Author Topic: Eutelsat OneWeb: Constellation - General Thread  (Read 733831 times)

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 808
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.
... the way that we will ratchet up our species, is to take the best and to spread it around everybody, so that everybody grows up with better things. - Steve Jobs

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10806
  • US
  • Liked: 14998
  • Likes Given: 6578
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

Offline cebri

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Spain
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 181
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

That raises an interesting question. If the UK wants to use this sats for national security as well... are you going to ship them to Russia and launch them on Russian rockets?

edit: BTW, having a state owned business competing with private agents it's a good recipe to be subject to a lot of sanctions for infringement of competition laws.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 03:25 pm by cebri »
"It's kind of amazing that a window of opportunity is open for life to beyond Earth, and we don't know how long this window is gonna be open" Elon Musk
"If you want to see an endangered species, get up and look in the mirror." John Young

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

That raise an interesting question. If the UK wants to use this sats for national security as well... are you going to ship them to Russia and launch them on Russian rockets?

They fly on Russian rockets but launched from French territory in South America.

Online daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • uk
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 0
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

That raise an interesting question. If the UK wants to use this sats for national security as well... are you going to ship them to Russia and launch them on Russian rockets?

They fly on Russian rockets but launched from French territory in South America.

Some were slated for Ariane 6 launch.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10806
  • US
  • Liked: 14998
  • Likes Given: 6578
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

That raise an interesting question. If the UK wants to use this sats for national security as well... are you going to ship them to Russia and launch them on Russian rockets?

They fly on Russian rockets but launched from French territory in South America.

Only a few of the launches were going from Kourou.  Most from the other pads in Kazakhstan and Russia.

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Europe
  • Liked: 838
  • Likes Given: 152
I am not surprised about the result now. What I do wonder as there is no deal between the UK and the EU and there are more and more signs (at least in German press reports) to let it become a "no-deal" in December 2020, what will be about exporting (or denial of export) of Airbus-related stuff. If things go bad, OneWeb might be stripped of their Airbus-related things. I'm watching the near future with great interest.

No deal just means you trade on WTO terms like most countries do.

Yeah, I think most on here understand that.

I think the concern is that if there's a lot of bad feelings parties on both sides might take retaliatory action.  Some people in government might pressure Airbus to make things difficult for OneWeb just because it has a high-profile connection to the UK government.

Airbus will have plenty of trouble with an explosion in red tape to transport stuff and move people between the UK and the EU. That's what 'WTO terms' are relative to a unified market.

So Oneweb continues, the UK has a new project, and the EU can shake their heads condescendingly as the UK seems to willingly dig a deeper financial well with little discernable advantage. Everybody should be happy about this, no? No reason for bad feelings and sabotage.

Offline Tulse

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 3
It's hard for me to see how the interests of a UK government looking for national technological pride (and potential GPS replacement) coincide with an Indian private telecom company presumably looking to provide satellite internet to rural Indian customers. It's a weird match, and it's also a bit strange that the UK is trumpeting this as their acquisition, their "sovereign global satellite system" -- are they an equal partner with Bharti Enterprises, since they both kicked in an equal amount for the purchase? And given that the UK and Bharti only own 90% of the company, it seems like the UK may not hold a majority equity stake.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Liked: 4481
  • Likes Given: 6053
Man, sleep on this thread for a week... I picked the wrong week I guess.  Fascinating stuff.  Thanks for everyone's comments.

Really curious when the new ownership will target for a resumption of satellite production and/or launch.  IIRC most of the OneWeb workforce was laid off other than "keep the lights on staff" so I'd imagine they'd want to start hiring those who are not already employed elsewhere back ASAP.

Can't really see them waiting to adapt the current satellite format for positioning very quickly, seems like the most sensible thing is to attempt to complete the constellation and start generating revenue.  But who knows...
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 04:42 pm by abaddon »

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 808
If the new partners are serious then hopefully they will move many launches to SpaceX from ULA. And I really hope they don’t waste money using LauncherOne.

What does ULA have to do with this?  OneWeb's initial constellation is mostly launching on Soyuz.  They've already paid a lot of money towards those launches.

I stand corrected. From recall I was remembering they were planning to fly on Atlas and Soyuz but forgot they have booked a bunch of Soyuz flights.
... the way that we will ratchet up our species, is to take the best and to spread it around everybody, so that everybody grows up with better things. - Steve Jobs

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2233
  • Likes Given: 1584
It's hard for me to see how the interests of a UK government looking for national technological pride (and potential GPS replacement) coincide with an Indian private telecom company presumably looking to provide satellite internet to rural Indian customers. It's a weird match, and it's also a bit strange that the UK is trumpeting this as their acquisition, their "sovereign global satellite system" -- are they an equal partner with Bharti Enterprises, since they both kicked in an equal amount for the purchase? And given that the UK and Bharti only own 90% of the company, it seems like the UK may not hold a majority equity stake.

If the UK government has majority control, then they only need to make sure OneWeb is profitable for the other investors. If OneWeb serves a national security purpose for the UK, it doesn't have to make money for the UK to be useful.

If the UK doesn't have a controlling interest in OneWeb, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14438
  • UK
  • Liked: 4145
  • Likes Given: 220
For a start OneWeb is a terrible constellation design for GNSS.  Secondly, it looks more like this is really an attempt to bail out OneWeb investors, who bet on a second-best LEO comms network in the face of competitors like Starlink.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 04:54 pm by Star One »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
It's hard for me to see how the interests of a UK government looking for national technological pride (and potential GPS replacement) coincide with an Indian private telecom company presumably looking to provide satellite internet to rural Indian customers. It's a weird match, and it's also a bit strange that the UK is trumpeting this as their acquisition, their "sovereign global satellite system" -- are they an equal partner with Bharti Enterprises, since they both kicked in an equal amount for the purchase? And given that the UK and Bharti only own 90% of the company, it seems like the UK may not hold a majority equity stake.

If the UK government has majority control, then they only need to make sure OneWeb is profitable for the other investors. If OneWeb serves a national security purpose for the UK, it doesn't have to make money for the UK to be useful.

If the UK doesn't have a controlling interest in OneWeb, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Benefit to the UK government is a face-saving way of backing out of their promise to build their own GPS system.  $500 million wasted on a failed OneWeb is a deal compared to billions spent fielding a complete GPS system.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14438
  • UK
  • Liked: 4145
  • Likes Given: 220
It's hard for me to see how the interests of a UK government looking for national technological pride (and potential GPS replacement) coincide with an Indian private telecom company presumably looking to provide satellite internet to rural Indian customers. It's a weird match, and it's also a bit strange that the UK is trumpeting this as their acquisition, their "sovereign global satellite system" -- are they an equal partner with Bharti Enterprises, since they both kicked in an equal amount for the purchase? And given that the UK and Bharti only own 90% of the company, it seems like the UK may not hold a majority equity stake.

If the UK government has majority control, then they only need to make sure OneWeb is profitable for the other investors. If OneWeb serves a national security purpose for the UK, it doesn't have to make money for the UK to be useful.

If the UK doesn't have a controlling interest in OneWeb, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Benefit to the UK government is a face-saving way of backing out of their promise to build their own GPS system.  $500 million wasted on a failed OneWeb is a deal compared to billions spent fielding a complete GPS system.
But it’s an extremely poor replacement for Galileo.

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 138
It seems on paper like a very illogical investment. But as an unemployed UK engineer I'm all for it! With a bit of luck there could be a job in it.
Rule 1: Be civil. Respect other members.
Rule 3: No "King of the Internet" attitudes.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6885
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10518
  • Likes Given: 48
It seems on paper like a very illogical investment. But as an unemployed UK engineer I'm all for it! With a bit of luck there could be a job in it.
The satellites are built in the US, and the launchers are built in the EU and Russia. Both are already established production lines. About the best UK-bound companies could hope for is the ground terminals purely because production of those does not appear to have started yet.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10806
  • US
  • Liked: 14998
  • Likes Given: 6578
OneWeb hasn't announced any plans to make their own user terminals, and moving the satellite production is still possible.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
OneWeb promised to move satellite production and other operations to the UK if the UK government put up money to keep them in operation.

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 138
OneWeb promised to move satellite production and other operations to the UK if the UK government put up money to keep them in operation.

That's what I am hoping. There must be some software needed somewhere.
Rule 1: Be civil. Respect other members.
Rule 3: No "King of the Internet" attitudes.

Tags:
 

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