Budget
Cubesats are significantly less expensive than their current counterparts [1], [2]. If full-sized satellites were to orbit Jupiter instead of cubesats, that cost would be the same as have 12 Juno spacecraft orbiting Jupiter: $13.2 billion.
According to Murrill [3] the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was utilized for the “shake and bake” tests that check if the spacecraft can survive the harsh conditions of space. However, there is no cost that is directly associated with the “shake and bake” test. Therefore it is assumed that the costs for the tests differ per mission and per spacecraft and do not necessarily have a fixed cost that the general public may have access to.
In addition, since the Mother Ship would not have all the expensive instruments the Juno mission has [4] and replaces it with less expensive cubesats and a dispenser system, the cost would the same as the Juno mission or even less.
Since, the project is based on the Juno mission, the Juno mission will be the template on which the mission is based.The Juno mission costs approximately $1.1 billion which is broken down to $581 million for spacecraft development and science instruments, $184 million for launch services, $342 million for mission operations, science processing and relay support for 6 years [5]. A 1U cubesat will cost about $1 million in Earth orbit [1]. To strengthen the cubesat for Jupiter and have enough power for orbiting for 3 years, the 12U cubesat would cost about 2 times normal per unit size: $24 million. Since there are 12 cubesats, the entire cubesat system would cost $288 million. By basing the project on a previously existing mission, the costs will be more optimized because resources would not be spent on redundant designs.
Based on the previous information, many of cost would not be significantly different. The spacecraft development cost would be similar because the advanced instruments would be gone but replaced with cubesats and a new dispensing system. Although the cubesats would be cheaper than the instruments, the new dispensing system may cost just as the same if not more due to reliable moving parts. The weight would be about the same, so the launch cost would not differ significantly. The timeline would not significant changes. The total cost is $1.1 billion + $288 million = $1.388 billion. The project will cost approximately 26% more than Juno for completely new data, but significantly less than using a conventional method [1], [2].
References:
[1] M. Wall. (2013, July 10). New Space Engine & 'CubeSats' Could Help Cut Cost Of Planetary Exploration, Scientists Say [Online]. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/cubesat-space-engine-interplanetary-flight-cost_n_3561531.html
[2] V. Kane. (2013, Oct. 24). The Potential of CubeSats. [Online]. Available: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20131023-the-potential-of-cubesats.html
[3] M. B. Murrill. (1996, Oct. 15). CASSINI SPACECRAFT READIED FOR "SHAKE AND BAKE" TESTS [Online]. Available: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/releases/96/csshake.html
[4] P. Blau. (2014). Juno Spacecraft Information [Online]. Available: http://www.spaceflight101.com/juno-spacecraft-information.html
[5] E. J. Cureton. (2011, June 9).
Scientist with area ties to study Jupiter up close and personal [Online]. Available: http://bigbendnow.com/2011/06/scientist-with-area-ties-to-study-jupiter-up-close-and-personal/
Cubesats are significantly less expensive than their current counterparts [1], [2]. If full-sized satellites were to orbit Jupiter instead of cubesats, that cost would be the same as have 12 Juno spacecraft orbiting Jupiter: $13.2 billion.
According to Murrill [3] the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was utilized for the “shake and bake” tests that check if the spacecraft can survive the harsh conditions of space. However, there is no cost that is directly associated with the “shake and bake” test. Therefore it is assumed that the costs for the tests differ per mission and per spacecraft and do not necessarily have a fixed cost that the general public may have access to.
In addition, since the Mother Ship would not have all the expensive instruments the Juno mission has [4] and replaces it with less expensive cubesats and a dispenser system, the cost would the same as the Juno mission or even less.
Since, the project is based on the Juno mission, the Juno mission will be the template on which the mission is based.The Juno mission costs approximately $1.1 billion which is broken down to $581 million for spacecraft development and science instruments, $184 million for launch services, $342 million for mission operations, science processing and relay support for 6 years [5]. A 1U cubesat will cost about $1 million in Earth orbit [1]. To strengthen the cubesat for Jupiter and have enough power for orbiting for 3 years, the 12U cubesat would cost about 2 times normal per unit size: $24 million. Since there are 12 cubesats, the entire cubesat system would cost $288 million. By basing the project on a previously existing mission, the costs will be more optimized because resources would not be spent on redundant designs.
Based on the previous information, many of cost would not be significantly different. The spacecraft development cost would be similar because the advanced instruments would be gone but replaced with cubesats and a new dispensing system. Although the cubesats would be cheaper than the instruments, the new dispensing system may cost just as the same if not more due to reliable moving parts. The weight would be about the same, so the launch cost would not differ significantly. The timeline would not significant changes. The total cost is $1.1 billion + $288 million = $1.388 billion. The project will cost approximately 26% more than Juno for completely new data, but significantly less than using a conventional method [1], [2].
References:
[1] M. Wall. (2013, July 10). New Space Engine & 'CubeSats' Could Help Cut Cost Of Planetary Exploration, Scientists Say [Online]. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/cubesat-space-engine-interplanetary-flight-cost_n_3561531.html
[2] V. Kane. (2013, Oct. 24). The Potential of CubeSats. [Online]. Available: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20131023-the-potential-of-cubesats.html
[3] M. B. Murrill. (1996, Oct. 15). CASSINI SPACECRAFT READIED FOR "SHAKE AND BAKE" TESTS [Online]. Available: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/releases/96/csshake.html
[4] P. Blau. (2014). Juno Spacecraft Information [Online]. Available: http://www.spaceflight101.com/juno-spacecraft-information.html
[5] E. J. Cureton. (2011, June 9).
Scientist with area ties to study Jupiter up close and personal [Online]. Available: http://bigbendnow.com/2011/06/scientist-with-area-ties-to-study-jupiter-up-close-and-personal/