Cost of the Europa Clipper program is around $4-5 billion. Can anyone in the industry shed some light on why these programs are so expensive?
replies(9):
If you built even 15 Europa Clippers the cost per-item would come down enormously (because all of those people's work could be re-used), but since the 1970's NASA has not had the budget for multiple probes per missions. So every mission is bespoke, and has to be done again completely from scratch.
1: The engine was normally used for circularizing the orbit of a geosynch comm satellite, so within a few hours of flight. For doing a Mars Insertion burn it needed to sit fueled for months in outer space, which was not appropriately tested, and probably the fuel tank exploded in flight because of that.
Is there room here for making things more reusable? For example, instead of creating one big satellite with tens of instruments, how about they create 10 satellites with one instrument each? or would that still be too bespoke to lower the cost per item?
The whole strategies of exploration haven’t shifted yet to this new paradigm. Hopefully NASA starts making smaller probes and launching them far more often.
It is possible for a swarm of small satellites to fill niches in space exploration. Closely studying Europa isn't really one of them with today's technology.
Easier said than done, of course.
There was some talk about using ISS as a base for on-orbit assembly but the orbit (half-way between best orbit from KSC and Baikonur) isn't great for that and it turns out that constant docking and un-docking ruins scientific experiments requiring microgravity, so ISS really isn't a great base for assembly. Ideally, if you want to start on orbit assembly you'd have another station in the right orbit for KSC which isn't doing any microgravity research, but now we're talking about massive up front investment to save money on research satellites, is NASA ever going to get the scale of research budget for that savings to be worth it?
If something like Space Based Solar Power ever become a thing then such an on orbit assembly station would make sense, but the case for assembly for science missions really only closes if you have the station already for something else.
I would also count the Apollo missions. They launched on a single rocket, but the docking between the CSM and Lunar Module was for all intents and purposes equally difficult to assembly on orbit.
There are multiple commercial companies planning to assemble stations over the next few years. This in addition to the on-orbit refueling that SpaceX will be doing should hopefully enable a new generation of larger, assembled interplanetary probes.
But that is closer to what I meant, because they had to worry about separate launches that might fail (GVI, GIX) and find and dock with something you need to use orbital mechanics to approach (basically anything under 30m distance you can just eyeball and fly, but anything over that distance requires the full set of orbital calculations).