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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
X. References
Aerospace Corporation. 1996. SmallSats Cost Model (SSCM). El Segundo, CA: The Aerospace Corporation.
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.
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.
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.
Department of Defense. 2013b. “Resiliency and Disaggregated Space Architectures.” Air Force Space Command, White Paper, AFD-130821-034.
Digital Globe. 2013. Quickbird Datasheet. DS-QB 07/13.
Eves, Stuart. 2013. “Very Low Orbits.” 2013 Reinventing Space Conference. International Panel – Presentation, El Segundo, CA.
GeoEye. 2012. GeoEye-2 Fact Sheet, Rev 03/12.
Habib-agahi, Hamid. 2010. NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM) Version IV. Pasadena, CA: NASA JPL.
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.
Mahr, Eric, and Greg Richardson. 2002. “Development of the Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM) Edition 2002.” IEEEAC paper #1159, Updated December 19, 2002.
NASA. 2008a. 2008 Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA HQ, Cost Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
NASA. 2008b. NASA Small Explorers Office SmallSat Study, Final Report. JHU/APL Space Department, June.
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.
Spaceflight Now. 2000. “Commercial Eye-in-the-sky Appears Lost in Launch Failure.” Nov. 21.
Space News. 2012. “NGA Letters Cast Cloud Over GeoEye’s Enhanced View Funding.” June 23.
Space News. 2014a. “DARPA Chief Says Space Programs Are Too Slow and Costly.” January 15.
Space News. 2014b. “Thule Air Base USAF Examining Alternative for All of Its Big Satellite Programs.” February 17, page 14.
Space News. 2014c. “Google to Buy SkyBox for $500 Million.” June 10.
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.
Shao, Anthony, and Elizabeth A. Koltz. 2013. Microcosm Technical Report, PBCM Detailed Analysis. Microcosm: Hawthorne, CA.
Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, M. Watkins, C. Reiger. 2004, “The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment: Mission Overview and Early Results.” American Geophysical Union.
Tecolote Research. 2002. Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model (USCM). El Segundo, CA: US Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center.
The Reinventing Space Project. 2014. Website: http://www.smad.com/ReinventingSpace.html
Wertz, James R., David F. Everett, and Jeffery J. Puschell. 2011. Space Missions Engineering: The New SMAD. Microcosm Press: Hawthorne, CA.
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.
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.
Wertz, James R., and Wiley J. Larson. 1996. Reducing Space Mission Cost. El Segundo, CA: Microcosm Press and Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)