From this plot, the satellite lost 0.04 km in about 300 days from a starting altitude of 1078 km. At this rate, they will be down to the SpaceX altitude of 550 km in only a little more than 10,000 years. Although this is surely an overestimate (it will run into more drag as it drops) it's clear that each OneWeb satellite that fails will generate many more debris-years than a satellite that fails at a lower altitude.Put another way, at any appreciable failure rate, there will be more dead OneWeb satellites in orbit at any given time than those from lower constellations.
...It's almost like they should put a grapple fixture on their satellites, and work with companies to do backup post mission disposals when they get a premature failure......
Quote from: jongoff on 12/01/2021 05:00 pm...It's almost like they should put a grapple fixture on their satellites, and work with companies to do backup post mission disposals when they get a premature failure......Any idea about the price range of such services?
Quote from: LouScheffer on 11/28/2021 08:26 pmFrom this plot, the satellite lost 0.04 km in about 300 days from a starting altitude of 1078 km. At this rate, they will be down to the SpaceX altitude of 550 km in only a little more than 10,000 years. Although this is surely an overestimate (it will run into more drag as it drops) it's clear that each OneWeb satellite that fails will generate many more debris-years than a satellite that fails at a lower altitude.Put another way, at any appreciable failure rate, there will be more dead OneWeb satellites in orbit at any given time than those from lower constellations.It's almost like they should put a grapple fixture on their satellites, and work with companies to do backup post mission disposals when they get a premature failure...Oh wait, they are.If they follow-through on using their grapple fixtures and buying backup EOL services when needed, they may very well have fewer dead satellites on orbit at any given time than SpaceX, in spite of SpaceX's constellation being an order of magnitude bigger. But yes, in a world where RPO is impossibly hard, grapple fixtures don't exist, and nobody was trying to build EOL disposal tugs, flying at high altitudes would be a lot less sustainable than flying at lower altitudes.~Jon[note: Sorry if the above came across really snotty. It's just annoying that everyone continues to act like EOL services aren't something that could happen very quickly if there was a clear market for them, and that therefore natural orbital decay can and should be the only comparison point.]
Quote from: jongoff on 12/01/2021 05:00 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 11/28/2021 08:26 pmFrom this plot, the satellite lost 0.04 km in about 300 days from a starting altitude of 1078 km. At this rate, they will be down to the SpaceX altitude of 550 km in only a little more than 10,000 years. Although this is surely an overestimate (it will run into more drag as it drops) it's clear that each OneWeb satellite that fails will generate many more debris-years than a satellite that fails at a lower altitude.Put another way, at any appreciable failure rate, there will be more dead OneWeb satellites in orbit at any given time than those from lower constellations.It's almost like they should put a grapple fixture on their satellites, and work with companies to do backup post mission disposals when they get a premature failure...Oh wait, they are.If they follow-through on using their grapple fixtures and buying backup EOL services when needed, they may very well have fewer dead satellites on orbit at any given time than SpaceX, in spite of SpaceX's constellation being an order of magnitude bigger. But yes, in a world where RPO is impossibly hard, grapple fixtures don't exist, and nobody was trying to build EOL disposal tugs, flying at high altitudes would be a lot less sustainable than flying at lower altitudes.~Jon[note: Sorry if the above came across really snotty. It's just annoying that everyone continues to act like EOL services aren't something that could happen very quickly if there was a clear market for them, and that therefore natural orbital decay can and should be the only comparison point.]Note that your viewpoint is theoretically true, but practically false NOW, and only becomes true IF someone builds a tug AND OneWeb pays for it and deorbits the satellite. My viewpoint is correct UNTIL that happens.This to my mind is a big plus to the war of words over space debris between SpaceX and OneWeb. If OneWeb wants to complain about SpaceX debris, in order to be taken seriously they need to not generate debris themselves. This means they have a huge incentive to try EOL services, much stronger than a public service stance in favor of a clean LEO. This almost assured market for EOL services should help turn EOL services from long-standing theory into practice.
One of the ways of reducing cost is that the deorbiting satellite can ride share with other future satellites that are going to the same orbital inclination. If the satellite is light enough, it could take up a slot that would have normally been left vacant, e.g., launches from Baikonur or Kourou take up 34 satellites, leaving two positions free, but the vehicle may have enough performance to take up a light deorbit satellite.
OneWeb, the taxpayer-backed internet satellite operator, plans to spend $3bn (£2.2bn) to move manufacturing from the US to the UK in a boost to Britain’s space industry.Chris McLaughlin, OneWeb’s head of government affairs, told MPs that it would start work next year on a UK manufacturing programme before starting to build satellites by 2025.The move would be one of Britain’s biggest space projects and could result in OneWeb splitting from Airbus, its existing manufacturing partner, with which the company operates a manufacturing joint venture in Florida.
OneWeb to start making satellites in Britain in $3bn boost to space sectorQuote from: telegraphOneWeb, the taxpayer-backed internet satellite operator, plans to spend $3bn (£2.2bn) to move manufacturing from the US to the UK in a boost to Britain’s space industry.Chris McLaughlin, OneWeb’s head of government affairs, told MPs that it would start work next year on a UK manufacturing programme before starting to build satellites by 2025.The move would be one of Britain’s biggest space projects and could result in OneWeb splitting from Airbus, its existing manufacturing partner, with which the company operates a manufacturing joint venture in Florida.
Paris, 14 December 2021 – Airbus and OneWeb have signed a distribution partner agreement to provide low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite communication services for military and governmental use. As the leading provider of military satellite communication services in Europe, Airbus will offer new communication services utilising the OneWeb constellation to select European and UK armed forces, and civil protection and security forces, from the end of 2021.
A week after a OneWeb executive told British officials that the company would move production of its second generation of satellites to the United Kingdom, another executive said the company has yet to decide where it will build those satellites.<snip>However, during a Dec. 14 panel discussion at Euroconsult’s World Satellite Business Week here, Massimiliano Ladovaz, chief technology officer of OneWeb, argued those comments were misinterpreted in media reports after the hearing.“We are still evaluating exactly how the entire supply chain for Gen 2 will be deployed,” he said. “Clearly, there will be an important presence in the U.K., we’re not denying that. But we’re going to look at the best in class everywhere.”
