Quote from: vaporcobra on 03/03/2022 02:36 amI'm not sure that this is much of a defense given that OneWeb and Starlink exist in the same world and that SpaceX did NOT go bankrupt while under the exact same global stresses and while simultaneously ramping up Starlink AND Starship... If it were some universal challenge, rather than incompetence within one organization, one would imagine that SpaceX's nonessential programs would have visibly struggled or faltered, too. What the events definitely DONT imply is that it could never happen again or that it was entirely outside of OneWeb's control. There are plenty of reasons to still be concerned and skeptical.You completely missed my point about timing. If you look at when SpaceX's finance round in 2020 was (August 2020 according to google), they didn't need to raise money at the time the financial markets were freaking out. By late summer when SpaceX was doing its fundraising, things were back to booming in the space financial world. So no, SpaceX and OneWeb were not raising money in the same financial environment. Timing can matter a lot when you have a large financial shock.~Jon
I'm not sure that this is much of a defense given that OneWeb and Starlink exist in the same world and that SpaceX did NOT go bankrupt while under the exact same global stresses and while simultaneously ramping up Starlink AND Starship... If it were some universal challenge, rather than incompetence within one organization, one would imagine that SpaceX's nonessential programs would have visibly struggled or faltered, too. What the events definitely DONT imply is that it could never happen again or that it was entirely outside of OneWeb's control. There are plenty of reasons to still be concerned and skeptical.
These are facts, unpleasant for OneWeb stakeholders to hear or not.
Unsurprisinghttps://twitter.com/OneWeb/status/1499317405029437447--- Tony
Quote from: jebbo on 03/03/2022 09:04 amUnsurprising--- TonyA few years too late. OneWeb's naivety means they now have a load of satellites stuck in Baikonur. I assume they will onlz have paid a deposit for the launch. Roscosmos will now have to get by launching only for the Russian military.
Unsurprising--- Tony
I would have expected Bharti to be asking the Indian government to intercede at this point.
Quote from: ZachF on 03/03/2022 12:53 amLet’s not forget to add they’ve already gone bankrupt once Which, in spite of what most SpaceX amazing peoples seem to think, was probably mostly due to bad timing. Most startups (including SpaceX for Starlink) raise the money for big projects like this in an incremental series of raises. You usually have a certain amount of "runway" (time before you run out of money), and you try to raise the next round before you get too close to the end of the runway, but typically not too soon after your previous raise, in the hopes of retiring some risk so you can raise the new money at a higher valuation. OneWeb was in the process of closing a funding round right as the world ground to a halt in early 2020. There was about a 2mo period there where a lot of people in the finance world thought we were going to crash into depression and all the space investment money was going to dry up. In hindsight, they were completely wrong--2020 actually ended up being a record year for space investment. But between February and early April 2020, a lot of people thought the bottom was going to drop out on the space finance market and we were going to see dozens of high profile bankruptcies. If the timing of when OneWeb had needed to raise their round shifted about 30 days in either direction, they likely would've closed it just fine (either before the pandemic lockdowns hit, or long enough afterward that it became obvious that financial markets weren't locking up). And without that hiccup, they'd be quite a bit ahead of SpaceX. They would've already had service going above 50 degrees before SpaceX could offer anything, and they'd likely be done with their entire first generation constellation by today.Did the bankruptcy help their second owners? Sure! But it almost certainly wasn't driven by any doubts about their feasibility or business model or anything else. If SpaceX's fundraising timing had been similarly pessimal, there's a non-zero chance they would've had to have done some serious layoffs, and/or slow-rolled one of their projects too. Sometimes bankruptcies are driven by bad business models, but most people I've spoken with about this agree this was more driven by unlucky timing than relative market viability.~Jon
Let’s not forget to add they’ve already gone bankrupt once
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia inherited its close relationship with India which resulted in both nations sharing a special relationship. Russia and India both term this relationship as a "special and privileged strategic partnership".
Which is why it would also be a bad idea for OneWeb to consider launching on Indian launch vehicles.Chinese launchers are no option either.That leaves only Ariane 6 (which has yet to become operational), Vulcan (same problem), New Glenn (same problem) and Falcon 9.The previous owner of OneWeb more or less hated Elon Musk, so F9 was no option. With that character gone OneWeb might reconsider flying with their biggest competitor.Time will tell.
I would remind everyone here that Musk himself claimed just a few months ago that Starlink v1 had a "weak at best" business case (i.e. if the promoter and owner of the system says that, it's safe to say reality is worse than that). Starlink v2, that according to him has a "strong" case -which remains much to be seen-, can only work if Starship 1-works as a design, 2-becomes operational, 3-with high launch cadence, 4-in reusable mode, 5-while Starlink's business case is still intact (or grows). The (LV-specific) facts that drag OneWeb as you mention are unique to them, but relatable to Starlink even if differently organized launcher-wise.
Quote from: eeergo on 03/03/2022 08:33 amI would remind everyone here that Musk himself claimed just a few months ago that Starlink v1 had a "weak at best" business case (i.e. if the promoter and owner of the system says that, it's safe to say reality is worse than that). Starlink v2, that according to him has a "strong" case -which remains much to be seen-, can only work if Starship 1-works as a design, 2-becomes operational, 3-with high launch cadence, 4-in reusable mode, 5-while Starlink's business case is still intact (or grows). The (LV-specific) facts that drag OneWeb as you mention are unique to them, but relatable to Starlink even if differently organized launcher-wise.I would try to remember that Musk does have a history of exaggerating issues and difficulties to an extent. Like, he has said Tesla was close to bankruptcy when it was not, he has said SpaceX is close to bankruptcy when it is not. He's implied Raptor 1 is terrible (compared to Raptor 2) when it is one of the best engines ever made. He's always looking forward to the next thing, hyping it up, and saying things were terrible before, but now will be much better. And that may also be why he is successful - he is never happy with how things are, and always wants to make something better.So, I would look at his statements about Starlink v1 in that context. Basically, he is over Starlink V1, and has moved on to V2. That doesn't mean that Starlink V1 is terrible, it really only means that V2 is a significant improvement.Now, the above of course does nothing for OneWeb. If OneWeb is uncompetitive compared to Starlink V1, it doesn't help that Starlink V2 is much better.
Quote from: alexterrell on 03/03/2022 10:30 amQuote from: jebbo on 03/03/2022 09:04 amUnsurprising--- TonyA few years too late. OneWeb's naivety means they now have a load of satellites stuck in Baikonur. I assume they will onlz have paid a deposit for the launch. Roscosmos will now have to get by launching only for the Russian military. Cooperation and interdependencies are the way forward, not only evidently in space, but everywhere. The contrary only leads to inefficiencies, chaos and conflict. But pragmatically and in the short term, you are completely right.
The previous owner of OneWeb more or less hated Elon Musk, so F9 was no option. With that character gone OneWeb might reconsider flying with their biggest competitor.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/03/2022 12:13 pmThe previous owner of OneWeb more or less hated Elon Musk, so F9 was no option. With that character gone OneWeb might reconsider flying with their biggest competitor.I assume SpaceX couldn't refuse. Doing so would open up a whole can of anti-trust worms.
