> The concepts used to create the JWST are built on the same concepts used on the first satellites and space probes in the 1950s.
AKA, the field of Systems Engineering . Further reading if you really want to take a deep dive .
Find one of these for the earth-moon system, if you haven't already.
Did your prof say how much they weigh delta-v vs time of flight? Knowing how they are going to grade is probably better for making a cost function than assuming how much consumables/fuel you need.
There is this, I have no idea how helpful it will be: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocfo/nasa-cost-estimating-handbook-ceh
A copy of SMAD may be available at your local uni library: https://www.amazon.com/Mission-Analysis-Design-Technology-Library/dp/1881883108
Barring that, you could assume a rate for consumption of well, consumables (food, air, etc) and use that to find a mass budget for that. You can then assuming a launch cost per lb. Do something similar for your propulsion system, but assuming an engine with a certain ISP/propellant.
First, let's rephrase your statement 'SpaceX showed significant cost savings during Falcon 9 development, compared to traditionally procured launchers' The distinction is important, especially since you don't have insight into SpaceX's accounts to back up that claim, but rather tertiary sources through the GAO.
Secondly, developing launchers and developing spacecraft art nothing alike. I'm almost a full stack launch vehicle engineer. I'd be so far out of my depth on a spacecraft development campaign, it'd be funny. SpaceX was able to develop Falcon 9 for so cheap because:
Planetary science missions (especially to Europa):
You ignored the precedent of ISI's Beresheet lander, and my indictment of your ad revenue model. Please read SMAD before commenting again.