Unless President Reagan becomes involved more personally, his revised space policy -- in which he urges a bold reach into the solar system for science and profit -- is unlikely to escape the gravitational pull of Congress, according to space analysts.

Formal announcement of the policy, summarized in only nine paragraphs on pages 35 and 36 of a 39-page document sent to Congress Jan. 25, has been stalled by an internal dispute over a proposed small private space station and involving Transportation Secretary James H. Burnley IV.

The policy pleases the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, officials said, because it reasserts a commitment to U.S. leadership in space, to expanding the human presence there and to the proposed manned space station.

Officials of the Commerce and Transportation departments, who have said they want to put more "teeth" in the administration's push to foster a private space industry under their jurisdiction, are also encouraged by the policy's call for government use of commercial goods and services whenever possible in civilian space activities.

But several space advocates have expressed disappointment and surprise at the low political visibility that the White House has given the civilian space program. Reagan, for instance, did not mention it in his State of the Union address.

However, White House sources said weeks ago that NASA was among numerous agencies told in advance that "pet projects" would not be mentioned, so Reagan could avoid a "laundry list" speech.

Even the modest formal unveiling of the policy, at a media briefing at the White House that was to take place Jan. 29, has been postponed indefinitely by a dispute.

White House sources said the high-level disagreement centers on a proposal for no-bid government support of a small, private, automated space laboratory to serve as a stopgap for the proposed manned space station, delayed repeatedly by budget problems.

Burnley is the "spanner in the works," as one informed congressional source put it. A senior Transportation Department official confirmed that Burnley has objected on grounds that the policy would route as much as $700 million in government funding to Space Industries Inc. of Houston with no competitive bidding. The company has been promoting its orbiting lab for five years.

Burnley's only concern, the official said, is that the administration "not rush headlong to a sole-source agreement without at least asking . . . if there's anybody else" in private industry with such a proposal.

Burnley, who supports the small-lab concept, wants open bidding done quickly, the official said, because part of the concept's appeal is that the lab could be in orbit by 1991.

NASA officials have objected to the concept, primarily because government support proposed for the small private facility would drain funding and delay the large space station.

However, there is bipartisan congressional support for at least some federal funding for the private facility, and avid administration supporters of commercializing space endorse it.

Administration officials said there is a "strong desire" to reach consensus on the matter and announce the new space policy, possibly this week.

Some observers said the policy does little more than restate the space community's standing list of distant and assorted goals, including a lunar base and a manned mission to Mars, and give the go-ahead for yet more studies.

Such an approach is reasonable, they said, because funding is unlikely to be available soon for major initiatives.

The administration is expected to request for fiscal 1989 as much as 30 percent more money for NASA, including $1 billion for the space station and $100 million for development of fundamental space technologies, without which no bold new missions can be undertaken.

But chairmen of two key congressional Appropriations subcommittees said winning even a portion of the requested increase will involve an uphill fight.

"It's a goal, not a program, and it will be fiscally restrained," said a senior space official familiar with the process that produced the policy. "It's designed so that, when and if any of it ever gets adopted, Reagan will be able to claim credit for starting it."

The space program is "still in real trouble," said space analyst John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists. "No way are they going to get a 30 percent increase in their budget unless the White House is out there rooting for them."

A House space subcommittee aide said, "Given the budget realities, it makes no sense to come out with major programs to go to the moon or Mars or what have you. But at least {the policy} gives some direction to the space program, lays out some context."

A Senate aide close to the issue said the policy is "meaningless" unless the White House backs it with specific legislation and presidential support. "The way they are handling this makes you wonder how serious they are," the aide said.

It is likely to be mid-year before pertinent legislation is "percolating," the aide said, noting that Congress will be away often as November elections approach and that Reagan will be gone soon thereafter.

The new policy lays out a long-range blueprint that "ain't bad," said space policy analyst John Logsdon of George Washington University. "But I don't think any of this long-range stuff means anything outside the space community until the shuttles fly again and the country regains confidence in the organization."

Space policy "is important enough that it will be addressed by the president by itself in the near future," White House science adviser William R. Graham said. Budget realities make it impossible to "just throw more money at space," but "it is still a priority effort in the president's programs," he said.

Based on further study, the policy calls for NASA to recommend within three years such specific projects as a lunar base followed by a manned Mars mission.

"I know people will say, 'Oh, no, there's NASA going to study this stuff to death,' " said Alan M. Ladwig, director of NASA's Office of Exploration. "But you really need a solid rationale if you're going to spend all these resources . . . . Now you will start seeing an agency in sync, moving toward these broad national goals."