Eutelsat OneWeb: Constellation - General Thread

[DanClemmensen]

This was planned for 6 Soyuz launches but Falcon 9 is a bigger rocket so 3-4 launches would be sufficient.

If they need to place satellites into six different planes, then it is awkward to use 3 or four launches.

Compared to their planned manifest of ~50 launches this is a rounding error, and a potentially very profitable one. There's also good reason to believe SpaceX has significant elasticity in launch supply thanks to reuse.

I'm guessing that Hawthorne can produce uppers stages as needed and can even produce any extra boosters as needed.
However, in addition to boosters and upper stages, launches are constrained by launch site, site availability, and recovery fleet availability.  I'm guessing the OneWeb launches would be from Vandenberg since OneWeb uses polar orbits. Increasing from 50 to 56 per year may be easy, but increasing from ten(?) to sixteen at Vandenberg may be hard.

[matthewkantar]

OneWeb can launch from Vandenberg on Falcons, would seem to have more room on the schedule.  Then they can pay the penalty for RTLS so they won’t cut into ASDS scheduling.

[edzieba]

Another direct benefit for SpaceX having more Vandenberg launches is spreading he fixed costs of operating Vandenberg (the the Pacific recover fleet) over more launches - and many more external launches - which lowers the effective cost of their internal Starlink launches.

[Asteroza]

OneWeb can launch from Vandenberg on Falcons, would seem to have more room on the schedule.  Then they can pay the penalty for RTLS so they won’t cut into ASDS scheduling.

RTLS "penalty" limiting # of sats per launch, plus perhaps a contractual requirement to fly on reused boosters would be an interesting scenario. I suppose that plays against SpaceX stage 2 production rate though (need more S2 due to increased # of launches due to reduced sat count per launch due to RTLS requirement). Wonder where the break even line between paying for all expendable (but less S2) versus all reused (but more S2) shakes out for OneWeb. They would need what, 6 remaining launches at 36 sats a pop, but is that 6 unique planes, or similar planes so they can deal with a longer RAAN drift? Assuming a RAAN drift penalty as well makes for interesting calculus.

[Jim]

My statement was not "wrong": you are picking up bad habits from Jim.  My statement started with an "if" and it referred to launches needed in the next 18 months, i.e., to complete tier one and provide initial continuous service.

Stick to facts and stop making so many "guesses".  Most of your posts are just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.

[meekGee]

My statement was not "wrong": you are picking up bad habits from Jim.  My statement started with an "if" and it referred to launches needed in the next 18 months, i.e., to complete tier one and provide initial continuous service.

Stick to facts and stop making so many "guesses".  Most of your posts are just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.

What he said was:

If OneWeb needs six more launches and needs them in the next 18 months, they don't have a choice other than F9, unless they can get waivers and use a Chinese launcher

I don't see how this is controversial in any way, and even if you disagree, pointing out an alternative would be a good start other than yelling "wrong".

[Redclaws]

Another direct benefit for SpaceX having more Vandenberg launches is spreading he fixed costs of operating Vandenberg (the the Pacific recover fleet) over more launches - and many more external launches - which lowers the effective cost of their internal Starlink launches.

I mean, more launches means more revenue.  It makes Vandenberg more justifiable, sure, but it’s weird to split up the accounting like that - it’s just more money in the door.  It’s only relevant where it comes from if you’re specifically asking whether or not SpaceX Vandenberg should stay operational.

[deadman1204]

I think the idea that spaceX doesn't want to help a "competitor" is overblown and lacking. Starlink cannot provide enough bandwidth for the globe, or even the US (even with the 30k sized constellation). Ignoring the fact that they would'n't be able to make such a monopoly to begin with.

Internet is a HUGE sector, and frankly its silly to imagine any one company owning it. SpaceX helping OneWeb won't really hurt Starlink because there are SOO many potential customers out there that it doesn't really matter.

[vyoma]

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/telecom-news/in-talks-with-arianespace-on-how-to-complete-contracted-launches-oneweb/articleshow/90106987.cms

Bharti-backed OneWeb has said it is in discussion with Arianespace on how its contracted launches will be completed, days after the satellite communications firm decided to suspend all launches from Russia-operated Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. OneWeb - where Bharti Group is the largest shareholder - has further cited ISRO's "considerable launch experience" along with a Letter of Intent inked in October 2021, and said it will be looking at all available options to bring OneWeb connectivity across the globe.

In response to an email query by PTI on how the suspension of all launches from Baikonur will impact the company's overall plans, OneWeb in a statement said: "We are in discussion with Arianespace (France-headquartered satellite-launch company) concerning how they will complete our contracted launches".

"Clearly, ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) has considerable launch experience and we have signed a Letter of Intent with them on October 21. We will be looking at all available options to bring OneWeb connectivity across the globe," it added.

[Robotbeat]

Doesn't Vega-C have an Ukrainian built upper stage engine?

At one point, Vega-C's AVUM+ upper stage was going to use a European engine, did that not end up happening?

[EDIT: apparently they still use the Ukrainian engine, see https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Launch_vehicles/Vega-C .  And while the Vega-C can put 2200 kg into a polar orbit, I suspect it's not well-suited for OneWeb volumetrically.]

See http://www.academie-air-espace.com/upload/doc/ressources/Launchers/slides/lasagni.pdf slide 11 (admittedly from 2015.)

Well, Ukraine *is* European.

[Rondaz]

Source: OneWeb satellites undocked from Fregat upper stage.

Baikonur reported that OneWeb satellites were undocked from the Fregat upper stage.

03:34 10.03.2022

MOSCOW, March 10 - RIA Novosti. OneWeb satellites undocked from the Fregat upper stage in the course of work carried out after the cancellation of their launch from Baikonur, a source at the cosmodrome told RIA Novosti.

Last week, Roskosmos canceled the launch of Britain's OneWeb communications satellites , which was due to take place the next day, due to disagreements with a customer amid geopolitical tensions .

"Foreigners asked very much that the work go on without pauses and be completed as quickly as possible. OneWeb devices today undocked from the upper stage. Then foreign specialists will begin servicing the satellites and preparing them for storage," the source said.

Foreign specialists will have to disconnect them from the dispenser - 36 satellites are tightly "packed", and the work to disconnect them one by one will take several days.

Earlier, the same source reported that foreign specialists would leave Baikonur only after they sealed the premises where the satellites would be stored.

The launch of OneWeb was planned for March 5, however, due to the international situation, it turned out to be in doubt. On March 2, the head of the Roscosmos state corporation, Dmitry Rogozin , set out the conditions for the launch: comprehensive legal guarantees that OneWeb would not use these satellites for military purposes and would not provide these services to the relevant military departments.

Another condition was the withdrawal of the British government from the shareholders of OneWeb. The OneWeb Board of Directors eventually voted to suspend all launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. British Minister for Business, Energy and Industry Kwasi Kwarteng noted that the UK government is not selling its stake in OneWeb.

The decision to cancel the launch and stop work on the next launches was made on Friday at a meeting of the commission at Baikonur.

OneWeb satellites are designed to create a space communication system that provides high-speed Internet access anywhere in the world .

https://ria.ru/20220310/oneweb-1777390277.html

[Asteroza]

Another direct benefit for SpaceX having more Vandenberg launches is spreading he fixed costs of operating Vandenberg (the the Pacific recover fleet) over more launches - and many more external launches - which lowers the effective cost of their internal Starlink launches.

I mean, more launches means more revenue.  It makes Vandenberg more justifiable, sure, but it’s weird to split up the accounting like that - it’s just more money in the door.  It’s only relevant where it comes from if you’re specifically asking whether or not SpaceX Vandenberg should stay operational.

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

[Lars-J]

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

That may be a myth, because SpaceX didn’t appear to have much trouble launching 7 commercial missions for Iridium from Vandenberg spread over 2 years.

[Asteroza]

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

That may be a myth, because SpaceX didn’t appear to have much trouble launching 7 commercial missions for Iridium from Vandenberg spread over 2 years.

Wasn't that well known and scheduled in advance, as in the first launch in the Iridium campaign was likely known 2 or more years ahead of the actual launch?

Without a ITU extension, that's roughly 18 months or so left to get 6 launches in. The dispenser is either a mod or new build, and if SpaceX was getting an acceleration fee, one might guess 6 months to first launch in a surge OneWeb campaign, leaving 12 months for 6 launches. Pad turnaround and weather might push things to a 3 week cadence at max pace, but that includes all other launches (so roughly 17 launches in that 12 month timeframe, assuming they even get permission to do that many), of which OneWeb probably needs at least 6 (this assumes the existing 36 sat dispenser is used, and all expendable, but if RTLS bounded the launch count goes up)? Plus ramping up S2 production.

With all those constraints SpaceX really has OneWeb over a barrel, assuming they could delivery at such a rate.

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/SpaceXMR/status/1501892784751616001?t=XAnc9dXHgIHCyuW6chwNBQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Lars-J]

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

That may be a myth, because SpaceX didn’t appear to have much trouble launching 7 commercial missions for Iridium from Vandenberg spread over 2 years.

Wasn't that well known and scheduled in advance, as in the first launch in the Iridium campaign was likely known 2 or more years ahead of the actual launch?

Do you think VAFB (now VSFB) needs 2 years advance notice to approve a flight from the base? That seems unlikely - after all SpaceX itself doesn't know its schedule that far in advance for Starlink missions. Unless a hypothetical mission overlaps with a DoD/NROL launch, I don't see why VSFB would need more than a few months notice for a new mission on the schedule. But I could be certainly wrong.

[niwax]

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

That may be a myth, because SpaceX didn’t appear to have much trouble launching 7 commercial missions for Iridium from Vandenberg spread over 2 years.

Wasn't that well known and scheduled in advance, as in the first launch in the Iridium campaign was likely known 2 or more years ahead of the actual launch?

Do you think VAFB (now VSFB) needs 2 years advance notice to approve a flight from the base? That seems unlikely - after all SpaceX itself doesn't know its schedule that far in advance for Starlink missions. Unless a hypothetical mission overlaps with a DoD/NROL launch, I don't see why VSFB would need more than a few months notice for a new mission on the schedule. But I could be certainly wrong.

Back in the day they weren't big into scheduling for some small startup, to the point that building a pad in Kwaj was quicker. But I doubt that would still be the case now that ULA is practically nonexistent until Vulcan and SpaceX as their biggest customer is requesting some launch slots for missions that are politically and economically important.

[Asteroza]

Speaking on increased launch rate from VSFB, I vaguely remember people commenting that the military is not that friendly with purely commercial launches there. What kind of limitations would SpaceX face increasing launch rate, since priority is usually given to military launches and/or range usage? Is range downtime a serious concern as well? Is there a guess as to the upper limits for SpaceX launching from Vandenberg generally, and specifically on "short" notice (less than 18 months)?

That may be a myth, because SpaceX didn’t appear to have much trouble launching 7 commercial missions for Iridium from Vandenberg spread over 2 years.

Wasn't that well known and scheduled in advance, as in the first launch in the Iridium campaign was likely known 2 or more years ahead of the actual launch?

Do you think VAFB (now VSFB) needs 2 years advance notice to approve a flight from the base? That seems unlikely - after all SpaceX itself doesn't know its schedule that far in advance for Starlink missions. Unless a hypothetical mission overlaps with a DoD/NROL launch, I don't see why VSFB would need more than a few months notice for a new mission on the schedule. But I could be certainly wrong.

Back in the day they weren't big into scheduling for some small startup, to the point that building a pad in Kwaj was quicker. But I doubt that would still be the case now that ULA is practically nonexistent until Vulcan and SpaceX as their biggest customer is requesting some launch slots for missions that are politically and economically important.

It comes down to flexibility to accommodate commercial requests. It's still a military facility, and they do stuff like training ICBM launches and such, along with other military non-orbital launch uses of the range itself. There was a ton of work done to the eastern range in florida and the (45th?) squadron to support a higher launch pace there, but I don't think the equivalent has been completed out west.

[M.E.T.]

https://twitter.com/brian_j_berger/status/1502039093282324483?s=21

[ZachS09]

OneWeb not eager to tear up launch contract with Arianespace
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/03/14/oneweb-discussing-backup-launch-options-with-arianespace/