Progress and Challenges with Interplanetary Small Satellite Missions

^ NASA Cost and Schedule Symposium 2021 April 28th, 2021

Michael Saing, TeamX Lead Cost Engineer, Deputy Systems Engineer Alex Austin, TeamXc Lead Engineer

© 2021 Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology The research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech. Agenda

• Motivation and Objective • History and Background of NASA’s Small Sat Mission • NASA’s Interplanetary Mission • Past, Present and Future • Challenges: – Technology – Implementation – Operations – Costs – Access to Space • Comparisons and findings – Show some funding/cost growth • How NASA can help to address challenges and keep cost from growing, or provide provide sufficient • Summary • References • Caveats • Closing

2 jpl.nasa.gov Motivation and Objective

• Informational presentation on small sat interplanetary mission challenges • Understand what’s going on in today’s cost and schedule related to these upcoming missions

3 jpl.nasa.gov NASA Cubesat Small Sat Fleet

~20 Interplanetary missions

4 jpl.nasa.gov What do you mean by “Interplanetary”

• Interplanetary means traveling between planets. And focus area for interplanetary is between sun and asteroid belt

*Interplanetary Space*

Deep Space Interstellar Space and beyond

5 jpl.nasa.gov What is a CubeSat? Small Sat?

• CubeSat = nanosatellite in a form of a cube, with each “U” measuring 10cm x 10cm x 10cm and weighs ~1.33kg (weight by ROT) • The “U” cube are stackable • SmallSat mass ranging from 15 kg to ~350 kg (Standard definitions varies depending on who you ask) • Common form factors are: 1U, 3U, 6U’s. Future planetary missions planned with 12U and MicroSat • By Definition: • Mini-satellite, 100-180 kilograms • Microsatellite, 10-100 kilograms • Nanosatellite, 1-10 kilograms • Picosatellite, 0.01-1 kilograms • Femtosatellite, 0.001-0.01 kilograms

RainCube (6U), 13.5kg

PhoneSat (1U), ~1 kg INSPIRE (3U), ~5 kg

TechEdSat 8 Cygnss, Microsats, 28.9 kg each (1x6U), ~8 kg 6 jpl.nasa.gov ASTERIA, an exoplanet hunting CubeSat The Rise of SmallSats

• SmallSats, including CubeSats, can range in mass from 1 kg to ~300 kg https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/asteria.php MarCO, the first interplanetary • Customers include CubeSats government, industry, and academia – many successful missions • Growth has principally been driven by: • Standardization of launch https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/marcos-mars-and-earth/ CYGNSS, a constellation of 8 SmallSats in Earth orbit opportunities • Miniaturization of digital electronics due to Moore’s Law

https://sciencesprings.wordpress.com/tag/nasa-cygnss/

7 jpl.nasa.gov Significant Drivers in Interplanetary Missions

• As a spacecraft moves further away from Earth, it gets more challenging – Larger solar distances and Earth distances driver the telecom and power subsystems – Large delta-V’s drive the propulsion subsystem – Long communication times drives the operations scenario • Technical Feasibility: “Dead European Problems”* While modern physics has Classical physics still enforces constraints enabled SmallSats through the on SmallSat technical capabilities miniaturization of digital electronics…

https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and- iiot/article/21128644/making-miniaturization- manageable https://www.wiley.com/en- us/Fundamentals+of+Physics+Extend ed%2C+10th+Edition-p- 9781118230725 “Understanding the limitations of the classical laws of physics, worked out by Europeans, long since dead, are fundamental to successful SmallSat Concept Development” – Alfred Nash, TeamX Lead Engineer

*Austin A., Nash, A., “Fundamental Problems in SmallSat Concept Development”, IEEE 2021 Conference 8 jpl.nasa.gov Interplanetary SmallSats: Unique Challenges

•Interplanetary SmallSats have unique challenges in many areas: –Technology –Implementation –Operations –Access to Space -Costs •Tackling these challenges can be a significant driver on mission cost

9 jpl.nasa.gov Challenges - Technology

•Interplanetary missions are driven technically by power, telecommunications, and propulsion. •The required capabilities in these areas far surpasses what is needed for missions in Earth orbit, which means that additional technology development is required. •Development of this new technology can be a significant cost driver on the mission, and makes estimating the costs of interplanetary small satellite missions particularly challenging. •Complex and state of the art instrument technologies are often over seen and underestimated (which are typical cost drivers for small sat mission cost cap)

10 jpl.nasa.gov Cost vs Technology Development and Maturation

Typical trend

Cost, $

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

11 jpl.nasa.gov Challenges - Implementation

-Implementing interplanetary missions is complex due to their unique requirements. -Most small satellite vendors do not currently have experience in this area, so additional support is often needed. -This can especially drive costs for program management, systems engineering and systems integration, which might not scale down much with the size of the mission. –Often times, expert support is needed from experienced individuals -Lots of small space start-up companies, not enough experts, typically can’t afford/sustain them -Interplanetary small satellite missions often need longer schedules than typical Earth orbiting SmallSats -Commercial vendor capability RainCube – 6U – Only a few commercial vendor is willing to do custom products and services, but that comes with high NRE costs and time – The uniqueness of technology deters most company from developing one of a kind technology due to unpopular demand. – Costly and timely for -Long lead items still remains and drives schedule and costs -Small budget supporting the team, limited support, needs to multi-disciplinary which isn’t your typical entry level engineers and scientist

MarCO – 6U 12 jpl.nasa.gov Cost vs Implementation Capabilities

` Cost

http://grapgat.blogspot.com/2007/08/stone-age-it.html

https://etinsights.et-edge.com/wp- Implementation Capability* over time (in many ways) content/uploads/2020/06/Automation.jpg

Established standardization, fundamental technologies, manufacturing and tooling, experience, expertise, automation, etc…

13 jpl.nasa.gov Challenges - Operations

•The large distance from Earth can cause significant challenges for interplanetary mission operations -Requires the use of the Deep Space Network for communications -Likely have only one (or less) communication opportunities with the spacecraft per day -Long communication delays require the spacecraft to be self-sufficient and make troubleshooting anomalies difficult

• Mission Design and Navigation is a significant driver for interplanetary missions -Even small satellites require a mission design and navigation team -This area does not shrink as much as other areas, when compared to larger missions

14 jpl.nasa.gov Challenges – Access to Space

•Access to Space for interplanetary missions is significantly more challenging than for Earth orbiters, since the spacecraft must escape Earth’s gravity well. •Typically accomplished via rideshare with a larger deep space mission (MarCO with Insight, CubeSats with Artemis-1), but these opportunities do not come up very often. • Furthermore, the trajectory that the primary mission is taking may not be ideal for secondary SmallSat missions •New, smaller launch vehicles may provide other opportunities for SmallSat launch, but currently they are constrained to Earth orbit and escaping Earth’s gravity well requires significantly more delta-V

CAPSTONE 15 jpl.nasa.gov Making Headlines… “Extra, Extra, Read all about it!”

16 jpl.nasa.gov Challenges - Costs

• Science instrument drives the mission costs (typically) • Lack of full and transparent cost mission data broken down by work breakdown structure (WBS) • Limited to no data available on cubesat/smallsat mission and technology development • Cost model does not predict well given the limited to no data on interplanetary type missions – Business market is changing rapidly and cost models cannot keep up with the changes – For example, GeneSat (2006) total mission cost was ~$8M for a 3U cubesat, now it could be more like ~$2M-3M (Factor of 2 to 3 times different) • Big science goals and small mission doesn’t necessarily mean a reduction in total mission costs. Still costs a lot for science and engineering experts to do ambitious science

17 jpl.nasa.gov Interplanetary Small Sat Missions Past, Present, and Future • Sparse correlation data, platform and cost varies • If you plot the mass, volume and costs, does not follow a trendline

Launch Delays Mission Launch Access to Space Platform Estimated Cost, $M Lunar Trail Blazer Rideshare - IMAP TBD Small Sat $55 Janus Rideshare - Psyche TBD Small Sat $55 Escapade TBD TBD Small Sat $55 Marco Insight Yes 6U $18 Capstone (includes Launch) Rocket Lab TBD Small Sat $30 Mars Helicopter, Ingenuity M2020 No 1U $80 Aeolus TBD TBD Small Sat $75 NEAScout Artemis-1 Yes 6U $45 LunaH-MAP Artemis-1 Yes 6U $6 BioStentinel Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Lunar Flashlight Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD AroMoon Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD CubeSat for Solar Particles Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Lunar Flashlight Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Lunar IceCube Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD SkyFire Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD OMOTENASHI Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Cislunar Explorers Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Earth Escape Explorer Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD Team Miles Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD EQUULEUS Artemis-1 Yes 6U TBD

Disclaimer - The cost information contained in this document is of a budgetary and planning nature and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute a commitment on the part of JPL and/or Caltech. 18 jpl.nasa.gov Example Missions

•Luna H-Map –Implementation: Complexity of instrument development –Access to Space: SLS launch delay caused cost growth •MarCO –Technology: Radio and propulsion system –Access to Space: Insight launch delay caused cost growth, storage, re-test, etc… •Mars Helicopter –Technology: New type of mobility drives cost -Implementation: Study of rotorcraft on other planets started back in 1997, Helicopter study started early 2000s

19 jpl.nasa.gov The Challenges are Cost Drivers

20 jpl.nasa.gov Recommendations

•Recognize the challenges and plan for them form the earliest stages of formulation •Take advantage of NASA opportunities to work with experts in deep space mission design, such as the Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat (PSDS3) studies •Continue to collaborate among NASA, industry, and universities to enhance the SmallSat state of the art in technologies and implementation approaches •Carry large cost reserves, especially on new technologies • Have good book keeping practices – start with NASA standard WBS and have an integrated master schedule. This is how you know when trouble is coming •Cost estimating, evaluating costs, and cost validation will be a challenge for interplanetary mission as data is all over the place. Should get input from experienced PM and experts. Traditional cost models made for larger mission is not appropriate

21 jpl.nasa.gov Summary

• Small Satellites have seen a huge growth in the last decade, but interplanetary missions come with unique challenges which can significantly drive cost and schedule. – Technology – Implementation – Operations – Access to Space • It is critical to understand these challenges when scoping new mission concepts to ensure that they are feasible and will be successful – mission success, on-time, and on budget

22 jpl.nasa.gov QUESTIONS

23 jpl.nasa.gov©Michael Saing Astrophotography jpl.nasa.gov