Skip to main content

Quantifying the Cost Reduction Potential for Earth Observation Satellites

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 12th Reinventing Space Conference

Abstract

In the present budget environment, there is a strong need to dramatically drive down the cost of space missions. There is the perception that SmallSats are inherently much lower cost than more traditional larger satellites and can play a central role in reducing overall space mission cost, but this effect has been difficult to quantify. Without quantifiable evidence of their value, SmallSats are under-utilized as a method for reducing space mission cost. The purpose of this study is to quantify the relationship between cost and performance for space systems, by creating a Performance-Based Cost Model (PBCM). Today, most acquisition performance analyses focus on cost overruns, or how much the system costs relative to what it is expected to cost. Instead, PBCM allows us to focus on more important questions, such as, how much performance we can achieve for a given cost, or what the cost is for a given level of performance. In this paper, we present the relationship between cost vs. orbit altitude for a fixed resolution and coverage requirement, cost vs. resolution, and cost vs. coverage. Traditional cost models for space systems are typically weight-based, primarily because mass allocation is determined early in mission design and has historically correlated well with actual hardware cost. To provide the underlying cost data for this study, we apply 3 cost models widely used throughout the aerospace cost modeling community: the Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model (USCM), the Aerospace Corp. Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM), and the NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM).

Our first application of the PBCM is for Earth observation systems. Past Earth observation systems have used traditional space technology to achieve the best possible performance, but have been very expensive. In addition, low-cost, responsive dedicated launch has not been available for SmallSats. Space system mass is proportional to the cube of the linear dimensions—equivalent to saying that most spacecraft have about the same density. This means that by flying at lower altitudes, satellites can reduce their payload size and therefore the entire mass of the satellite, thus reducing the cost of the system dramatically. We conclude that for an Earth observation system, an increase in performance, reduction in cost, or both, is possible by using multiple SmallSats at lower altitudes when compared to traditional systems. Specifically,

  • By using modern microelectronics and light-weight materials such as composite structures, future SmallSats observation systems, operating at a lower altitude than traditional systems, have the potential for:

    • Comparable or better performance (resolution and coverage)

    • Much lower overall mission cost (by a factor of 2 to 10)

    • Lower risk (both implementation and operations)

    • Shorter schedules

  • Relevant secondary advantages for the low-altitude SmallSats include:

    • Lower up-front development cost

    • More sustainable business model

    • More flexible and resilient

    • More responsive to both new technologies and changing needs

    • Mitigates the problem of orbital debris

The principal demerits of the approach are the lack of low-cost launch vehicles, the need for a new way of doing business, and changing the way we think about the use of space assets. This paper provides the basis for this assessment, estimates for the level of cost reduction, and reports on additional results since the 2013 Reinventing Space Conference and AIAA Space 2014 Conference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

X. References

  1. Aerospace Corporation. 1996. SmallSats Cost Model (SSCM). El Segundo, CA: The Aerospace Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Apgar, Henry. 2011. “Cost Estimating.” Wertz, J., Everett, D., and Puschell, J. Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD, (SME) Chap. 11. Microcosm Press: Hawthorne, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bearden, David, A., et al. 1996. “Comparison of NEAR Costs with a Small-Spacecraft Cost Model.” AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, September 16-19.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Department of Defense. 2013a. “Performance of the Defense Acquisition System,” 2013 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, June 28.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Department of Defense. 2013b. “Resiliency and Disaggregated Space Architectures.” Air Force Space Command, White Paper, AFD-130821-034.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Digital Globe. 2013. Quickbird Datasheet. DS-QB 07/13.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eves, Stuart. 2013. “Very Low Orbits.” 2013 Reinventing Space Conference. International Panel – Presentation, El Segundo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  8. GeoEye. 2012. GeoEye-2 Fact Sheet, Rev 03/12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Habib-agahi, Hamid. 2010. NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM) Version IV. Pasadena, CA: NASA JPL.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hurley, Mike and Bill Purdy. 2010. “Designing and Managing for a Reliability of Zero.” ESA 4S Symposium, Funchal, Portugal, Paper No. 1885505, May 31–June 4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mahr, Eric, and Greg Richardson. 2002. “Development of the Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM) Edition 2002.” IEEEAC paper #1159, Updated December 19, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  12. NASA. 2008a. 2008 Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA HQ, Cost Analysis Division, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  13. NASA. 2008b. NASA Small Explorers Office SmallSat Study, Final Report. JHU/APL Space Department, June.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reeves, Emery I. 1999. “Spacecraft Design and Sizing.” Wertz, J. R. and W. J. Larson. 1999. Space Mission Analysis and Design. 3rd ed., Chap. 10. Hawthorne, CA and New York: Microcosm Press and Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Spaceflight Now. 2000. “Commercial Eye-in-the-sky Appears Lost in Launch Failure.” Nov. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Space News. 2012. “NGA Letters Cast Cloud Over GeoEye’s Enhanced View Funding.” June 23.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Space News. 2014a. “DARPA Chief Says Space Programs Are Too Slow and Costly.” January 15.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Space News. 2014b. “Thule Air Base USAF Examining Alternative for All of Its Big Satellite Programs.” February 17, page 14.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Space News. 2014c. “Google to Buy SkyBox for $500 Million.” June 10.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shao, Anthony, Elizabeth A. Koltz, and James R. Wertz. 2013. “Performance Based Cost Modeling: Quantifying the Cost Reduction Potential of Small Observation Satellties.” AIAA Reinventing Space Conference, AIAA-RS-2013-1003, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shao, Anthony, and Elizabeth A. Koltz. 2013. Microcosm Technical Report, PBCM Detailed Analysis. Microcosm: Hawthorne, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, M. Watkins, C. Reiger. 2004, “The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment: Mission Overview and Early Results.” American Geophysical Union.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tecolote Research. 2002. Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model (USCM). El Segundo, CA: US Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center.

    Google Scholar 

  24. The Reinventing Space Project. 2014. Website: http://www.smad.com/ReinventingSpace.html

  25. Wertz, James R., David F. Everett, and Jeffery J. Puschell. 2011. Space Missions Engineering: The New SMAD. Microcosm Press: Hawthorne, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wertz, James R., Nicola Sarzi-Amade, Anthony Shao, Christianna Taylor, and Richard E. Van Allen. 2012. “Moderately Elliptical Very Low Orbits (MEVLOs) as a Long-Term Solution to Orbital Debris.” 26th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on SmallSats, SSC12-IV-6, Utah State University, Logan, UT, Aug. 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wertz, James R., Richard R. Van Allen, and Tina Barcley. 2010. “NanoEye—Military Relevant Surveillance for Less Than $5 Million Total Recurring Mission Cost.” 8th Responsive Space Conference, RS8-2010-1008, Los Angeles, CA, Mar. 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wertz, James R., and Wiley J. Larson. 1996. Reducing Space Mission Cost. El Segundo, CA: Microcosm Press and Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Shao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shao, A., Wertz, J.R., Koltz, E.A. (2017). Quantifying the Cost Reduction Potential for Earth Observation Satellites. In: Hatton, S. (eds) Proceedings of the 12th Reinventing Space Conference. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34024-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34024-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-34023-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-34024-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics