8 3,234.1 3,001.8 2,493.2 2,501.8 2,234.9 2,321.3 2,075.4

Percentage of NASA Total 24.4 25.1 23.7 24.0 22.8 19.3 18.8 17.6 18.1 16.5

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 362
Table 5-68. Stennis Space Center In-House and Contractor-Held Property (at end of fiscal year; money amounts in thousands of dollars) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land (acres) 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,642.2 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,662.7 20,355 20,355

Number of Buildings 121 125 132 141 127 125 125 115 106 109

Area of Buildings (square feet) 1,556,143 1,603,125 1,645,885 1,679,828 1,742,371 1,757,198 1,785,272 1,781,278 1,703,553 1,018,02

6 

Value of In-House and Contractor-Held Property

Land 18,061 18,061 18,061 18,061 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080 18,080

Buildings 104,698 109,043 113,632 117,922 130,796 134,730 136,632 137,664 141,583 144,215

Other Structures and Facilities 207,504 224,901 231,711 233,016 234,251 244,950 249,452 264,340 265,701 137,874

Total Real Property Value 330,263 352,005 363,404 368,999 383,127 397,760 404,164 420,084 425,364 300,169

Capitalized Equipment Value 32,812 3,697,072 4,081,665 8,069,808 4,561,020 8,258,033 4,793,484 4,955,842 4,987,438 29,467

Source: Tables 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12. Also “Recorded Value of Capital Type Property In-House and Contractor-Held as of September 30, 1998.”

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 363
Table 5-69. Stennis Space Center Value of Real Property Components as a Percentage of Total (total real property value in thousands of 

dollars) 

Component 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Land 5.5 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 6.0

Buildings 31.7 31.0 31.3 32.0 34.1 33.9 33.8 32.8 33.3 48.0

Other Structures and Facilities 62.8 63.9 63.8 63.1 61.1 61.6 65.4 62.9 62.5 45.9

Total Real Property Value 330,263 352,005 363,404 368,999 383,127 397,760 404,164 420,084 425,364 300,169

Source: Table 5-68.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 364
Table 5-70. Stennis Space Center Personnel (at end of fiscal year) 

Category 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Permanent Employees808 183 192 222 223 207 213 207 202 216 214

Nonpermanent Employees 20 14 17 16 28 28 18 21 31 36

Total Employees 203 206 239 239 235 241 225 223 247 250

Occupational Code Groups (permanent only)

200, 700, and 900 98 103 128 124 117 118 117 117 132 134

600 52 55 55 55 52 52 50 51 54 56

500 31 32 37 35 31 33 35 29 25 21

300 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 6 6 6 7 7 4 6 6 6 4

Minority Full-Time Permanent 

Employees 

22 23 27 26 25 29 30 31 34 32

Female Full-Time Permanent 

Employees

60 63 74 73 68 72 80 75 73 71

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991: The Civil Service Workforce, Office of Management, Office of Personnel Management; FY 1991 permanent-nonpermanent employee 

breakdown; FY 1992–FY 1998: NASA Workforce Data Cube, Historical Trends, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (password required) (accessed April 29, 2007).

808 FY 1989–FY 1991: includes only full-time permanent employees. FY 1992–FY 1998: includes full- and part-time permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 365
Table 5-71. Stennis Space Center Funding by Fiscal Year (in thousands of dollars) 

Appropriation Title 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Research and Development 16,303 12,176 16,540 24,069 — — — — — —

Human Space Flight — — — — 41,000 39,500 51,200 53,300 52,200 47,216

Space Flight Control and Data 

Communications

21,300 26,900 24,600 37,600 — — — — — —

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — 8,691 10,559 20,015 69,067 87,930 60,890

Research and Program 

Management

23,526 25,137 28,536 14,264 — — — — — —

Construction of Facilities 21,045 11,843 25,595 16,786 — — — — — —

Mission Support — — — — 35,374 40,677 35,795 39,295 48,562 49,637

Total 82,174 76,056 95,271 96,319 85,065 90,736 107,010 161,662 188,692 157,743

Source: “Summary of Budget Plans by Installation by Appropriation,” NASA Budget Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 366
Table 5-72. Stennis Space Center Total Procurement Activity by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Net Value of Contract Awards 96.4 112.6 113.0 120.4 109.0 120.2 128.5 143.3 169.5 224.6

Percentage of NASA Total 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.8

Source: Annual Procurement Report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 367
Chapter 6

Table 6-1. Total Permanent and Non-Permanent Workforce (at end of fiscal year) 

Personnel 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Civil Service (Permanent and 

Non-Permanent)

23,893 24,873 25,736 26,146 25,584 23,938 22,233 21,508 20,238 19,272

Full-Time Permanent 23,019 23,625 24,416 24,059 23,567 22,288 20,720 20,155 18,853 17,754

Non-Permanent809 874 1,248 1,320 2,087 2,017 1,650 1,513 1,353 1,385 1,518

Net Change Permanent and NonPermanent

1,070 980 863 410 –562 –1,646 –1,705 –725 –1,270 –966

Percentage Change, Full- and 

Part-Time Permanent

4.7 4.1 3.5 1.6 –2.1 –6.4 –7.1 –3.3 –5.9 –4.8

Net Change Full-Time 

Permanent

1,028 606 791 –357 –492 –1,279 –1,568 –565 –1,302 –1,099

Percentage Change Full-Time 

Permanent

4.7 2.6 3.3 –1.5 –2.0 –5.4 –7.0 –2.7 –6.5 –5.8

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/cognos/cgibin/ppdscgi.exe?E=/WF%20History%20Detail&LA=en&LO=en-us (accessed April 24, 2007).

809 Includes part-time permanent, term appointment, student, and other non-permanent employees.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 368
Table 6-2. Accessions and Separations of Full-Time Permanent Employees and Percentage Change (at end of fiscal year) 

Activity of Employee 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993810 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Accessions811 2,735 2,062 2,130 757 396 656 445 103 165 208

Separations 1,695 1,459 1,327 982 815 1,989 1,985 660 1,420 1,307

Net Accessions 1,040 603 803 –225 –419 –1,333 –1,540 –557 –1,255 –1,099

Percentage Change 4.5 2.6 3.4 –0.9 –1.7 –5.7 –7.0 –2.7 –6.2 –5.8

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

810 FY 1992–FY 1998 from Hires and Losses portions of public NASA workforce data cube, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/workforce/moredata.html (accessed 

April 5, 2007). 811 Includes all full-time permanent gains and conversions.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 369
Table 6-3. Buyouts, FY 1994–FY 1998 (at end of fiscal year) 

NASA Center FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 Center Total

Ames Research Center 48 118 1 36 96 299

Dryden Flight Research Center 0 57 0 0 0 57

Goddard Space Flight Center 81 297 1 144 146 669

Headquarters 174 133 3 158 66 534

Johnson Space Center 223 160 2 140 145 670

Kennedy Space Center 163 182 0 192 154 691

Langley Research Center 55 282 1 34 135 507

Lewis Research Center 199 187 1 107 98 592

Marshall Space Flight Center 344 220 3 203 158 928

Stennis Space Center 4 13 0 5 12 34

Office of Inspector General 7 5 0 0 0 12

Total 1,298 1,654 12 1,019 1,010 4,993

Source: “Buyouts,” NASA Data Cube, http://hqpowerplay.hq.nasa.gov/workforce/moredata.html (accessed December 5, 2006).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 370
Table 6-4. Permanent Full-Time Employees by NASA Occupational Code Group: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Occupational Code Group 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

200, 700, 900 (Scientists/Engineer) 12,775 13,131 13,694 13,574 13,354 12,767 12,066 11,746 11,059 10,453

Percentage of NASA Total 55.5 55.6 56.1 56.4 56.7 57.3 58.2 58.3 58.7 58.9

600 (Professional Admin.) 4,085 4,366 4,579 4,547 4,541 4,309 4,063 4,042 3,853 3,737

Percentage of NASA Total 17.7 18.5 18.8 18.9 19.3 19.3 19.6 20.1 20.4 21.0

Total Professional 16,860 17,497 18,273 18,121 18,029 17,188 16,254 15,896 15,023 14,325

Percentage of NASA Total 73.2 74.1 74.8 75.3 76.5 77.1 78.4 78.9 79.7 80.7

300 (Technical Support) 2,401 2,446 2,494 2468 2,421 2,301 2,025 1,999 1,888 1,777

Percentage of NASA Total 10.4 10.4 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.0

500 (Clerical) 2,852 2,852 2,881 2,760 2,601 2,357 2,079 1,931 1,656 1,431

Percentage of NASA Total 12.4 12.1 11.8 11.5 11.0 10.6 10.0 9.6 8.8 8.1

100 (Wage) 906 830 768 710 650 554 487 437 397 356

Percentage of NASA Total 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0

Total 23,019 23,625 24,416 24,059 23,567 22,288 20,720 20,155 18,853 17,754

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 371
Table 6-5. Average Annual Salaries of Full-Time Permanent Employees by Pay Plan and Percentage Change from Previous Year (at end 

of fiscal year)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

GS 42,419 44,286 46,687 49,628 52,486 54,894 57,273 59,755 62,720 65,237

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

3.6 4.4 5.4 6.3 5.8 4.6 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.0

Executive812 76,651 79,287 99,986 — — — — — — —

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

4.2 3.4 26.1 — — — — — — —

SES813 — — — 104,141 107,508 111,595 111,927 114,248 116,828 118,781

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

— — — — 3.2 3.8 0.3 2.1 2.3 1.7

Senior 

Technical814

— — — 90,537 93,609 98,387 100,472 103,852 106,956 110,563 

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

— — — — 3.4 5.1 2.1 3.4 3.0 3.4

NASA Excepted — — — 95,970 92,075 97,309 89,658 90,902 90,604 90,644

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

— — — — –4.1 5.7 –7.9 1.4 –0.3 0

Average of Total 

White Collar815

43,226 45,135 48,078 51,079 53,979 56,358 58,687 61,143 64,056 66,627

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

3.6 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.7 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.8 4.0

812 Aggregate of SES, Senior Technical, and NASA Excepted. 813 Began using SES rather than Executive pay plan beginning with FY 1992. 814 Began using Senior Technical rather than Executive beginning with FY 1992. 815 Includes all pay plans except blue collar (wage system).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 372
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Total Blue Collar 

(Wage Grade)

32,510 33,230 34,261 35,997 37,802 39,189 40,584 41,826 43,323 44,517

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

5.3 2.2 3.1 5.1 5.0 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.6 2.8

Other Pay Plans —816 — — 116,779 121,179 120,886 121,399 121,542 121,930 124,829

Average All NASA 42,804 44,717 47,643 50,628 53,528 55,924 58,253 60,715 63,610 66,173

Percentage 

Change From 

Preceding Year

3.9 4.5 6.5 6.3 5.7 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.8 4.0

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

816 “Other pay plans” were not included in FY 1989–FY 1991 Civil Service Workforce Reports.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 373
Table 6-6. Educational Profile of Full-Time Permanent Employees: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Educational Level 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Doctorate 1,649 1,725 1,821 1,717 1,739 1,694 1,654 1,641 1,638 1,612

Master’s or Equivalent 4,025 4,251 4,483 4,677 4,727 4,578 4,373 4,397 4,273 4,074

Bachelor’s 9,971 10,251 10,699 10,455 10,156 9,666 9,033 8,627 7,899 7,395

Associate 1,179 1,265 1,372 1,298 1,274 1,274 1,244 1,194 1,142 1,095

High School (no degree) 6,195 6,133 6,041 5,912 5,671 5,076 4,416 4,296 3,901 3,578

Total Degreed Employees817 16,824 17,492 18,375 18,147 17,896 17,212 16,304 15,859 14,952 14,176

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

817 Includes employees with associate degree.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 374
Table 6-7. Educational Profile of Full-Time Permanent Employees: Percentage (at end of fiscal year)

Educational Level 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Doctorate 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.7 9.1

Master’s or Equivalent 17.5 18.0 18.4 19.4 20.1 20.5 21.1 21.8 22.7 22.9

Bachelor’s 43.3 43.4 43.8 43.5 43.1 43.4 43.6 42.8 41.9 41.7

Associate 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.2

High School (no degree) 26.9 26.0 24.7 24.6 24.1 22.8 21.3 21.3 20.7 20.2

Total Degreed Employees818 73.1 71.2 75.3 75.4 75.9 77.2 78.7 78.7 79.3 79.8

Source: Tables 6-1 and 6-6.

818 Includes employees with associate degree.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 375
Table 6-8. Paid Employees by NASA Installation: Number on Board (Permanent and Other) (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 2,217 2,279 2,406 2,442 2,378 1,804 1,676 1,601 1,544 1,504

Dryden Flight Research Center819 — — — — — 494 472 497 575 592

Goddard Space Flight Center 3,860 3,992 4,169 4,204 4,161 4,040 3,713 3,637 3,518 3,344

Johnson Space Center 3,704 3,727 3,851 3,919 3,921 3,746 3,584 3,545 3,351 3,240

Kennedy Space Center 2,504 2,542 2,684 2,781 2,763 2,554 2,363 2,220 1,999 1,858

Langley Research Center 3,003 3,113 3,173 3,225 3,114 3,021 2,751 2,650 2,572 2,394

Lewis Research Center 2,832 2,820 2,941 2,944 2,843 2,583 2,370 2,299 2,164 2,044

Marshall Space Flight Center 3,703 3,734 3,978 3,976 3,874 3,465 3,222 3,145 2,950 2,793

Stennis Space Center 203 206 239 239 235 241 225 223 247 250

Headquarters 1,867 2,153 2,295 2,416 2,295 1,990 1,857 1,691 1,318 1,253

Total 23,893 22,287 25,736 26,146 25,584 23,938 22,233 21,508 20,238 19,272

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports and Workforce Books in Office of Human Resources; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

819 FY 1989–FY 1993: Dryden figures included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 376
Table 6-9. Paid Employees by NASA Installation: Percentage of NASA Total (Permanent and Other) (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.8

Dryden Flight Research Center820 — — — — — 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.8 3.1

Goddard Space Flight Center 16.2 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.3 16.9 16.7 16.9 17.4 17.4

Johnson Space Center 15.5 15.2 15.0 14.9 15.3 15.6 16.1 16.5 16.6 16.8

Kennedy Space Center 10.5 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.3 9.9 9.6

Langley Research Center 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.7 12.4

Lewis Research Center 11.9 11.5 11.4 11.4 11.1 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.6

Marshall Space Flight Center 15.5 15.2 15.5 15.1 15.1 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.5

Stennis Space Center 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3

Headquarters 7.8 8.8 8.9 9.4 9.0 8.3 8.4 7.9 6.5 6.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports and Workforce Books in Office of Human Resources; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data.

820 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 377
Table 6-10. Paid Employees by NASA Installation: Changes in Number on Board (Permanent and Other) 

Installation

1989 1990

1991

821 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Ames Research Center822 48 62 127 36 –64 –574 –128 –75 –57 –40 –665

Dryden Flight Research 

Center823

— — — — — 494 –22 25 78 17 592

Goddard Space Flight Center 133 132 177 35 –43 –121 –327 –76 –119 –174 –383

Johnson Space Center 206 23 124 68 2 –175 –162 –39 –194 –111 –258

Kennedy Space Center 174 38 142 97 –18 –209 –191 –143 –221 –141 –472

Langley Research Center 37 110 60 52 –111 –93 –270 –101 –78 –178 –572

Lewis Research Center 116 –12 121 3 –101 –260 –213 –71 –135 –120 –672

Marshall Space Flight Center 274 31 244 –2 –102 –409 –243 –77 –195 –157 –636

Stennis Space Center 44 3 33 0 –4 6 –16 –2 24 3 91

Headquarters 38 286 142 121 –121 –305 –133 –166 –373 –65 –576

Total 1,070 673 1,170 410 –562 –1,646 –1,705 –725 –1,270 –966 –3,551

Source: Table 6-8.

821 FY 1991 total employees available from Agency-Wide Workforce Reports BPD700002/AM-220-01, p. 1000. 822 FY 1989–FY 1993: Includes Dryden employees. 823 FY 1989–FY 1993: Dryden figures included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 378
Table 6-11. Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 2,151 2,205 2,263 2,246 2,178 1,706 1,567 1,497 1,407 1,316

Dryden Flight Research Center824 — — — — — 442 429 449 475 504

Goddard Space Flight Center 3,735 3,873 3,999 3,973 3,930 3,835 3,556 3,482 3,371 3,173

Johnson Space Center 3,578 3,615 3,677 3,633 3,622 3,530 3,400 3,344 3,130 2,966

Kennedy Space Center 2,423 2,466 2,571 2,548 2,506 2,358 2,201 2,106 1,890 1,745

Langley Research Center 2,864 2,961 2,969 2,955 2,861 2,788 2,506 2,472 2,408 2,248

Lewis Research Center 2,749 2,728 2,835 2,797 2,733 2,455 2,261 2,205 2,061 1,937

Marshall Space Flight Center 3,609 3,619 3,788 3,721 3,633 3,314 3,113 3,078 2,880 2,719

Stennis Space Center 183 192 222 216 202 205 204 199 214 213

Headquarters 1,727 1,966 2,092 1,970 1,902 1,655 1,483 1,323 1,017 933

Total 23,019 23,625 24,416 24,059 23,567 22,288 20,720 20,155 18,853 17,754

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

824 FY 1989–FY 1993: Dryden figures included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 379
Table 6-12. Other Than Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 66 74 143 196 200 98 109 104 137 188

Dryden Flight Research Center825 — — — — — 52 43 48 100 88

Goddard Space Flight Center 125 119 166 231 231 205 157 155 147 171

Johnson Space Center 126 112 174 286 299 216 184 201 221 274

Kennedy Space Center 81 76 113 233 257 196 162 114 109 113

Langley Research Center 139 152 204 270 253 233 245 178 164 146

Lewis Research Center 83 92 106 147 110 128 109 94 103 107

Marshall Space Flight Center 94 115 190 255 241 151 109 67 70 74

Stennis Space Center 20 14 17 23 33 36 21 24 33 37

Headquarters 140 187 203 446 393 335 374 368 301 320

Total 874 941 1,316 1,164 894 669 553 527 667 818

Source: FY 1989–FY 1990, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube. FY 1991 data derived from Table 6-8 (not printed in FY 

1991 Civil Service Workforce Report).

825 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 380
Table 6-13. NASA Full-Time Permanent Excepted, SES, and Senior Technical Employees by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at 

end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 43 39 45 48 44 35 34 34 32 34

Dryden Flight Research Center826 — — — — — 6 7 9 10 10

Goddard Space Flight Center 47 48 59 60 69 65 63 64 57 57

Johnson Space Center 51 54 61 67 69 73 76 75 76 80

Kennedy Space Center 33 34 32 31 30 28 25 24 27 28

Langley Research Center 34 39 40 46 52 45 44 44 49 42

Lewis Research Center 38 39 45 46 47 34 25 24 28 38

Marshall Space Flight Center 51 56 61 61 67 62 60 59 60 58

Stennis Space Center 6 6 6 7 7 4 6 6 6 4

Headquarters 224 243 272 263 258 222 200 179 127 116

Total 527 558 621 629 643 574 540 518 472 467

Percentage of Total NASA FullTime Permanent Workforce

2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

826 FY 1989–FY 1993: Dryden included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 381
Table 6-14. NASA Permanent Full-Time Excepted, SES, and Senior Technical Employees by NASA Installation: Percentage of NASA 

Total Senior Grade Employees (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 8.2 7.0 7.2 7.3 6.7 5.9 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.2

Dryden Flight Research Center827 — — — — — 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.1

Goddard Space Flight Center 8.9 8.6 9.5 9.1 10.4 10.9 11.6 12.2 11.9 12.1

Johnson Space Center 9.7 9.7 9.8 10.3 10.6 12.4 13.9 14.4 16.4 17.0

Kennedy Space Center 6.3 6.1 5.2 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 5.7 6.0

Langley Research Center 6.5 7.0 6.4 7.0 7.9 7.6 8.1 8.4 10.3 8.9

Lewis Research Center 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.1 5.7 4.6 4.6 5.9 8.3

Marshall Space Flight Center 9.7 10.0 9.8 9.3 10.1 10.4 11.0 11.6 12.8 12.3

Stennis Space Center 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.1

Headquarters 42.5 43.5 43.8 44.2 41.6 40.6 37.2 34.6 26.8 24.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Derived from table 6-13.

827 FY 1989–FY 1993, Dryden included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 382
Table 6-15. Scientific and Technical Full-Time Permanent Employees (Occupational Code Groups 200, 700, and 900) by NASA 

Installation: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 1,164 1,183 1,212 1,202 1,178 968 913 871 837 789

Dryden Flight Research Center828 — — — — — 177 174 189 202 224

Goddard Space Flight Center 2,014 2,136 2,240 2,233 2,224 2,208 2,106 2,077 1,976 1,867

Johnson Space Center 2,340 2,360 2,402 2,390 2,382 2,368 2,296 2,258 2,143 2,044

Kennedy Space Center 1,434 1,468 1,553 1,549 1,520 1,450 1,371 1,302 1,164 1,071

Langley Research Center 1,363 1,434 1,443 1,434 1,402 1,371 1,256 1,240 1,218 1,146

Lewis Research Center 1,509 1,500 1,612 1,592 1,550 1,401 1,309 1,263 1,169 1,099

Marshall Space Flight Center 2,351 2,376 2,514 2,462 2,410 2,236 2,117 2,101 1,968 1,854

Stennis Space Center 98 103 128 124 117 118 117 117 132 134

Headquarters 502 571 590 588 571 470 407 328 250 225

Total 12,775 13,131 13,694 13,574 13,354 12,767 12,066 11,746 11,059 10,453

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

828 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 383
Table 6-16. Technical Support Full-Time Permanent Employees (Occupational Code Group 300) by NASA Installation: Number on 

Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 138 139 150 171 179 107 93 97 91 92

Dryden Flight Research Center829 — — — — — 106 105 120 123 143

Goddard Space Flight Center 458 442 433 408 390 364 291 280 264 241

Johnson Space Center 201 189 188 175 169 149 140 134 126 120

Kennedy Space Center 266 268 277 274 265 234 207 199 185 171

Langley Research Center 917 930 933 918 885 861 753 739 689 632

Lewis Research Center 234 297 327 337 349 315 287 290 274 252

Marshall Space Flight Center 180 172 178 178 176 157 145 136 130 122

Stennis Space Center 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Headquarters 5 7 6 5 6 6 2 2 3 2

Total 2,401 2,446 2,494 2,468 2,421 2,301 2,025 1,999 1,888 1,777

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

829 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 384
Table 6-17. Wage Full-Time Permanent Employees (Occupational Code Group 100) by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at end of 

fiscal year)

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 319 322 316 295 267 164 138 124 95 72

Dryden Flight Research Center830 — — — — — 51 41 28 28 18

Goddard Space Flight Center 78 75 68 65 69 70 67 68 67 63

Johnson Space Center 9 9 8 6 4 3 3 2 1 1

Kennedy Space Center 3 5 6 6 6 5 2 0 0 0

Langley Research Center 13 12 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0

Lewis Research Center 478 404 358 329 301 260 235 214 206 202

Marshall Space Flight Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stennis Space Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Headquarters 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Total 906 830 768 710 650 554 487 437 397 356

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

830 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 385
Table 6-18. Professional Administrative Full-Time Permanent Employees (Occupational Code Group 600) by NASA Installation: 

Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 307 345 364 368 368 307 289 283 281 279

Dryden Flight Research Center831 — — — — — 79 83 88 101 101

Goddard Space Flight Center 750 786 819 831 827 806 754 732 776 771

Johnson Space Center 576 611 649 645 661 636 604 611 557 529

Kennedy Space Center 392 406 416 419 429 414 417 426 400 377

Langley Research Center 287 304 308 326 323 311 278 288 305 298

Lewis Research Center 270 284 301 315 325 296 271 296 294 280

Marshall Space Flight Center 597 605 620 629 626 568 531 546 517 510

Stennis Space Center 52 55 55 55 52 52 50 51 54 56

Headquarters 854 970 1,047 959 930 840 786 721 568 536

Total 4,085 4,366 4,579 4,547 4,541 4,309 4,063 4,042 3,853 3,737

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

831 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 386
Table 6-19. Clerical Full-Time Permanent Employees (Occupational Code Group 500) by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at end 

of fiscal year)

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 223 216 221 210 186 160 134 122 103 84

Dryden Flight Research Center832 — — — — — 29 26 24 21 18

Goddard Space Flight Center 435 434 439 436 420 387 338 325 288 231

Johnson Space Center 452 446 430 417 406 374 357 339 303 272

Kennedy Space Center 328 319 319 300 286 255 204 179 141 126

Langley Research Center 284 281 275 269 249 245 219 205 196 172

Lewis Research Center 258 243 237 224 208 183 159 142 118 104

Marshall Space Flight Center 481 466 476 452 421 353 320 295 265 233

Stennis Space Center 31 32 37 35 31 33 35 29 25 21

Headquarters 360 415 447 417 394 338 287 271 196 170

Total 2,852 2,852 2,881 2,760 2,601 2,357 2,079 1,931 1,656 1,431

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

832 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 387
Table 6-20. Agency, Minority, and Female Full-Time Permanent Employees by Grade Range: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Grade of Employee 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

GS-1–6

Minority833 603 624 626 594 528 480 431 388 335 265

Percentage of Total at Grade 27.2 28.5 29.3 30.8 31.9 32.8 36.2 37.9 40.7 40.9

Female 2,020 1,988 1,949 1,778 1,563 1,390 1,139 974 786 615

Percentage of Total at Grade 91.1 90.8 91.2 92.2 94.5 95.1 95.6 95.1 95.5 94.9

Agency Total at Grade834 2,217 2,190 2,136 1,928 1,654 1,462 1,192 1,024 823 648

Percentage of Agency Total at Grade 9.6 9.3 8.7 8.0 7.0 6.6 5.8 5.1 4.4 3.6

GS-7–12

Minority 1,635 1,727 1,879 1,837 1,788 1,733 1,595 1,488 1,312 1,242

Percentage of Total at Grade 18.6 18.0 23.3 21.4 22.2 24.0 25.5 26.1 26.3 27.1

Female 3,402 3,526 3,725 3,646 3,563 3,324 3,036 2,902 2,613 2,440

Percentage of Total at Grade 38.6 36.8 46.2 42.5 44.3 46.0 48.5 50.8 52.3 53.3

Agency Total at Grade 8,811 9,583 8,061 8,586 8,038 7,229 6,255 5,707 4,998 4,581

Percentage of Agency Total at Grade 38.3 40.6 33.0 35.7 34.1 32.4 30.2 28.3 26.5 25.8

GS-13–15

Minority 995 1,139 1,299 1,457 1,577 1,708 1,807 1,895 1,972 1,983

Percentage of Total at Grade 9.4 10.2 11.0 11.9 12.5 13.7 14.8 15.2 16.2 17.0

Female 1,039 1,302 1,558 1,784 1,951 2,096 2,261 2,374 2,424 2,446

Percentage of Total at Grade 9.8 11.7 13.2 14.6 15.5 16.8 18.5 19.0 19.9 20.9

NASA Total at Grade 10,564 11,165 11,830 12,203 12,580 12,466 12,243 12,467 12,160 11,699

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 45.9 47.3 48.5 50.7 53.4 55.9 59.1 61.9 64.5 65.9

833 Minority includes Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Native American employees. 834 Employees may be both female and minority.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 388
Grade of Employee 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted

Minority 22 26 33 33 42 54 56 62 60 64

Percentage of Total at Grade 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.2 6.5 9.4 10.4 12.0 12.7 13.7

Female 21 28 33 35 37 45 57 60 64 73

Percentage of Total at Grade 4.0 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 7.8 10.6 11.6 13.6 15.6

NASA Total at Grade 527 558 621 629 643 574 540 518 472 467

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6

Wage System

Minority 186 190 188 187 172 165 152 138 123 120

Percentage of Total at Grade 20.5 22.9 24.5 26.3 26.5 29.8 31.2 31.6 31.0 33.7

Female 33 37 36 39 37 38 36 33 33 33

Percentage of Total at Grade 3.6 4.5 4.7 5.5 5.7 6.9 7.4 7.6 8.3 9.3

NASA Total at Grade 906 830 768 710 650 554 487 437 397 356

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0

Total 23,019 23,625 24,416 24,059 23,567 22,288 20,720 20,155 18,853 17,754

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 389
Table 6-21. Minority Full-Time Permanent Employees: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Minority 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Black 1,904 2,009 2,130 2,132 2,114 2,121 2,045 2,025 1,929 1,852

Percentage of NASA Total 8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.0 10.2 10.4

Hispanic 713 782 889 899 903 908 890 865 831 806

Percentage of NASA Total 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5

Asian or Pacific Islander 724 802 880 901 919 938 929 907 875 860

Percentage of NASA Total 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.8

Native American 101 113 126 176 171 173 177 174 167 156

Percentage of NASA Total 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Total 3,442 3,706 4,025 4,108 4,107 4,140 4,041 3,971 3,802 3,674

Percentage of NASA Total 15.0 15.7 16.5 17.1 17.4 18.6 19.5 19.7 20.2 20.7

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 390
Table 6-22. Minority Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Occupational Code Group: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Occupational Code Group 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

200, 700, 900 (Scientists/Engineers) 1,550 1,698 1,878 1,937 1,943 1,990 1,967 1,941 1,878 1,834

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 12.1 12.9 13.7 14.3 14.5 15.6 16.3 16.5 17.0 17.5

600 (Professional Admin.) 643 696 780 807 843 863 860 865 874 869

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 15.7 15.9 17.0 17.7 18.6 20.0 21.2 21.4 22.7 23.3

500 (Clerical) 761 799 844 833 810 779 739 705 611 534

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 26.7 28.0 29.3 30.2 31.1 33.1 35.5 36.5 36.9 37.3

300 (Technical Support) 302 323 335 344 339 343 323 322 316 317

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 12.6 13.2 13.4 13.9 14.0 14.9 16.0 16.1 16.7 17.8

100 (Wage) 186 190 188 187 172 165 152 138 123 120

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 20.5 22.9 24.5 26.3 26.5 29.8 31.2 31.6 31.0 33.7

Total of Entire NASA Workforce 3,442 3,706 4,025 4,108 4,107 4,140 4,041 3,971 3,802 3,674

Percentage of NASA Workforce 15.0 15.7 16.5 17.1 17.4 18.6 19.5 19.7 20.2 20.7

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 391
Table 6-23. Minority Full-Time Permanent Employees by Grade Range: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Grade of Employee 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

GS-1–6 603 624 626 594 528 480 431 388 335 265

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 27.2 28.5 29.3 30.8 31.9 32.8 36.2 37.9 40.7 40.9

GS-7–12 1,635 1,727 1,879 1,837 1,788 1,733 1,595 1,488 1,312 1,242

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 18.6 19.4 20.7 21.4 22.2 24.0 25.5 26.1 26.3 27.1

GS-13–15 995 1,139 1,299 1,457 1,577 1,708 1,807 1,895 1,972 1,983

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 9.4 10.2 11.0 11.9 12.5 13.7 14.8 15.2 16.2 17.0

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 22 26 33 33 42 54 56 62 60 64

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.2 6.5 9.4 10.4 12.0 12.7 13.7

Wage System 186 190 188 187 172 165 152 138 123 120

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 20.5 22.9 24.5 26.3 26.5 29.8 31.2 31.6 31.0 33.7

Total 3,442 3,706 4,025 4,108 4,107 4,140 4,041 3,971 3,802 3,674

Percentage of NASA Total835 15.0 15.7 16.5 17.1 17.4 18.6 19.5 19.7 20.2 20.7

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

835 Percentages based on inclusion of employees (all nonminority) in “other pay plans”: FY 1992 (3), FY 1993 (2), FY 1994 (3), FY 1995 (3), FY 1996 (3), FY 1997 

(3), and FY 1998 (3).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 392
Table 6-24. Average GS Grade Level of Minority and Nonminority Permanent Employees by NASA Occupational Code Group (1989–

1998) (at end of fiscal year) 

Occupational 

Code Group

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Scientists/Engin

eers

12.2 13.0 12.3 13.1 12.3 13.1 12.6 13.3 12.8 13.4

Professional 

Admin. 

11.4 12.1 11.5 12.1 11.5 12.2 11.7 12.3 11.7 12.3

Clerical 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.8 6.0 5.9 6.2 6.0 6.3

Technical 

Support 

9.1 10.4 9.3 10.5 9.5 10.5 9.8 10.7 10.2 10.9 

All NASA 10.2 11.7 10.4 11.8 10.5 11.9 10.7 12.1 10.9 12.2

Occupational 

Code Group

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Minori

ty

Nonminori

ty

Scientists/Engin

eers

12.9 13.4 13.0 13.4 13.1 13.5 13.2 13.6 13.3 13.6 

Professional 

Admin. 11.8 12.3 11.9 12.4 12.0 12.4 11.9 12.5 11.9 12.5 

Clerical 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8

Technical 

Support 10.2 11.0 10.5 11.0 10.7 11.2 10.9 11.3 10.9 11.4 

All NASA 11.1 12.3 10.9 12.4 11.0 12.5 11.2 12.6 11.4 12.7

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 393
Table 6-25. Minority Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Center: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 433 459 491 494 486 414 386 370 353 344

Dryden Flight Research Center836 — — — 0 0 100 98 108 119 127

Goddard Space Flight Center 585 629 661 687 712 738 726 719 731 694

Johnson Space Center 574 604 641 664 676 688 695 699 672 663

Kennedy Space Center 302 322 364 376 380 387 380 367 344 322

Langley Research Center 380 410 418 440 436 438 432 428 418 401

Lewis Research Center 358 381 456 475 467 456 442 430 407 396

Marshall Space Flight Center 382 396 435 438 436 434 437 430 426 420

Stennis Space Center 22 23 27 26 25 29 30 31 34 32

Headquarters 406 482 532 508 489 456 415 389 298 275

Total 3,442 3,706 4,025 4,108 4,107 4,140 4,041 3,971 3,802 3,674

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

836 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 394
Table 6-26. Minority Percentage of Full-Time Permanent Employees at Each NASA Center (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 20.1 20.8 21.7 22.0 22.3 24.3 24.6 24.7 25.1 26.1

Dryden Flight Research Center837 — — — — — 22.6 22.8 24.1 25.1 25.2

Goddard Space Flight Center 15.7 16.2 16.5 17.3 18.1 19.2 20.4 20.6 21.7 21.9

Johnson Space Center 16.0 16.7 17.4 18.3 18.7 19.5 20.4 20.9 21.5 22.4

Kennedy Space Center 12.5 13.1 14.2 14.8 15.2 16.4 17.3 17.4 18.2 18.5

Langley Research Center 13.3 13.8 14.1 14.9 15.2 15.7 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.8

Lewis Research Center 13.0 14.0 16.1 17.0 17.1 18.6 19.5 19.5 19.7 20.4

Marshall Space Flight Center 10.6 10.9 11.5 11.8 12.0 13.1 14.0 14.0 14.8 15.4

Stennis Space Center 12.0 12.0 12.2 12.0 12.4 14.1 14.7 15.6 15.9 15.0

Headquarters 23.5 24.5 25.4 25.8 25.7 27.6 28.0 29.4 29.3 29.5

Total for All Centers 15.0 15.7 16.5 17.1 17.4 18.6 19.5 19.7 20.2 20.7

Source: Tables 6-1 and 6-25.

837 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 395
Table 6-27. Female Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Occupational Code Group: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Occupational Code Group 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

200, 700, 900 (Scientists/Engineers) 1,614 1,757 1,962 2,001 1,982 2,012 1,985 1,934 1,849 1,777

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 12.6 13.4 14.3 14.7 14.8 15.8 16.5 16.5 16.7 17.0

600 (Professional Admin.) 1,925 2,135 2,298 2,363 2,406 2,358 2,302 2,326 2,261 2,240

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 47.1 48.9 50.2 52.0 53.0 54.7 56.7 57.5 58.7 59.9

500 (Clerical) 2,768 2,767 2,795 2,677 2,520 2,277 2,009 1,863 1,596 1,381

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 97.1 (7.0 97.0 97.0 96.9 96.6 96.6 96.5 96.4 96.5

300 (Technical Support) 175 185 210 203 207 209 198 188 182 177

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 7.3 7.6 8.4 8.2 8.6 9.1 9.8 9.4 9.6 10.0

100 (Wage) 33 37 36 39 37 38 36 33 33 33

Percentage of Total Occupational Code 3.6 4.5 4.7 5.5 5.7 6.9 7.4 7.6 8.3 9.3

Total 6,515 6,881 7,301 7,283 7,152 6,894 6,530 6,344 5,921 5,608

28.3 29.1 29.9 30.3 30.3 30.9 31.5 31.5 31.4 31.6

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 396
Table 6-28. Female Full-Time Permanent Employees by Grade Range: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Grade of Employee 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

GS-1–6 2,020 1,988 1,949 1,778 1,563 1,390 1,139 974 786 615

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 91.1 90.8 91.2 92.2 94.5 95.1 95.6 95.1 95.5 94.9

GS-7–12 3,402 3,526 3,725 3,646 3,563 3,324 3,036 2,902 2,613 2,440

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 38.6 39.7 41.1 42.5 44.3 46.0 48.5 50.9 52.3 53.3

GS-13–15 1,039 1,302 1,558 1,784 1,951 2,096 2,261 2,374 2,424 2,446

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 9.0 11.7 13.2 14.6 15.5 16.8 18.5 19.0 19.9 20.9

SES, Senior Technical, Excepted 21 28 33 35 37 45 57 60 64 73

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 4.0 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.8 7.8 10.6 11.6 13.6 13.9

Wage System 33 37 36 39 37 38 36 33 33 33

Percentage of NASA Total at Grade 3.6 4.5 4.7 5.5 5.7 6.9 7.4 7.6 8.3 9.3

Total 6,515 6,881 7,301 7,283 7,152 6,894 6,530 6,344 5,921 5,608

Percentage of NASA Total 28.3 29.1 29.9 30.3838 30.3 30.9 31.5 31.5 31.4 31.6

Source: Tables 6-1 and 6-27.

838 Percentages for FY 1992–FY 1998 based on inclusion of employees in other pay plans (FY 1992: two males and one female; FY 1993: one male and one female; 

FY 1994: one male and one female; FY 1995: two males and one female; FY 1996: two males and one female; FY 1997: two males and one female; and FY 1998: 

two males and one female).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 397
Table 6-29. Average GS Grade Level of Male and Female Permanent Employees by NASA Occupational Code Group (1989–1998) (at 

end of fiscal year) 

Occupational 

Code Group

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

Scientists/Engineers 13.0 11.7 13.1 12.1 13.2 12.1 13.3 12.4 13.4 12.6

Professional 

Admin.

12.7 11.2 12.7 11.3 12.7 11.4 12.8 11.5 12.8 11.6

Clerical 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.9 6.1 5.9 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.9

Technical Support 10.4 8.5 10.5 8.6 10.6 8.6 9.4 6.3 9.7 6.7

All NASA 12.6 8.9 12.6 9.2 12.7 9.4 12.5 9.3 12.6 9.5

Occupational 

Code Group

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

Scientists/Engineers 13.4 12.7 13.4 12.8 13.5 13.0 13.6 13.1 13.6 13.2

Professional 

Admin.

12.9 11.6 13.0 11.8 13.1 11.8 13.1 11.8 13.1 11.9

Clerical 5.3 6.0 4.9 5.9 5.1 6.2 5.5 6.3 5.4 6.4

Technical Support 9.8 6.8 10.0 6.8 10.4 7.4 10.6 8.2 10.7 8.2

All NASA 12.7 9.7 12.8 9.9 12.9 10.1 13.0 10.4 13.0 10.6

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 398
Table 6-30. Female Full-Time Permanent Employees by NASA Installation: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 520 547 574 572 548 464 423 403 380 365

Dryden Flight Research Center839 — — — — — 106 101 103 108 106

Goddard Space Flight Center 1,044 1,112 1,176 1,182 1,178 1,167 1,113 1,094 1,102 1,051

Johnson Space Center 1,122 1,167 1,216 1,222 1,226 1,193 1,148 1,135 1,043 996

Kennedy Space Center 685 716 761 763 760 741 700 664 606 555

Langley Research Center 667 699 721 731 712 716 664 647 636 609

Lewis Research Center 561 572 615 621 613 559 519 513 484 462

Marshall Space Flight Center 1,101 1,138 1,226 1,216 1,178 1,101 1,057 1,042 983 931

Stennis Space Center 60 63 74 73 68 72 80 75 73 71

Headquarters 755 867 938 903 869 775 725 668 506 462

Total 6,515 6,881 7,301 7,283 7,152 6,894 6,530 6,344 5,921 5,608

Source: FY 1989–FY 1992, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1993–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

839 FY 1989–FY 1993, included with Ames Research Center figures.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 399
Table 6-31. Females as a Percentage of Full-Time Permanent NASA Employees by Center (at end of fiscal year)

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 24.2 24.8 25.4 25.5 25.2 27.2 27.0 26.9 27.0 27.7

Dryden Flight Research Center840 — — — — — 24.0 23.5 22.9 22.7 21.0

Goddard Space Flight Center 28.0 28.7 29.4 29.8 30.0 30.4 31.3 31.4 32.7 33.1

Johnson Space Center 31.4 32.3 33.1 33.6 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.9 33.3 33.6

Kennedy Space Center 28.3 29.0 29.6 29.9 30.3 31.4 31.8 31.5 32.1 31.8

Langley Research Center 23.3 23.6 24.3 24.7 24.9 25.7 26.5 26.2 26.4 27.1

Lewis Research Center 20.4 21.0 21.7 22.2 22.4 22.8 23.0 23.3 23.5 23.9

Marshall Space Flight Center 30.5 31.4 32.4 32.7 32.4 33.2 34.0 33.9 34.1 34.2

Stennis Space Center 32.8 32.8 33.3 33.8 33.7 35.1 39.2 37.7 34.1 33.3

Headquarters 43.7 44.1 44.8 45.8 45.7 46.8 48.9 50.5 49.8 49.5

Total 28.3 29.1 29.9 30.3 30.3 30.9 31.5 31.5 31.4 31.6

Source: Tables 6-1, 6-30.

840 FY 1989–FY 1993: included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 400
Table 6-32. Age Profile of Full-Time Permanent Employees by Age Ranges: Number on Board (at end of fiscal year) 

Age 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Under 25 1,108 1,060 1,047 766 524 410 328 189 112 82

Percentage of NASA Total 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.5

25–29 2,974 3,037 3,135 2,891 2,547 2,180 1,749 1,332 989 692

Percentage of NASA Total 12.9 12.9 12.8 12.0 10.6 9.1 7.3 5.5 4.1 2.9

30–34 2,731 3,076 3,475 3,520 3,547 3,544 3,309 3,007 2,609 2,237

Percentage of NASA Total 11.9 13.0 14.2 14.6 14.7 14.7 13.8 12.5 10.8 9.3

35–39 2,538 2,775 2,955 3,057 3,046 3,189 3,287 3,391 3,355 3,324

Percentage of NASA Total 11.0 11.7 12.1 12.7 12.7 13.3 13.7 14.1 13.9 13.8

40–44 2,751 2,845 3,008 2,816 2,842 2,868 2,951 2,893 2,913 2,903

Percentage of NASA Total 12.0 12.0 12.3 11.7 11.8 11.9 12.3 12.0 12.1 12.1

45–49 3,349 3,228 3,162 3,138 2,969 2,914 2,871 2,880 2,687 2,691

Percentage of NASA Total 14.5 13.7 13.0 13.0 12.3 12.1 11.9 12.0 11.2 11.2

50–54 3,748 3,700 3,644 3,556 3,492 3,127 2,844 2,827 2,736 2,540

Percentage of NASA Total 16.3 15.7 14.9 14.8 14.5 13.0 11.8 11.8 11.4 10.6

55–59 2,460 2,520 2,570 2,710 2,812 2,545 2,191 2,230 2,131 2,008

Percentage of NASA Total 10.7 10.7 10.5 11.3 11.7 10.6 9.1 9.3 8.9 8.3

60+ 1,360 1,384 1,420 1,605 1,788 1,511 1,190 1,406 1,321 1,277

Percentage of NASA Total 5.9 5.9 5.8 6.7 7.4 6.3 4.9 5.8 5.5 5.3

Average Age 42.6 42.4 42.2 42.7 43.3 43.1 42.9 43.8 44.2 44.6

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 401
Table 6-33. Age Profile of Full-Time Permanent Scientists and Engineers (at end of fiscal year) 

Age 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Under 25 653 563 540 340 187 137 124 54 22 19

Percentage of S&E Total 5.1 4.3 3.9 2.5 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1

25–29 2,090 2,113 2,181 1,986 1,719 1,418 1,095 796 546 373

Percentage of S&E Total 16.4 16.1 15.9 14.6 12.7 10.4 8.1 5.9 4.0 2.7

30–34 1,615 1,937 2,270 2,373 2,464 2,488 2,312 2,100 1,806 1,526

Percentage of S&E Total 12.6 14.8 16.6 17.5 18.2 18.3 17.0 15.5 13.3 11.2

35–39 1,117 1,291 1,439 1,592 1,696 1,888 2,103 2,259 2,301 2,315

Percentage of S&E Total 8.7 9.8 10.5 11.7 12.5 13.9 15.5 16.6 17.0 17.1

40–44 1,104 1,145 1,227 1,206 1,244 1,309 1,389 1,431 1,550 1,648

Percentage of S&E Total 8.6 8.7 9.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 10.2 10.5 11.4 12.1

45–49 1,819 1,650 1,529 1,416 1,261 1,195 1,187 1,229 1,190 1,216

Percentage of S&E Total 14.2 12.6 11.2 10.4 9.3 8.8 8.7 9.1 8.8 9.0

50–54 2,278 2,219 2,139 2,072 1,981 1,751 1,552 1,433 1,315 1,154

Percentage of S&E Total 17.8 16.9 15.6 15.3 14.6 12.9 11.4 10.6 9.7 8.5

55–59 1,368 1,452 1,570 1,672 1,777 1,620 1,460 1,457 1,398 1,284

Percentage of S&E Total 10.7 11.1 11.5 12.3 13.1 11.9 10.8 10.7 10.3 9.5

60+ 731 761 799 917 1,025 961 844 987 931 918

Percentage of S&E Total 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.8 7.6 7.1 6.2 7.3 6.9 6.8

Total Number All Ages 12,775 13,131 13,694 13,574 13,354 12,767 12,066 11,746 11,059 10,453

Average Age All S&E 42.2 42.0 41.7 42.7 43.3 43.1 42.9 43.8 44.2 44.6

Source: FY 1989–FY 1991, Civil Service Workforce Reports; FY 1992–FY 1998, Workforce Data Cube.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 402
Chapter 7

Table 7-1. NASA Budget Authority Amount and as a Percentage of the Total Federal Budget: FY 

1989–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Fiscal 

Year

Real-Year 

Amount

Percentage of 

Total Federal 

Budget

2004 Deflator Total Inflated 2004 

Dollars 

1989 10,969 0.9 1.4075 15,439

1990 12,324 1.0 1.3549 16,697

1991 14,016 1.0 1.3063 18,310

1992 14,317 1.0 1.2591 18,026

1993 14,310 1.0 1.2282 17,575

1994 14,570 1.0 1.2010 17,498

1995 13,854 0.9 1.1757 16,288

1996 13,886 0.9 1.1514 15,987

1997 13,711 0.8 1.1297 15,488

1998 13,649 0.8 1.1104 15,154

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

2005, pp. 95–96, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf (accessed December 13, 2006). Inflation 

figures are from “Appendix D-1B,” Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, Fiscal Year 2004 Activities

(Washington, DC: NASA, no date), p. 120.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 403
Table 7-2A. NASA Appropriations by Appropriation Title, Fiscal Year, and Percentage Change: FY 

1989–FY 1994 (in thousands of dollars) 

Fiscal Year R&D SFC&DC R&PM CofF Inspector 

General

Total

1989 4,191,700 4,364,200 1,855,000 275,100 —841 10,701,000842

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year843

24.2 11.7 2.4 54.3 — 19.5

1990 5,281,876 4,618,074 1,951,476 591,980 8,659 12,452,065

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year

26.0 5.8 5.2 115.2 — 16.4

1991 6,023,600 6,334,132 2,211,900 507,900844 10,500 15,088,032

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year

14.0 37.2 13.3 –14.2 21.3 21.2

1992 6,413,800 5,157,075 2,242,300 525,000 14,600 14,352,775

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year

6.5 –18.9 1.4 3.4 39.1 –4.9

1993 7,089,300 5,086,000 1,615,014 525,000 15,062 14,330,376

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year

10.5 –1.4 –28.0 0.0 3.2 –0.2

1994 7,529,300 4,853,500 1,635,508 517,700 15,391 14,551,399

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year

6.2 –4.6 1.3 –1.4 2.2 1.5

Total 27,056,000 21,430,707 7,704,722 2,075,600 55,553 58,322,582

Source: Table 7-3.

841 No Inspector General appropriation included in FY 1989 budget documents. 842 Includes a one-time appropriation of $15 million for a trust fund. 843 Comparison with the preceding year is based on FY 1988 data from Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book, 

Volume VI, 1979–1988 (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4012, 2000), p. 507. 844 Includes $10 million appropriated specifically for operation and maintenance of a new visitors center at Johnson 

Space Center and available without fiscal year limitation.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 404
Table 7-2B. NASA Appropriations by Appropriation Title, Fiscal Year, and Percentage Change, FY 

1995–FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Fiscal Year SAT HSF MS Inspector 

General

Total

1995 5,901,200 5,573,900 2,554,587 16,000 14,445,687845

Percentage Change 

from Preceding 

Year846

— — — — —

1996 5,928,900 5,456,600 2,502,200 16,000 13,903,700

Percentage Change 

from Preceding Year

0.5 –2.1 –2.1 0.0 –3.75

1997 5,762,100 5,362,900 2,562,200 17,000 13,704,200

Percentage Change 

from Preceding Year

–2.8 –1.7 2.4 6.3 –1.4

1998 5,690,000 5,506,500 2,433,200 18,300 13,648,000

Percentage Change 

from Preceding Year

–1.3 2.7 –5.0 7.7 –0.4

Total 23,282,200 21,899,900 10,052,187 67,300 55,701,587

Source: Table 7-3.

845 Total includes one-time appropriation of $400 million for National Aeronautical Facilities. 846 Change in appropriation categories precludes comparison with prior year.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 405
Table 7-3. NASA’s Budget History: FY 1989–FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Fiscal 

Year/Appropriation 

Title

Initial 

Request

Authorization Appropriation Adjustments to 

Appropriation 

1989

R&D 4,446,700 4,322,100 4,191,700 4,237,600847

SFC&DC 4,841,200 4,686,200 4,364,200 4,451,600848

R&PM 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,855,000 1,926,400849

CofF 285,100 290,100 275,100 281,700850

Trust Fund — — 15,000 —851

Total 11,488,800 11,213,400 10,701,000 10,897,300

1990

R&D 5,751,600 — 5,281,876 5,227,776

SFC&DC 5,139,600 — 4,618,074 4,625,715

R&PM 2,032,200 — 1,951,476 2,023,434

CofF 341,800 — 591,980 410,990

Inspector General 8,795 — 8,659 8,659

Total 13,273,995 —852 12,452,065853 12,296,574854

1991

R&D 7,074,000 — 6,023,600 6,023,522855

SFC&DC 5,289,400 — 6,334,132 5,124,334856

847 Based on transfers between accounts (–$29 million) and transfers between federal agencies (unspecified) ($74.9 

million). U.S. Congress, Public Law 101-45, Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Transfers, Urgent 

Supplementals, and Correcting Enrollment Errors Act of 1989, June 30, 1989, 101st Cong., 1st sess. This act allowed 

for “an additional amount for Research and Program Management, up to $35 million to be derived by transfer from 

Research and Development and Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications.”

848 Based on transfers between accounts (–$12.6 million) and transfers between federal agencies (unspecified) ($100 

million).

849 Based on transfers between accounts of $65 million, transfers between federal agencies (unspecified) of $6.6 million, 

and lapse of FY 1989 unobligated funds of $0.2 million.

850 Based on transfers between accounts (–$23.4 million) and transfers between federal agencies (unspecified) ($15 

million).

851 Trust Fund not included in adjusted appropriations figures. Details in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to 

Budget Plans,” Fiscal Year 1991 Estimates, p. AS 12. 852 No authorization bill passed. 853 U.S. Congress, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1990, Public Law 101-144, November 9, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st sess. 854 U.S. Congress, Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment 

Compensation Administration, and Other Urgent Needs, and Transfers, and Reducing Funds Budgeted for Military 

Spending Act of 1990, Public Law 101-302, May 25, 1990, 101st Congress, 2nd sess., superseded P.L. 101-144. U.S. 

Congress, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1990, Public Law 101-144, November 9, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st sess. 855 Reflects reduction of $78,000 pursuant to P.L. 100-119. U.S. Congress, A Joint Resolution Increasing the Statutory 

Limit on the Public Debt, September 29, 1987, Public Law 100-119, 100th Congress, 1st sess. 856 Reflects $1,209,732,000 applied to debt reduction and reduction pursuant to P.L. 100-119 of $66,000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 406
Fiscal 

Year/Appropriation 

Title

Initial 

Request

Authorization Appropriation Adjustments to 

Appropriation 

R&PM 2,252,900 — 2,211,900 2,211,632857

CofF 497,900 — 507,900858 497,894859

Inspector General 11,000 — 10,500 10,465860

Total 15,125,200 —861 15,088,032 13,867,847862

1992

R&D 7,198,500 6,517,000 6,413,800 6,827,606863

SFC&DC 5,608,273 5,512,300 5,157,075 5,384,775864

R&PM 2,452,300 2,422,300 2,242,300 1,575,856865

CofF 480,300 430,300 525,000 531,400866

Inspector General 14,600 14,600 14,600 13,877867

Total 15,753,973 14,896,500 14,352,775868 14,333,514869

1993

R&D 7,731,400 7,269,000 7,089,300 7,094,300870

SFC&DC 5,266,500 5,519,000 5,086,000 5,058,800871

R&PM 1,660,027 1,654,000 1,615,014 1,634,836872

CofF 319,200 479,200 525,000 520,000873

Inspector General 15,900 15,900 15,062 14,591874

Total 14,993,027 14,937,100 14,330,376875 14,332,527876

857 Reflects reduction pursuant to P.L. 100-119 of $29,000 and lapse of FY 1991 unobligated funds of –$239,000. 858 Includes $10 million appropriated specifically for operation and maintenance of a new visitors center at Johnson 

Space Center and available without fiscal year limitation.

859 Reflects reduction of $6,000 pursuant to P.L. 100-119. 860 Reflects lapse of FY 1991 unobligated funds in the amount of $35,000. 861 No authorization bill passed. 862 Details in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plan,” Fiscal Year 1993 Estimates, p. AS 10. 863 Reflects appropriation transfer ($438,556,000), rescission pursuant to P.L. 102-298 (–$4,050,000), rescission 

pursuant to P.L. 102-389 (–$14.3 million), and transfer between accounts (–$6.4 million). U.S. Congress, Rescinding 

Certain Budget Authority, June 4, 1992, Public Law 102-298, 102nd Congress, 2nd sess. Also U.S. Congress, 

Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 

1993, 6 October 1992, 102nd Congress, 2nd sess. 864 Reflects appropriation transfer of $227.7 million. 865 Reflects appropriation transfer of –$666,256,000 and lapse of FY 1992 unobligated funds in the amount of $188,000. 866 Reflects transfer between accounts of $6.4 million. 867 Reflects lapse of FY 1992 unobligated funds of $723,000. 868 U.S. Congress, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1992, Public Law 102-139, October 28, 1991, 102nd Congress, 1st sess.

869 Details from “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriation to Budget Plans,” Fiscal Year 1994 Estimates, p. AS 9. 870 Reflects appropriation transfer as specified in P.L. 103-50 of $5 million. U.S. Congress, Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1993, July 2, 1993, Public Law 103-50, 103rd Congress, 1st sess. 871 Reflects rescission/supplemental pursuant to P.L. 103-50 of –$27.2 million. 872 Reflects rescission/supplemental of $20 million pursuant to P.L. 103-50 and lapse of FY 1993 unobligated funds of 

$178,000.

873 Reflects appropriation transfer as specified in P.L. 103-50 of –$5 million. 874 Reflects lapse of FY 1993 unobligated funds of $471,000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 407
Fiscal 

Year/Appropriation 

Title

Initial 

Request

Authorization Appropriation Adjustments to 

Appropriation 

1994

R&D 7,712,300 — 7,529,300 7,533,500877

SFC&DC 5,316,900 — 4,853,500 4,835,100878

R&PM 1,675,000 — 1,635,508 1,672,907879

CofF 545,300 — 517,700 492,700880

Inspector General 15,500 15,391 14,726881

Total 15,265,000 —882 14,551,399 14,548,933

1995

SAT 5,901,200 — 5,901,200 5,933,500883

HSF 5,719,900 — 5,573,900 5,514,900884

MS 2,662,900 — 2,554,587 2,532,200885

National Aeronautical 

Facilities

400,000 0886

Inspector General 16,000 — 16,000 15,800887

875 U.S. Congress, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993, November 4, 

1992, Public Law 201-588, 102nd Congress, 2nd session. 876 Details in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plans,” Fiscal Year 1995 Estimates, p. AS-12. 877 Reflects FY 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-211) adding $4.2 million. U.S. Congress, 

Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1994, and for Other 

Purposes, February 12, 1994, Public Law 103-211, 103rd Congress, 2nd sess. 878 Reflects FY 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-211) reducing SFC&DC appropriation by 

$18.4 million.

879 Reflects FY 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-211) adding $56 million, reduction of $18 

million stated in P.L. 103-327, and lapse of FY 1994 unobligated funds of $601,000. U.S. Congress, Departments of 

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, 

September 28, 1994, Public Law 103-327, 103rd Congress, 2nd sess. 880 Reflects FY 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-211) reducing the CofF appropriation by 

$25 million.

881 Reflects lapse of FY 1994 unobligated funds. 882 No authorization bill passed. 883 Reflects $35,000 increase pursuant to Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, FY 1995

(P.L. 104-6) Amending P.L. 103-327, $50,000 increase pursuant to Department of Defense Appropriations Act, FY 

1995 (P.L. 103-335) less final transfer from the Department of Defense for Landsat, and lapse of FY 1995 unobligated 

funds of $52,700. U.S. Congress, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of 

Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995, April 10, 1995, Public Law 104-6, 104th Congress, 

1st sess., http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ6.104.pdf

(accessed January 16, 2007). Also U.S. Congress, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995, September 30, 

1994, Public Law 103-335, 103rd Congress, 2nd sess. 884 Amount stated in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plans,” FY 1997 Estimates. 885 Reflects FY 1995 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-19) reducing appropriated amount by 

$39.3 million and lapse of FY 1995 unobligated funds of $1.1 million. U.S. Congress, Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery from 

the Tragedy that Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995, July 27, 1995, Public Law 104-19, 104th 

Congress, 1st sess.

886 Reflects elimination of all funding pursuant to the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, 

FY 1995 (P.L. 104-6) Amending P.L. 103-327.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 408
Fiscal 

Year/Appropriation 

Title

Initial 

Request

Authorization Appropriation Adjustments to 

Appropriation 

Total 14,300,000 —888 14,445,687889 13,996,400890

1996

SAT 6,006,900 — 5,928,900 5,878,900891

HSF 5,509,600 — 5,456,600 5,506,600892

MS 2,726,200 — 2,502,200 2,482,600893

Inspector General 17,300 — 16,000 15,900894

Total 14,260,000 —895 13,903,700896 13,884,000897

1997

SAT 5,862,100 — 5,762,100 5,878,900898

HSF 5,362,900 — 5,362,900 5,539,900899

MS 2,562,200 — 2,562,200 2,562,200

Inspector General 17,000 — 17,000 17,000

Total 13,804,200 —900 13,704,200901 13,998,000

1998

SAT 5,642,000 — 5,690,000 5,690,000

HSF 5,326,500 — 5,506,500 5,559,500902

887 Reflects lapse of FY 1995 unobligated funds of $200,000. 888 No authorization bill passed.

889 P.L. 103-327.

890 Details provided in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plan,” Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. AS16.

891 Reflects reduction of $50,000,000 in accordance with the appropriations transfer authority of the FY 1996 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act. U.S. Congress, Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, April 26, 1996, 

Public Law 104-134. 104th Congress, 2nd sess., http://www.nps.gov/legal/laws/104th/104-134.pdf (accessed January 

16, 2007).

892 Reflects addition of $50 million in accordance with the appropriations transfer authority of FY 1996 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-134).

893 Reflects amount stated in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plans,” FY 1998 Estimates, and 

$500,000 reduction due to lapse of FY 1996 unobligated funds.

894 Reflects $100,000 reduction due to lapse of FY 1996 unobligated funds.

895 No authorization bill passed.

896 P.L. 104-134. Direction included in Conference Report H.R. 104-384.

897 Details provided in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plans,” Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates.

898 Reflects reduction of $177,000 due to appropriations transfer authority in VA-HUD Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, FY 1997 (P.L. 104-204) and $5,000,000 increase due to Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act 

(P.L. 104-208). U.S. Congress, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, September 26, 1996, Public Law 104-204, 104th Congress, 2nd sess. 

Also U.S. Congress, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, September 30, 2006, Public Law 104-208, 104th 

Congress, 2nd sess.

899 Reflects increase of $177,000 due to appropriations transfer authority in VA-HUD Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, FY 1997 (P.L. 104-204).

900 No authorization bill passed.

901 P.L. 104-204, September 26, 1996.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 409
Fiscal 

Year/Appropriation 

Title

Initial 

Request

Authorization Appropriation Adjustments to 

Appropriation 

MS 2,513,200 — 2,433,200 2,380,000903

Inspector General 18,300 — 18,300 18,200904

Total 13,500,000 —905 13,648,000906 13,647,700907

Source: Annual authorization and appropriation legislation, annual NASA budget estimates.

902 Reflects increase of $53,000,000 pursuant to the appropriations transfer authority of the 1998 Supplemental 

Appropriations and Rescissions Act. U.S. Congress, 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, May 1, 

1998, Public Law 105-174, 105th Congress, 2nd sess., http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ174.pdf (accessed January 16, 2007).

903 Reflects decrease of $53 million pursuant to the appropriations transfer authority of the 1998 Supplemental 

Appropriations and Rescissions Act (P.L. 105-174) and lapse of FY 1998 unobligated funds of $400,000.

904 Reflects lapse of FY 1998 unobligated funds of $100,000.

905 No authorization bill passed.

906 U.S. Congress, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1998, October 27, 1997, Public Law 105-65, 105th Congress, 1st sess., 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ65.pdf (accessed 

January 16, 2007).

907 Details provided in “Summary Reconciliation of Appropriations to Budget Plans,” Fiscal Year 2000 Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 410
Table 7-4A. Appropriations Compared with Budget Requests: FY 1989–FY 1994 (in millions of dollars) 

Research and 

Development

Space Flight, 

Control, and 

Data 

Communications

Research and 

Program 

Management 

Construction of 

Facilities

Inspector General Total

Amount Percent Amoun

t

Percent Amoun

t

Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent

FY 1989

Request 4,446,700 4,841,20

0 

1,855,00

0 

285,100 — — 11,488,800 93.1

Appr. 4,191,700 94.3 4,364,20

0

90.2 1,915,00

0

103.2 275,100 96.5 —908 — 10,701,000

909

FY 1990

Request 5,751,600 5,139,60

0

2,032,20

0

341,800 8,795 13,273,995 93.8

Appr. 5,281,876 91.8 4,618,07

4

89.9 1,951,47

6

96.0 591,980 173.2 8,659 98.5 12,452,065

FY 1991

Request 7,074,000 5,289,40

0

2,252,90

0

497,900 11,000 15,125,200 99.8

Appr. 6,023,600 85.2 6,334,13

2

119.8 2,211,90

0

98.2 507,900 102.0 10,500 95.5 15,088,032

FY 1992

Request 7,198,500 5,608,27

3 

2,452,30

0 

480,300 14,600 15,753,973 91.1

Appr. 6,413,800 89.1 5,157,07

5 

92.0 2,242,30

0 

91.4 525,000 109.3 14,600 100.0 14,352,775

908 Inspector General appropriation not included in FY 1989 budget documents.

909 Includes $15 million appropriation for a trust fund.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 411
Research and 

Development

Space Flight, 

Control, and 

Data 

Communications

Research and 

Program 

Management 

Construction of 

Facilities

Inspector General Total

Amount Percent Amoun

t

Percent Amoun

t

Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent

FY 1993

Request 7,731,400 5,266,50

0

1,660,02

7

319,200 15,900 14,993,027 95.6

Appr. 7,089,300 91.7 5,086,00

0 

96.6 1,615,01

4 

97.3 525,000 164.5 15,062 94.7 14,330,376

FY 1994

Request 7,712,300 5,316,90

0 

1,675,00

0 

545,300 15,500 15,265,000 95.3

Appr. 7,529,300 97.6 4,853,50

0

91.3 1,635,90

7

97.7 517,700 94.9 15,391 99.3 14,548,933

Source: Table 7-3.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 412
Table 7-4B. Appropriations Compared with Budget Requests: FY 1995–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Science, Aeronautics 

and Technology

Human Spaceflight Mission Support Inspector General Total

Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent

FY 1995

Request 5,901,200 5,719,900 2,662,900 16,000 14,300,000

Appr. 5,901,200 100.0 5,573,900 97.5 2,554,587 95.9 16,000 100.00 14,445,687

910

101.0

FY 1996

Request 6,006,900 5,509,600 2,726,200 17,300 14,260,000

Appr. 5,928,900 98.7 5,456,600 99.0 2,502,200 91.8 16,000 92.5 13,903,700 97.5

FY 1997

Request 5,862,100 5,362,900 2,562,200 17,000 13,804,200

Appr. 5,762,100 98.3 5,362,900 100.0 2,562,200 100.0 17,000 100.0 13,604,200 98.6

FY 1998

Request 5,642,000 5,326,500 2,513,200 18,300 13,500,000

Appr. 5,690,000 100.9 5,506,500 103.4 2,433,200 96.8 18,300 100.0 13,648,700 101.1

Source: Table 7-4.

910 Includes $400 million for National Aeronautical Facilities.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 413
Table 7-5. Budget Requests, Authorizations, Appropriations, and Obligations: FY 1989–FY 1998 

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal 

Year

Budget 

Request

Authorization911 Appropriation Obligation Expenditure 

(Operating Plan)

1989 11,488.8 11,213.4 10,701.0 12,299.7 10,897.3

1990 13,274.0 — 12,452.1 13,955.3 12,295.2

1991 15,125.2 — 15,088.0 14,687.0 13,867.8

1992 15,754.0 14,896.5 14,352.8 15,150.0 14,333.5

1993 14,993.0 14,937.1 14,330.4 14,860.8 14,322.5

1994 15,265.0 — 14,551.4 14,645.2 14,548.9

1995 14,300.0 — 14,445.7 15,097.0 13,996.0

1996 14,260.0 — 13,903.7 14,403.3 13,884.0

1997 13,804.2 — 13,704.2 14,594.2 13,708.7

1998 13,500.0 — 13,648.0 14,430.1 13,647.7

Total 141,764.2 — 137,177.3 144,122.6 135,501.6

Source: Annual Procurement Report, FY 1991–FY 2000 Budget Estimates.

911 No authorization bill passed for FYs 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 414
Table 7-6. Research and Program Management Funding by Installation: FY 1989–FY 1992 (in 

thousands of dollars)912

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992

Ames Research Center 177,775 187,340 211,155 158,860

Goddard Space Flight Center 254,502 264,636 303,006 249,989

Johnson Space Center 299,435 320,630 338,460 245,944

Kennedy Space Center 268,723 277,438 298,955 155,464

Langley Research Center 189,190 197,879 214,531 172,851

Lewis Research Center 196,188 206,006 230,060 172,326

Marshall Space Flight Center 253,417 269,267 286,155 231,657

Stennis Space Center 23,526 25,137 28,536 14,264

Headquarters 263,609 274,822 300,774 174,501

Total R&PM 1,926,365 2,023,155 2,211,632 1,575,856

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-37, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

912 Appropriations were reconfigured with the FY 1994 budget, which was the final year showing R&PM funding data 

(FY 1992).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 415
Table 7-7. Research and Development Funding by Installation: FY 1989–FY 1992 (in thousands of 

dollars)913

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992

Ames Research Center 288,416 307,941 349,951 427,959

Goddard Space Flight Center 641,839 921,290 1,153,016 1,156,939

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 583,621 572,450 649,292 670,556

Johnson Space Center 561,678 1,036,648 1,161,735 1,419,927

Kennedy Space Center 112,020 150,278 210,292 269,752

Langley Research Center 241,296 250,980 279,441 341,978

Lewis Research Center 389,314 497,888 554,493 679,608

Marshall Space Flight Center 946,419 960,375 966,059 962,507

Stennis Space Center 16,303 12,176 16,540 24,069

Headquarters 456,694 517,669 682,703 875,010

Total R&D 4,237,600 5,227,695 6,023,522 6,828,305

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

913 Appropriations were reconfigured with the FY 1994 budget, which was the final year showing R&D funding data 

(FY 1992).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 416
Table 7-8. Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications Funding by Installation: FY 1989–FY 

1992 (in thousands of dollars)914

Installation 1989 1990 1991 1992

Ames Research Center 16,700 18,700 18,600 18,900

Goddard Space Flight Center 548,259 632,636 674,180 665,623

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 124,669 153,966 150,399 177,739

Johnson Space Center 1,049,250 1,129,200 1,185,700 1,297,921

Kennedy Space Center 824,200 857,300 923,700 1,081,700

Langley Research Center 14,300 3,800 330 201

Lewis Research Center 11,000 56,400 122,760 46,500

Marshall Space Flight Center 1,760,400 1,677,138 1,937,275 1,678,301

Stennis Space Center 21,300 26,900 24,600 37,600

Headquarters 81,522 68,787 86,790 161,291

Total SFC&DC 4,451,600 4,624,827 5,124,334 5,165,776

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

914 Appropriations were reconfigured with the FY 1994 budget, which was the final year showing SFC&DC funding 

data (FY 1992).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 417
Table 7-9. Construction of Facilities Funding by NASA Installation: FY 1989–FY 1992 (in 

thousands of dollars)915

Facility 1989 1990 1991 1992

Ames Research Center 29,098 45,019 27,550 62,748

Goddard Space Flight Center 14,104 30,067 36,942 44,502

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4,376 12,141 34,562 12,399

Johnson Space Center 24,925 59,746 53,891 31,523

Kennedy Space Center 24,571 60,602 66,633 61,078

Langley Research Center 29,217 25,515 33,955 31,355

Lewis Research Center 26,683 33,804 43,262 22,765

Marshall Space Flight Center 37,269 30,629 63,671 56,459

Stennis Space Center 21,045 11,843 25,595 16,786

Headquarters 16,100 3,272 8,642 1,936

Total Construction of Facilities 227,388 312,638 394,703 341,551

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

915 Appropriations were reconfigured with FY 1994 budget, which was the final year showing CofF funding data (FY 

1992).

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 418
Table 7-10. Human Spaceflight Funding by NASA Installation: FY 1993–FY 1998 (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Installation 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 7,200 0 0 26,296 14,935 22,052

Dryden Flight Research Center —916 5,700 6,100 5,600 5,400 5,800

Goddard Space Flight Center 14,400 9,200 12,050 10,365 8,500 13,269

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1,500 400 15 2,600 2,750 702

Johnson Space Center 2,329,400 1,604,300 2,804,237 3,073,329 3,802,521 3,856,106

Kennedy Space Center 1,250,200 1,125,200 1,024,560 935,249 281,400 303,458

Langley Research Center 3,400 1,600 1,521 5,167 8,700 7,352

Lewis Research Center 364,200 132,300 17,500 44,136 20,299 31,350

Marshall Space Flight Center 2,316,600 1,887,100 1,537,508 1,502,684 1,463,046 1,263,768

Stennis Space Center 41,000 39,500 51,200 53,300 52,200 47,216

Headquarters 344,100 97,600 60,209 51,674 15,049 8,427

Total Human Spaceflight 6,672,000 4,902,900 5,514,900 5,710,400 5,674,800 5,559,500

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-32, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

916 Included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 419
Table 7-11. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Funding by NASA Installation: FY 1993–FY 

1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Installation 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 475,175 447,756 456,122 390,835 354,383 381,594

Dryden Flight Research Center —917 51,700 62,119 86,697 93,905 140,327

Goddard Space Flight Center 1,669,133 1,825,311 2,123,862 1,975,293 2,190,562 2,048,068

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 778,524 878,652 923,045 1,037,248 845,965 1,077,650

Johnson Space Center 167,812 231,081 146,897 103,969 90,571 94,280

Kennedy Space Center 37,495 40,040 50,462 28,334 35,285 245,646

Langley Research Center 312,313 443,964 376,798 390,138 424,036 419,067

Lewis Research Center 388,804 557,467 497,670 428,097 472,620 374,334

Marshall Space Flight Center 412,920 518,889 612,523 609,852 713,427 686,553

Stennis Space Center 8,691 10,559 20,015 69,067 87,930 60,800

Headquarters 657,889 713,062 647,887 559,870 144,416 162,051

Total Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology

4,908,756 5,718,481 5,917,400 5,679,400 5,453,100 5,690,370

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-32, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71.

917 Included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 420
Table 7-12. Mission Support Funding by NASA Installation: FY 1993–FY 1998 (in thousands of 

dollars) 

Installation 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Ames Research Center 217,673 184,914 174,975 173,609 186,791 179,053

Dryden Flight Research Center —918 39,764 49,335 43,867 59,284 61,820

Goddard Space Flight Center 590,653 486,860 494,415 525,697 548,359 411,012

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 27,152 23,209 22,174 30,097 29,292 23,478

Johnson Space Center 350,434 354,634 376,023 370,764 378,280 342,525

Kennedy Space Center 277,030 278,806 257,364 251,359 246,440 248,364

Langley Research Center 227,885 229,256 227,805 212,500 220,279 226,182

Lewis Research Center 249,629 240,281 221,675 222,192 234,938 261,368

Marshall Space Flight Center 375,132 432,584 378,722 353,140 378,707 379,988

Stennis Space Center 35,374 40,677 35,795 39,295 48,562 49,637

Headquarters 338,137 310,915 289,292 246,349 230,057 192,877

Total Mission Support 2,689,099 2,621,900 2,527,575 2,468,869 2,560,989 2,376,304

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-32, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71. 

918 Included with Ames Research Center.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 421
Table 7-13A. Research and Development/Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Funding by 

Program: FY 1989–FY 1993 (in thousands of dollars) 

Program/Fiscal Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Space Station 900,000 1,749,600 1,900,000 — —

Space Station and New Technology 

Investments

— — — 2,002,800 —

Space Transportation Capability 

Development 

674,000 — 602,500 739,700 —

Launch Services — — — — 180,800

Space Science — — — — 1,510,400

Life and Microgravity Sciences and 

Applications

— — — — 407,500

Earth Science/Mission to Planet Earth 403,400 434,200 — — 936,300

Physics and Astronomy 737,400 859,400 969,200 1,036,700 —

Life Sciences 79,100 106,100 137,400 157,600 —

Planetary Exploration 416,600 390,800 473,700 534,200 —

Space Applications — — 850,800 985,100 —

Materials Processing 75,600 101,900 — — —

Communications 92,200 77,700 — — —

Mission Communication Services — — — — 546,500

Information Systems 19,900 28,200 — — —

Commercial Programs — 56,500 88,000 147,600

Academic Programs — 37,500 55,100 66,800 92,900

Technology Utilization 16,500 — — — —

Commercial Use of Space 28,200 — — —

Aeronautics and Space Transportation 

Technology 

— — — — —

Aeronautical Research and Technology 398,200 442,600 512,000 788,200 769,400

National Aeronautics Facilities — — — — —

Space Access and Technology — — — — —

Advanced Concepts and Technology — — — — 464,900

Transatmospheric Research and 

Technology

69,400 59,000 95,000 4,100 —

Space Research and Technology 285,900 284,100 286,900 —

Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance 22,400 22,600 33,000 33,600 —

Tracking and Data Advanced Systems 18,800 19,400 20,000 22,000 —

Total 4,237,600 4,669,600 6,023,600 6,518,400 4,908,700

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 422
Table 7-13B. Research and Development/Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Funding by 

Program: FY 1994–FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Program/Fiscal Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Space Station — — — — —

Space Station and New Technology 

Investments

— — — — —

Space Transportation Capability 

Development 

— — — — —

Launch Services — — — — —

Space Science 1,920,900 2,032,600 2,175,900 1,969,300 2,043,800

Life and Microgravity Sciences and 

Applications

507,500 467,400 304,200 243,700 214,200

Earth Science/Mission to Planet Earth 1,068,000 1,334,100 1,360,800 1,367,300 1,417,300

Physics and Astronomy — — — — —

Life Sciences — — — — —

Planetary Exploration — — — — —

Space Applications — — — — —

Materials Processing — — — — —

Communications — — — — —

Mission Communication Services 581,000 481,200 449,500 418,600 400,800

Information Systems — — — — —

Commercial Programs — — — — —

Academic Programs 85,500 106,200 — 120,400 130,000

Technology Utilization — — — — —

Commercial Use of Space — — — — —

Aeronautics and Space Transportation 

Technology 

— — 1,270,100 1,339,500 1,483,900

Aeronautical Research and Technology 1,067,200 845,500 — — —

National Aeronautics Facilities — 35,000 — — —

Space Access and Technology 562,400 605,400 — — —

Advanced Concepts and Technology — — — — —

Transatmospheric Research and 

Technology

— — — — —

Space Research and Technology — — — — —

Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance — — — — —

Tracking and Data Advanced Systems — — — — —

Total 5,792,500 5,907,400 5,560,500 5,458,800 5,690,000

Source: Research and Development and Science Aeronautics and Technology General Statements, Annual Budget 

Estimates, FY 1991–FY 2000.

Note: The appearance or disappearance of program funding for any one program listed in this table does not necessarily 

mean the program was new or had been eliminated. The program may have been moved to a different appropriation 

category during a reorganization (for example, Space Station moved to Human Spaceflight), become a subelement of 

another program, or become an independent program after it had been a subelement of another program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 423
Table 7-14A. Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications/Human Spaceflight Funding by 

Program: FY 1989–FY 1993 (in thousands of dollars) 

Program/Fiscal Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Shuttle Production and Operational Capability 1,121,600 1,194,900 1,314,000 1,296,400 —

Space Transportation/Shuttle Operations 2,612,700 2,632,400 2,752,400 3,029,300 —

Space and Ground Networks, Communication 

and Data Systems

717,300 797,500 828,800 903,300 —

Space Shuttle — — — — 3,988,200

Expendable Launch Vehicles — — 229,200 — —

Launch Services — — — 155,800 —

Space Station — — — — 2,162,000

U.S.-Russian Cooperative Program — — — — 79,500

Payload and Utilization Operations — — — — 442,300

Total 4,451,600 4,624,900 5,124,400 5,384,800 6,672,000

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 424
Table 7-14B. Space Flight, Control, and Data Communications/Human Spaceflight Funding by 

Program: FY 1994–FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Program/Fiscal Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Shuttle Production and Operational Capability — — — — —

Space Transportation/Shuttle Operations — — — — —

Space and Ground Networks, Communication

and Data Systems

— — — — —

Space Shuttle 3,558,700 3,155,100 3,143,800 2,960,900 2,912,800

Expendable Launch Vehicles — — — — —

Launch Services — — — — —

Space Station 1,939,200 1,889,600 2,143,600 2,148,600 2,331,300

U.S.-Russian Cooperative Program 170,800 150,100 100,000 300,000 —

Payload and Utilization Operations 405,600 320,100 323,000 265,300 205,400

Total 6,074,300 5,514,900 5,710,400 5,674,800 5,449,500

Source: Space Flight Control and Data Communications and Human Spaceflight General Statements, Annual Budget 

Estimates.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 425
Table 7-15. Total Procurement Award Value by Type of Contractor and Method of Procurement: 

FY 1989–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Type of Contractor Value of 

Award

Percentage 

Awarded

Small Business Firms 10,767.6 8.4

Large Business Firms 89,149.1 69.9

All Business Firms 99,716.7 78.2

Nonprofit Institutions 3,329.9 2.6

Educational Institutions 6,562.5 5.1

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 11,278.1 8.8

Government Agencies 5,416.0 4.2

Contractors Outside the United States 1,240.4 1.0

Total 127,543.6 100.0

Method of Procurement (Business)

Number of Awards with Business Firms 

(thousands)

811.5 83.3

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 426
Table 7-16A. Value of Awards by Type of Contractor and Fiscal Year: FY 1989–FY 1993 (in millions of dollars)

Type of 

Contractor

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage

Business Firms 8,567.6 78.8 10,071.5 80.2 10,417.3 79.2 10,716.7 79.5 10,497.9 79.8

Nonprofit Institutions 180.0 1.7 200.6 1.6 244.0 1.9 297.8 2.2 707.8 5.4

Educational 

Institutions 

464.2 4.3 513.6 4.1 592.0 4.5 659.3 4.9 336.6 2.6

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

1,058.1 9.7 1,106.8 8.8 1,139.6 8.7 1,229.6 9.1 1,029.8 7.8

Government 

Agencies

543.2 5.0 610.4 4.9 693.4 5.3 498.6 3.7 508.4 3.9

Contractors Outside 

the United States

63.3 0.6 62.3 0.5 72.7 0.6 76.2 0.6 79.9 0.6

Total 10,876.4 100.1 12,565.2 100.1 13,159.0 100.2 13,478.2 100.0 13,160.4 100.1

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 427
Table 7-16B. Value of Awards by Type of Contractor and Fiscal Year: FY 1994–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Type of Contractor

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e 

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Business Firms 9,965.7 77.2 10,311.5 77.3 9,800.8 77.2 9,817.2 76.8 9,550.5 76.0

Nonprofit Institutions 311.0 2.4 311.1 2.3 287.9 2.3 383.4 3.0 406.3 3.2

Educational 

Institutions 

730.9 5.7 814.4 6.1 745.7 5.9 807.7 6.3 898.1 7.1

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

1,093.4 8.5 1,135.0 8.5 1,188.3 9.4 1,126.2 8.8 1,171.3 9.3

Government Agencies 642.6 5.0 562.7 4.2 484.7 3.8 464.3 3.6 407.7 3.2

Contractors Outside 

the United States

169.5 1.3 206.7 1.5 191.8 1.5 190.7 1.5 127.3 1.0

Total 12,913.1 100.1 13,341.4 99.9 12,699.2 100.1 12,789.5 100.0 12,561.2 99.80

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 428
Table 7-17A. Value of Awards to Small and Large Business Firms by Fiscal Year: FY 1989–FY 1993 

Type of Business

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Small Business Firms 857.3919 10.0 924.3920 9.2 968.3921 9.3 1,010.6922 9.4 1,060.7923 10.1

Large Business Firms 7,710.3 90.0 9,147.2 90.8 9,449.0 90.7 9,706.1 90.6 9,437.2 89.9

Total 8,567.6 100.0 10,071.5 100.0 10,417.3 100.0 10,716.7 100.0 10,497.9 100.0

919 Includes $184.7 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $51.8 million awarded 

through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.

920 Includes $212.7 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $61.6 million awarded 

through the SBIR Program.

921 Includes $225.6 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $69.3 million awarded 

through the SBIR Program.

922 Includes $232.1 million awarded to small disadvantaged firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $79.0 million 

awarded through the SBIR Program.

923 Includes $232.1 million awarded to small disadvantaged firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $79.0 million 

awarded through the SBIR Program.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 429
Table 7-17B. Value of Awards to Small and Large Business Firms by Fiscal Year: FY 1994–FY 1998 

Type of Business

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Small Business Firms 1,150.2924 11.5 1,171.2925 11.4 1,162.5926 11.9 1,244.2927 12.7 1,218.3928 12.8

Large Business Firms 8,815.5 88.5 9,140.3 88.6 8,638.3 90.2 8,573.0 87.2 8,332.2 87.2

Total 9,965.7 100.0 10,311.5 100.0 9,800.8 100.1 9,817.2 100.0 9,550.5 100.0

924 Includes $314.2 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $117.6 million awarded 

through the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT) Programs.

925 Includes $264.8 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $86.0 million awarded 

through the SBIR Program.

926 Includes $342.5 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $127.2 million awarded 

through the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs.

927 Includes $329.2 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $128.3 million awarded 

through the SBIR and SBTT Programs.

928 Includes $335.1 million awarded to small minority firms under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also includes $134.6 million awarded 

through the SBIR and SBTT Programs.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 430
Table 7-18. Total Number of Procurement Actions by Type of Contractor: FY 1989–FY 1998 (in 

thousands) 

Type of Contractor Number 

(thousands)

Percentage

Small Business Firms 576.5 71

Large Business Firms 235 29

All Business Firms 811.5 83.3

Nonprofit Institutions 23.6 2.4

Educational Institutions 79.2 8.1

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 17.7 1.8

Government Agencies 38.8 4.0

Contractors Outside the United States 3.7 0.4

Total 974.5 100.00

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 431
Table 7-19A. Number of Procurement Actions by Type of Contractor and Fiscal Year: FY 1989–FY 1993 (actions in thousands) 

Type of Contractor

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Business Firms 95.1 86.9 99.5 86.3 97.5 85.6 94.8 84.8 92.8 83.7

Nonprofit Institutions 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.6

Educational 

Institutions 

6.4 5.9 7.0 6.1 7.6 6.7 8.2 7.3 8.2 7.4

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.1

Government Agencies 3.8 3.5 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.4 4.3 3.9

Contractors Outside 

the United States

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Total 109.4 100.0 115.3 100.0 113.9 100.0 111.8 100.0 110.9 100.1

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 432
Table 7-19B. Number of Procurement Actions by Type of Contractor and Fiscal Year: FY 1994–FY 1998 (actions in thousands) 

Type of Contractor

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Business Firms 72.8 80.7 90.0 83.6 59.5 80.3 58.9 79.7 50.6 75.2

Nonprofit Institutions 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.2 13.4

Educational 

Institutions 

7.6 8.4 9.8 9.1 7.5 10.1 7.9 10.7 9.0 3.3

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory

3.5 3.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.2

Government Agencies 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.7 4.0 5.4 3.7 5.0 3.6 5.3

Contractors Outside 

the United States

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6

Total 90.2 99.9 107.7 100.0 74.1 100.0 73.9 100.0 67.3 100

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 433
Table 7-20A. Number of Procurement Actions Awarded to Small and Large Business Firms by Fiscal Year: FY 1989–FY 1993 (number 

in thousands) 

Type of 

Business

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Small 

Business 

Firms

68.9 72.5 73 73.4 70.3 72.1 68.7 72.5 67.2 72.4

Large 

Business 

Firms

26.2 27.5 26.5 26.6 27.2 27.9 26.1 27.5 25.6 27.6

Total 95.1 100.0 99.5 100.0 97.5 100.0 94.8 100.0 92.8 100.0

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 434
Table 7-20B. Number of Procurement Actions Awarded to Small and Large Business Firms by Fiscal Year: FY 1994–FY 1998 (number 

in thousands) 

Type of 

Business

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Small 

Business 

Firms

52.7 72.4 63.4 70.4 40.1 67.4 39.8 67.6 32.4 64.0

Large 

Business 

Firms

20.1 27.6 26.6 29.6 19.4 32.6 19.1 32.4 18.2 36.0

Total 72.8 100.0 90 100.0 59.5 100.0 58.9 100.0 50.6 100.0

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 435
Table 7-21A. Value of Awards to Business Firms by Type of Procurement and Fiscal Year: FY 1989–FY 1993 (in millions of dollars) 

Type of Action

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Competitive 6,995.8 80.4 8,318.4 81.5 8,169.8 77.3 8,660.9 79.6 8,635.6 81.1

Noncompetitive 1,376.3 15.8 1,338.5 13.1 782.8 7.4 780.2 7.2 699.0 6.6

Follow-on 333.4 3.8 545.4 5.4 1,610.1 15.3 1,436.2 13.2 1,314.5 12.3

Total929 8,795.5 100.0 10,202.3 100.0 10,562.7 100.0 10,877.3 100.0 10,649.1 100.0

929 Does not include new contracts valued below $10,000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 436
Table 7-21B. Value of Awards to Business Firms by Type of Procurement and Fiscal Year: FY 1994–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Type of Action

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e 

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Competitive 7,202.3 71.0 6,944.6 66.0 6,486.7 64.5 5,399.4 54.0 5,255.3 54.2

Noncompetitive 1,790.2 17.7 2,532.2 24.0 2,661.2 26.4 3,816.1 38.1 3,643.1 37.6

Follow-on 1,145.9 11.3 1,048.8 10.0 916.4 9.1 789.3 7.9 797.8 8.2

Total930 10,138.4 100.0 10,525.6 100.0 10,064.3 100.0 10,004.8 100.0 9,696.2 100.0

930 Does not include new contracts valued below $10,000.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 437
Table 7-22A. Value and Percentage of Direct Awards to Business Firms by Contract Type: FY 1989–FY 1993 (awards in millions)931

Pricing Provision

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e 

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Firm-Fixed-Price 765.3 9.2 952.4 9.7 980.4 9.7 1,057.6 10.2 893.2 8.7

Incentive 1,454.1 17.5 1,443.9 14.7 362.1 3.6 371.2 3.6 256.2 2.5

Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 5,190.0 62.3 6,478.4 65.8 7,693.0 75.8 7,865.5 75.5 7,770.5 76.0

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee 823.3 9.9 826.8 8.4 810.8 8.0 740.3 7.1 964.8 9.4

Other932 96.6 1.2 141.7 1.4 302.5 3.0 384.8 3.7 337.9 3.3

Total 8,329.3 100.0 9,843.2 100.0 10,148.8 100.0 10,419.4 100.0 10,222.6 100.0

931 Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less) and orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts.

932 “Other” includes fixed-price redetermination, economic price adjustment, cost-no-fee, cost-sharing, labor-hour, and time and material awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 438
Table 7-22B. Value and Percentage of Direct Awards to Business Firms by Contract Type: FY 1994–FY 1998 (awards in millions)933

Pricing Provision

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Firm-Fixed-Price 837.2 8.7 912.0 9.2 966.5 10.2 1,035.3 11.1 1,005.1 11.2

Incentive 222.5 2.3 446.9 4.5 577.4 6.1 1,700.3 18.2 1,957.4 21.8

Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 7,540.6 78.4 7,483.7 75.6 6,826.5 72.3 5,520.2 59.2 4,954.7 55.2

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee 696.1 7.2 666.2 6.7 629.0 6.7 572.3 6.1 529.5 5.9

Other 327.2 3.4 384.4 3.9 441.6 4.7 495.5 5.3 523.9 5.8

Total 9,623.6 100.0 9,893.2 100.0 9,441 100.0 9,323.6 100.0 8,970.6 100.0

933 Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less) and orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 439
Table 7-23A. Number and Percentage of Procurement Actions in Direct Awards to Business Firms by Contract Pricing: FY 1989–FY 

1993 

Pricing Provision

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Firm-Fixed-Price 5,880 47.8 6,120 46.1 7,233 46.9 9,013 54.7 9,974 57.0

Incentive 246 2.0 208 1.6 265 1.7 151 0.9 140 0.8

Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 2,186 17.8 2,500 18.8 2,785 18.1 2,647 16.1 2,565 14.7

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee 3,475 28.3 4,015 30.2 4,588 29.8 4,168 25.3 4,195 24.0

Other934 506 4.1 435 3.3 547 3.5 496 3.0 617 3.5

Total 12,293 100.0 13,278 100.0 15,418 100.0 16,475 100.0 17,491 100.0

934 Includes fixed-price redetermination, economic price adjustment, cost-no-fee, cost-sharing, labor-hour, and time and material awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 440
Table 7-23B. Number and Percentage of Procurement Actions in Direct Awards to Business Firms by Contract Pricing: FY 1994–FY 

1998 

Pricing Provision

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Number Percentag

e

Firm-Fixed-Price 9,306 55.8 9,634 56.9 10,468 58.9 11,693 63.8 10,589 64.4

Incentive 94 0.6 338 2.0 208 1.2 302 1.6 688 4.2

Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 2,721 16.3 2,476 14.6 2,423 13.6 2,437 13.3 2,088 12.7

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee 3,913 23.5 3,711 21.9 3,734 21.0 3,072 16.8 2,405 14.6

Other 632 3.8 785 4.6 925 5.2 818 4.5 679 4.1

Total 16,666 100.0 16,944 100.0 17,758 100.0 18,322 100.0 16,449 100.0

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 441
Table 7-24A. Value of Prime Contract Awards by State and Percentage of Total Contracts Awarded: FY 1989–FY 1993 (number in 

thousands) 

State

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Alabama 698,959 7.7 1,121,914 10.6 1,132,872 10.3 1,232,905 10.8 1,234,764 10.9

Alaska 3,484 * 7,702 0.1 6,725 0.1 8,618 0.1 20,063 0.2

Arizona 29,008 0.3 28,028 0.3 32,393 0.3 43,651 0.4 35,734 0.3

Arkansas 190 * 197 * 343 * 407 * 519 *

California 2,727,664 30.2 3,147,758 29.7 3,100,916 28.1 3,110,769 27.2 3,083,877 27.3

Colorado 137,546 1.5 235,470 2.2 265,907 2.4 195,956 1.7 112,823 1.0

Connecticut 81,080 0.9 67,116 0.6 60,323 0.5 73,623 0.6 57,358 0.5

Delaware 2,421 * 2,216 * 3,128 * 3,212 * 2,814 *

District of 

Columbia

70,758 0.8 81,666 0.8 95,436 0.9 130,783 1.1 140,930 1.2

Florida 1,232,891 13.7 1,340,936 12.6 1,487,017 13.5 1,498,227 13.1 1,377,189 12.2

Georgia 22,546 0.2 16,653 0.2 17,756 0.2 13,438 0.1 25,028 0.2

Hawaii 6,337 0.1 7,204 0.1 7,434 0.1 8,420 0.1 9,882 0.1

Idaho 1,692 * 1,717 * 1,733 * 2,774 * (424) *

Illinois 23,989 0.3 25,226 0.2 17,417 0.2 17,118 0.1 15,954 0.1

Indiana 19,210 0.2 19,455 0.2 18,399 0.2 12,102 0.1 18,546 0.2

Iowa 13,960 0.2 5,187 0.0 10,303 0.1 11,512 0.1 7,736 0.1

Kansas 24,669 0.3 8,727 0.1 3,754 0.03 2,162 0.02 7,043 0.1

Kentucky 1,668 * 2,493 * 2,926 * 1,284 * 892 *

Louisiana 307,612 3.4 359,370 3.4 394,068 3.6 373,055 3.3 316,588 2.8

Maine 777 * 673 * 951 * 1,326 * 826 *

Maryland 753,116 8.3 802,463 7.6 895,979 8.1 953,479 8.3 1,124,045 9.9

Massachusetts 79,392 0.9 96,398 0.9 112,796 1.0 137,717 1.2 146,072 1.3

Michigan 20,693 0.2 24,234 0.2 30,904 0.3 44,058 0.4 38,598 0.3

Minnesota 7,107 0.1 7,362 0.1 6,983 0.1 5,869 0.1 5,652 0.05

Mississippi 85,353 0.9 103,907 1.0 318,588 2.9 324,116 2.8 264,228 2.3

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 442
State

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Missouri 24,107 0.3 19,794 0.2 16,620 0.2 10,475 0.1 9,825 0.1

Montana 490 * 772 * 663 * 1,229 * 1,422 *

Nebraska 717 * 717 * 836 * 1,427 * 1,731 *

Nevada 818 * 976 * 1,186 * 1,600 * 953 *

New Hampshire 9,009 0.1 12,517 0.1 12,594 0.1 14,537 0.1 15,330 0.1

New Jersey 126,355 1.4 186,176 1.8 144,548 1.3 120,670 1.1 194,920 1.7

New Mexico 48,292 0.5 54,456 0.5 57,120 0.5 57,344 0.5 63,999 0.6

New York 63,381 0.7 77,776 0.7 61,196 0.6 58,447 0.5 57,349 0.5

North Carolina 12,318 0.1 12,206 0.1 10,663 0.1 11,915 0.1 10,865 0.1

North Dakota 111 * 62 * 181 * 457 * 370 *

Ohio 182,877 2.0 214,031 2.0 256,745 2.3 291,195 2.5 324,700 2.9

Oklahoma 4,503 0.05 4,041 * 5,934 0.1 7,263 0.1 7,723 0.1

Oregon 6,139 0.1 5,128 0.0 5,986 0.1 7,998 0.1 8,334 0.1

Pennsylvania 199,492 2.2 228,605 2.2 188,386 1.7 190,168 1.7 115,217 1.0

Rhode Island 2,105 * 3,018 * 2,893 * 3,549 * 4,470 *

South Carolina 2,120 * 1,202 * 1,790 * 1,609 * 3,289 *

South Dakota 554 * 432 * 694 * 802 * 1,158 *

Tennessee 29,523 0.3 29,535 0.3 36,728 0.3 33,035 0.3 40,670 0.4

Texas 1,101,607 12.2 1,250,982 11.8 1,236,002 11.2 1,290,889 11.3 1,274,392 11.3

Utah 428,591 4.7 509,201 4.8 444,878 4.0 528,606 4.6 489,237 4.3

Vermont 477 * 480 * 793 * 515 * 67 *

Virginia 357,901 4.0 371,805 3.5 432,317 3.9 504,850 4.4 537,196 4.7

Washington 26,884 0.3 68,013 0.6 39,219 0.4 38,957 0.3 33,736 0.3

West Virginia 413 * 1,526 * 4,213 0.04 10,936 0.1 34,528 0.3

Wisconsin 45,050 0.5 40,200 0.4 48,566 0.4 39,585 0.3 38,150 0.3

Wyoming 188 * 259 * 186 * 640 * 542 *

Total 9,026,144 100.0 10,607,982 100.0 11,035,988 100.0 11,435,359 100.0 11,316,910 100.0

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 443
Note: Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less); also excludes awards placed through other government agencies, awards outside the United States, 

and actions on the JPL contracts.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 444
Table 7-24B. Value of Prime Contract Awards by State and Percentage of Total Contracts Awarded: FY 1994–FY 1998 (number in 

thousands) 

State

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Alabama 841,145 7.8 664,756 5.9 656,030 6.2 609,665 5.6 517,542 4.9

Alaska 13,410 0.1 11,047 0.1 9,244 0.1 20,311 0.2 12,662 0.1

Arizona 68,473 0.6 76,227 0.7 71,234 0.7 56,274 0.5 57,670 0.5

Arkansas 1,468 * 1,899 * 731 * 572 * 2,271 *

California 2,405,595 22.3 2,369,156 21.1 2,133,903 20.0 1,903,616 17.6 1,894,298 17.8

Colorado 118,292 1.1 115,914 1.0 130,385 1.2 180,796 1.7 201,182 1.9

Connecticut 62,373 0.6 64,627 0.6 94,447 0.9 89,001 0.8 96,865 0.9

Delaware 3,647 * 2,874 * 2,616 * 4,748 * 3,738 *

District of 

Columbia

151,437 1.4 105,070 0.9 67,092 0.6 71,302 0.7 41,943 0.4

Florida 1,298,021 12.1 1,281,223 11.4 1,110,241 10.4 450,850 4.2 489,079 4.6

Georgia 31,753 0.3 31,801 0.3 26,411 0.2 25,873 0.2 23,823 0.2

Hawaii 8,792 0.1 9,422 0.1 8,640 0.1 11,446 0.1 22,830 0.2

Idaho 388 * 417 * 367 * 728 * 910 *

Illinois 15,852 0.1 19,427 0.2 19,665 0.2 18,453 0.2 15,821 0.1

Indiana 35,643 0.3 35,062 0.3 42,046 0.4 43,185 0.4 65,481 0.6

Iowa 6,700 0.1 7,871 0.1 9,031 0.1 8,314 0.1 11,269 0.1

Kansas 6,283 0.1 5,915 0.1 3,330 0.0 4,132 * 5,890 0.1

Kentucky 2,719 * 1,483 * 2,251 * 1,679 * 1,839 *

Louisiana 275,737 2.6 383,506 3.4 362,353 3.4 362,770 3.4 351,450 3.3

Maine 729 * 1,987 * 1,285 * 910 * 2,434 *

Maryland 1,122,730 10.4 1,147,542 10.2 1,159,418 10.9 1,221,856 11.3 1,150,960 10.8

Massachusetts 140,138 1.3 158,716 1.4 145,492 1.4 131,759 1.2 128,731 1.2

Michigan 26,765 0.2 33,382 0.3 24,377 0.2 31,201 0.3 33,935 0.3

Minnesota 4,889 0.05 9,552 0.1 10,521 0.1 7,109 0.1 9,720 0.1

Mississippi 196,329 1.8 139,987 1.2 129,255 1.2 137,807 1.3 159,073 1.5

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 445
State

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Missouri 9,837 0.1 15,169 0.1 16,123 0.2 20,588 0.2 23,226 0.2

Montana 1,969 * 2,607 * 6,380 0.1 5,162 0.05 6,640 0.1

Nebraska 2,031 * 2,029 * 1,544 * 2,689 * 2,576 *

Nevada 680 * 2,261 * 1,707 0.02 2,680 * 2,666 *

New Hampshire 15,153 0.1 14,832 0.1 19,013 0.2 15,658 0.1 20,062 0.2

New Jersey 213,350 2.0 280,863 2.5 179,687 1.7 165,611 1.5 122,261 1.1

New Mexico 55,379 0.5 59,390 0.5 55,132 0.5 60,128 0.6 62,290 0.6

New York 45,397 0.4 48,291 0.4 44,903 0.4 50,273 0.5 56,412 0.5

North Carolina 15,873 0.1 15,712 0.1 12,498 0.1 18,689 0.2 15,171 0.1

North Dakota 524 * 759 * 941 * 1,393 * 3,124 *

Ohio 349,755 3.2 404,692 3.6 324,525 3.0 320,619 3.0 318,385 3.0

Oklahoma 8,829 0.1 7,029 0.1 9,232 0.1 6,952 0.1 10,449 0.1

Oregon 11,988 0.1 8,788 0.1 3,534 0.03 10,764 0.1 9,793 0.1

Pennsylvania 78,381 0.7 95,167 0.8 36,322 0.3 75,238 0.7 56,672 0.5

Rhode Island 4,381 * 4,519 * 2,807 0.03 3,553 * 3,733 *

South Carolina 4,728 * 3,316 * 2,757 0.03 3,644 * 2,695 *

South Dakota 2,751 * 1,675 * 1,461 * 2,828 * 3,283 *

Tennessee 24,963 0.2 21,736 0.2 22,271 0.2 22,136 0.2 22,384 0.2

Texas 2,064,289 19.2 2,495,761 22.3 2,606,413 24.5 3,640,764 33.7 3,658,466 34.4

Utah 452,152 4.2 451,922 4.0 402,349 3.8 432,334 4.0 379,121 3.6

Vermont 543 * 912 0.01 1,505 * 1,120 * 985 *

Virginia 426,269 4.0 437,858 3.9 448,075 4.2 380,425 3.5 398,506 3.7

Washington 70,162 0.7 89,915 0.8 104,123 1.0 127,665 1.2 114,422 1.1

West Virginia 29,759 0.3 29,785 0.3 29,314 0.3 28,234 0.3 38,000 0.4

Wisconsin 40,550 0.4 38,375 0.3 34,362 0.3 21,110 0.2 15,681 0.1

Wyoming 1,130 * 1,035 * 329 * 1,350 * 1,129 *

Total 10,770,131 100.0 11,213,261 100.0 10,587,672 100.0 10,815,964 100.0 10,649,548 100.0

* = Less than 0.05 percent.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 446
Note: Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less); also excludes awards placed through other government agencies, awards outside the United States, 

and actions on the JPL contracts.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 447
Table 7-25. Distribution of Prime Contract Awards by Region: FY 1989–FY 1998 

Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Net Value of Awards (in millions of dollars)935

New England936 173 180 190 231 224 223 246 265 242 253 2,227

Mideast/MidAtlantic937

1,216 1,379 1,389 1,457 1,635 1,615 1,680 1,540 1,589 1,432

14,932 

Southeast938 2,751 3,362 3,839 4,006 3,846 3,149 3,013 2,803 2,042 2,022 30,833

Plains939 71 42 40 33 33 33 43 44 48 59 446

Great Lakes940 292 323 372 404 436 469 531 445 435 449 4,156

Southwest941 1,183 1,338 1,332 1,399 1,382 2,197 2,638 2,742 3,764 3,789 21,764

Rocky Mountain942 569 747 713 729 604 574 572 541 620 589 6,258

Far West943 2,761 3,222 3,147 3,159 3,127 2,488 2,470 2,249 2,045 2,021 26,689

Alaska and Hawaii 10 15 14 17 30 22 20 18 31 35 212

Total 9,026 10,608 11,036 11,435 11,317 10,770 11,213 10,647 10,816 10,649 107,517

Percentage of Total

New England 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.1

Mideast/Mid-Atlantic 13.5 13.0 12.6 12.7 14.4 15.0 15.0 14.5 14.7 13.4 13.9

Southeast 30.5 31.7 34.8 35.0 34.0 29.2 26.9 26.3 18.9 19.0 28.7

Plains 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4

Great Lakes 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.7 4.2 4.0 4.2 3.9

Southwest 13.1 12.6 12.1 12.2 12.2 20.4 23.5 25.8 34.8 35.6 20.2

Rocky Mountain 6.3 7.0 6.5 6.4 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.7 5.5 5.8

935 Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less); also excludes awards placed through other government agencies, awards outside the United States, 

and awards on the JPL contract.

936 The New England region consists of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

937 The Mideast/Mid-Atlantic region consists of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware.

938 The Southeast region consists of West Virginia, Alabama, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, 

Arkansas, and Florida.

939 The Plains region consists of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.

940 The Great Lakes region consists of Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois.

941 The Southwest region consists of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.

942 The Rocky Mountain region consists of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.

943 The Far West region consists of Washington, Oregon, California, and Nevada.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 448
Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Far West 30.6 30.4 28.5 27.6 27.6 23.1 22.0 21.1 18.9 19.0 24.8

Alaska and Hawaii 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percentage Change of Prime Contract Award Value from Previous Year

New England 14.6 4.0 5.6 21.6 –3.0 –0.4 10.3 7.7 –8.7 4.5 4.0

Mideast 22.3 13.4 0.7 4.9 12.2 –1.2 4.0 –8.3 3.2 –9.9 13.4

Southeast 25.0 22.2 14.2 4.4 –4.0 –18.1 –4.3 –7.0 –27.1 –1.0 22.2

Plains 36.5 –40.8 –4.8 –17.5 0.0 0.0 30.3 2.3 9.1 22.9 –40.8

Great Lakes 23.2 10.6 15.2 8.6 7.9 7.6 13.2 –16.2 –2.2 3.2 10.6

Southwest 20.3 13.1 –0.4 5.0 –1.2 59.0 20.1 3.9 37.3 0.7 13.1

Rocky Mountain 10.1 31.3 –4.6 2.2 –17.1 –5.0 –0.3 –5.4 14.6 –5.0 31.3

Far West 13.5 16.7 –2.3 0.4 –1.0 –20.4 –0.7 –8.9 –9.1 –1.2 16.7

Alaska and Hawaii 3.1 50.0 –6.7 21.4 76.5 –26.7 –9.1 –10.0 72.2 12.9 50.0

United States 19.6 17.5 4.0 3.6 –1.0 –4.8 4.1 –5.0 1.6 –1.5 17.5

Note: Excludes smaller procurements (generally $25,000 or less); also excludes awards placed through other government agencies, awards outside the United States, 

and awards on the JPL contracts.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 449
Table 7-26A. Total Value and Percentage of Awards by Installation: FY 1989–FY 1993 (in millions of dollars) 

Installation

FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentag

e

Ames Research Center944 450.6 4.1 482.8 3.8 520.2 3.9 568.0 4.2 567.2 4.3

Dryden Flight Research 

Center

— — — — — — — — — —

Goddard Space Flight 

Center

1,606.7 14.8 1,823.6 14.4 2,003.8 15.2 2,044.3 15.2 2,181.2 16.6

Johnson Space Center 2,304.0 21.2 2,760.4 22.0 2,641.9 20.1 2,686.9 19.9 2,644.4 20.1

Kennedy Space Center 1,179.5 10.8 1,275.9 10.2 1,409.7 10.7 1,484.6 11.0 1,415.4 10.8

Langley Research Center 384.0 3.5 399.7 3.2 404.6 3.1 436.0 3.2 436.1 3.3

Lewis Research Center 542.5 5.0 686.5 5.5 812.4 6.2 831.6 6.2 873.5 6.6

Marshall Space Flight 

Center

2,649.4 24.4 3,154.6 25.1 3,124.8 23.7 3,234.1 24.0 3,001.8 22.8

NASA Resident 

Office/JPL

1,063.3 9.8 1,138.5 9.1 1,173.8 8.9 1,263.7 9.4 1,068.4 8.1

Stennis Space Center 96.4 0.9 112.6 0.9 113.0 0.9 120.4 0.9 109.0 0.8

Headquarters 600.0 5.5 730.6 5.8 954.8 7.3 808.6 6.0 863.4 6.6

Total 10,876.4 100.0 12,565.2 100.0 13,159.0 100.0 13,478.2 100.0 13,160.4 100

944 FY 1989–FY 1994: includes Dryden awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 450
Table 7-26B. Total Value and Percentage of Awards by Installation: FY 1994–FY 1998 (in millions of dollars) 

Installation

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Value Percentag

e

Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage Value Percentage

Ames Research Center 594.1 4.6 560.8 4.2 533.3 4.2 507.1 4.0 493.1 3.9

Dryden Flight Research 

Center

— — 96.0 0.7 108.4 0.8 132.4 1.0 156.6 1.3

Goddard Space Flight 

Center

2,221.8 17.2 2,354.4 17.6 2,381.7 18.8 2,719.6 21.3 2,752.

7

21.9

Johnson Space Center 1,952.4 15.1 1,754.0 13.1 3,291.7 25.9 3,998.4 31.3 3,958.

4

31.5

Kennedy Space Center 1,315.0 10.2 1,257.2 9.4 1,090.8 8.6 446.3 3.5 454.7 3.6

Langley Research Center 507.0 3.9 528.9 4.0 489.3 3.9 544.7 4.3 501.4 4.0

Lewis Research Center 776.5 6.0 759.2 5.7 635.9 5.0 592.9 4.6 583.5 4.7

Marshall Space Flight 

Center

2,493.2 19.3 2,501.8 18.8 2,234.9 17.6 2,321.3 18.1 2,075.

4

16.5

NASA Resident 

Office/JPL

1,118.1 8.7 1,162.9 8.7 1,211.3 9.5 1,140,1 8.9 1,192.

0

9.5

Stennis Space Center 120.2 0.9 128.5 1.0 143.3 1.1 169.5 1.3 224.6 1.8

Headquarters 811.7 6.3 774.5 5.8 578.6 4.6 217.2 1.7 168.8 1.3

Space Station Program 

Office/Space Station 

Alpha 

1,003.1 7.8 1,463.2 11.0 — — — — — —

Total 12,913.1 100.0 13,314.4 100.0 12,699.2 100.0 12,789.5 100.0 12,561

.2

100.0

Source: Tables 5-22, 5-27, 5-32, 5-37, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 5-56, 5-61, 5-66, 5-71. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 451
Table 7-27. Ranking of NASA’s Top 10 Contractors: FY 1989–FY 1998 

Contractor 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Rockwell International 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 — —

Lockheed Space Operations 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 37 37 36

McDonnell Douglas 3 2 2 2 2 4 5 6 6 4

Thiokol 4 5 7 5 5 6 6 5 4 5

Martin Marietta 5 4 4 7 8 5 3 —945 — —

General Electric 6 6 9 9 9 48 27 21 18 20

Rockwell Space Operations/Boeing 

North American

7 8 8 8 7 7 8 7 9946 7

Boeing Co. 8 7 5 6 4 1 1 1 1 1

Lockheed Engineering and Science 9 11 10 10 10 12 13 12947 5 8

Ford Aerospace 10 15 —948 — — — — — — —

Lockheed Missiles and Space 17 9 6 4 6 11 17 — — —

Computer Sciences Corp. 13 14 12 11 14 8 7 10 10 10

Allied-Signal Technical Services 11949 — — — — 9 10 9 7 6

TRW Inc. 12 10 14 14 13 10 9 8 8 9

United Space Alliance — — — — — — — 4950 2 2

Lockheed Martin Corp. — — — — — — — 2 3 3

Note: During the second half of the decade, a number of companies that held NASA contracts acquired other companies, merged, and reconfigured themselves. 

Some legacy contracts awarded in past years to companies that “no longer existed” as independent entities may still have been in force during part of the decade.

945 Merged with Lockheed to become Lockheed Martin, ranked no. 2 in FY 1996.

946 Became Boeing North American.

947 Became Lockheed Martin Engineering & Science Co.

948 Became Loral Aerospace, was not ranked in top 10.

949 Called AlliedSignal Aerospace.

950 Formed from Rockwell International and Lockheed Martin Space Operations Co. in 1995.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 452
Table 7-28. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1989 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rockwell International Corp.

Downey, CA

1 1,691,857 19.75

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

2 552,297 6.45

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

5 506,009 5.91

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

3 419,712 4.90

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

4 354,973 4.14

General Electric Co.

King of Prussia, PA

7 299,894 3.50

Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

— 286,755 3.35

Boeing Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

6 235,805 2.75

Lockheed Engineering & Science Co.

Houston, TX

9 216,514 2.53

Ford Aerospace Corp.

Palo Alto, CA 

15 196,254 2.29

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL

8 196,037 2.29

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA

13 193,362 2.26

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

12 191,937 2.24

EG&G Florida Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

10 186,833 2.18

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

— 158,394 1.85

Bendix Field Engineering Corp.951

Columbia, MD

— 156,021 1.82

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

Sunnyvale, CA

14 145,071 1.69

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

16 133,105 1.55

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

17 101,718 1.19

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Reston, VA 

19 80,192 .94

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Middleburgh Heights, OH

25 65,479 .76

951 Part of Allied-Signal since 1985.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 453
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Pan American World Services Inc.

Stennis Space Center, MS

20 60,074 .70

Teledyne Industries Inc.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

23 52,407 .61

Contel Corp.

Gaithersburg, MD

18 51,007 .60

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

28 48,226 .56

Boeing Technical Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

22 41,358 .48

Planning Research Corp.

Hampton, VA 

21 39,323 .46

Fairchild Industries Inc.

Germantown, MD

32 37,528 .44

Aerojet General Corp.

Sacramento, CA

35 37,469 .44

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Moffett Field, CA

30 35,564 .42

Orbital Sciences Corp. (S)

Denver, CO

29 34,800 .41

Unisys Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

34 34,048 .40

Atlis Federal Services Inc.

Moffett Field, CA

— 31,471 .37

Perkin Elmer Corp.

Danbury, CT

27 31,388 .37

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA

33 30,821 .36

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

24 30,283 .35

Raytheon Service Co.

Greenbelt, MD

26 30,098 .35

Bionetics Corp. (S)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

56 29,914 .35

ST Systems Corp.

Greenbelt, MD (S) (D)

50 29,606 .35

LTV Aerospace & Defense Co.

Dallas, TX

41 25,400 .30

Grumman Data Systems Corp.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

44 22,566 .26

Ball Corp.

Boulder, CO 

38 21,188 .25

Krug International Corp.

Houston, TX

43 20,747 .24

Wyle Laboratories 37 18,848 .22

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 454
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Hampton, VA

Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

Allentown, PA

47 18,814 .22

Northrop Worldwide Aircraft

Houston, TX

45 17,676 .21

Lockheed Corp.

Burbank, CA

40 17,089 .20

Engineering and Economics Research (S) (D)

Beltsville, MD

46 17,079 .20

Cortez III Service Corp. (S) (D)

Cleveland, OH

52 16,531 .19

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX

— 15,595 .18

Total Top 50 7,265,137 84.83

Other952 1,302,439 15.17

Total Awards to Business Firms 8,567,576 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business concern; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

952 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 455
Table 7-29. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1990 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rockwell International Corp.

Downey, CA

1 1,746,840 17.34

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

3 850,639 8.45

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

2 583,473 5.79

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

5 507,292 5.04

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

4 498,437 4.95

General Electric Co.

King of Prussia, PA

6 401,589 3.99

Boeing Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

8 398,881 3.96

Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

7 308,708 3.07

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

17 293,908 2.92

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA 

12 241,408 2.40

Lockheed Engineering and Science Co.

Houston, TX

9 233,702 2.32

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL

11 232,860 2.31

EG&G Florida Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

14 191,087 1.90

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

13 182,613 1.81

Ford Aerospace Corp.

Palo Alto, CA 

10 174,485 1.73

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

15 164,616 1.63

Bendix Field Engineering Corp.

Columbia, MD

16 155,960 1.55

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

18 136,099 1.35

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

19 101,521 1.01

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Reston, VA 

20 85,637 .85

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Middleburgh Heights, OH

21 79,373 .79

Teledyne Industries Inc. 23 73,426 .73

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 456
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Contel Corp.

Gaithersburg, MD

24 64,952 .64

Pan American World Services Inc.

Stennis Space Center, MS

22 64,794 .64

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX 

50 53,038 .53

Fairchild Industries Inc.

Germantown, MD

28 44,340 .44

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

25 43,135 .43

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

36 38,367 .38

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Moffett Field, CA 

30 37,597 .37

Unisys Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

32 37,003 .37

Bionetics Corp. (S)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

38 36,398 .36

Orbital Sciences Corp. (S)

Denver, CO

31 34,848 .35

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA

35 33,696 .33

ST Systems Corp.

Greenbelt, MD (S) (D)

39 32,693 .32

Stoddard Hamilton Aircraft (S)

Arlington, WA

— 32,575 .32

Sterling Software Inc.

Moffett Field, CA

— 32,180 .32

Planning Research Corp.

Washington, DC

27 29,732 .30

Raytheon Service Co.

Greenbelt, MD

37 29,701 .29

Grumman Data Systems Corp.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

41 27,976 .28

Cortez III Service Corp. (S) (D)

Cleveland, OH

49 27,357 .27

Aerojet General Corp.

Sacramento, CA

29 24,966 .25

Harris Space Systems Corp.

Rockledge, FL

— 24,642 .24

Krug International Corp.

Houston, TX

43 24,010 .24

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 457
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Hughes Danbury Optical Systems

Danbury, CT953

34954 23,337 .23

Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

Allentown, PA 

45 19,558 .19

Ball Corp.

Boulder, CO

42 19,465 .19

Northrop Worldwide Aircraft

Houston, TX

46 19,235 .19

Lockheed Corp.

Burbank, CA

47 17,880 .18

Honeywell Federal Systems Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

60 17,540 .17

Analex Corp.

Fairview Park, OH

51 17,437 .17

Total Top 50 8,551,006 84.88

Other955 1,520,524 15.12

Total Awards to Business Firms 10,071,530 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business concern; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

953 Formerly Perkin Elmer Corp.

954 Ranking of Perkin Elmer Corp.

955 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 458
Table 7-30. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1991 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rockwell International Corp.

Canoga Park, CA

1 1,559,634 14.97

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

2 1,089,205 10.45

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

3 591,449 5.68

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

4 571,732 5.49

Boeing Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

7 468,308 4.50

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

Iuka, MS

9 458,981 4.41

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

5 437,966 4.20

Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

8 343,157 3.29

General Electric Co.

King of Prussia, PA

6 308,042 2.96

Lockheed Engineering and Science Co.

Houston, TX

11 258,742 2.48

EG&G Florida Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

13 227,406 2.18

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

14 207,005 1.99

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL

12 197,660 1.90

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA

10 192,015 1.84

Loral Aerospace Corp.956

Palo Alto, CA 

15957 185,968 1.79

Bendix Field Engineering Corp.

Columbia, MD

17 175,972 1.69

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

16 158,857 1.52

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

18 133,380 1.28

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Reston, VA 

20 99,769 .96

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Middleburgh Heights, OH 

21 97,403 .93

956 Formerly Ford Aerospace Corp.

957 Ranking of Ford Aerospace Corp.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 459
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Johnson Controls World Services Inc.958

Stennis Space Center, MS

— 70,232 .67

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

19 67,951 .65

Teledyne Industries Inc.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

22 65,343 .63

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

28 51,801 .50

Contel Corp.

Gaithersburg, MD

23 49,794 .48

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

27 46,800 .45

Fairchild Industries Inc.

Germantown, MD 

26 46,377 .45

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX

25 45,488 .44

Harris Space Systems Corp.

Rockledge, FL

42 45,163 .43

Bionetics Corp. (S)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

31 41,069 .39

ST Systems Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

34 40,748 .39

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Moffett Field, CA 

29 36,941 .35

PRC Inc. (S)959

Washington, DC

37960 36,749 .35

Orbital Sciences Corp. (S)

Denver, CO

32 36,406 .35

Raytheon Service Co.

Greenbelt, MD

38 34,856 .33

Sterling Federal Systems Inc.961

Moffett Field, CA 

36962 34,391 .33

Unisys Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

30 31,076 .30

Cortez III Service Corp. (S) (D)

Cleveland, OH

40 29,076 .28

Aerojet General Corp.

Sacramento, CA

41 26,222 .25

Krug International Corp. 43 25,305 .24

958 Acquired Pan American World Services Inc., ranked 24 in 1990.

959 Formerly called Planning Research Corp.

960 Ranking of Planning Research Corp.

961 Formerly Sterling Software Inc.

962 Ranking of Sterling Software Inc.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 460
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Houston, TX

Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

Allentown, PA

45 25,183 .24

Grumman Data Systems Corp.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

39 24,629 .24

Calspan Corp.

Moffett Field, CA

59 23,563 .23

Ball Corp.

Boulder, CO

46 21,950 .21

Analex Corp.

Fairview Park, OH

50 21,570 .21

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA

33 19,206 .18

Silicon Graphics Inc. (S)

Mountain View, CA 

57 19,182 .18

Ogden Logistics Services

Greenbelt, MD

63 17,319 .17

Lockheed Corp.

Burbank, CA

48 17,263 .17

Engineering and Economics Research (S) (D)

Beltsville, MD

55 17,189 .16

Total Top 50 8,831,493 84.76

Other963 1,585,839 15.24

Total Awards to Business Firms 10,417,332 100.00

Note: (S) = Small Business; (D) = Disadvantaged Business.

963 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 461
Table 7-31. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1992 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rockwell International Corp.

Canoga Park, CA

1 1,449,346 13.52

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

2 1,045,418 9.75

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

3 599,213 5.59

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

Iuka, MS

6 530,153 4.95

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

7 510,292 4.76

Boeing Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

5 500,115 4.67

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

4 444,799 4.15

Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

8 345,886 3.23

General Electric Co.

King of Prussia, PA

9 299,400 2.79

Lockheed Engineering and Science Co.

Houston, TX

10 269,905 2.52

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

12 232,354 2.17

EG&G Florida Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

11 212,843 1.99

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL

13 207,274 1.93

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA

14 194,369 1.81

Bendix Field Engineering Corp.

Columbia, MD 

16 180,926 1.69

Loral Aerospace Corp.

Palo Alto, CA

15 140,521 1.31

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

17 139,816 1.30

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

18 135,840 1.27

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Middleburgh Heights, OH 

20 109,444 1.02

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Reston, VA 

19 103,250 .96

Space Systems Loral Inc.

San Jose, CA

— 94,944 .89

Johnson Controls World Services Inc. 21 76,139 .71

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 462
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stennis Space Center, MS

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

22 76,085 .71

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX

28 61,467 .57

Harris Space Systems Corp.

Rockledge, FL

29 60,099 .56

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

24 58,739 .55

Orbital Sciences Corp. (S)

Denver, CO

34 55,631 .52

Teledyne Industries Inc.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

23 53,863 .50

GTE Government Systems Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD 

— 49,687 .46

Ball Corp.

Boulder, CO

44 49,345 .46

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA

46 49,058 .46

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Moffett Field, CA

32 46,947 .44

Sterling Federal Systems Inc.

Moffett Field, CA

36 43,579 .41

Bionetics Corp. (S)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

30 43,174 .40

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

26 42,977 .40

PRC Inc. (S) 

Washington, DC

33 41,267 .39

ST Systems Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

31 40,713 .38

Spacehab Corp.

Washington, DC

92 37,886 .35

Metric Constructors Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

68 35,596 .33

Raytheon Service Co.

Greenbelt, MD

35 33,847 .32

Santa Barbara Research Center

Goleta, CA

63 32,367 .30

Fairchild Industries Inc.

Germantown, MD

27 31,709 .30

Cortez III Service Corp. (S) (D)

Cleveland, OH

38 31,283 .29

Analex Corp. 45 27,475 .26

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 463
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Fairview Park, OH

Aerojet General Corp.

Sacramento, CA

39 26,949 .25

Science Application International Corp.

San Diego, CA 

51 26,658 .25

Calspan Corp.

Moffett Field, CA

43 26,286 .25

Krug International Corp.

Houston, TX

40 24,892 .23

Northrop Worldwide Aircraft

Houston, TX

52 22,208 .21

Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

Allentown, PA

41 21,438 .20

Total Top 50 8,973,472 83.73

Other964 1,743,271 16.27

Total Awards to Business Firms 10,716,743 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

964 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 464
Table 7-32. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1993 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rockwell International Corp.

Canoga Park, CA

1 1,491,394 14.21

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA

2 996,765 9.49

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

3 589,888 5.62

Boeing Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

6 502,005 4.78

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

5 478,842 4.56

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

4 429,548 4.09

Rockwell Space Operations, Inc.

Houston, TX

8 351,155 3.34

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

7 324,583 3.09

General Electric Co.

Princeton, NJ

9 286,393 2.73

Lockheed Engineering and Science Co.

Houston, TX

10 256,247 2.44

AlliedSignal Technical Services965

Greenbelt, MD

84966 231,412 2.20

EG&G Florida, Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

12 221,435 2.11

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA

14 217,706 2.07

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

11 194,588 1.85

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL 

13 177,287 1.69

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Reston, VA

20 162,895 1.55

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

17 155,085 1.48

Loral Aerospace Corp.

Houston, TX

16 136,852 1.30

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Middleburgh Heights, OH 

19 106,520 1.01

965 Allied-Signal adopted the name AlliedSignal in 1993 to reinforce a one-company image and signify the full 

integration of all of its businesses. “Our History,” Honeywell, 

http://www.honeywell.com/sites/honeywell/ourhistory.htm (accessed May 8, 2007). 966 Ranking refers to AlliedSignal Inc. with place of performance in Tempe, AZ.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 465
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

18 96,540 .92

Space Systems Loral Inc.

San Jose, CA

21 76,964 .73

Johnson Controls World Service

Stennis Space Center, MS

22 67,057 .64

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX

24 65,485 .62

Harris Space Systems Corp.

Rockledge, FL

25 63,130 .60

Orbital Sciences Corp.

Dulles, VA

27 61,740 .59

Sterling Federal Systems Inc.

Moffett Field, CA 

33 58,025 .55

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

26 57,304 .55

Teledyne Industries Inc.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

28 56,406 .54

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

23 54,805 .52

GTE Government Systems Corp.

Gaithersburg, MD 

29 54,414 .52

Hughes Applied Information Systems Inc.

Greenbelt, MD

— 52,795 .50

Spacehab Inc. (S)

Washington, DC

38 49,808 .47

Santa Barbara Research Center

Goleta, CA

41 47,559 .45

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

35 47,105 .45

Ball Corp

Boulder, CO 

30 46,479 .44

Bionetics Corp

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

34 45,679 .44

Raytheon Service Co.

Annapolis Junction, MD

40 44,202 .42

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

32 37,018 .35

PRC Inc.

Washington, DC

36 35,282 .34

Hughes STX Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

— 34,589 .33

Cortez III Service Corp. (D)

Cleveland, OH

43 32,135 .31

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 466
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Swales & Associates Inc. (S)

Greenbelt, MD

52 29,861 .28

Calspan Corp.

Moffett Field, CA 

47 28,432 .27

Krug Life Sciences Inc.

Houston, TX

48 27,778 .26

Science Application International Corp.

San Diego, CA

46 26,847 .26

General Electric UTC JV

Evendale, OH

82 25,070 .24

Martin Marietta Services

Houston, TX

— 23,588 .22

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA 

31 22,817 .22

Unisys Government Systems Inc.

Hampton, VA

55 22,652 .22

Jackson & Tull Inc. (S) (D)

Greenbelt, MD

60 22,494 .21

Total Top 50 8,724,660 83.07

Other967 1,773,252 16.93

Total Awards to Business Firms 10,497,912 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

967 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 467
Table 7-33. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1994 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Boeing Co.

Houston, TX

4 1,142,113 11.46

Rockwell International Corp.

Downey, CA

1 1,088,574 10.92

Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

3 571,533 5.74

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Huntington Beach, CA 

2 565,401 5.67

Martin Marietta Corp.

New Orleans, LA

8 497,603 4.99

Thiokol Corp.

Brigham City, UT

5 430,643 4.32

Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Houston, TX

7 338,005 3.39

Computer Sciences Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

14 254,842 2.56

AlliedSignal Technical Services

Greenbelt, MD

11 247,341 2.48

TRW Inc.

Redondo Beach, CA 

13 234,643 2.35

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.

Iuka, MS

6 222,364 2.23

Lockheed Engineering & Science Co.

Houston, TX

10 216,145 2.17

EG&G Florida Inc.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

12 200,046 2.01

USBI Booster Production Co.

Huntsville, AL

15 155,908 1.56

United Technologies Corp.

West Palm Beach, FL

20 118,967 1.19

Loral Aerospace Corp.

Houston, TX

18 118,921 1.19

Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Houston, TX

16 111,347 1.12

Space Systems Loral Inc.

San Jose, CA

21 90,845 .91

Boeing Computer Support Services

Marshall Space Flight, AL

17 83,993 .84

Santa Barbara Research Corp.

Goleta, CA 

33 82,015 .82

General Dynamics Corp.

San Diego, CA

48 77,912 .78

Johnson Controls World Services 22 69,554 .70

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 468
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stennis Space Center, MS

Sverdrup Technology Inc.

Stennis Space Center, MS

19 66,220 .66

International Business Machines

Houston, TX

29 63,853 .64

Teledyne Industries Inc.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

28 62,679 .63

BAMSI Inc. (D)

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

27 57,963 .58

Spacehab Inc. (S)

Washington, DC

32 56,260 .56

Hughes STX Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

40 54,056 .54

Sterling Federal Systems Inc.

Moffett Field, CA 

26 51,640 .52

Hughes Applied Information Systems Inc.

Greenbelt, MD

31 50,723 .51

Ball Corp.

Boulder, CO

35 47,046 .47

Martin Marietta Services Inc.

Houston, TX

47 46,083 .46

Harris Space Systems Corp.

Rockledge, FL

24 44,688 .45

CAE Link Corp.

Houston, TX

23 39,503 .40

NYMA Inc. (S) (D)

Cleveland, OH

— 38,519 .39

Bionetics Corp.

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

36 38,496 .39

PRC Inc.

Washington, DC

39 38,067 .38

Raytheon Service Co.

Annapolis Junction, MD

37 36,108 .36

Jackson & Tull Inc. (S) (D)

Greenbelt, MD

50 35,409 .36

Calspan Corp.

Moffett Field, CA 

43 31,938 .32

General Electric Co.

Evendale, OH

9968 31,707 .32

Krug Life Sciences Inc.

Houston, TX

44 31,434 .32

NSI Technology Services Corp.

Greenbelt, MD

38 31,188 .31

968 Place of performance in 1993 listed as Princeton, NJ.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 469
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Swales & Associates Inc. (S)

Greenbelt, MD

42 30,192 .30

Cortez III Service Corp. (D)

Cleveland, OH 

41 28,699 .29

Science Application International Corp.

Hampton, VA

45 28,281 .28

Cray Research Inc.

Chippewa Falls, WI

48 28,273 .28

General Electric UTC JV

Evendale, OH

46 28,143 .28

Aerojet General Corp.

Azusa, CA 

61 27,619 .28

Martin Marietta Technologies

Littleton, CO

— 25,830 .26

Total Top 50 8,069,332 80.94

Other969 1,896,325 19.06

Total Awards to Business Firms 9,965,657 100.0

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

969 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 470
Table 7-34. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1995 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor970 Rank in 

FY 1994 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Boeing Co. 1 1,441,977 13.98

Rockwell International Corp. 2 1,022,151 9.91

Martin Marietta Corp. 5 737,403 7.15

Lockheed Space Operations Co. 3 558,447 5.42

McDonnell Douglas Corp. 4 468,094 4.54

Thiokol Corp. 6 39,978 4.27

Computer Sciences Corp. 8 311,114 3.02

Rockwell Space Operations Inc. 7 306,153 2.97

TRW Inc. 10 288,202 2.80

AlliedSignal Technical Services 9 231,100 2.24

EG&G Florida Inc. 13 182,595 1.77

USBI Booster Production Co. 14 171,643 1.66

Lockheed Engineering & Science Co. 12 164,257 1.59

Loral Aerospace Corp. 16 163,582 1.59

United Technologies Corp. 15 158,564 1.54

Santa Barbara Research Corp. 20 93,761 .91

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. 11 93,325 .91

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 51 88,641 .86

Hughes Information Technology Corp. — 87,065 .84

Grumman Aerospace Corp. 17 65,571 .64

Johnson Controls World Services 22 65,296 .63

BAMSI Inc. (D) 26 65,018 .63

Space Systems Loral Inc. 18 64,620 .63

Teledyne Industries Inc. 25 60,834 .59

General Dynamics Corp. 21 58,474 .57

CAE Link Corp. 34 52,164 .51

General Electric Co. 41 51,010 .49

Martin Marietta Services Inc. 32 50,935 .49

Sterling Federal Systems Inc. 29 49,228 .48

Hughes STX Corp. 28 47,789 .46

Hughes Applied Information Systems Inc. 30 47,030 .46

Ball Corp. 31 43,956 .43

Science Application International Corp. 46 42,908 .42

Krug Life Sciences Inc. 42 40,991 .40

Aerojet General Corp. 49 39,617 .38

Cortez III Service Corp. 45 38,198 .37

Spacehab Inc. (S) 27 37,724 .37

NYMA Inc. (S) (D) 35 36,782 .36

970 NASA stopped noting the contract place of performance in the FY 1995 procurement report.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 471
Contractor970 Rank in 

FY 1994 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Bionetics Corp. 36 36,111 .35

Raytheon Service Co. 38 34,539 .34

Swales & Associates Inc. (S) 44 33,269 .32

General Electric UTC JV 48 32,712 .32

NSI Technology Services Corp. 43 32,187 .31

Sverdrup Technology Inc. 23 32,027 .31

CTA Inc. — 31,734 .31

I Net Inc. (D) 55 31,181 .30

Cray Research Inc. 47 28,952 .28

AlliedSignal Inc. 73 28,141 .27

Unisys Corp. 54 28,002 .27

Silicon Graphics Inc. 61 27,059 .26

Total Top 50 7,942,111 80.92

Other971 2,369,380 19.08

Total Awards to Business Firms 10,311,491 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

971 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 472
Table 7-35. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1996 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor972 Rank in 

FY 1995 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Boeing Co. 1 1,607,774 16.40

Lockheed Martin Corp. 3973 833,387 8.50

Rockwell International Corp. 2 756,319 7.72

United Space Alliance974 — 544,424 5.55

Thiokol Corp. 6 396,184 4.04

McDonnell Douglas Corp. 5 388,587 3.96

Rockwell Space Operations Inc. 8 292,423 2.98

TRW Inc. 9 287,339 2.93

AlliedSignal Technical Services 10 285,084 2.91

Computer Sciences Corp. 7 213,543 2.18

EG&G Florida Inc. 11 175,147 1.79

Lockheed Martin Engineering & Science Co.975 13 165,571 1.69

United Technologies Corp. 15 162,456 1.66

Lockheed Martin Aerospace Corp. — 160,630 1.64

USBI Booster Production Co. 12 157,096 1.60

Hughes Aircraft Co. 32 152,864 1.56

Hughes Information Technology Corp. 19 133,486 1.36

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 18 83,045 .85

Johnson Controls World Services 21 68,806 .70

BAMSI Inc. (D) 22 59,322 .61

General Electric Co. 27 58,383 .60

Grumman Aerospace Corp. 20 57,729 .59

Orbital Sciences Corp. 56 56,204 .57

Sterling Software U.S. Inc.976 29 55,433 .57

Santa Barbara Research Center977 16 53,707 .55

Space Systems Loral Inc. 23 50,018 .51

Ball Aerospace and Technology Corp.978 31 47,347 .48

Hughes STX Corp. 30 46,966 .48

Cortez III Service Corp. 36 45,527 .46

Spacehab Inc. (S) 37 44,831 .46

Hughes Training Inc. — 43,629 .45

Calspan Corp. 70 39,939 .41

Raytheon Service Co. 40 39,508 .40

972 NASA stopped noting the contract place of performance in the FY 1995 procurement report.

973 Ranking is for Martin Marietta Corp. Lockheed and Martin Marietta merged in 1995.

974 A limited liability company (LLC) formed from and owned equally by Rockwell International and Lockheed Martin.

975 Formerly Lockheed Engineering and Science Co. 976 Formerly Sterling Federal Systems Inc. 977 Formerly Santa Barbara Research Corp.

978 Formerly Ball Corp.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 473
Contractor972 Rank in 

FY 1995 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Teledyne Industries Inc. 24 35,988 .37

Aerojet General Corp. 35 35,439 .36

Lockheed Martin Services Inc.979 28 35,262 .36

Lockheed Space Operations Co. — 33,825 .35

Jackson & Tull Inc. (S) (D) 54 33,683 .34

Swales & Associates Inc. (S) 41 33,450 .34

NYMA Inc. (S) (D) 38 31,787 .32

Cray Research Inc. 47 31,677 .32

Silicon Graphics Inc. 50 30,925 .32

Science Application International Corp. 33 30,426 .31

Krug Life Sciences Inc. 34 30,387 .31

General Electric UTC JV 42 29,900 .31

CTA Inc. 45 28,331 .29

Dyncorp 60 28,319 .29

Johnson Engineering Corp. (S) 58 28,058 .29

Government Micro Resources (S) (D) 68 27,989 .29

Sverdrup Technology Inc. 44 26,500 .27

Total Top 50 8,094,654 82.6

Other980 1,706,165 17.4

Total Awards to Business Firms 9,800,819 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

979 Formerly Martin Marietta Services Inc.

980 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 474
Table 7-36. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1997 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor Rank in 

FY 1996 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Boeing Co. 1 1,661,705 16.93

United Space Alliance LLC 4 1,314,367 13.39

Lockheed Martin Corp. 2 1,048,698 10.68

Thiokol Corp. 5 424,393 4.32

Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Co. 12 376,179 3.83

McDonnell Douglas Corp. 6 354,079 3.61

AlliedSignal Technical Services 9 333,172 3.39

TRW Inc. 8 281,349 2.87

Boeing North American Inc.981 7982 236,587 2.41

Computer Sciences Corp. 10 162,853 1.66

EG&G Florida Inc. 11 156,106 1.59

Hughes Aircraft Co. 16 153,403 1.56

USBI Booster Production Co. 15 146,863 1.50

United Technologies Corp. 13 139,537 1.42

Hughes Information Technology Corp. 17 117,003 1.19

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 18 90,341 .92

Lockheed Martin Aerospace Corp. 14 71,763 .73

General Electric Co. 21 68,664 .70

Swales & Associates Inc. (S) 39 67,815 .69

Johnson Controls World Services 19 62,370 .64

Science Applications International Corp. 43 57,631 .59

BAMSI Inc. (D) 20 55,233 .56

Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. 27 51,802 .53

Silicon Graphics Inc. 42 51,437 .52

Grumman Aerospace Corp. 22 46,579 .47

Cortez III Service Corp. (D) 29 44,190 .45

Hughes Training Inc. 31 43,016 .44

Hughes STX Corp. 28 41,210 .42

Santa Barbara Research Center 25 40,677 .41

Aerojet General Corp. 35 39,157 .40

NYMA Inc. (S) (D) 40 38,515 .39

Johnson Engineering Corp. (S) 48 35,680 .36

ITT Corp. 53 35,129 .36

Sterling Software U.S. Inc. 24 33,015 .34

Government Micro Resources (S) (D) 49 32,767 .33

Wang Government Services Inc. (D) — 30,772 .31

Lockheed Space Operations Co. 37 27,106 .28

981 Boeing North American acquired a facility at Seal Beach from North American Rockwell in 1996.

982 Ranking is for Rockwell Space Operations Inc.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 475
Contractor Rank in 

FY 1996 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Sverdrup Technology Inc. 50 26,767 .27

Spacehab Inc. (S) 30 26,284 .27

Unisys Corp. 52 25,741 .26

Raytheon Service Co. 32 24,918 .25

Space Systems Loral 26 24,670 .25

NSI Technology Service Corp. 56 24,464 .25

Calspan Corp. 32 24,304 .25

Jackson & Tull Inc. (S) (D) 38 23,010 .23

Bionetics Corp. 51 20,615 .21

EG&G Langley Inc. 58 20,218 .21

Orbital Sciences Corp. 23 19,449 .20

Micro Craft Inc. (S) 61 19,163 .20

General Electric UTC JV 45 19,025 .19

Total Top 50 8,269,791 84.23

Other983 1,547,366 15.77

Total Awards to Business Firms 9,817,157 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

983 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 476
Table 7-37. Top 50 Contractors: FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor Rank in 

FY 1997 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Boeing Co. 1 1,487,934 15.58

United Space Alliance LLC 2 1,480,306 15.50

Lockheed Martin Corp. 3 982,011 10.28

McDonnell Douglas Corp. 6 420,438 4.40

Thiokol Corp. 4 363,770 3.81

AlliedSignal Technical Services 7 275,252 2.88

Boeing North American Inc. 9 260,760 2.73

Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Co. 5 226,872 2.38

TRW Inc. 8 223,926 2.34

Computer Sciences Corp. 10 176,521 1.85

EG&G Florida Inc. 11 149,677 1.57

Hughes Aircraft Co. 12 107,701 1.13

Lockheed Martin Aerospace Corp. 17 94,399 .99

Hughes Information Technology Corp. 15 91,891 .96

United Technologies Corp. 14 90,975 .95

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 16 86,279 .90

Science Applications International Corp. 21 78,136 .82

Ball Aerospace and Technology Corp. 23 69,418 .73

Johnson Controls World Services 20 63,241 .66

General Electric Co. 18 62,170 .65

USBI Booster Production Co. 13 61,134 .64

Orbital Sciences Corp. 48 57,374 .60

ITT Corp. 33 56,979 .60

Hamilton Standard Space Systems 85 55,307 .58

Johnson Engineering Corp. (S) 32 54,009 .57

Hughes STX Corp. 28 51,949 .54

Hughes Training Inc. 27 44,939 .47

Wyle Laboratories 90 42,476 .44

Cortez III Service Corp. (D) 26 41,493 .43

Grumman Aerospace Corp. 25 40,595 .43

Swales & Associates Inc. (S) 19 37,690 .39

Santa Barbara Research Center 29 37,205 .39

Aerojet General Corp. 30 36,618 .38

Dynacs Engineering Co. Inc. (S) (D) — 36,579 .38

BRSP Inc. 56 36,233 .38

Lockheed Space Operations Co. 37 35,853 .38

Spacehab Inc. (S) 38 33,437 .35

EG&G Alabama — 31,689 .33

Space Systems Loral Inc. 42 31,046 .33

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 477
Contractor Rank in 

FY 1997 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

General Electric UTC JV Unisys Corp. 50 30,849 .32

Sverdrup Technology Inc. 38 28,965 .30

Silicon Graphics Inc. 24 28,915 .30

Sterling Software U.S. Inc. 34 28,293 .30

Calspan Corp. 44 28,119 .29

Jackson & Tull Inc. (S) (D) 45 27,648 .29

NYMA Inc. (S) (D) 31 26,456 .28

Scientific & Commercial Systems (S) (D) 76 25,771 .27

Micro Craft Inc. (S) 49 24,849 .26

NSI Technology Service Corp. 43 23,804 .25

Government Micro Resources (S) (D) 35 23,082 .24

Total Top 50 7,911,033 82.82

Other984 1,639,467 17.18

Total Awards to Business Firms 9,550,500 100.00

Note: (S) = Small business; (D) = Disadvantaged business.

984 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 478
Table 7-38. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1989 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

1 41,785 6.49

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

2 27,318 4.24

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

6 24,560 3.81

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

4 23,404 3.63

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

52 20,345 3.16

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA

5 19,425 3.02

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

3 19,348 3.00

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

11 18,289 2.84

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

8 16,209 2.52

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA

10 15,890 2.47

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC

7 13,698 2.13

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

12 13,465 2.09

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO 

9 13,283 2.06

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

13 12,995 2.02

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

20 12,427 1.93

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

17 12,058 1.87

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

16 12,030 1.87

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 

14 11,427 1.77

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

15 9,441 1.47

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

23 8,166 1.27

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 479
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

California Institute of Technology985

Pasadena, CA

18 7,757 1.20

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH 

19 6,775 1.05

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

29 6,612 1.03

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL

24 6,445 1.00

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

22 6,141 .95

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI 

21 6,095 .95

Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA

32 5,613 .87

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

34 5,391 .84

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

36 5,301 .82

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA

30 5,288 .82

University of Houston–Clear Lake

Houston, TX

26 5,192 .81

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 

25 4,896 .76

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

33 4,484 .70

Texas A&M University

El Paso, TX

37 4,447 .69

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

27 4,400 .68

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH 

48 4,107 .64

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

38 4,058 .63

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

28 4,043 .63

Columbia University

New York, NY

31 3,944 .61

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

43 3,812 .59

Research Triangle Institute

Research Triangle, Park, NC

61 3,710 .58

985 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 480
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1988 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 

56 3,697 .57

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 

— 3,647 .57

University of Illinois–Urbana

Urbana, IL

49 3,608 .56

Hampton City (N)

Hampton, VA

39 3,580 .56

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ

41 3,481 .54

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

42 3,465 .54

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

45 3,418 .53

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

44 3,383 .53

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

53 3,314 .51

Total Top 50 485,667 75.42

Other986 159,551 24.58

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

644,218 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

986 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 481
Table 7-39. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1990 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

1 49,144 6.88

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

2 31,592 4.42

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA 

10 26,465 3.71

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

4 24,099 3.37

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

5 22,805 3.19

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA

6 21,242 2.97

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

3 19,403 2.72

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 

9 18,887 2.64

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

14 17,920 2.51

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

7 16,455 2.30

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL

18 15,818 2.21

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

12 13,622 1.91

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO 

13 12,717 1.78

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

16 12,688 1.78

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

19 12,458 1.74

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

8 11,775 1.65

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC

11 10,894 1.53

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

17 10,420 1.46

California Institute of Technology987

Pasadena, CA

21 9,632 1.35

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

32 8,384 1.17

987 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 482
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

20 7,872 1.10

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

49 7,681 1.08

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH

22 7,573 1.06

University of Houston–Clear Lake

Houston, TX

31 7,400 1.04

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

25 7,337 1.03

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

38 7,151 1.00

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI 

26 6,880 .96

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

23 6,785 .95

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL

24 6,244 .87

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

29 5,968 .84

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH 

36 5,566 .78

Columbia University

New York, NY

39 5,500 .77

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA

30 5,453 .76

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

40 5,175 .72

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

50 5,054 .71

University of Houston

Houston, TX

51 4,919 .69

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

33 4,918 .69

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

28 4,638 .65

Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA

27 4,279 .60

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

15 4,149 .58

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 

46 4,123 .58

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

37 4,120 .58

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 483
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1989 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

University of Illinois–Urbana

Urbana, IL 

44 3,974 .56

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 

43 3,951 .55

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

48 3,908 .55

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

35 3,884 .54

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(N)

New York, NY

60 3,844 .54

SETI Institute (N)

Moffett Field, CA

64 3,648 .51

Hampton City (N)

Hampton, VA

45 3,491 .49

SRI International Corp. (N)

Menlo Park, CA

67 3,447 .48

Total Top 50 525,352 73.55

Other988 188,814 26.45

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

714,166 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

988 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 484
Table 7-40. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1991 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

1 55,016 6.59

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

2 47,355 5.67

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA 

3 31,395 3.76

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

4 28,261 3.38

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA

6 25,535 3.06

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

5 23,453 2.81

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

9 22,333 2.67

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

10 21,177 2.54

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

7 20,306 2.43

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL

11 17,371 2.08

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO

13 16,520 1.98

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

12 15,973 1.91

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

14 15,950 1.91

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

8 15,300 1.83

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC

17 13,423 1.61

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

18 12,573 1.51

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

15 11,987 1.44

California Institute of Technology989

Pasadena, CA

19 11,701 1.40

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

16 11,096 1.33

University of Tennessee Calspan Center for Space 

Transportation and Applied Research (CSTAR) (N)

— 10,745 1.29

989 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 485
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Tullahoma, TN

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

21 10,646 1.27

Saginaw Valley State University

University Center, MI

59 10,100 1.21

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

40 8,624 1.03

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

20 8,354 1.00

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

25 7,801 .93

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

26 7,680 .92

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH 

23 7,627 .91

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

46 7,451 .89

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI

27 7,113 .85

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

28 7,031 .84

SETI Institute (N)

Moffett Field, CA

48 6,833 .82

University of Houston

Houston, TX

36 6,755 .81

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

22 6,725 .81

University of Houston–Clear Lake

Houston, TX

24 6,723 .80

Columbia University

New York, NY

32 6,480 .78

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

30 5,995 .72

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

37 5,958 .71

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL 

29 5,939 .71

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

38 5,593 .67

University of Alabama–Birmingham

Birmingham, AL

55 5,369 .64

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH

31 5,284 .63

Texas A&M University 51 5,235 .63

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 486
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1990 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

College Station, TX

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

45 5,170 .62

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

60 5,024 .60

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

35 4,969 .59

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

34 4,851 .58

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

42 4,822 .58

Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA

39 4,297 .51

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 

41 4,132 .49

University of California–Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA

65 3,908 .47

Total Top 50 619,959 74.22

Other990 216,011 25.78

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions 

835,970 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

990 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 487
Table 7-41. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1992 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

1 53,963 5.64

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

2 47,539 4.97

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA 

3 38,293 4.00

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 

5 37,085 3.88

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

4 31,908 3.33

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

9 24,497 2.56

Center for International Earth Science Information 

Network (CIESIN) (N)

Ann Arbor, MI

23,815 2.49

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

6 21,026 2.20

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

13 20,950 2.19

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

7 20,935 2.19

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 

14 18,994 1.99

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO 

11 18,919 1.98

University of Tennessee Calspan Center for Space 

Transportation and Applied Research (CSTAR) (N)

Tullahoma, TN

20 18,750 1.96

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC 

15 17,852 1.87

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 

10 16,578 1.73

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

12 16,561 1.73

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

8 16,491 1.72

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

17 13,888 1.45

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

21 12,687 1.33

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

16 11,899 1.24

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 488
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

California Institute of Technology991

Pasadena, CA

18 11,477 1.20

Utah State University

Logan, UT 

— 11,437 1.20

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

24 10,102 1.06

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

23 9,381 .98

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

19 9,145 .96

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

26 9,113 .95

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

36 8,726 .91

SETI Institute (N)

Moffett Field, CA

31 8,573 .90

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

33 8,552 .89

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

25 8,330 .87

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

30 8,127 .85

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

37 8,027 .84

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

46 7,752 .81

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI

29 7,631 .80

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

45 7,344 .77

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH 

27 7,081 .74

Wheeling Jesuit College

Wheeling, WV

64 6,956 .73

University of Houston

Houston, TX

32 6,918 .72

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL

38 6,474 .68

Columbia University

New York, NY

35 6,416 .67

University of Houston–Clear Lake

Houston, TX

34 6,307 .66

991 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 489
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1991 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

44 6,182 .65

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH 

41 5,980 .63

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N)

Brookpark, OH

69 5,747 .60

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

42 5,656 .59

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

28 5,258 .55

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 

49 5,207 .54

Auburn University

Auburn, AL 

58 5,104 .53

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA

60 4,775 .50

University of California–Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA

50 4,685 .49

Total Top 50 705,093 73.72

Other992 251,992 26.28

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

957,085 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

992 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less. 

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 490
Table 7-42. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1993 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

1 55,897 5.35

Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

2 54,795 5.25

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA

3 42,233 4.04

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 

4 39,165 3.75

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

5 31,035 2.97

University of Tennessee Calspan Center for Space 

Transportation and Applied Research (CSTAR) (N)

Tullahoma, TN

13 23,817 2.28

Wheeling Jesuit College

Wheeling, WV

37 23,559 2.26

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

6 22,853 2.19

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

17 21,749 2.08

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

11 21,718 2.08

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

8 21,543 2.06

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

29 20,063 1.92

Christopher Columbus Center Development (N)

Baltimore, MD

— 20,000 1.92

CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information 

Network) (N)

Ann Arbor, MI

7 18,975 1.82

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

10 17,643 1.69

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO 

12 17,285 1.66

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

16 16,723 1.60

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

9 16,307 1.56

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC

14 15,767 1.51

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL

15 14,939 1.43

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 491
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

California Institute of Technology993

Pasadena, CA

21 14,111 1.35

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

19 13,619 1.31

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

20 11,353 1.09

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

18 11,099 1.06

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

23 10,463 1.00

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV 

65 10,395 1.00

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

32 10,235 .98

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

31 9,687 .93

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

26 9,612 .92

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI

34 9,353 .90

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

30 9,086 .87

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA

35 8,526 .82

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

27 8,035 .77

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

25 7,685 .74

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N)

Brookpark, OH

44 7,676 .74

SETI Institute (N)

Moffett Field, CA 

28 7,664 .73

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

62 7,491 .72

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

33 7,190 .69

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

42 7,125 .68

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH

43 7,063 .68

University of Houston

Houston, TX

38 6,847 .66

993 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 492
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1992 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Columbia University

New York, NY

39 6,730 .64

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH 

36 6,711 .64

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

45 6,567 .63

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

46 6,526 .63

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL

39 6,436 .62

University of Houston–Clear Lake

Houston, TX

41 5,930 .57

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

24 5,485 .53

Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA

57 5,364 .51

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA

66 4,739 .45

Total Top 50 764,869 73.28

Other994 279,596 26.72

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit Institutions 1,044,465 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

994 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 493
Table 7-43. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1994 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Association of Universities in Research in 

Astronomy (N)

Baltimore, MD

1 60,127 5.77

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

2 57,027 5.47

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 

10 48,232 4.63

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 

4 39,297 3.77

Universities Space Research (N)

Greenbelt, MD

5 38,442 3.69

Smithsonian Institution (N)

Cambridge, MA

3 37,574 3.61

California Institute of Technology995

Pasadena, CA

21 28,529 2.74

National Academy of Sciences (N)

Washington, DC 

19 25,200 2.42

University of California–Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

8 24,840 2.38

University of Maryland–College Park

College Park, MD

15 19,441 1.87

Battelle Memorial Institute (N)

Columbus, OH

40 19,434 1.87

Wheeling Jesuit College

Wheeling, WV

7 19,348 1.86

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

Palestine, TX

9 18,076 1.73

University of Colorado–Boulder

Boulder, CO

16 17,136 1.64

Charles Stark Draper Lab Inc. (N)

Cambridge, MA

17 14,027 1.35

University of California–San Diego

La Jolla, CA

18 13,130 1.26

University of Alaska–Fairbanks

Fairbanks, AK

12 13,091 1.26

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Madison, WI

24 12,740 1.22

University of Alabama–Huntsville

Huntsville, AL

20 12,511 1.20

Pennsylvania State University–University Park

University Park, PA

22 12,442 1.19

995 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 494
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

MITRE Corp. (N)

Houston, TX

11 11,993 1.15

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

27 11,621 1.12

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor, MI

23 10,669 1.02

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, UT

— 10,228 .98

University of Texas–Austin

Austin, TX

28 9,450 .91

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

29 9,077 .87

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI 

30 8,612 .83

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

25 8,593 .82

University of California–Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

31 8,482 .80

University of Tennessee Calspan CSTAR (N)

Tullahoma, TN

6 8,214 .79

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

39 7,886 .76

State of Maryland (N)

Baltimore, MD

— 6,558 .63

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N)

Brook Park, OH

35 6,514 .63

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

45 6,474 .62

University of Houston

Houston, TX

41 6,188 .59

Columbia University

New York, NY

42 6,082 .58

CIESIN (N)

Ann Arbor, MI

14 5,880 .56

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH

43 5,766 .55

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

33 5,703 .55

San Jose State University

Moffett Field, CA

38 5,544 .53

Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA

49 5,292 .51

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

37 5,202 .50

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 495
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1993 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Southwest Research Institute (N)

San Antonio, TX

34 4,898 .47

University of Alabama–Birmingham

Birmingham, AL 

51 4,894 .47

Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

53 4,761 .46

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA

59 4,677 .45

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

48 4,568 .44

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ 

56 4,556 .44

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL 

46 4,535 .44

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

55 4,463 .43

Total Top 50 738,024 70.83

Other996 303,899 29.62

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

1,041,923 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

996 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 496
Table 7-44. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1995 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor997 Rank in 

FY 1994 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (AURA)998 (N)

1 61,198 5.44

Stanford University 2 58,333 5.18

Smithsonian Institution (N) 6 47,570 4.23

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 46,660 4.15

Universities Space Research Association (N) 5 37,493 3.33

University of Arizona 3 36,468 3.24

California Institute of Technology999 7 30,740 2.73

University of California–Berkeley 9 24,346 2.16

University of Alabama–Huntsville 19 24,001 2.13

University of Maryland–College Park 10 22,206 1.97

National Academy of Sciences (N) 8 22,148 1.97

New Mexico State University 13 20,259 1.80

Johns Hopkins University 22 19,587 1.74

University of Colorado–Boulder 14 18,004 1.60

Wheeling Jesuit College 12 17,990 1.60

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N) 33 15,949 1.42

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 23 13,561 1.20

University of California–San Diego 16 13,320 1.18

Southwest Research Institute (N) 43 12,908 1.15

University of Wisconsin–Madison 18 12,903 1.15

University of Washington 26 12,132 1.08

University of Alaska–Fairbanks 17 11,045 .98

Pennsylvania State University–University Park 20 10,594 .94

University of Texas–Austin 25 9,992 .89

University of New Hampshire 28 9,916 .88

University of California–Los Angeles 29 9,376 .83

Georgia Institute of Technology 42 9,000 .80

Battelle Memorial Institute (N) 11 8,914 .79

University of Hawaii 27 8,707 .77

University of Alabama–Birmingham 44 8,221 .73

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

(UCAR) (N)

56 7,860 .70

Charles Stark Draper Labs (N) 15 7,636 .68

Harvard University 34 7,490 .66

Columbia University 36 7,422 .66

997 The Annual Procurement Report stopped listing the contractor’s place of performance in the FY 1995 report.

998 Listed as “Assn Univ Research & Astronomy” in FY 1995 Annual Procurement Report. 999 Excludes Jet Propulsion Laboratory awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 497
Contractor997 Rank in 

FY 1994 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Ohio State University 45 7,236 .64

Delta College — 6,825 .61

University of Virginia 53 6,349 .56

Oklahoma State University 31 6,251 .56

University of Utah 24 6,228 .55

University of Florida 52 6,170 .55

Texas A&M University 51 5,895 .52

University of Chicago 49 5,868 .52

Cornell University 39 5,518 .49

SETI Institute (N) 57 5,458 .49

Research Triangle Institute (N) 83 5,430 .48

University of Houston 35 5,362 .48

Old Dominion University 41 5,337 .48

San Jose State University 40 5,134 .46

Princeton University 48 5,070 .45

CIESIN (N) 36 5,066 .45

Total Top 50 777,146 69.05

Other1000 348,302 30.95

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

1,125,448 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

1000 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or 

less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 498
Table 7-45. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1996 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor Rank in 

FY 1995 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University 2 72,785 7.04

Johns Hopkins University 13 60,748 5.88

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (AURA) (N)

1 55,272 5.35

Smithsonian Institution (N) 3 45,998 4.45

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4 37,883 3.67

Universities Space Research Association (N) 5 31,425 3.04

California Institute of Technology1001 7 25,098 2.43

University of Arizona 6 21,700 2.10

New Mexico State University 12 19,596 1.90

National Academy of Sciences (N) 11 19,013 1.84

University of California–Berkeley 8 18,444 1.78

University of Maryland–College Park 10 18,337 1.77

Wheeling Jesuit College 15 17,567 1.70

University of Colorado–Boulder 14 16,335 1.58

Amtech Inc. California (N) — 16,051 1.55

University of Alabama–Huntsville 9 14,534 1.41

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

(UCAR) (N)

31 12,589 1.22

University of New Hampshire 25 11,654 1.13

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 17 11,322 1.10

University of Wisconsin–Madison 20 10,937 1.06

University of Alabama–Birmingham 30 10,460 1.01

University of California–San Diego 18 10,131 0.98

Harvard University 33 9,693 0.94

University of California–Los Angeles 26 9,532 0.92

Pennsylvania State University–University Park 23 9,356 0.91

University of Alaska–Fairbanks 22 9,194 0.89

University of Washington 21 8,973 0.87

University of Texas–Austin 24 8,017 0.78

Oklahoma State University 38 7,799 0.75

University of Hawaii 29 7,674 0.74

University of Houston 46 7,519 0.73

Charles Stark Draper Labs (N) 32 6,801 0.66

University of Iowa 53 6,739 0.65

Georgia Institute of Technology 27 6,414 0.62

Cornell University 43 5,817 0.56

Southwest Research Institute (N) 19 5,786 0.56

1001 Excludes Jet Propulsion Laboratory awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 499
Contractor Rank in 

FY 1995 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Rotorcraft Industry Technical Association (N) — 5,748 0.56

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N) 16 5,273 0.51

University of Virginia 37 5,188 0.50

Ohio State University 35 4,940 0.48

University of Florida 40 4,900 0.47

Columbia University 34 4,835 0.47

University of Chicago 42 4,787 0.46

Research Triangle Institute (N) 45 4,326 0.42

Princeton University 49 4,234 0.41

San Jose State University 48 4,125 0.40

University of California–Santa Barbara 55 4,093 0.40

Research and Development Institute (N) — 4,050 0.39

Florida A&M Institute 66 3,989 0.39

University of Southern California 60 3,978 0.38

Total Top 50 731,659 70.79

Other1002 301,941 29.21

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

1,033,6001003 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

1002 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or 

less.

1003 The total awards to educational and nonprofit institutions as shown in the list of 100 educational and nonprofit 

institutions on page 26 of the FY 1996 Annual Procurement Report were printed incorrectly (amounts shown in the FY 

1995 table were copied). The correct amounts, as provided elsewhere in the FY 1996 procurement report, are listed in 

the above table.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 500
Table 7-46. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1997 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1996 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Stanford University 1 72,541 6.09

Universities Space Research Association (N) — 72,217 6.06

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (AURA) (N)

3 64,903 5.45

Johns Hopkins University 2 49,834 4.18

University of Colorado–Boulder 14 41,986 3.53

Smithsonian Institution (N) 4 39,649 3.33

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 34,242 2.88

Southwest Research Institute (N) 36 26,955 2.26

University of Maryland–College Park 12 25,234 2.12

Amtech Inc. California (N) 15 23,841 2.00

California Institute of Technology1004 6 19,979 1.68

University of California–Berkeley 11 19,775 1.66

National Academy of Sciences (N) 10 19,641 1.65

University of Arizona 8 18,067 1.52

New Mexico State University 9 15,922 1.34

University of Alabama–Huntsville 16 15,397 1.29

University of Alaska–Fairbanks 26 14,542 1.22

University of California–San Diego 22 13,364 1.12

Wheeling Jesuit College 13 11,756 .99

Pennsylvania State University–University Park 25 11,248 .94

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 19 10,619 .89

Columbia University 42 10,371 .87

Rotorcraft Industry Technical Association (N) 38 10,139 .85

University of Alabama–Birmingham 21 10,020 .84

University of Washington 27 9,314 .78

University of California–Los Angeles 24 9,157 .77

University of Wisconsin–Madison 20 8,577 .72

Harvard University 23 8,543 .72

University of Hawaii 30 7,909 .66

Hampton University 63 7,492 .63

Research Triangle Institute (N) 44 7,259 .61

Princeton University 45 6,312 .53

University of New Hampshire 18 6,302 .53

University of Texas–Austin 28 6,222 .52

Georgia Institute of Technology 34 6,221 .52

Utah State University 69 5,939 .50

Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. (N) — 5,681 .48

1004 Excludes Jet Propulsion Laboratory awards.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 501
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1996 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Virginia Polytechnic Institute 66 5,615 .47

University of California–Santa Barbara 47 5,591 .47

Oregon State University 53 5,342 .45

Baylor College of Medicine — 5,092 .43

Oklahoma State University 29 5,089 .43

Carnegie Mellon University 55 5,084 .43

University of California–Riverside 58 4,991 .42

Cornell University 35 4,944 .42

University of Iowa 33 4,912 .41

SETI Institute (N) 64 4,820 .40

University of Florida 41 4,804 .40

Boston University 68 4,800 .40

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N) 38 4,733 .40

Total Top 50 812,987 68.26

Other1005 378,109 31.74

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

1,191,096 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

1005 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or 

less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 502
Table 7-47. Top 50 Educational and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 1998 (in thousands of dollars) 

Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1997 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

Johns Hopkins University 4 90,762 6.96

Stanford University 1 70,501 5.40

Association of Universities for Research in 

Astronomy (AURA) (N)

3 69,973 5.36

Universities Space Research Association (N) 2 68,235 5.23

University of Colorado–Boulder 5 46,098 3.53

Smithsonian Institution (N) 6 40,124 3.08

University of Maryland–College Park 9 35,630 2.73

American Technology Alliances (N) 30,573 2.34

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7 28,874 2.21

University of California–Berkeley 12 28,654 2.20

Southwest Research Institute (N) 8 27,008 2.07

New Mexico State University 15 26,312 2.02

California Institute of Technology1006 11 19,897 1.53

University of Arizona 14 18,380 1.41

Wheeling Jesuit College 19 15,519 1.19

University of Alabama–Huntsville 16 15,273 1.17

Baylor College of Medicine 41 13,670 1.05

University of Alabama–Birmingham 24 12,906 .99

Columbia University 22 11,532 .88

California Association for Research in Astronomy 

(N)

— 11,018 .84

University of Washington 25 10,941 .84

University of California–Los Angeles 26 10,836 .83

University of Wisconsin–Madison 27 10,680 .82

University of Hawaii 29 10,492 .80

Utah State University 36 10,478 .80

University of California–San Diego 18 10,319 .79

Pennsylvania State University–University Park 20 10,077 .77

University of Alaska–Fairbanks 17 10,044 .77

University of New Hampshire 33 9,145 .70

University of Texas–Austin 34 8,593 .66

Rotorcraft Industry Technical Association (N) 23 8,316 .64

American Museum of Natural History (N) — 8,183 .63

University of Iowa 46 8,095 .62

Battelle Memorial Institute (N) 59 7,844 .60

Charles Stark Draper Labs (N) 55 7,271 .56

University of California–Santa Barbara 39 7,227 .55

1006 Excludes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 503
Contractor/Place of Contract Performance Rank in 

FY 1997 

Net Value of Awards

Amount Percentage

University of Virginia 78 7,189 .55

Oklahoma State University 42 6,971 .53

National Academy of Sciences (N) 14 6,630 .51

University of New Mexico 65 6,452 .49

Georgia Institute of Technology 35 6,199 .48

Ohio Aerospace Institute (N) 50 6,145 .47

San Bernardino County Support Schools (N) — 6,000 .46

Ohio State University 52 5,936 .46

Princeton University 32 5,898 .45

Hampton University 30 5,778 .44

SETI Institute (N) — 5,730 .44

Mississippi Research Consortium (N) 68 5,621 .43

University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 21 5,465 .42

Florida A&M University 64 5,431 .42

Total Top 50 914,925 70.12

Other1007 389,480 29.88

Total Awards to Educational and Nonprofit 

Institutions

1,304,405 100.00

Note: (N) = Nonprofit institution.

1007 Includes remaining “top 100” list and other awards over $25,000, as well as smaller procurements of $25,000 or 

less.

Data Book 8 - Tables T - 504