Very good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 04:36 amVery good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.OneWeb locked in a bulk order for Soyuz launches in 2014, before any Falcon 9 booster has ever successfully landed. OneWeb's schedule slipped, but the rocket order was already in place.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/08/2022 04:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 04:36 amVery good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.OneWeb locked in a bulk order for Soyuz launches in 2014, before any Falcon 9 booster has ever successfully landed. OneWeb's schedule slipped, but the rocket order was already in place.But that’s in the past. Looks like they’re interested WERE FORCED in being part of the future.
Does folks think the demise of PM Boris Johnson have any effects on the support of OneWeb by the UK government?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 05:57 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/08/2022 04:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 04:36 amVery good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.OneWeb locked in a bulk order for Soyuz launches in 2014, before any Falcon 9 booster has ever successfully landed. OneWeb's schedule slipped, but the rocket order was already in place.But that’s in the past. Looks like they’re interested WERE FORCED in being part of the future.Made a small correction in quoting you above.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 07/08/2022 06:50 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 05:57 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/08/2022 04:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 04:36 amVery good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.OneWeb locked in a bulk order for Soyuz launches in 2014, before any Falcon 9 booster has ever successfully landed. OneWeb's schedule slipped, but the rocket order was already in place.But that’s in the past. Looks like they’re interested WERE FORCED in being part of the future.Made a small correction in quoting you above.They were forced to find other launch slots, but not forced to go to SpaceX. As evidenced by their signing contracts with other launch providers too, like Relativity and NSI. No longer having Wyler at the reigns certainly helped.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/08/2022 11:48 amDoes folks think the demise of PM Boris Johnson have any effects on the support of OneWeb by the UK government?It wouldn't matter much at this point. The UK government only has like 20% now.
Quote from: gongora on 07/09/2022 01:23 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 07/08/2022 11:48 amDoes folks think the demise of PM Boris Johnson have any effects on the support of OneWeb by the UK government?It wouldn't matter much at this point. The UK government only has like 20% now.Wait what? Obviously I haven't been following the OneWeb saga closely enough, but what happened to the other ~30%?
Quote from: edzieba on 07/08/2022 04:38 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 07/08/2022 06:50 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 05:57 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/08/2022 04:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/08/2022 04:36 amVery good to hear! My main gripe with OneWeb has always been they're using ANCIENT expendable rockets, robbing reusable rockets of potential payloads. Now, they've fixed that and are helping to support the only other near(ish)-term fully reusable rocket (plus New Glenn, maybe) besides Starship. This is perfect!Fully reusable rockets fundamentally need lots of launch demand to be justified, preferably in LEO. This does exactly that. Glad to hear it.OneWeb locked in a bulk order for Soyuz launches in 2014, before any Falcon 9 booster has ever successfully landed. OneWeb's schedule slipped, but the rocket order was already in place.But that’s in the past. Looks like they’re interested WERE FORCED in being part of the future.Made a small correction in quoting you above.They were forced to find other launch slots, but not forced to go to SpaceX. As evidenced by their signing contracts with other launch providers too, like Relativity and NSI. No longer having Wyler at the reigns certainly helped.They will be going back to SpaceX eventually. Just don't see Relativity ramp up launcher production fast enough to avoid that. Never mind that Relativity doesn't have an operational launcher yet.The Indians push off their launch manifest to accumulated OneWeb with at least 2 GSLV MkIII. Will be interesting how the Indians can make up for the loss of the GSLV Mk III launch opportunities. Which many of ISRO's prestige programs need.
Plans to use the 12 GHz band for terrestrial 5G would severely disrupt non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) broadband across the United States, OneWeb said July 11 in analysis supporting an earlier study from SpaceX.In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, OneWeb urged the regulator to reject a request from satellite broadcaster Dish Network and spectrum holder RS Access to run two-way mobile services in the band.If approved, “it would leave significant areas of the United States unusable by the otherwise ubiquitous NGSO [fixed satellite service] user terminals,” wrote Kimberly Baum, OneWeb’s vice president of spectrum engineering and strategy.
Quote from: Mandella on 07/09/2022 04:45 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/09/2022 01:23 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 07/08/2022 11:48 amDoes folks think the demise of PM Boris Johnson have any effects on the support of OneWeb by the UK government?It wouldn't matter much at this point. The UK government only has like 20% now.Wait what? Obviously I haven't been following the OneWeb saga closely enough, but what happened to the other ~30%?My guess: dilution -- unless I'm missing something, OneWeb has probably continued raising money after their initial recovery. If the UK didn't continue investing, their existing shares would get diluted by subsequent funding rounds.~Jon
OneWeb SL0251 reentered sometime between 1100 and 1300 UTC Jul 20. The satellite was never raised to the OW operational shells; orbit lowering began in May . Of 428 satellites launched, this is the second to reenter.
