SpaceX and OneWeb internet satellite comparison

[savuporo]

They will do something similar, they will build 10 in their factory in France first before the rest are made in the US:

Airbus and OneWeb said the first 10 satellites will be produced at the Airbus plant in Toulouse, France. The remaining 890 satellites will be assembled at an undisclosed site in the United States.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/15/oneweb-selects-airbus-to-build-900-internet-satellites/

Yep I read that, and understood these to be launched from Korou on Soyuz in 2018ish. They haven't given any indications about earlier test, have they?

[Robotbeat]

More than technical? When someone says the legal/regulatory work is harder than the technical, that often means to me that the project hasn't gotten too far into the technical yet.

Not if you are dealing with global market and have to comply with global regulations regardless if you operate in the market or not.

My statement stands.

[jongoff]

More than technical? When someone says the legal/regulatory work is harder than the technical, that often means to me that the project hasn't gotten too far into the technical yet.

OneWeb is a lot further along the technical path than SpaceX is so far. They just realize that it's not just a technical problem.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

More than technical? When someone says the legal/regulatory work is harder than the technical, that often means to me that the project hasn't gotten too far into the technical yet.

OneWeb is a lot further along the technical path than SpaceX is so far. They just realize that it's not just a technical problem.

~Jon

SpaceX is making it a technical problem by trying to do something that's at LEAST an order of magnitude technically more ambitious than what OneWeb is attempting. OneWeb can just contract out the satellite for the most part. SpaceX will have to invent technology in order to make it work.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Right. The projects are similar only superficially. Different performance aims, different numbers of satellites, different orbits, different orbital heights.

[mfck]

Right. The projects are similar only superficially. Different performance aims, different numbers of satellites, different orbits, different orbital heights.

We could view them as complementary, rather then competing. SX is doing backhaul, OW - user access. 

[NaN]

Right. The projects are similar only superficially. Different performance aims, different numbers of satellites, different orbits, different orbital heights.

We could view them as complementary, rather then competing. SX is doing backhaul, OW - user access.

OneWeb has changed their plan to start with b2b, and move to end users later: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-files-for-u-s-license-will-debut-as-b2b-broadband-wholeseller-before-expanding-to-worlds-poorest/

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Right. The projects are similar only superficially. Different performance aims, different numbers of satellites, different orbits, different orbital heights.

We could view them as complementary, rather then competing. SX is doing backhaul, OW - user access.

OneWeb has changed their plan to start with b2b, and move to end users later: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-files-for-u-s-license-will-debut-as-b2b-broadband-wholeseller-before-expanding-to-worlds-poorest/

If I was a cynic, and I'm not, I'd say somebody sniffed out a few dollars in a modified business plan.

Since I'm not a cynic, business-to-business seems like a viable use for One Web's architecture. It actually makes the two architectures compliment each other closer, since SX's architecture could stand to be a better option out of the two for remote residential users since the performance cap is hypothetically higher.

[NaN]

Right. The projects are similar only superficially. Different performance aims, different numbers of satellites, different orbits, different orbital heights.

We could view them as complementary, rather then competing. SX is doing backhaul, OW - user access.

OneWeb has changed their plan to start with b2b, and move to end users later: http://spacenews.com/oneweb-files-for-u-s-license-will-debut-as-b2b-broadband-wholeseller-before-expanding-to-worlds-poorest/

If I was a cynic, and I'm not, I'd say somebody sniffed out a few dollars in a modified business plan.

Since I'm not a cynic, business-to-business seems like a viable use for One Web's architecture. It actually makes the two architectures compliment each other closer, since SX's architecture could stand to be a better option out of the two for remote residential users since the performance cap is hypothetically higher.

It's not cynical to say they sniffed out more dollars this way - they did. It's a much more viable plan to start out with business-to-business to expand footprint and revenue before going for more difficult and finicky end-users. The reasons given in the article are good ones. By working with businesses they can get highly valuable local help working through regulatory issues in various markets, and can reduce the terminal costs while working out technical kinks before scaling out the business to end-users.

The cynical view would be to say that they'll end up never bothering with those low margin unserved customers and only time will tell on that - but their corporate messaging at http://oneweb.world/ is all about ubiquitous access.

[mfck]

...

The cynical view would be to say that they'll end up never bothering with those low margin unserved customers and only time will tell on that - but their corporate messaging at http://oneweb.world/ is all about ubiquitous access.

The cynic in me grins at that domain name.

[MikeAtkinson]

Estimated cost of SpaceX constellation = $5+B
Timeframe: TBD
User equipment techology & cost key

Once we’ve done that, then we will pretty much go all in on the constellation.

See: Space News Gwynne Shotwell interview