OneWeb constellation

[eeergo]

Or maybe "the market" is seeing through what megaconstellations might actually really be, stripping away the varnish: not such a good investment, or even concept.

After all, from the horse's mouth: "Starlink V1, by itself, is financially weak". OneWeb as currently conceived is an already-bailed-out, strongly politicized, weak version of Starlink V1.

There is a good technical case for an integrated GEO/LEO system. You can offer global service pretty much immediately from GEO and then build out your LEO gateways to offload the traffic in higher-density areas. This would require suitable terminals and a fair amount of software. I have no idea if OneTelsat (EutelWeb?) could or would try this.

Maybe, but no idea if the constellation densities required are worth it, or the threshold user densities for LEO-on-GEO backup to be worthwhile plausible, given megaconstellations aim for isolated, low-density traffic - not to mention the latencies offered would wildly vary.

[Kaputnik]

Does folks think the demise of PM Boris Johnson have any effects on the support of OneWeb by the UK government?

1. He's not actually gone anywhere yet.
2. It was the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, who has been persona non grata for a long time now
3. $500m is *not* a lot of money to this government. They've just spent $150m to send 200 refugees to Rwanda... who didn't end up going because it was deemed unlawful.

More on topic, the OneWeb deal is simply not on the political radar any more. Hardly anybody paid attention at the time, let alone now.

Does anybody have an up to date account of who the current shareholders are, and what stakes they hold?

[DanClemmensen]

Or maybe "the market" is seeing through what megaconstellations might actually really be, stripping away the varnish: not such a good investment, or even concept.

After all, from the horse's mouth: "Starlink V1, by itself, is financially weak". OneWeb as currently conceived is an already-bailed-out, strongly politicized, weak version of Starlink V1.

There is a good technical case for an integrated GEO/LEO system. You can offer global service pretty much immediately from GEO and then build out your LEO gateways to offload the traffic in higher-density areas. This would require suitable terminals and a fair amount of software. I have no idea if OneTelsat (EutelWeb?) could or would try this.

Maybe, but no idea if the constellation densities required are worth it, or the threshold user densities for LEO-on-GEO backup to be worthwhile plausible, given megaconstellations aim for isolated, low-density traffic - not to mention the latencies offered would wildly vary.

The major use case would be airlines flying over ocean. Very low density, hard to support from LEO without ISL, but when the plane reaches an area covered by LEO it no longer uses the highly-constrained GEO bandwidth. This more or less works for ships other than cruise ships also. Yes, the latencies vary wildly, but any connectivity is better than no connectivity. On a typical over-ocean airline flight, there would be one transition from LEO to GEO after takeoff and one transition from GEO to LEO before landing, so latency "varies wildly" twice during the flight.

[eeergo]

Or maybe "the market" is seeing through what megaconstellations might actually really be, stripping away the varnish: not such a good investment, or even concept.

After all, from the horse's mouth: "Starlink V1, by itself, is financially weak". OneWeb as currently conceived is an already-bailed-out, strongly politicized, weak version of Starlink V1.

There is a good technical case for an integrated GEO/LEO system. You can offer global service pretty much immediately from GEO and then build out your LEO gateways to offload the traffic in higher-density areas. This would require suitable terminals and a fair amount of software. I have no idea if OneTelsat (EutelWeb?) could or would try this.

Maybe, but no idea if the constellation densities required are worth it, or the threshold user densities for LEO-on-GEO backup to be worthwhile plausible, given megaconstellations aim for isolated, low-density traffic - not to mention the latencies offered would wildly vary.

The major use case would be airlines flying over ocean. Very low density, hard to support from LEO without ISL, but when the plane reaches an area covered by LEO it no longer uses the highly-constrained GEO bandwidth. This more or less works for ships other than cruise ships also. Yes, the latencies vary wildly, but any connectivity is better than no connectivity. On a typical over-ocean airline flight, there would be one transition from LEO to GEO after takeoff and one transition from GEO to LEO before landing, so latency "varies wildly" twice during the flight.

Yep, but then the widely-touted "internet for everyone!" business model for megaconstellations goes -mostly- out of the window, and considering the tricky situation most airlines in the West are going through (well, even without considering that caveat), the investment allure might be significantly reduced.

[Robotbeat]

OneWeb already gave up on that, but not SpaceX.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to airline difficulties, except temporary due to fuel costs and COVID. On a long term trajectory, airlines (Western and otherwise) are growing and growing.

[eeergo]

OneWeb already gave up on that, but not SpaceX.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to airline difficulties, except temporary due to fuel costs and COVID. On a long term trajectory, airlines (Western and otherwise) are growing and growing.

You might wanna take a look at airlines' own press releases, and compound that with their current situation in Europe (not just EU), not only due to covid or the Ukrainian war.

Many non-Western airlines will be barred from operating with Starlink, either "softly" or directly, à la China or Russia.

[JayWee]

Many non-Western airlines will be barred from operating with Starlink, either "softly" or directly, à la China or Russia.

I don't think there will be many countries which will reject Starlink but allow Oneweb. Maybe India.

Looking at the Starlink's own future country coverage map, these are the only countries which aren't planned being covered:
Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba.
The rest of the countries seem to have a planning date, except: Pakistan, India, Thailand. 

Not that many countries for possible Eutelsat/Oneweb-only access.

[alanr74]

I wonder if this is in anyway linked.

ESA invites new proposals for EU Secure Connectivity programme
https://artes.esa.int/news/esa-invites-new-proposals-eu-secure-connectivity-programme

Strange timing for this, almost like the EU are not happy.

[Zed_Noir]

Many non-Western airlines will be barred from operating with Starlink, either "softly" or directly, à la China or Russia.

I don't think there will be many countries which will reject Starlink but allow Oneweb. Maybe India.

Looking at the Starlink's own future country coverage map, these are the only countries which aren't planned being covered:
Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba.
The rest of the countries seem to have a planning date, except: Pakistan, India, Thailand. 

Not that many countries for possible Eutelsat/Oneweb-only access.

Think Pakistan will likely barred OneWeb and allow Starlink eventually. Since they view One Web as Indian.

Also US satcom companies are prohibited from operating in Afghanistan, Cuba, Syria & Venezuela by the US government, AIUI.

[Robotbeat]

OneWeb still has some operations in the US. Not a chance that Iran would be allowed. (Unless relations with the US thaw.) The UK would not allow it, either.

[meekGee]

Or maybe "the market" is seeing through what megaconstellations might actually really be, stripping away the varnish: not such a good investment, or even concept.

After all, from the horse's mouth: "Starlink V1, by itself, is financially weak". OneWeb as currently conceived is an already-bailed-out, strongly politicized, weak version of Starlink V1.

errrr...  the same horse thinks that Starlink V2 is a cash cow, so maybe your conclusion about megaconstellations is, hmm...  self-contradictory?

OneWeb is a stupid sink because of OneWeb, not because of constellations in general.

[eeergo]

Or maybe "the market" is seeing through what megaconstellations might actually really be, stripping away the varnish: not such a good investment, or even concept.

After all, from the horse's mouth: "Starlink V1, by itself, is financially weak". OneWeb as currently conceived is an already-bailed-out, strongly politicized, weak version of Starlink V1.

errrr...  the same horse thinks that Starlink V2 is a cash cow, so maybe your conclusion about megaconstellations is, hmm...  self-contradictory?

OneWeb is a stupid sink because of OneWeb, not because of constellations in general.

Agree OneWeb has its own set of problems, but we don't have much independent, publicly-available information on Starlink V2, much less its perceived profitability to the markets. We just have some indications for V1 after all, but not a public stock valuation, plus a damning opinion by the most invested party of all...

[Rondaz]

OneWeb says it is on track to resume deploying its remaining 220 internet satellites as soon as September, with three SpaceX Falcon 9 flights and two Indian launches replacing Russian Soyuz rockets no longer available after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1552435498865627136

[Rondaz]

OneWeb and Eutelsat announced plans to merge Tuesday, bringing together OneWeb’s network of internet satellites in low Earth orbit with Eutelsat’s fleet of larger video, data relay, and broadband platforms in geostationary orbit.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1552428591694204930

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1552578761442398208

Because of the UK government's stake the @EU_Commission continues to regard @OneWeb with "greatest suspicion" even after the proposed @Eutelsat_SA merger, therefore is still pursuing @ThierryBreton's L€O set to be operational by 2027.

https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/aeronautique/fusion-eutelsat-oneweb-la-commission-europeenne-loin-detre-emballee_822316

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1552714043374567425

[email protected]_EN's rapporteur for L€O, @GrudlerCh, states that @OneWeb is incompatible w/ EU's LEO ambititions due to British veto rights & foreign ownership, EU must be master over its sats, claims OW is inferior technologically to L€O & would reduce opportunties for EU industry.

[russianhalo117]

Inside article Eutelsat stakeholders direct takeover acquisition of OneWeb (Note CMA CGM and Maersk are Eutelsat stakeholders):
'Space, the ultimate frontier of logistics', says CMA, while Maersk rejects discounts

[Rondaz]

'It will be positive for the UK': Boss of Government-backed satellite firm OneWeb defends its French merger..

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1552416072787283973

[Rondaz]

Here's a similar plot for OneWeb. The OneWeb constellation is at a nominal height of 1200 km but actually uses 10 height shells offset in inc to have a roughly  const. prec. rate..

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1555070807302410240

[Rondaz]

I'm a little delayed with my monthly #SOCRATES conjunction analysis (bc I have been unwell) but as a teaser here is a chart showing the daily conjunction rate (Pc >= 1E-5) for #Starlink & #OneWeb as a function of the # of satellites in each system (active or failed).

https://twitter.com/ProfHughLewis/status/1557382970377469952

[edzieba]

I'm a little delayed with my monthly #SOCRATES conjunction analysis (bc I have been unwell) but as a teaser here is a chart showing the daily conjunction rate (Pc >= 1E-5) for #Starlink & #OneWeb as a function of the # of satellites in each system (active or failed).

https://twitter.com/ProfHughLewis/status/1557382970377469952

I wonder if the more-frequent-per-satellite conjunction for Oneweb are due more to altitude (more other satellites crossing the Oneweb orbits than the much lower Starlinks) or due purely to time in orbit (Starlink launching much faster, so there were only a few months with les than 500 Starlinks in orbit but several years for Oneweb). Whilst plotting conjunctions-per-day (instantaneous conjunction rate rather than total) should in theory control for this, number of satellites is directly correlated with time so there will still be a temporal component remaining in the plot. e.g. we can see see the spike in conjunctions around the 1700 satellite mark for Starlink when the Kosmos 1408 ASAT test occurred.