In and Out: A Comparative Analysis of NASA-Built and Industry-Built Spacecraft Costs

Spacecraft development is costly and complex, requiring diverse management and acquisition strategies. As the private sector's role grows, cost models must account for varying private sector participation. Existing models focus on project ownership, distinguishing between traditional procurement and commercial development. Science missions without commercial value rely on traditional procurement, where a public agency leads. Within this approach, agencies must decide whether to develop spacecraft in-house or contract with industry. This study examines whether spacecraft developer type—NASA in-house or industry—affects spacecraft cost under traditional procurement. A multi-variable regression model finds that industry-built spacecraft are generally less costly, especially for lower-risk classification C and D projects. However, for higher-risk class A/B projects, developer type has no significant impact. Additionally, spacecraft developer type does not significantly affect total project cost, regardless of risk classification. Consistent with existing models, spacecraft mass remains the primary cost driver, with mission risk classification and deep-space operation also influencing costs. These findings offer insights into spacecraft cost dynamics, particularly in complex missions, and suggest ways to leverage industry cost advantages in public programs.