Author Topic: Boeing Smallsat Constellation  (Read 16002 times)

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3385
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1787
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #40 on: 12/09/2017 09:33 PM »
This sounds a lot like the agreement that OneWeb has with Airbus Defense and Space to build and launch the sats while OneWeb then operates them.

Boeing would be the builder/launch agent but not the operator.

In both cases as long as the constellation is making money the builders would see a constant income form building sats.

At some point the two would be operated by a single entity even though there are two sat manufactures for the two different sats.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • US
  • Liked: 2726
  • Likes Given: 1644
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #41 on: 01/02/2018 02:38 AM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6178
  • Liked: 3970
  • Likes Given: 5461
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #42 on: 01/03/2018 01:53 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • US
  • Liked: 2726
  • Likes Given: 1644
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #43 on: 01/03/2018 02:01 PM »
I hadn't noticed that Boeing filed amendments to transfer two of their proposed constellations to Greg Wyler.  One was shown above, and here is the other:

SAT-AMD-20171206-00168 (for original filing SAT-LOA-20161115-00109, a 60 satellite Ka band constellation)

SpaceX and O3B/SES have filed papers registering themselves as interested parties in these proceedings.

Would it make sense to have multiple different satellite vendors/configurations in an integrated constellation?  Is this the intent, or is the licensing of the spectrum only on the table, and OneWeb would be able to fill it with whatever sats it chose (or would Boeing still be the satellite designer/builder and possibly launcher)?

Another document filed by Boeing/Wyler went to great lengths pointing out this transfer is not to OneWeb.  Personally I'd guess that Wyler would eventually transfer the ownership to OneWeb when they got to a point in the process where the rules would permit it.  It doesn't seem even remotely reasonable that Wyler would use these outside of OneWeb.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
  • US
  • Liked: 2726
  • Likes Given: 1644
Re: Boeing Smallsat Constellation
« Reply #44 on: 02/23/2018 04:42 PM »
Eric Berger wrote an article about these strange proposed transfers.

[Ars Technica] There’s something strange going on amid the satellite Internet rush

Tags: