Analysis of a ‘turn-key’ no hardware space mission using the orbital services model

Many applications that would benefit from access to space cannot afford the cost of spacecraft development, launch and operations. Other operations require only a fraction of a spacecraft or complete use of a spacecraft for a limited period of time. This paper considers the value of a `turn-key' style space mission. It considers what types of missions could be reasonably conducted using this approach. The economics of being a service provider are considered. Then, a prospective mission concept for one OSM `turn-key' mission is presented. The value proposition of this mission is assessed and the hardware and other capabilities required for it are discussed. Then, a discussion of the economics for orbital service providers is presented, using the prospective mission as an illustrative example. Finally, prospective pathways to the technological and commercial points required for OSM `turn-key' missions to become a reality are discussed, before concluding.

[1]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  Does the use of space solar power for in-space activities really make sense: An updated economic assessment , 2015 .

[2]  Alessandro Golkar,et al.  Satellite-to-satellite coverage optimization approach for opportunistic inter-satellite links , 2014, 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[3]  Jeremy Straub.  Extending the orbital services model beyond computing, communications and sensing , 2014, 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[4]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space mission engineering : the new SMAD , 2011 .

[5]  Ingrid Moerman,et al.  An Information Driven Sensornet Architecture , 2009, 2009 Third International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications.

[6]  Prabal Dutta,et al.  Grafting energy-harvesting leaves onto the sensornet tree , 2012, 2012 ACM/IEEE 11th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN).

[7]  Alessandro Aliakbargolkar,et al.  Architecting Federated Satellite Systems for Successful Commercial Implementation , 2013 .

[8]  Jeremy Straub.  Data storage management in a distributed database with deterministic limited communications windows between data storage nodes , 2014, Defense + Security Symposium.

[9]  Chaki Ng,et al.  Mirage: a microeconomic resource allocation system for sensornet testbeds , 2005, The Second IEEE Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors, 2005. EmNetS-II..

[10]  Xu Li,et al.  An Integrated Self-deployment and Coverage Maintenance Scheme for Mobile Sensor Networks , 2006, MSN.

[11]  Roberto Furfaro,et al.  Robotic test bed for autonomous surface exploration of Titan, Mars, and other planetary bodies , 2011, 2011 Aerospace Conference.

[12]  Seiko Shirasaka,et al.  Multi-stakeholder interactive simulation for federated satellite systems , 2014, 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[13]  Jeremy Straub.  Spatial Computing in an Orbital Environment: An Exploration of the Unique Constraints of this Special Case to other Spatial Computing Environments , 2013 .

[14]  D. Schulze-Makuch,et al.  Tier-Scalable Reconnaissance Missions For The Autonomous Exploration Of Planetary Bodies , 2007, 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[15]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  Above the cloud computing: applying cloud computing principles to create an orbital services model , 2013, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[16]  Yoshito Tobe,et al.  Autonomous Deployment and Restoration of Sensor Network using Mobile Robots , 2010 .

[17]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  A space-to-space microwave wireless power transmission experiential mission using small satellites , 2014 .

[18]  John C. Mankins,et al.  A fresh look at space solar power: New architectures, concepts and technologies , 1997 .

[19]  Iain Bate,et al.  Evolutionary and Principled Search Strategies for Sensornet Protocol Optimization , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[20]  J. Straub.  Deep Space Orbital Service Model for Virtual Planetary Science Missions , 2014 .