6 ms·

What’s the ballpark price these days for building and launching a basic cubesat?

walrus01 4y ago
Something like 100-200k for a small one, which are rather limited in abilities and most of interest to amateur radio nerds. There are several companies that sell partially built kits with aluminum chassis, PV cells and battery/charge system.
- metadat 4y ago
  Why aluminum chassis rather than carbon fiber or titanium?
  - tejtm 4y ago
  - amerine 4y ago
    Price.
    - metadat 4y ago
      At what point are the weight savings not worth the extra delta-V offset?
      - Fordec 4y ago
        When the launch costs get from $10k per kg currently get down to around $100-$500 per kg
    - nl 4y ago
      This doesn't seem right. Carbon fibre is price competitive with aluminium.
      - metadat 4y ago
        Aluminum is comparatively cheap.. Or so I thought, I just tried to Google the comparison per KG and it's completely spammed by alibaba and miscellaneous SEO. Good luck, have fun with that. Would appreciate any industry in insider POV.
      - dandelany 4y ago
        Maybe if you can get by with entirely COTS parts. Aluminum is much easier to cut, drill, tap and bend.
      - Ephil012 4y ago
        I haven't really seen this to be the case personally. For a 1/32 thickness 12" x 12" sheet of carbon fiber, it is 35 dollars. This is actually this company's cheapest carbon fiber sheet too at that size. I have seen other companies charge more iirc. https://dragonplate.com/EconomyPlate-Solid-Carbon-Fiber-Sheet-1_32-x-12-x-12 https://dragonplate.com/EconomyPlate-Solid-Carbon-Fiber-Shee... Same sheet size / thickness for aluminum is 16 dollars (although I saw a shadier website selling for 12 dollars). https://www.mcmaster.com/aluminum-sheets/aluminum/multipurpose-6061-aluminum-sheets-and-bars-7/ https://www.mcmaster.com/aluminum-sheets/aluminum/multipurpo... Now for cubesat grade stuff you might want something better than what I linked, but still its a good illustration of the price difference. That is over half the price. I think the prices are maybe closer than in the past, but there is still a significant difference.
        Ephil012 4y ago
        I should note though that due to the strength differences this analysis may not be complete. Technically carbon fiber is stronger so you can get away with a thinner sheet while having similar strength. Using a thinner sheet might save on carbon fiber costs. However, I still believe this analysis illustrates the significant cost difference.
        walrus01 4y ago
        carbon fiber doesn't come in big billet chunks that you can cnc machine into any shape you want. you either need to fabricate something from pieces of carbon fiber plate (which is available in up to 1cm thicknesses) held together with adhesives and fasteners, or custom-form a carbon fiber piece from your own custom mold, such as if making a carbon fiber road bicycle frame, which has huge upfront costs and is only economical if you intend to sell thousands of units.
  - d_silin 4y ago
    Needs to be conductive and strong enough. Aluminium works just fine for that.
  - Ephil012 4y ago
    I work on a CubeSat team and there are a few reasons why CubeSat teams choose aluminum. 1) CubeSat spec rules. The rules guiding CubeSats technically only allow aluminum. "3.2.15 Aluminum 7075, 6061, 5005, and/or 5052 will be used for both the main CubeSat structure and the rails." You can get a waiver, but it makes more sense to just keep to the spec for practical reasons. The CubeSat spec doesn't matter as much to private companies I think, but it does matter if you are a non profit or student team trying to get a launch with NASA. 2) Ease of use. This is the biggest reason (besides the CubeSat spec) most teams use aluminum. Aluminum is just so easy to build with compared to say carbon fiber. You can easily bend and drill aluminum to make the shapes you want for cheap. Carbon fiber is just difficult to work with. 3) Temperature resistance. Carbon fiber doesn't handle extreme temps as well. Outer space is extremely cold and in some cases it can cause carbon fiber to weaken. Meanwhile, titanium is a horrible choice because of its high temperature resistance. NASA explicitly tells people to not use it because Titanium has such a high melting point it can survive re-entry to Earth and accidentally hurt someone or destroy property. 4) Air trapping. Sometimes air can get trapped in composites like Carbon Fiber. This can result in it trying to escape into space and damaging the CubeSat. It's a major risk factor and one of the big reasons to avoid carbon fiber unless it's made in a specific way to ensure that doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it is hard to find carbon fiber that meets those standards. 5) Cost. For a 1/32 thickness 12" x 12" sheet of carbon fiber, it is 35 dollars. Same sheet size / thickness for aluminum is 16 dollars. That is over half the price. However, CubeSats are small (10 cm x 10 cm x 10cm in some cases) so material cost isn't as big of a deal as you might think. The bigger concern is the added weight might increase your launch cost. However, in practice the weight savings are negligible at the smaller CubeSat sizes. I should also note that the aluminum is mostly for the frame / chassis and that doesn't consume that much material. NASA charges nothing for their student / non profit launches so weight doesn't matter there as long are you aren't over the limit. For private launches, they usually round off the weight anyhow. Sometimes to the nearest whole KG, other times to the first decimal place. Either way, you probably aren't too concerned about weight due to the limited material used. I know for ours using Carbon Fiber wouldn't actually save on launch costs due to the rounding. If we were near the border or were doing a bigger sized CubeSat, then sure it might save us, but there are other things we can do first to save weight before switching materials. I think if we were building a very big CubeSat then yeah we might become concerned over the weight costing us extra. However, weight isn't the biggest factor for us simply because of the other reasons. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't use Carbon Fiber due to the air trapping and temperature issues. Overall, the benefits of a lighter weight material like carbon fiber just isn't worth the difficulties that come with working with it. As a result, the standard is to use aluminum because it's cheap, works well, and is easy to use. Edit: I said a 1U sat was around the size of a Rubik's cube before. However, I underestimated how small Rubik's cubes are. A Rubik's cube is 5.6cm on each size vs 10cm for the 1U CubeSat.
Mr_Twinkles 4y ago
Depends on how much effort you're willing to put in. Back in the mid-2010s, our team made a 1U with a BOM cost of ~$3k, but we manufactured everything except the bare PCBs in-house. I'm sure the kits are a lot more expensive.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Depends on what you're doing. Last I checked a 1U cubesat cost around $50k to launch, but there also also says to get free or cheaper launches depending on the payload. Speaking of the payload, that will greatly impact the build cost. I imagine you could put together the Cubesat equivalent of Sputnik for like $100, then another $200 or so for the FCC paperwork. If you want to send up interesting sensors, build something more durable/long lasting, have any sort of propulsion or decorating capabilities, etc the cost will start to approach or exceed what you're paying for the launch.
- showerst 4y ago
  Thanks, that’s pretty neat. I have neither the fun stuff budget nor the purpose to justify cluttering up space for a few years, but it’s cool to see satellites drawing closer to “serious but amateur” price levels.
Ephil012 4y ago
The other figures are correct. However, the cost to build cubesats are coming down rapidly. I work at a not for profit called isomer space which builds cubesats. We originally were looking at 50k-100k for ours, but there are a few open source projects now that provide design files to manufacture your own for way cheaper. For us, we are able to get the costs down to under 10k by doing it all in house. This is including multiple prototypes. A single satellite itself is probably 3-4k though for us. If you’re curious, the big open source project in the space is called PyCubed. A bunch of university teams use their designs now because the hardware is relatively affordable. As far as launch prices, I think the 50k figure given is accurate, but only through companies that resell / broker space launches. Getting your own launch outside of a reseller / broker would cost more. For instance, if you buy from SpaceX's rideshare program directly it can cost 1.2 million. This is because SpaceX's base pricing starts at a 200kg payload. Anything that weighs less is still charged at 1.2 million. However, if you go through a third party that resells the launches then it can be 50k or lower. I know I have seen one as low as 20k for a 1U launch. The main reason why its cheaper is a combination of economy of scale (launching lots of cubesats at once) and/or VC funding. The best launch prices in general tend to come from startups who are heavily subsidizing the launches with VC money. Also, if anyone is curious about cubesats or our work in general feel free to AMA.
- syedkarim 4y ago
  Who is offering a 1U for $20k? Is that to sun-sync, or one of the last-minute ISS specials?
  - Ephil012 4y ago
    I don't know if I am technically allowed to say since it was given to us on a contract. I don't think I can name them specifically until we do a joint press release announcing the mission. However, I will say that it was a startup that basically had a lot of VC money to subsidize. It was to sun sync orbit though. Also, they have increased prices for future launches to like 25k or 30k or something like that. Mainly because of they are trying to wean off of subsidizing they said.

Something like 100-200k for a small one, which are rather limited in abilities and most of interest to amateur radio nerds. There are several companies that sell partially built kits with aluminum chassis, PV cells and battery/charge system.

metadat 4y ago
Why aluminum chassis rather than carbon fiber or titanium?
- tejtm 4y ago
- amerine 4y ago
  Price.
  - metadat 4y ago
    At what point are the weight savings not worth the extra delta-V offset?
    - Fordec 4y ago
      When the launch costs get from $10k per kg currently get down to around $100-$500 per kg
  - nl 4y ago
    This doesn't seem right. Carbon fibre is price competitive with aluminium.
    - metadat 4y ago
      Aluminum is comparatively cheap.. Or so I thought, I just tried to Google the comparison per KG and it's completely spammed by alibaba and miscellaneous SEO. Good luck, have fun with that. Would appreciate any industry in insider POV.
    - dandelany 4y ago
      Maybe if you can get by with entirely COTS parts. Aluminum is much easier to cut, drill, tap and bend.
    - Ephil012 4y ago
      I haven't really seen this to be the case personally. For a 1/32 thickness 12" x 12" sheet of carbon fiber, it is 35 dollars. This is actually this company's cheapest carbon fiber sheet too at that size. I have seen other companies charge more iirc. https://dragonplate.com/EconomyPlate-Solid-Carbon-Fiber-Sheet-1_32-x-12-x-12 https://dragonplate.com/EconomyPlate-Solid-Carbon-Fiber-Shee... Same sheet size / thickness for aluminum is 16 dollars (although I saw a shadier website selling for 12 dollars). https://www.mcmaster.com/aluminum-sheets/aluminum/multipurpose-6061-aluminum-sheets-and-bars-7/ https://www.mcmaster.com/aluminum-sheets/aluminum/multipurpo... Now for cubesat grade stuff you might want something better than what I linked, but still its a good illustration of the price difference. That is over half the price. I think the prices are maybe closer than in the past, but there is still a significant difference.
      - Ephil012 4y ago
        I should note though that due to the strength differences this analysis may not be complete. Technically carbon fiber is stronger so you can get away with a thinner sheet while having similar strength. Using a thinner sheet might save on carbon fiber costs. However, I still believe this analysis illustrates the significant cost difference.
      - walrus01 4y ago
        carbon fiber doesn't come in big billet chunks that you can cnc machine into any shape you want. you either need to fabricate something from pieces of carbon fiber plate (which is available in up to 1cm thicknesses) held together with adhesives and fasteners, or custom-form a carbon fiber piece from your own custom mold, such as if making a carbon fiber road bicycle frame, which has huge upfront costs and is only economical if you intend to sell thousands of units.
- d_silin 4y ago
  Needs to be conductive and strong enough. Aluminium works just fine for that.
- Ephil012 4y ago
  I work on a CubeSat team and there are a few reasons why CubeSat teams choose aluminum. 1) CubeSat spec rules. The rules guiding CubeSats technically only allow aluminum. "3.2.15 Aluminum 7075, 6061, 5005, and/or 5052 will be used for both the main CubeSat structure and the rails." You can get a waiver, but it makes more sense to just keep to the spec for practical reasons. The CubeSat spec doesn't matter as much to private companies I think, but it does matter if you are a non profit or student team trying to get a launch with NASA. 2) Ease of use. This is the biggest reason (besides the CubeSat spec) most teams use aluminum. Aluminum is just so easy to build with compared to say carbon fiber. You can easily bend and drill aluminum to make the shapes you want for cheap. Carbon fiber is just difficult to work with. 3) Temperature resistance. Carbon fiber doesn't handle extreme temps as well. Outer space is extremely cold and in some cases it can cause carbon fiber to weaken. Meanwhile, titanium is a horrible choice because of its high temperature resistance. NASA explicitly tells people to not use it because Titanium has such a high melting point it can survive re-entry to Earth and accidentally hurt someone or destroy property. 4) Air trapping. Sometimes air can get trapped in composites like Carbon Fiber. This can result in it trying to escape into space and damaging the CubeSat. It's a major risk factor and one of the big reasons to avoid carbon fiber unless it's made in a specific way to ensure that doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it is hard to find carbon fiber that meets those standards. 5) Cost. For a 1/32 thickness 12" x 12" sheet of carbon fiber, it is 35 dollars. Same sheet size / thickness for aluminum is 16 dollars. That is over half the price. However, CubeSats are small (10 cm x 10 cm x 10cm in some cases) so material cost isn't as big of a deal as you might think. The bigger concern is the added weight might increase your launch cost. However, in practice the weight savings are negligible at the smaller CubeSat sizes. I should also note that the aluminum is mostly for the frame / chassis and that doesn't consume that much material. NASA charges nothing for their student / non profit launches so weight doesn't matter there as long are you aren't over the limit. For private launches, they usually round off the weight anyhow. Sometimes to the nearest whole KG, other times to the first decimal place. Either way, you probably aren't too concerned about weight due to the limited material used. I know for ours using Carbon Fiber wouldn't actually save on launch costs due to the rounding. If we were near the border or were doing a bigger sized CubeSat, then sure it might save us, but there are other things we can do first to save weight before switching materials. I think if we were building a very big CubeSat then yeah we might become concerned over the weight costing us extra. However, weight isn't the biggest factor for us simply because of the other reasons. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't use Carbon Fiber due to the air trapping and temperature issues. Overall, the benefits of a lighter weight material like carbon fiber just isn't worth the difficulties that come with working with it. As a result, the standard is to use aluminum because it's cheap, works well, and is easy to use. Edit: I said a 1U sat was around the size of a Rubik's cube before. However, I underestimated how small Rubik's cubes are. A Rubik's cube is 5.6cm on each size vs 10cm for the 1U CubeSat.

Mr_Twinkles 4y ago

Depends on how much effort you're willing to put in. Back in the mid-2010s, our team made a 1U with a BOM cost of ~$3k, but we manufactured everything except the bare PCBs in-house. I'm sure the kits are a lot more expensive.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Depends on what you're doing. Last I checked a 1U cubesat cost around $50k to launch, but there also also says to get free or cheaper launches depending on the payload. Speaking of the payload, that will greatly impact the build cost. I imagine you could put together the Cubesat equivalent of Sputnik for like $100, then another $200 or so for the FCC paperwork. If you want to send up interesting sensors, build something more durable/long lasting, have any sort of propulsion or decorating capabilities, etc the cost will start to approach or exceed what you're paying for the launch.

showerst 4y ago
Thanks, that’s pretty neat. I have neither the fun stuff budget nor the purpose to justify cluttering up space for a few years, but it’s cool to see satellites drawing closer to “serious but amateur” price levels.

Ephil012 4y ago

The other figures are correct. However, the cost to build cubesats are coming down rapidly. I work at a not for profit called isomer space which builds cubesats. We originally were looking at 50k-100k for ours, but there are a few open source projects now that provide design files to manufacture your own for way cheaper. For us, we are able to get the costs down to under 10k by doing it all in house. This is including multiple prototypes. A single satellite itself is probably 3-4k though for us. If you’re curious, the big open source project in the space is called PyCubed. A bunch of university teams use their designs now because the hardware is relatively affordable. As far as launch prices, I think the 50k figure given is accurate, but only through companies that resell / broker space launches. Getting your own launch outside of a reseller / broker would cost more. For instance, if you buy from SpaceX's rideshare program directly it can cost 1.2 million. This is because SpaceX's base pricing starts at a 200kg payload. Anything that weighs less is still charged at 1.2 million. However, if you go through a third party that resells the launches then it can be 50k or lower. I know I have seen one as low as 20k for a 1U launch. The main reason why its cheaper is a combination of economy of scale (launching lots of cubesats at once) and/or VC funding. The best launch prices in general tend to come from startups who are heavily subsidizing the launches with VC money. Also, if anyone is curious about cubesats or our work in general feel free to AMA.

syedkarim 4y ago
Who is offering a 1U for $20k? Is that to sun-sync, or one of the last-minute ISS specials?
- Ephil012 4y ago
  I don't know if I am technically allowed to say since it was given to us on a contract. I don't think I can name them specifically until we do a joint press release announcing the mission. However, I will say that it was a startup that basically had a lot of VC money to subsidize. It was to sun sync orbit though. Also, they have increased prices for future launches to like 25k or 30k or something like that. Mainly because of they are trying to wean off of subsidizing they said.