NASA and Smallsat Cost Estimation Overview and Model Tools

Michael Saing, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Systems Engineer

NASA S3VI – Webinar Talk Series 06/10/2020

JPL CL#20-2416 © 2020. California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

The research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is 

intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Introduction/Background

• Cost estimating Basics

• Cost model overview (applicable for small missions)

• Generating a Small Sat Cost Estimate Example

• Introduction to Cubesats/Microsats and NASA COMPACT

• Recommendations

• Questions

Agenda

2
Introduction/Background
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Small sat cost estimating record dated 

about ~25 years

– Mix of NASA and DOD mission

• Small Sat Satellite technology very 

different from today

– Not a lot of commercial vendor

– Limited launch rides

– Spacecraft unstable due to limited 

technology and hardware

– Battery powered

• Utilization for smallsats/cubesats increased 

in mid to end of 2000s

NASA smallsats and microsats cost estimating

4

NASA and DoD Microsat Cost/Mass Data (1995) 
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Small mission references to any mission <~$250M (such as MIDEX, SMEX, 

EVM, etc...)

• Small Sat <150kg to 1,500kg

– Examples – WISE, SWIFT, etc...

• Microsats ~30kg to <150kg

– Examples – Cygnss

• Cubesats 1U to to ~27U (~35kg)

– Examples – MarCO, Asteria, etc...

• *The definition here does not reflect NASA/JPL/Industry as everyone has a different view what small sat means to 

their project and organization. This reflects the author’s view.

Definition of Small Sat* for duration of this talk

5
j p l . n a s a . g o v

CML and Commonly Used Cost Approach

6
j p l . n a s a . g o v

JPL Design/Study and Proposal Teams on the CML levels

Concept Maturity Level

7

Team-X, Xc
Cost Estimating Basics
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Standard WBS used in NASA and (other industries/academia)

• Link to the Complete NASA Standard WBS 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012671.pdf

NASA Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

9

WBS Description

1 Project management

2 Systems Engineer

3 Safety and Mission Assurance

4 Science and Technology

5 Payload Instruments

6 Spacecraft

7 Mission Operations

8 Launch Vehicle / Services 

9 Ground System(s)

10 Systems Integration and Testing

11

Education and Public Outreach

1% of total (not including LV)

Subtotal (Phase A-D)

Costs Reserve (25%, Phase A-D and 15% 

Phase E)

Total with Reserve

Level 1

Level 2

Cost reserve varies by mission type and organization
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Analogy

• Data Driven

• Based on similarity / analogous

• Extrapolation and adjustments to 

actual

• Pros: Quick rough order 

magnitude (ROM) estimate with a 

few known characteristic

• Cons: Getting good data 

(normalized) might be difficult; 

Analogy data might not be 

available because of new 

systems uniqueness

Cost Estimating Methods – 3 types

10

Parametric

• Data Driven

• Statistical relationship model 

based on historic actuals between 

costs and a system or 

performance characteristics

• Typical parametric cost models are 

based on mass and power

• Pros: Provides estimate 

confidence based on actual data 

and statistical relationship

• Cons: very time consuming to go 

through initialize data for modeling

• Need to vet the data to make sure 

its good clean data (normalize)

• Questionable when modeling 

outside of its relevant data range

Grassroots

• Data Driven

• Also known as “bottoms-up” 

• Experienced and / or knowledge 

from subject matter expert on 

proper staffing, procurements, 

etc...

• Pros: Defensible with detailed and 

credible basis of estimate (vendors 

quote, institutional commitment, 

etc...)

• Cons: Time and costly activity–

very heavy on resource loading 

estimates and ensuring correct 

labor and inflation rates; not 

suitable for a quick ROM 
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Small spacecraft bus

• Estimate the cost of the spacecraft by analogy method

• New Spacecraft = ~200kg will cost $?

• Based on historic SMEX missions, average spacecraft mass = ~150 kg and 

$50M

•

150 kg

$50 M

=

200 kg

$ x M (New Spacecraft)

= $67M New Spacecraft 

Analogy based example

11

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• A look into the past, present, and future

• Estimate flight software cost by parametric 

method for inner and outer planetary mission 

if your spacecraft cost $100M

• Dependent variable = Total Spacecraft 

Development Costs, $100M

• Estimated Software Cost = $11.2M

• Example and screenshot reference to actual 

NASA ASCoT Tool.

Parametric based example

12

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Resource loading

• Typical cost categories includes:

– Direct Labor (FTE/WYE)

– Procurements

– Travel

– Services

– Equipment

– CM&O (Center Operations and Management – NASA centers)

• Example:

– 3 FTE at $150k/year per FTE (institutional labor rates) = $450k (FY20$)

– Travel (Use institution/GSA rates for per diem and meals), etc....

– Procurements – some organization charges 

Grass-Roots Cost Estimation

13

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

1. Know what type of mission you want to estimate cost for (Earth orbiting, planetary, observatory, etc...) 

2. Gather the data (similar like missions, spacecraft bus, instrument type – telescope, remote sensing, 

etc...)

3. Some knowledge of design parameters such as mass, power, instrument aperture, s/c volume, etc...

4. Choose and know your cost models tools to estimate the hardware costs 

-WBS 5. Payload instrument (Remote sensing, in-situ)

-WBS 6. Spacecraft (cubesat, small sat, etc...)

1. Use your data to generate wraps to the costs by WBS (PM, SE, S&MA, etc...)

1. In some cases, some cost model will already have this set of wraps for you

2. Perform multiple cost estimations using various cost model tools and compare results 

3. Consider cumulative probabilistic analysis

4. Refine and update your estimate

1. With commercial vendor’s quote, etc...

5. Defend your estimate with a strong basis of estimate (BOE)

For early CML 1-5

Steps to getting started with generating a cost estimate

14
COST MODEL OVERVIEW
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Cost Models available to NASA Community*

16

*Check with NASA HQ OCFO’s Strategic Investment Division (SID) james.k.johnson@nasa.gov or your Cost Estimation 

Division/Section. Not all tools listed might be available due to changing license agreements.

COST MODELS AND TYPE OF COST ESTIMATION

Cost Models

Estimation 

Type

NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM) Parametric 1 1

NASA Project Cost Estimating 

Capabilities (PCEC) Parametric 1 1 1

PRICE True Planning Parametric 1 1 1

Small Spacecraft Cost Model (SSCM-19) Parametric 1

NASA CubeSat Or Microsat Probabilistic 

Analogy Cost Tool (COMPACT)

Analogy/ 

(Parametric 

model 

coming 

soon) 1 1 1

Full Mission 

Costs

Spacecraft

Small Sats

Cubesats/ 

Microsats Instruments
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Current version is NICM 8.5

• Version 9.0 releasing soon 

• Data collection of 250+ NASA and 

industry built instruments 

• All normalized

• Capable of Class D cost estimation

• Cost and Schedule Rule of Thumb 

(ROT) by phase and instrument 

type

• Cryocooler also now added to the 

model

Contact: Joseph Mrozinski 

Email: nicm@jpl.nasa.gov

NASA Instrument Cost Modeling Tool (NICM)

17
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Previous version known as NAFCOM (NASA 

Air Force Cost Model Capabilities)

• Current Version v2.2

• Data set based on actual NASA launched 

missions

• Wide range of mission types (EO, Planetary, 

etc... and mission size (small, medium, etc..)

• Cost output to NASA Standard WBS

• Normalized data

Download https://www.software.nasa.gov

Main Support: MSFC-PCEC@mail.nasa.gov

NASA Project Cost Estimating Capability Tool (PCEC)

18
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• NASA Space Mission Catalog

• ~50+ NASA space mission -

Astrophysics, Heliophysics, Earth 

Science, and Planetary Missions

• Cost estimate for system and 

subsystem level (CDH, 

Propulsion, Power, etc...)

• Heavily detailed on inputs

• Mission types Mission Class A/B, 

B/C, and C/D

PRICE – True Planning, NASA Space Mission Catalog

19
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Current version 2019

• Started in mid-1990’s by Dr. Eric Mahr and 

Dave Bearden

• Data based on NASA and DoD missions

• Parametric based

• Used for up to 1,000 kg fight system mass

• Subsystem costs breakout

• Probabilistic analysis

• Budget schedule

Contact: sscmrequests.mailbox@aero.org

Download Instructions: 

https://aerospace.org/sscm

Aerospace Small Spacecraft Cost Model (SSCM)

20
j p l . n a s a . g o v

NASA CubeSat Or Microsat Probabilistic Analogy Cost 

Tool (COMPACT) 

• Full mission Cubesat and Microsat cost 

estimating tool

• Part of the NASA ONSET – Online NASA 

Space Estimation Tool (ONSET)

• Web-based tool

• Beta version release Summer 2020 through 

the NASA ONCE website:

– https://oncedata.hq.nasa.gov

• Requires NASA credential log-ins

– https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/functions/models

_tools/CADRe_ONCE.html

• Data - NASA funded cubesat/micosat

missions

Contact:

• joseph.mrozinski@jpl.nasa.gov

• michael.saing@jpl.nasa.gov

21
Generating a Small Sat Cost Estimate 

Example

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Estimate the cost of Small Sat Ultra Violet (UV) 

Telescope Mission, FY2020$

• Telescope = 35 cm aperture

• Small Spacecraft

• Assumes mass below

Example – Astrophysics Mission

23

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.

Instrument Mass, kg

Telescope 100

Spacecraft 150

Structure 39

Thermal 4

C&DH 20

Electrical Power 48

Attitude Control Subsystem 33

Communication Subsystem 7

Dry Mass 250

Wet Mass 100

Total Launch Mass 350
j p l . n a s a . g o v

1. Know what type of mission you want to estimate cost for (Earth orbiting, planetary, observatory. etc...) 

2. Gather the data (similar like missions, spacecraft bus, instrument type – telescope, remote sensing, 

etc...)

3. Some knowledge of design parameters such as mass, power, instrument aperture, s/c volume, etc...

4. Choose your cost model to estimate cost (in this small sat example, we will use the following)

1. Instrument – NICM

2. Spacecraft – SSCM, PRICE TP (NASA Space Mission), and NASA PCEC

5. Use your data to generate wraps for WBS 1. PM, 2. SE, 3. S&MA, etc...

1. Astrophysics Small Sat Cost ROT

6. Perform multiple cost estimations using various cost model tools and compare results 

7. Consider cumulative probabilistic analysis

8. Refine and update your estimate

1. With commercial vendor’s quote, etc...

9. Defend your estimate with a strong basis of estimate (BOE)

Steps to getting started with generating a cost estimate

24

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Instrument Cost Estimation using NICM

25

• 50th-percentile costs = $53.6M

• Costs estimation uncertainty – “Extrapolating” outside the data set in the model

• Will require you to do more homework to refine costs

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• The model only estimates development phases C and D, and according to the SSCM user guide, must add 10% for 

Phase B costs

Spacecraft cost estimate using SSCM (1 of 3)

26

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Option to Generate Probabilistic 

Estimate

• Uncertainty inputs based on 

engineering judgement, historic data, 

etc... 

• Select the 50th percentile estimate 

based on the adjusted inputs, 

$54.5M then add 10% for Phase B 

(per SSCM guidance). = $62.2M

Spacecraft cost estimate using SSCM (1 of 3) (continued)

27

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Spacecraft costs 

of $48.94M

Spacecraft cost estimating using PRICE – True Planning, 

NASA Space Mission Catalog (2 of 3)

28

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Total Mission costs 

without reserve

• Spacecraft costs of 

$53.6M

Spacecraft and full mission costs using PCEC Cost 

output (3 of 3)

29

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Cost Wraps – ROT

30

SMEX Total Lifecycle Phase A-F

* By WBS**

* Data shows that average breakout for Phase A-D and E/F cost is ~90% Formulation/Development and ~10% Operations

**Launch Ride/Services not included

† Ref to: Saing, M., Freeman, T., “NASA SMEX Mission Explorer Past, Present, and Future”, Aug 14th – 16th 2018, NASA Cost and Schedule 

Symposium, NASA GSFC Greenbelt Maryland

Astrophysics Missions:

GALEX, NuSTAR, SWAS, WIRE

Heliophysics Missions:

AIM, FAST, IBEX, IRIS, RHESSI, SAMPEX, TRACE

†
j p l . n a s a . g o v

Compare the results, refine it, run uncertainty analysis

Piecing it all together

31

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.

WBS Description

Total Cost, FY20$M

Small Spacecraft 

Cost Model (SSCM)

Total Cost, FY20$M

PRICE True 

Planning Cost 

Model Approach

Total Cost, FY20$M, 

NASA PCEC Explorer 

Class, All WBS from 

Cost Model

Grass-Roots 

Estimate by Project 

Team, FY20$M

Average Across All 

Estimate

1 Project management

2 Systems Engineer

3 Safety and Mission Assurance

4 Science and Technology $ 27.5 $ 24.9 $ 4.4 $ 15.0 $ 18.0

5 Payload Instruments $ 53.6 $ 53.6 Parametric $ 53.6 $ 40.0 $ 50.2

6 Spacecraft $ 60.0 $ 48.9 Parametric $ 53.6 $ 40.0 $ 50.6

7 Mission Operations $ 13.8 $ 12.4 Wraps - Analogy $ 19.0 $ 15.0 $ 15.1

8 Launch Vehicle / Services $ 50.0 $ 50.0 NASA Catalog $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0

9 Ground System(s) Included in WBS 7 Included in WBS 7 Included in WBS 7 Included in WBS 7

10 Systems Integration and Testing Included in WBS 6 $ 9.0 Included in WBS 6 $ 9.0

11

Education and Public Outreach

1% of total (not including LV) $ 2 $ 2 $2 $ 1 $ 2

Subtotal (Phase A-D) $ 224 $ 207 217 $ 176 $ 206

Costs Reserve (25%, Phase A-D and 15% 

Phase E) $ 36 $ 33 $35 $ 26 $ 33

Total with Reserve $ 260 $ 240 252 $ 203 $ 239

 $ 27.0 $ 18.7 

Include In WBS 7

Include in WBS 6

 $ 17.2 $ 15.5 $ 15.0 Wraps - Analogy

Wraps - Analogy
Introduction to Cubesats/Microsats and 

NASA COMPACT
j p l . n a s a . g o v

What is a CubeSat? Microsat?

33

• CubeSat = nanosatellite in a form of a cube, with each “U” measuring 10cm x 

10cm x 10cm and weighs ~1.33kg (weight by ROT)

• The “U” cube are stackable

• Common form factors are: 1U, 3U, 6U’s

• MicroSat = microsatellite with mass ranging from 10-100 kg

• Type and estimated mass range:

• Mini-satellite, 100-180 kilograms

• Microsatellite, 10-100 kilograms

• Nanosatellite, 1-10 kilograms

• Picosatellite, 0.01-1 kilograms

• Femtosatellite, 0.001-0.01 kilograms

Cygnss, Microsats, 28.9 kg each PhoneSat (1U), ~1 kgCygnss, Microsats, ~30 kg each

Sporesat (3U), 5 kg TechEdSat 8 

(1x6U), ~8 kg

Raincube, ~6U, 12 kg each
34 j p l . n a s a . g o v

Ref: 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/pub

lic/thumbnails/image/sscg-fleetchart-062020_0.jpg
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• NASA CubeSat Or Microsat Probabilistic Analogy Cost Tool (COMPACT) 

• Official NASA agency cost model tool, started 2014

• Estimate cost specifically for cube/micro-sat class missions 

• Providing confidence on cost estimate as model is based on normalized actual NASA funded 

cubesat/microsat missions

How Does COMPACT fit within the need?

The need for a cubesat/microsat cost model tool

35
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Microsat Cost model?

– Early cost estimation and sanity check

– Keep projects from over running and under funded 

– Common misconception that costs scales with size of flight system

– Many cost models has many tuning knobs/switch that will lower the costs, but how 

real is that to actual design and development practice? How do you defend the 

basis of estimate (BOE)?

Why do we need a CubeSat/MicroSat cost model?

36
j p l . n a s a . g o v

ISARA

6/10/2020 COMPACT 37

CINEMA EDSN

Firefly

GRIFEX

IPEX

KickSat LMRST

MarCO

M-Cubed 2

M-Cubed

NanoSail-D

O_OREOS

PharmaSat

PSSC-2

RACE RAX 1

SkyCube

SporeSat-1

ASTERIA

CSUNSAT-1

NEA Scout

RainCube

TEMPEST-D
j p l . n a s a . g o v

i.e. parameters likely to drive cost

Key CubeSat Data

6/10/2020 COMPACT 38

CubeSat

Launch Date 

(Actual or 

Planned)

Mission Type Developer Type # U's Mass 

(kg)

Power 

(W)

Development 

Schedule 

(B/C/D)

Design Life 

(months)

ASTERIA 8/14/2017 Science JPL 6 11 20 28 3

CINEMA (1) 9/13/2012 Science University 3 3.15 2.9 44 12

CSUNSat-1 4/18/2017 Educational University 2 2 4

DHFR 8/26/2017 Tech Demo JPL 3 5.03 10 3

EDSN 11/3/2015 Tech Demo Civil 1.5 2 1 10 24

Firefly (1) 11/20/2013 Science Civil 3 3.51 3.62 36 3

GRIFEX 1/31/2015 Tech Demo JPL 3 4

ISARA 11/10/2017 Tech Demo JPL 6 5 56 48 5

KickSat (1) 4/18/2014 Tech Demo University 3 6 4 24

LMRST 10/8/2015 Tech Demo JPL 3 4.6 8

MarCO 5/5/2018 Tech Demo JPL 6 12.7 64 21 6.5

M-Cubed 10/28/2011 Tech Demo University 1 1 1.2 30

M-Cubed2 12/5/2013 Tech Demo University 1 1 1.2

NanoSail-D (2) 11/20/2010 Tech Demo Civil 3 4 4

NEA Scout 7/1/2018 Tech Demo JPL and MSFC 6 12.3 50

O/OREOS 5/19/2009 Science Civil 3 5.2 12 18

PharmaSat (1) 5/19/2009 Science Civil 3 5

PolySat (CP8) 

"IPEX" 12/5/2013 Tech Demo University 1

1

1.5 24 6

PSSC-2 7/10/2011 Tech Demo Civil 2 3.7 5 6

RACE 10/28/2014 Tech Demo JPL 3 5 1.5

RainCube 5/20/2018 Tech Demo JPL 6 12 35 17 2

RAX 1 (USA 218) 11/20/2010 Science University 3 3 8 12

SkyCube 1/9/2014 Educational Commercial 1 1.3 4 24 3

SporeSat-1 4/18/2014 Tech Demo Civil 3 5.2 36 2

Tempest-D 2/1/2018 Tech Demo JPL 6 14 21 21 3

Key Cubesat Data
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Using the data collected in the previous effort, we examined 2 cost 

estimation approaches and web base platform development:

1. K-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN) – Completed

2. Parametric Cost Modeling – Sneak Peak

3. Web base platform development – Sneak peak

CubeSat Cost Estimating Approaches

39
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Created a K-Nearest Neighbors Analogy-drive cost model for 

CubeSats utilizing the framework developed by the NASA Analogy 

Software Cost Tool (ASCoT) Team

• Demo and pre-Beta version working its way to the NASA ONCE 

website (at the time of this presentation)

K-Nearest Neighbors

40
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• KNN is a simple form of analogy cost estimation. Here’s how it works:

K-Nearest Neighbors

41

“Closest” here is determined by Euclidean distance between points. Now, the 

only thing left to do is to choose the number of neighbors, K.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

K-Nearest Neighbors Web Tool

User interface

42

Early known high 

level Input 

parameter

Output 

Estimate

Analogies

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

K-Nearest Neighbors 

Web Tool

Distance

43

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

K-Nearest Neighbors Web Tool

Parameter Variation

44

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech.
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Apply stepwise and best-subsets regression methods to identify 

potential CubeSat parametric cost models. 

• Utilize ANOVA, standard significance tests and R2 to identify potential 

cost drivers and compare/select best models. 

Parametric Models – Sneak Peak

45
46 j p l . n a s a . g o v

AKA “Not ready for use in Proposal Development/Evaluation”

Draft Preliminary Beta Candidate Model #1

Adjusted R2: 46%

Cost = 491(Mass)

1.102
47 j p l . n a s a . g o v

AKA “Not ready for use in Proposal Development/Evaluation”

Draft Preliminary Beta Candidate Model #2

Cost = ൞

$4,098 if < 6U & NASA/JPL

$11,780 if 6U & NASA/JPL

$1,140 if < 6U & Univ/Comm

Adjusted R2: 47%
j p l . n a s a . g o v

• Division Director, J. Craig McArthur, NASA HQ Strategic Investment 

Division (SID) 

• Questions in regards to COMPACT directed to NASA HQ Sponsor, 

contact james.k.johnson@nasa.gov

• Thank you to SID for funding the COMPACT tool development. SID has 

also funded most/all (research/development) cost tools used across 

NASA agency wide

• Ref to conference papers and presentation:

– “COMPACT KNN: Developing an Analogy-Based Cost Estimation Model for CubeSats“, IEEE 

2020, Big Sky, Montana

– COMPACT – NASA Cost and Schedule Symposium, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 

(NASA OCFO’s website)

NASA COMPACT Cost Model Tool

48
j p l . n a s a . g o v

1. Be Realistic

2. Seek help when needed (sooner the better)

3. Treat cost parameter like engineering parameter such as mass and power

4. Not all costs scales with size of the spacecraft

5. Capturing small sat market trend is challenging. Understanding data will guide to better 

decision making and understanding risks and design decision

6. Risk analysis – factor in uncertainty

7. There’s no such thing as one size fits all cost model. Generate multiple estimates using 

different models and see what the range of variance are and try to understand the Why if 

there is a huge disconnect

8. Defend your cost estimate with a strong basis of estimate

9. Cost estimating is a form of art and science. There’s no right/wrong way to do it, but use 

good judgement

10. "There are only two objectives in Formulation. To win, and to not regret it when you do.“ –

by Dr. Alfred Nash, JPL Principle Engineer and TeamX Lead

Top 10 things on cost estimation

Conclusion - Recommendation when cost estimating for Small Missions

49
QUESTIONS
jpl.nasa.gov