Quote from: DreamyPickle on 02/22/2022 10:29 amIn light of Putin's behavior it is appalling that these launches are allowed to continue, and they're even intermediated by ArianeSpace!This collaboration is shameful.The problem for a company like oneWeb is it has not much room to manoeuvre. A year delay would cost it dearly, possible mean it would lose contracts and maybe become unviable. It's currently in probably quite vicious competition with Starlink behind the scenes, so unless we basically want starlink to have a monopoly, we'll need to suck it up a little.
In light of Putin's behavior it is appalling that these launches are allowed to continue, and they're even intermediated by ArianeSpace!This collaboration is shameful.
Quote from: alanr74 on 02/22/2022 08:41 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 02/22/2022 10:29 amIn light of Putin's behavior it is appalling that these launches are allowed to continue, and they're even intermediated by ArianeSpace!This collaboration is shameful.The problem for a company like oneWeb is it has not much room to manoeuvre. A year delay would cost it dearly, possible mean it would lose contracts and maybe become unviable. It's currently in probably quite vicious competition with Starlink behind the scenes, so unless we basically want starlink to have a monopoly, we'll need to suck it up a little.Let’s see. Starlink profits go to settling Mars and making humanity a multi planetary species. OneWeb profits help some wealthy investors fund yachts and overseas holidays. Yep, I’m good with the former of your two options.
We need to set aside the question about what we OUGHT to do, as it’s off topic here, but won’t OneWeb have to comply with sanctions regardless?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/23/2022 08:44 amQuote from: alanr74 on 02/22/2022 08:41 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 02/22/2022 10:29 amIn light of Putin's behavior it is appalling that these launches are allowed to continue, and they're even intermediated by ArianeSpace!This collaboration is shameful.The problem for a company like oneWeb is it has not much room to manoeuvre. A year delay would cost it dearly, possible mean it would lose contracts and maybe become unviable. It's currently in probably quite vicious competition with Starlink behind the scenes, so unless we basically want starlink to have a monopoly, we'll need to suck it up a little.Let’s see. Starlink profits go to settling Mars and making humanity a multi planetary species. OneWeb profits help some wealthy investors fund yachts and overseas holidays. Yep, I’m good with the former of your two options.42% of OneWeb is owned by the UK government.
Let’s see. Starlink profits go to settling Mars and making humanity a multi planetary species. OneWeb profits help some wealthy investors fund yachts and overseas holidays. Yep, I’m good with the former of your two options.
Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 02/23/2022 10:01 amQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/23/2022 08:44 amQuote from: alanr74 on 02/22/2022 08:41 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 02/22/2022 10:29 amIn light of Putin's behavior it is appalling that these launches are allowed to continue, and they're even intermediated by ArianeSpace!This collaboration is shameful.The problem for a company like oneWeb is it has not much room to manoeuvre. A year delay would cost it dearly, possible mean it would lose contracts and maybe become unviable. It's currently in probably quite vicious competition with Starlink behind the scenes, so unless we basically want starlink to have a monopoly, we'll need to suck it up a little.Let’s see. Starlink profits go to settling Mars and making humanity a multi planetary species. OneWeb profits help some wealthy investors fund yachts and overseas holidays. Yep, I’m good with the former of your two options.42% of OneWeb is owned by the UK government.Well aware of that, thanks. Doesn’t change the point, or assist the average citizen of Starlink’s country of origin in any way. In fact, it is highly questionable whether it even benefits the average citizen of the UK in any way. Many would say (in fact DID say at the time) that the investment was an utter waste of UK taxpayer money.
Well aware of that, thanks. Doesn’t change the point, or assist the average citizen of Starlink’s country of origin in any way. In fact, it is highly questionable whether it even benefits the average citizen of the UK in any way. Many would say (in fact DID say at the time) that the investment was an utter waste of UK taxpayer money.
When’s the first non-Soyuz launch?
As I said, if OneWeb fall behind on their schedule, then they will lose in their battle with StarLink. When it comes to LEO discussion, that is bad for all of us.I, for one, want OneWeb to succeed.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/23/2022 11:01 amWell aware of that, thanks. Doesn’t change the point, or assist the average citizen of Starlink’s country of origin in any way. In fact, it is highly questionable whether it even benefits the average citizen of the UK in any way. Many would say (in fact DID say at the time) that the investment was an utter waste of UK taxpayer money.Starlink doesn't benefit the average US citizen, either. LEO satellites are going to be beneficial to people/businesses in remote places and governments/military.
I was just pointing out that the average person won't buy Starlink or OneWeb as their fibre, copper should suffice. In the UK we are having a 5g rollout. I'm currently at home on it, with 600Mb dl from a mast 1km away.
QuoteUS government policy is to encourage Internet access in rural areas, and this policy has consequences that add to the cost of communications and add taxes for all US residents. To the extent that Satcomm can lower the total cost of rural access, US residents win, even the vast majority of us who would be better served by good landline. In addition, there are many areas where landline should be installed but the incumbent provider chooses not to do so because of self-competition: good cheap satcomm puts a ceiling on the price of landline and often "encourages" incumbents to actually build out landline to avoid losing customers. There are/were laws several states, passed at the behest of comms incumbent lobbyists, that prohibited municipalities from installing fiber nets to compete with the incumbents. Satcomm avoids this.Starlink is in business to make money, so these are secondary effects, but the are quite real. The orbital mechanics of an LEO constellation is such that it provides global coverage (if ISL) and allows for low incremental cost for area coverage anywhere on land (even if no ISL). Thus the business case for making money is global, and the "benefit to US" cannot be the only analysis.Without a shadow of a doubt there are side effect benefits from starlink, oneweb and a whole host of other soon to be LEO constellations. They're businesses at the end of the day and if they make a profit, then taxes are received. Also income tax, pension funds and having a higher skilled workforce. All side effects in the long run.I was just pointing out that the average person won't buy Starlink or OneWeb as their fibre, copper should suffice. In the UK we are having a 5g rollout. I'm currently at home on it, with 600Mb dl from a mast 1km away.
US government policy is to encourage Internet access in rural areas, and this policy has consequences that add to the cost of communications and add taxes for all US residents. To the extent that Satcomm can lower the total cost of rural access, US residents win, even the vast majority of us who would be better served by good landline. In addition, there are many areas where landline should be installed but the incumbent provider chooses not to do so because of self-competition: good cheap satcomm puts a ceiling on the price of landline and often "encourages" incumbents to actually build out landline to avoid losing customers. There are/were laws several states, passed at the behest of comms incumbent lobbyists, that prohibited municipalities from installing fiber nets to compete with the incumbents. Satcomm avoids this.Starlink is in business to make money, so these are secondary effects, but the are quite real. The orbital mechanics of an LEO constellation is such that it provides global coverage (if ISL) and allows for low incremental cost for area coverage anywhere on land (even if no ISL). Thus the business case for making money is global, and the "benefit to US" cannot be the only analysis.
Sure, and I agree, but what you said was "doesn't benefit" instead of "won't use". The other difference is population density. UK has 76 million people in 242,000 km2 area. The US has 332 million people in 9,833,000 km2 area, and density is highly variable. For example, Wyoming is larger than the UK but has only 567,000 people. Thus, full-coverage 5g will be expensive here.
If a certain batch of satellites haven’t been sent to Russia or one of its vassal states, yet, the UK could find other options. There’s be NRE involved, but I do believe OneWeb had already signed an agreement with Ariane to launch some satellites, right?Or even some US launcher. OneWeb used to have an agreement with Virgin Orbit. Could even launch on F9 maybe?If the US government really wants aggressive sanctions to stick, they might help the UK figure something out.
