Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/21/2020 06:54 amQuote from: dglow on 04/21/2020 06:14 amStarlink is the killer app for Falcon, and nobody else has a Falcon. Contrary to others here I do not think SpaceX will choose to launch a competing constellation anytime soon.They already have committed to do that by selling 2 Falcon 9 launches for SES's mPower constellation. Technically, each launch of mPower would put up about 4-5 terabits per second of capacity - ~4x as much as a starlink v1.0 launch of 60 satellites. It would be pretty hard to gracefully exit that contract without raising eyebrows.Anyways, the Iridium launch contract was half a billion dollars. The Soyuz deal was probably ~$1 billion. OneWeb on falcon would have likely been significantly more than Iridium. It wasn't the launch vehicle.There are several reasons SpaceX might be willing to launch GEO comsats but less willing to launch OneWeb sats or other LEO mega-constellation comsats:1. GEO comsats compete less-directly with Starlink. GEO sats will have much higher latency, so Starlink always has that advantage over them. GEO sats require more power for the signal to be sent from the satellite for the same receiver power, increasing the cost per GB of bandwidth in terms of satellite cost. They also require more transmit power from the ground equipment.2. There are already of a lot of GEO comsats out there. Whatever market share GEO comsats take away from Starlink, there are already a lot of them taking that market share. Another one won't make much difference.3. Low launch costs are less critical for GEO comsats. The satellites themselves are expensive and the launch costs are a relatively smaller share of overall costs. So SpaceX providing lower launch costs for GEO comsats doesn't much change how many GEO comsats there are competing with Starlink.As to Iridium, the launch contract was signed years ago, when Starlink was at most an idea, so SpaceX would have had less incentive then to avoid helping Starlink competition. And Iridium's constellation as a whole provides far too little bandwidth to take much market share from Starlink.
Quote from: dglow on 04/21/2020 06:14 amStarlink is the killer app for Falcon, and nobody else has a Falcon. Contrary to others here I do not think SpaceX will choose to launch a competing constellation anytime soon.They already have committed to do that by selling 2 Falcon 9 launches for SES's mPower constellation. Technically, each launch of mPower would put up about 4-5 terabits per second of capacity - ~4x as much as a starlink v1.0 launch of 60 satellites. It would be pretty hard to gracefully exit that contract without raising eyebrows.Anyways, the Iridium launch contract was half a billion dollars. The Soyuz deal was probably ~$1 billion. OneWeb on falcon would have likely been significantly more than Iridium. It wasn't the launch vehicle.
Starlink is the killer app for Falcon, and nobody else has a Falcon. Contrary to others here I do not think SpaceX will choose to launch a competing constellation anytime soon.
- Even if mPower launches more capability per launch, it takes a considerable number of launches to offer the same coverage as Starlink. And Starlink already has a giant head start.
Does everyone realize that mPower is just a new generation of sats for an existing, operational constellation?
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 04/21/2020 07:04 pmOneWeb has costs per Gbps of capacity (Build plus launch) that are about 600% more expensive than SpaceX Starlink. OneWeb was not even remotely competitive on their expenses. They spent more per satellite, the satellites provided less capacity each (8 gbps vs 20 gbps) and each launch was more expensive (Soyuz vs Falcon 9) and each launch put fewer satellites in orbit (30 vs 60). Later Why are you using weird numbers? Each launch of OneWeb is 34 launches, not 30. The most recent information on capacity is 10 gbps per satellite[1].You are ignoring any factor of utilization rate (theoretically, the higher the orbit, the better utilization rate even if the bit rate is lower all things being equal). Cost to design and build satellites is not a publically known factor. We have no data about real world data rates compared to theoretical rates. A lot of this stuff is just made up.[1]QuoteOneWeb and its satellite manufacturing partner Airbus Defence and Space have crammed 10 gigabits per second of capacity into spacecraft the size of dishwashers.https://spacenews.com/how-oneweb-plans-to-make-sure-its-first-satellites-arent-its-last/
OneWeb has costs per Gbps of capacity (Build plus launch) that are about 600% more expensive than SpaceX Starlink. OneWeb was not even remotely competitive on their expenses. They spent more per satellite, the satellites provided less capacity each (8 gbps vs 20 gbps) and each launch was more expensive (Soyuz vs Falcon 9) and each launch put fewer satellites in orbit (30 vs 60). Later
OneWeb and its satellite manufacturing partner Airbus Defence and Space have crammed 10 gigabits per second of capacity into spacecraft the size of dishwashers.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/21/2020 07:15 pmQuote from: RocketGoBoom on 04/21/2020 07:04 pmOneWeb has costs per Gbps of capacity (Build plus launch) that are about 600% more expensive than SpaceX Starlink. OneWeb was not even remotely competitive on their expenses. They spent more per satellite, the satellites provided less capacity each (8 gbps vs 20 gbps) and each launch was more expensive (Soyuz vs Falcon 9) and each launch put fewer satellites in orbit (30 vs 60). Later Why are you using weird numbers? Each launch of OneWeb is 34 launches, not 30. The most recent information on capacity is 10 gbps per satellite[1].You are ignoring any factor of utilization rate (theoretically, the higher the orbit, the better utilization rate even if the bit rate is lower all things being equal). Cost to design and build satellites is not a publically known factor. We have no data about real world data rates compared to theoretical rates. A lot of this stuff is just made up.[1]QuoteOneWeb and its satellite manufacturing partner Airbus Defence and Space have crammed 10 gigabits per second of capacity into spacecraft the size of dishwashers.https://spacenews.com/how-oneweb-plans-to-make-sure-its-first-satellites-arent-its-last/These numbers are not weird. He's doing a quick engineering estimate and is showing a 600% difference.
I fail to see how he derives a 600% difference.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/21/2020 10:15 pmI fail to see how he derives a 600% difference.There is a very detailed discussion from February 2020 here in this topic. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49937.120The financial details start on page 7 of the topic. If you have 20-30 minutes to read and think about this topic, you will understand that SpaceX Starlink has a huge advantage over OneWeb. In the GEO market (Viasat vs EchoStar HughesNet), it is obvious that Viasat will have a huge advantage also by 2021-2022.
As far as launch costs, Soyuz was simply a stop gap measure between current launchers and New Glenn (and maybe some discounted first launches of stuff like Ariane 6), a launcher whose prices aren't really known. So, yeah, especially long term, the comparative advantages don't seem to be as large as is portrayed and certainly not with the level of certainty expressed here.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the telephonic omnibus hearing previously scheduled forApril 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) in the above-referenced proceeding beforethe Honorable Robert D. Drain United States Bankruptcy Judge, the United States BankruptcyCourt for the Southern District of New York, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York10601, is adjourned to April 29, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) (the “OmnibusHearing”).
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 04/21/2020 10:39 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 04/21/2020 10:15 pmI fail to see how he derives a 600% difference.There is a very detailed discussion from February 2020 here in this topic. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49937.120The financial details start on page 7 of the topic. If you have 20-30 minutes to read and think about this topic, you will understand that SpaceX Starlink has a huge advantage over OneWeb. In the GEO market (Viasat vs EchoStar HughesNet), it is obvious that Viasat will have a huge advantage also by 2021-2022.You obviously know what the costs are. Save me some time and fill in a couple blanksOneWeb satellite production cost (ignoring R&D):Starlink satellite production cost (ignoring R&D):OneWeb terminal production cost (ignoring R&D):Starlink terminal production cost (ignoring R&D):Starlink gateway construction cost:OneWeb gateway construciton cost:edit: Anways, it appears that they both have raised about $4.5 billion in debt/financing since Starlink/OneWeb was started (SpaceX series G-M). OneWeb has deployed 74 operational satellites with 10 gbps per satellite or .74 terabits/second of capacity. SpaceX has deployed 300 20 gbps operational satellites or 6 terabits/second of capacity (with some indication that some of that capacity is dead on orbit). That is a 8x multiplier, but that multiplier would have likely fallen significantly as OneWeb started launching in February and Starlink started launching in November. For instance, in March, Starlink deployed 1-1.2 terabits/second of capacity and OneWeb deployed .34 terabits/second of capacity. The rate of capacity increase would be about 3-3.5x in that case, with an unknown ongoing cash burn rate. And we also haven't been applying any sort of utilization rate. Satellites will spend most of their time over water, whether their capacity will be available to population centers depends on their altitude and satellite architecture. So, in terms of cost per delivered bit, it very well could be in the 2-3x range. Anyways, it looks like SpaceX wants their investment back pronto to fund a mars colony. If the OneWeb investors had a slightly longer term amortization period, they could offer services at comparable costs (or simply offer inferior service at better prices). We also haven't looked at design life. Starlink satellites are said to have a design life of 5 years while OneWeb has a design life of 7 years(40% longer). Real world life is an open question.
You can't do future math based on New Glenn and ignore Starship. You're also ignoring the fact that SL is planning to add inter-sat links and do backhaul, utilizing those satellites that are over oceans.There is a reason they couldn't raise more funds. The virus crisis is preventing new companies from getting funding, and is killing revenue-dependent cashflow constrained businesses, but companies that are already partially funded are actually able to raise more if they have a business plan that is not destroyed by the virus.If anything, an internet-anywhere company should have been able to raise more easily right now. The fact that they couldn't is very telling.
Quote from: meekGee on 04/22/2020 05:31 amYou can't do future math based on New Glenn and ignore Starship. You're also ignoring the fact that SL is planning to add inter-sat links and do backhaul, utilizing those satellites that are over oceans.There is a reason they couldn't raise more funds. The virus crisis is preventing new companies from getting funding, and is killing revenue-dependent cashflow constrained businesses, but companies that are already partially funded are actually able to raise more if they have a business plan that is not destroyed by the virus.If anything, an internet-anywhere company should have been able to raise more easily right now. The fact that they couldn't is very telling.Several good points made there. Also, any projections about OneWeb are pointless right now. The constellation was only 10% deployed and cannot provide continuous 24/7 service anywhere at this time. So the constellation is worthless unless someone launches a much larger portion of the planned constellation so that a portion of the Earth has 24/7 coverage. Compare that to SpaceX. With 400+ satellites in orbit, reportedly they can provide 24/7 service (in 3-4 months) to the northern USA and most of Canada along the border. The private beta test starts in 3 months and the public beta test in 6 months.Raising future funds for SpaceX/Starlink is much easier for Elon compared to any other competitor (OneWeb or others). Elon has backup investors such as Larry Page and Larry Ellison who will invest in Elon's projects. Each of those guys is worth $60+ billion. I suspect if Elon needed to raise $1 billion even now, in the middle of this health and financial crisis, he could probably do it. There is simply a different level of access to capital that Elon has that nobody else has, with the possible exception of Blue Origin or Amazon.If OneWeb had a viable business model and competitive costs structure to compete with Starlink, then they would have been able to find investors. Reportedly the CEO of OneWeb has been hunting for new investors since October of 2019, well before the virus issues started. The current environment makes it even less likely for a savior to emerge during bankruptcy. Just my opinion.
SpaceX is also an interesting cash (sic) given that it already has 400+ satellites already in orbit. Perhaps it is interested in the Airbus joint-venture which OneWeb has to build satellites in Florida.
Bankruptcy court approves sales procedure for @OneWeb, allows "stalking horse" agreements, sets Final Bid Deadline to 26 June 2020, auction to 2 July 2020 and Sale Hearing to 10 July 2020. Preliminary indications of interest are due by 4 May.📄 p.18 ff.: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47378/815644_104.pdf
