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.
Quote from: jak Kennedy on 07/03/2020 02:47 pmIf 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.
Quote from: gongora on 07/03/2020 02:54 pmQuote from: jak Kennedy on 07/03/2020 02:47 pmIf 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?
Quote from: cebri on 07/03/2020 03:20 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/03/2020 02:54 pmQuote from: jak Kennedy on 07/03/2020 02:47 pmIf 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.
Quote from: daedalus1 on 07/03/2020 02:12 pmQuote from: TorenAltair on 07/03/2020 02:02 pmI 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.
Quote from: TorenAltair on 07/03/2020 02:02 pmI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Tulse on 07/03/2020 04:30 pmIt'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.
Quote from: RonM on 07/03/2020 04:48 pmQuote from: Tulse on 07/03/2020 04:30 pmIt'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.
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.
OneWeb promised to move satellite production and other operations to the UK if the UK government put up money to keep them in operation.