Is it really the next best non-SpaceX option? Proton M has failed 9 time in 16 years. There is also Ariane 5 or 6, PSLV, Vega, Vulcan, and H-2/H-3.
Is the mass of each satellite and approximate height/width known yet?
Quote from: gongora on 04/12/2018 01:36 pmQuote from: vaporcobra on 04/12/2018 08:25 amThis lowers my confidence in OneWeb a fair bit. A genuinely inexplicable decision, even as preliminary as it is. Perhaps Roscosmos promised some incredibly subsidized prices out of desperation to rationalize Medium's development?I really don't understand comments like this. I know you think everyone should just book all of their flights on SpaceX, but if someone doesn't want to use SpaceX then this is the next best option.Hm. I most certainly do not. From a basic business-level perspective, a 10+ Proton Medium launch contract is a major risk, and particularly unusual so long as alternatives exist. Medium is not a completely new vehicle, but it's also far from identical to Proton-M, and does not have the records of success of Soyuz/Proton/Ariane. Proton-M has a decent 90% success rate, but the causes of its failures (largely organizational, especially quality control) will almost undoubtedly be exacerbated by attempts to desperately cut costs with Medium and Light.It's reasonably logical that OneWeb would want to avoid contracting launches with SpaceX, but not logical enough to rationalize a rocket that has not flown over those that have. SpaceX has some serious problems themselves when it comes to QA and work organization, but Just not a risk I would take with $500m+ of launch costs and hundreds of millions of dollars of satellites. Proton has had 12 successes in a row; the Falcon family has had 24. Starlink is going to exist whether or not OneWeb marginally contributes with launch contracts.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 04/12/2018 08:25 amThis lowers my confidence in OneWeb a fair bit. A genuinely inexplicable decision, even as preliminary as it is. Perhaps Roscosmos promised some incredibly subsidized prices out of desperation to rationalize Medium's development?I really don't understand comments like this. I know you think everyone should just book all of their flights on SpaceX, but if someone doesn't want to use SpaceX then this is the next best option.
This lowers my confidence in OneWeb a fair bit. A genuinely inexplicable decision, even as preliminary as it is. Perhaps Roscosmos promised some incredibly subsidized prices out of desperation to rationalize Medium's development?
Quote from: envy887 on 04/12/2018 11:12 pmIs it really the next best non-SpaceX option? Proton M has failed 9 time in 16 years. There is also Ariane 5 or 6, PSLV, Vega, Vulcan, and H-2/H-3.They're a constellation where they're building 900 satellites to get 720 operational satellites--they care far more about launch costs than they do about reliability. It seems feasible that Proton Medium could be one of the cheapest non-SpaceX options.But this also puts in perspective the NG purchase--that wasn't them betting it all on New Glenn eating the market, but more of being willing to take a risk on anyone other than Elon who was at least somewhat cost competitive with SpaceX. My guess is that if some credible fully reusable smallsat launcher came along that could do 6 OneWeb sats at a time (~1000kg to LEO) at a price point that was in the Proton/Soyuz/NewGlenn $/kg range, they'd probably be willing to put downpayments down on several of those flights as well. ~Jon
I lost track of history regarding OneWeb a bit. But I cant seem to find any public information about who the investors of OneWeb are. I also find it a bit dubious that they book flights from 4 different launch vehicles where 3 do not yet exist. New launch vehicles have the tendency to not be ready on time. And since the FCC permit requires 50% of launched sats within 6 years, OneWeb might loose the permit because the launch vehicles are not ready. Do they have enough launches booked on Soyouz to lift 50%?
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/614087133574361088QuotePeter B. de Selding @pbdes 28m28 minutes agoArianespace: 1 Soyuz lifts 32 OneWeb sats. >50% of our 21 OneWeb launches 2017-2019 to be frm Baikonur. 1st 10 pilot sats frm Europe's port.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/614087133574361088Quote Arianespace CEO: OneWeb 21-launch Soyuz deal is firm. We'll now order 20+ additional Soyuz rockets from Russia's Roscosmos agency by Sept.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/614087490757107713QuoteArianespace CEO: We'll sign separate contract soon w/ OneWeb to design/build adaptor to carry/deploy the sats for Soyuz launches.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 28m28 minutes agoArianespace: 1 Soyuz lifts 32 OneWeb sats. >50% of our 21 OneWeb launches 2017-2019 to be frm Baikonur. 1st 10 pilot sats frm Europe's port.
Arianespace CEO: OneWeb 21-launch Soyuz deal is firm. We'll now order 20+ additional Soyuz rockets from Russia's Roscosmos agency by Sept.
Arianespace CEO: We'll sign separate contract soon w/ OneWeb to design/build adaptor to carry/deploy the sats for Soyuz launches.
QuoteAt #OneWeb request, @Arianespace looking to increase Soyuz sat-dispenser capacity to 36 150-kg OneWeb sats, from 32: Arianespace's Breton.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/866831317937160192
At #OneWeb request, @Arianespace looking to increase Soyuz sat-dispenser capacity to 36 150-kg OneWeb sats, from 32: Arianespace's Breton.
I lost track of history regarding OneWeb a bit. But I cant seem to find any public information about who the investors of OneWeb are.
Quote from: GWH on 04/12/2018 11:16 pmIs the mass of each satellite and approximate height/width known yet?The public numbers from a while back were ~150kg each, though I don't know if they've provided any sort of public update on how close they actually came to that target.~Jon
OneWeb satellite bus to also now be used for an earth observation constellation?!?https://earthnow.com/https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45513.0
Inside OneWeb's new (under construction) satellite factory at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.
Additional interesting tidbits:1- Apparently the Blue Origin New Glenn flights are still only at the non-binding MOU status, not actual contracts (ie likely no down-payments).2- I liked the picture of a flight satellite under assembly.3- Interesting that some Soyuz flights will have 34 satellites vs 36.Pretty interesting news all around.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 05/02/2018 11:29 pmAdditional interesting tidbits:1- Apparently the Blue Origin New Glenn flights are still only at the non-binding MOU status, not actual contracts (ie likely no down-payments).2- I liked the picture of a flight satellite under assembly.3- Interesting that some Soyuz flights will have 34 satellites vs 36.Pretty interesting news all around.~Jon A year ago, weren't they set to launch in March of this year?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/03/2018 12:45 amQuote from: jongoff on 05/02/2018 11:29 pmAdditional interesting tidbits:1- Apparently the Blue Origin New Glenn flights are still only at the non-binding MOU status, not actual contracts (ie likely no down-payments).2- I liked the picture of a flight satellite under assembly.3- Interesting that some Soyuz flights will have 34 satellites vs 36.Pretty interesting news all around.~Jon A year ago, weren't they set to launch in March of this year?I may be remembering but I thought the date given last year was May. They're going for full-capability flight-like demo sats, so it's not surprising they are taking a bit longer than subscale demo sats. ~Jon