Budget - MARCO POLO

Timeline

An aggressive timeline was established to complete the mission development and deploy the constellation as soon as possible. This is particularly important to compete with industry rivals such as PlanetLabs [1]. Based on the initial development and proof-of-concept, a further year is expected to complete the development of the system and primary software components, including purchasing of test units for the main components. This development phase is expected to close in Q2 of 2016, beginning a 6-month phase of integration testing in Q3 of 2016. Integration testing of the spacecraft system and algorithms is to be performed using the ORACLE hardware-in-the-loop test facility currently under development in the Space Systems Design Lab at Georgia Tech. By the beginning of 2017, large-scale assembly of the 86 cubesats will begin, while further system testing will continue through Q2 of 2017. Delivery of the first 22 cubesats is expected by the end of 2017, allowing 6 months margin and lead time for delivery to the first launch in Q3 of 2018. The remaining cubesats will be delivered throughout early 2018 for launch later the same year, and the mission will become operational in 2019. Following a brief on-orbit check-out period, the 10-year mission duration will begin, and the constellation will remain active through 2029.

Satellite Equipment

The following bill of materials summarizes the form factor, size, and cost for each individual cubesat component. There are 86 cubesats in the MARCO POLO constellation, so the total cost for the constellation hardware is a multiplication of the individual cost by a factor of 86.

Significant cost savings were achieved through the use of the Tyvak Intrepid Platform. Not only does this system come with integrated ADCS, uplink communication (UHF), and Power components, but there is also a ~42%-per-unit price reduction when buying 20+ units as compared to a single unit.

Most of the product prices are determined directly from commercial vendors; however, a few component prices were estimated. The imaging sensor price was estimated using the price of a camera assembly that incorporated the specified sensor. The X-Band transmitter is still in development, so the price was estimated using available S-Band antenna prices and applying a 3x margin for development costs. The CHAMPS thruster is also in development, but a price estimate range was obtained from the vendor, erring on the lower side due to the stability of the cold-gas thrusters compared to the hydrazine models. The remainder of the equipment prices were obtained directly from commercial vendors.

Another noteworthy element is the total cubesat weight. Typically, cubesats are restricted to 1.33 kg per unit, so a 3U cubesat should weigh at most 4 kg. However, deviation waivers are commonly requested and accepted for weight overages [2].

Ground Station Equipment

Along with the cubesat hardware, the ground station hardware necessary to communicate with the constellation is provided below. The constellation requires two ground stations to downlink the cubesat image dataset. The first ground station is located in Atlanta, Georgia at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the second ground station is located in San Luis Obispo, California at the California Polytechnic State University. Each ground station requires four antennas, because simulation results have indicated that our orbital constellation will have a maximum number of four CubeSats within communication range with a ground station. Below are the costs to purchase the ground station antennas and support an operator on site for 10 years.

Similar to the satellite equipment, the X-Band ground antenna cost is not readily available. Therefore, commercially available S-Band antennae were examined, adding a 1.5x margin due to increased performance over the S-Band options. The ground station operator cost is also estimated based on a required Bachelor's degree-level price.

Engineering Personnel & Facilities

In addition to the hardware costs, the personnel costs for designing, assembling, testing, and launching these cubesats into orbit are estimated. A facilities and equipment cost is provided as well to support the personnel. The estimated facilities and equipment cost is believed to be conservative and represents a >10% margin over the mission budget. Though a significant cost savings is expected due to the use of existing ground stations with established working relationships in Georgia Tech and Cal Poly [3], the margin would cover any ground station contracting costs as well as unforeseen budget issues.

The project manager and chief engineer are assumed to be highly technical positions (extensive experience, perhaps PhD required) so the salary is increased accordingly. The subsystem lead engineers, however, likely require Master's degree-level experience. 5 subsystem leads account for the Payload (Imaging), ADCS, Telecom, Power, and Flight Software teams. Each of the lead and management roles are needed for the entire development and mission lifetime. An additional 10 employees are required to accomplish the task of developing, assembling, testing, and delivering 86 satellites.

Launch

The final remaining cost is associated with launching the cubesats into their respective sun-synchronous orbital planes. Four <100 Kg SpaceFlight launches are required to deliver all 86 satellites into the 4 orbit planes.

Mission Cost

The final cost estimates for the development, testing, deployment, and operation of the MARCO POLO constellation is found by summing the previous sub-totals, yielding the following grand total mission cost. This cost is thought to be realistic but conservative due to the >10% margin and conservative equipment and personnel cost estimation.