Author Topic: Eutelsat OneWeb: Mega-constellation/Company - General Thread  (Read 656489 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
I'm far from an expert but I took a look at the New Glenn with the 7 meter fairing and assuming each OneWeb satellite is a 1 meter cube at 150 kg, it appears to me that the New Glenn could launch about 240 OneWeb satellites to Leo.  Not sure what each launch will cost but I assume it will be less than $100M.  That looks to me like the most efficient way to launch OneWeb satellites, particularly the addition of 1260 satellites to LEO pending FCC approval.  Would appreciate comment!

OneWeb has an "agreement" for 5 launches totaling roughly 400 satellites.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-ceos-rocket-company-to-compete-aggressively-for-commercial-launches-1488975249

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Is this for OneWeb?

Tweet from RUAG
Quote
Our new Automated Potting Machine in Titusville, Florida, U.S., is up and running and busy as a bee placing inserts into honeycomb panels https://www.ruag.com/en/products-services/space/spacecraft/satellite-structures/honeycomb-panels-demand

(there is a video embedded in the Tweet)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8749
  • Liked: 4660
  • Likes Given: 768
Is this for OneWeb?

Tweet from RUAG
Quote
Our new Automated Potting Machine in Titusville, Florida, U.S., is up and running and busy as a bee placing inserts into honeycomb panels https://www.ruag.com/en/products-services/space/spacecraft/satellite-structures/honeycomb-panels-demand

(there is a video embedded in the Tweet)
OneWeb appears to be the launch customer for the APM tech in the US. The APM project also serves as the basis for advanced PAF and PLF designs for upcoming launchers.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
  • Liked: 2403
  • Likes Given: 10203
This explanation by Wyler seems dubious to me, but perhaps SpaceX will see service curtailed in some countries because of its architecture.

OneWeb says regulatory concerns main reason it’s forgoing inter-satellite links
« Last Edit: 07/02/2018 08:46 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81286
  • Likes Given: 36776
Quote
OneWeb, Arianespace target December-February for first Soyuz launch
by Caleb Henry — August 27, 2018

WASHINGTON — The first launch of OneWeb’s low-Earth-orbit broadband constellation could still happen by year’s end, but may slip into early 2019, according to officials from OneWeb and launch provider Arianespace.

https://spacenews.com/oneweb-arianespace-target-december-february-for-first-soyuz-launch/

Reason:

Quote
“Arianespace had an urgent customer need, and being good partners we can move around a bit, but we are hoping to get up as early in our launch window as possible,”


Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Quote
OneWeb, Arianespace target December-February for first Soyuz launch
by Caleb Henry — August 27, 2018

WASHINGTON — The first launch of OneWeb’s low-Earth-orbit broadband constellation could still happen by year’s end, but may slip into early 2019, according to officials from OneWeb and launch provider Arianespace.

https://spacenews.com/oneweb-arianespace-target-december-february-for-first-soyuz-launch/

Reason:

Quote
“Arianespace had an urgent customer need, and being good partners we can move around a bit, but we are hoping to get up as early in our launch window as possible,”

The article also says Stéphane Israël pretty much refuted what Wyler said  :)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
OneWeb, treading water awaiting debt financing, now a source of industry concern
Quote
by Peter B. de Selding | Sep 11, 2018

OneWeb on Sept. 7 announced that CEO Eric Beranger, an Airbus veteran named to the OneWeb post in July 2016, had been named chief operating offer and that Adrian Steckel, up to now CEO of crytocurrrency trader Uphold of San Francisco, would be OneWeb’s new CEO.

Industry officials said privately that Beranger is a better fit for OneWeb as COO, a position that will allow him to focus on the service’s development rather than having to beat the hustings to raise capital.
...
Industry officials have said in recent months that Bpifrance wants to see more customer commitments to the OneWeb system, which is designed to provide broadband connectivity worldwide to a wide swath of consumer and and industry users.

These same officials said Bpifrance was now setting fresh conditions on OneWeb in return for financing and that these are proving difficult to meet.

OneWeb’s total system costs are also an issue. The company began by talking about a system with a price tag of $3.5 billion to $5 billion. In its Sept. 7 announcement, which was curiously worded for a company losing its CEO, Uphold referred to OneWeb as a $6 billion system before removing that figure 48 hours after issuing its first statement.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2018 05:35 pm by gongora »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14152
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14030
  • Likes Given: 1391
They're waiting for Bezos...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Launch on Falcon 9 until New Glenn is available. SpaceX would do it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Oneweb already has firm launch contracts for their initial constellation, and there is no indication launches will be a problem.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Oneweb already has firm launch contracts for their initial constellation, and there is no indication launches will be a problem.
The rockets work; we were discussing costs. The launches are a large portion of the cost, which is a major problem with them securing financing.

To get an idea of how expensive these launches are: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/


...also, "firm."
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 02:29 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Let's say, /at least/ $50 million per Soyuz. That's $1050 million (in line with estimates of over $1b for the Soyuz part).

39 LauncherOne launches. Those are over $12 million apiece, let's make it a cool $500 million.

Plus 5 New Glenn. Who knows how much those cost. Maybe $100 million? $150 million? That's $750 million.

We're looking at somewhere north of $2.2b just in launch costs. If I were their bank, I'd ask seriously why they're doing 21 Soyuz launches for at least $50 million apiece at ~6 tons per launch when they could do half as many Falcon 9 launches (since reusable F9 payload capacity and payload fairing capacity is about twice Soyuz) for about the same price per launch. And I'd question what the point of the LauncherOne launches are, since proper spare management could eliminate the need for so many smallsat launches.

The New Glenn launches seem to be for the later upgrades to the constellation, and are pretty reasonable given the large payload, but the Soyuz launches are very early and account for over a billion in early capital. That's $500 million more than is required, and it is early capital as well. I'd have serious questions about that.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 02:53 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
You can't seem to grasp the concept of a contract.  Oneweb has already been paying on the Soyuz deal for a couple years.  Launch providers don't get all the money after the launch, a lot of it is upfront.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
You can't seem to grasp the concept of a contract.  Oneweb has already been paying on the Soyuz deal for a couple years.  Launch providers don't get all the money after the launch, a lot of it is upfront.
Of course I realize that. But if OneWeb doesn't have the money, they may just have to renegotiate. Or they disappear because the bank doesn't feel like funding OneWeb's decision to throw $500 million away on over-paying for launch.

So OneWeb goes, hat in hand, to Ariane saying to either put the progress payments (and additional cash) to just a few early launches or OneWeb disappears and Ariane gets nothing beyond what they already got (and probably still have to fight it out with OneWeb's creditors).
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 02:57 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Let's say, /at least/ $50 million per Soyuz. That's $1050 million (in line with estimates of over $1b for the Soyuz part).

39 LauncherOne launches. Those are over $12 million apiece, let's make it a cool $500 million.

Plus 5 New Glenn. Who knows how much those cost. Maybe $100 million? $150 million? That's $750 million.

We're looking at somewhere north of $2.2b just in launch costs. If I were their bank, I'd ask seriously why they're doing 21 Soyuz launches for at least $50 million apiece at ~6 tons per launch when they could do half as many Falcon 9 launches (since reusable F9 payload capacity and payload fairing capacity is about twice Soyuz) for about the same price per launch. And I'd question what the point of the LauncherOne launches are, since proper spare management could eliminate the need for so many smallsat launches.

The New Glenn launches seem to be for the later upgrades to the constellation, and are pretty reasonable given the large payload, but the Soyuz launches are very early and account for over a billion in early capital. That's $500 million more than is required, and it is early capital as well. I'd have serious questions about that.

Even the Atlas V 551 would be cost competitive though the main argument in it's favor is reliability which should reduce insurance costs.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 04:06 am by Patchouli »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Let's say, /at least/ $50 million per Soyuz. That's $1050 million (in line with estimates of over $1b for the Soyuz part).

39 LauncherOne launches. Those are over $12 million apiece, let's make it a cool $500 million.

Plus 5 New Glenn. Who knows how much those cost. Maybe $100 million? $150 million? That's $750 million.

We're looking at somewhere north of $2.2b just in launch costs. If I were their bank, I'd ask seriously why they're doing 21 Soyuz launches for at least $50 million apiece at ~6 tons per launch when they could do half as many Falcon 9 launches (since reusable F9 payload capacity and payload fairing capacity is about twice Soyuz) for about the same price per launch. And I'd question what the point of the LauncherOne launches are, since proper spare management could eliminate the need for so many smallsat launches.

The New Glenn launches seem to be for the later upgrades to the constellation, and are pretty reasonable given the large payload, but the Soyuz launches are very early and account for over a billion in early capital. That's $500 million more than is required, and it is early capital as well. I'd have serious questions about that.

Even the Atlas V 551 would be cost competitive though the main argument in it's favor is reliability which should reduce insurance costs.

If this is correct, insurance on the launches and satellite operations is around $200 million initially. Using Atlas (or Falcon 9) could save as much as half of that in insurance alone. But the total initial deployment cost (launch+insurance) is still around $1.9 billion on Soyuz and $1.4 billion on Atlas V (assuming 4% insurance, 8 launches at 17 tonnes net payload, $180 million each, including the payload dispenser).

6 tonnes for $67 million doesn't seem like a very good deal, but it does sound about right for Soyuz.

http://www.gcasummit.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/08/2015_06_Satellite-Monthly.pdf

F9R could do the deployment for about $700 million, assuming 11 launches at $60 million per launch including payload dispenser, 12 tonnes net payload, and 5% insurance.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2592
  • Likes Given: 528
It seems to me the killer app allowing these constellations to be possible is reusable rockets.

Paying >$10,000/kg to LEO for expendable Soyuz launches will doom this project from the start. $67m per Soyuz?

Using F9 would drop this to <$5,000/kg.

Of course SX will be able to launch at marginal cost for Starlink, so I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being $25m a launch... So it will cost SpaceX about ~$1m to put their 450kg sat into orbit vs. ~$1.9m for OneWeb to put their 150kg sat into orbit.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 04:30 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Let's say, /at least/ $50 million per Soyuz. That's $1050 million (in line with estimates of over $1b for the Soyuz part).

39 LauncherOne launches. Those are over $12 million apiece, let's make it a cool $500 million.

Plus 5 New Glenn. Who knows how much those cost. Maybe $100 million? $150 million? That's $750 million.

We're looking at somewhere north of $2.2b just in launch costs. If I were their bank, I'd ask seriously why they're doing 21 Soyuz launches for at least $50 million apiece at ~6 tons per launch when they could do half as many Falcon 9 launches (since reusable F9 payload capacity and payload fairing capacity is about twice Soyuz) for about the same price per launch. And I'd question what the point of the LauncherOne launches are, since proper spare management could eliminate the need for so many smallsat launches.

The New Glenn launches seem to be for the later upgrades to the constellation, and are pretty reasonable given the large payload, but the Soyuz launches are very early and account for over a billion in early capital. That's $500 million more than is required, and it is early capital as well. I'd have serious questions about that.

Even the Atlas V 551 would be cost competitive though the main argument in it's favor is reliability which should reduce insurance costs.

If this is correct, insurance on the launches and satellite operations is around $200 million initially. Using Atlas (or Falcon 9) could save as much as half of that in insurance alone. But the total initial deployment cost (launch+insurance) is still around $1.9 billion on Soyuz and $1.4 billion on Atlas V (assuming 4% insurance, 8 launches at 17 tonnes net payload, $180 million each, including the payload dispenser).

6 tonnes for $67 million doesn't seem like a very good deal, but it does sound about right for Soyuz.

http://www.gcasummit.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/08/2015_06_Satellite-Monthly.pdf

F9R could do the deployment for about $700 million, assuming 11 launches at $60 million per launch including payload dispenser, 12 tonnes net payload, and 5% insurance.

Wow, that article is prophetic. This line in particular:
Quote
Conclusion. A step in the right direction, but a long road ahead. While the recent OneWeb announcements answered a
number of questions regarding the company’s operational plans, they also raised a number of vexing questions that are yet
to be resolved, including:
Project cost. Despite earlier claims that the OneWeb constellation would only cost between $1.5-2.0 billion, we
believe the project will cost in excess of $3 billion assuming no cost overruns or launch failures.

Consider that the recent estimates (from OneWeb themselves!) put OneWeb at $6 billion, that's cost growth of a factor of 3 to 4.

And considering that most of that article's estimated costs are actually launch or insurance and that the bank is now questioning their plan based on high costs, it definitely seems that reusable launch is enabling in this case.

When you're talking a launch cost of $40,000/kg (for LauncherOne to this altitude) to $10,000/kg (for Soyuz) versus just $5000/kg for F9R, that's a pretty big difference.


...they need New Glenn to hurry!
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 05:04 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
The initial deployment is on Soyuz, not LauncherOne.  The year that contract was signed (which was only 3 years ago) SpaceX had 6 successful launches, and the year after that SpaceX had 8 successful launches with a big backlog left to work through.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2592
  • Likes Given: 528
The initial deployment is on Soyuz, not LauncherOne.  The year that contract was signed (which was only 3 years ago) SpaceX had 6 successful launches, and the year after that SpaceX had 8 successful launches with a big backlog left to work through.

...And in that short period of time the economic re-use of boosters may have invalidated their whole business plan.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1