Author Topic: Eutelsat OneWeb: Constellation - General Thread  (Read 682217 times)

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Today @OneWeb will be auctioned off at @MilbankLaw's NYC office. Results of auction will be published promptly after its conclusion https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documentsclientid=CsgAAncz%2b6bw8GCDW3fZU5I8EB97MbKJRMulZfejfoiuzZoM%2b6mnEzuN6SF%2f48MvykqyagNUXtM%3d&tagid=1165

The court hearing to approve the sale will be on July 10 at 10:00AM at White Plains Courthouse

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1278696444824870912

Offline Rocket Rancher

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 55
Financial Times article titled "UK gamble on OneWeb signals more interventionist space policy" provides a much different and positive side to the possible UK investment. Something new and never been done before can be a little scary .... like trying to land a rocket booster on a barge at sea. Just because it is not being done by SpaceX doesn't mean it is not possible.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
Financial Times article titled "UK gamble on OneWeb signals more interventionist space policy" provides a much different and positive side to the possible UK investment. Something new and never been done before can be a little scary .... like trying to land a rocket booster on a barge at sea. Just because it is not being done by SpaceX doesn't mean it is not possible.

That's a strawman argument.  Literally nobody thinks there's anything that's possible only if SpaceX does it.

What many are actually claiming is that SpaceX has an enormous advantage over OneWeb because it has access to much lower launch costs.  It's not magic.  It's reusable launch technology and a focus on low cost.  Any other entity in the world with enough money could have chosen to go down that same path.  None did.  The consequence of that choice by SpaceX years ago to start down that path, and their choices time and again to stick with that path mean that now they're in an overwhelmingly superior position to OneWeb.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Financial Times article titled "UK gamble on OneWeb signals more interventionist space policy" provides a much different and positive side to the possible UK investment. Something new and never been done before can be a little scary .... like trying to land a rocket booster on a barge at sea. Just because it is not being done by SpaceX doesn't mean it is not possible.

That's a strawman argument.  Literally nobody thinks there's anything that's possible only if SpaceX does it.

What many are actually claiming is that SpaceX has an enormous advantage over OneWeb because it has access to much lower launch costs.  It's not magic.  It's reusable launch technology and a focus on low cost.  Any other entity in the world with enough money could have chosen to go down that same path.  None did.  The consequence of that choice by SpaceX years ago to start down that path, and their choices time and again to stick with that path mean that now they're in an overwhelmingly superior position to OneWeb.

Launch costs were a minor issue in deploying OneWeb's initial constellation. And the people jumping into OneWeb now have a huge advantage in that they can get billions of dollars of work that OneWeb put in for pennies on the dollar. SpaceX is under some impetus to have the constellation pay back its initial development costs, these new investors are not. And reusable rockets from other providers are available potentially as soon as next year (electron, new glenn).
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 03:32 am by ncb1397 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
Financial Times article titled "UK gamble on OneWeb signals more interventionist space policy" provides a much different and positive side to the possible UK investment. Something new and never been done before can be a little scary .... like trying to land a rocket booster on a barge at sea. Just because it is not being done by SpaceX doesn't mean it is not possible.

That's a strawman argument.  Literally nobody thinks there's anything that's possible only if SpaceX does it.

What many are actually claiming is that SpaceX has an enormous advantage over OneWeb because it has access to much lower launch costs.  It's not magic.  It's reusable launch technology and a focus on low cost.  Any other entity in the world with enough money could have chosen to go down that same path.  None did.  The consequence of that choice by SpaceX years ago to start down that path, and their choices time and again to stick with that path mean that now they're in an overwhelmingly superior position to OneWeb.

Launch costs were a minor issue in deploying OneWeb's initial constellation.

No, they weren't a minor issue.  They caused OneWeb to go bankrupt.

And the people jumping into OneWeb now have a huge advantage in that they can get billions of dollars of work that OneWeb put in for pennies on the dollar.

OneWeb did not spend billions of dollars already.  That has been debunked upthread.  They made announcements of financing of billions of dollars.  That doesn't mean that they actually received all that financing and spent it.

The fact is that most of the cost of the OneWeb constellation lie in the future, not the past.

If they had only needed a relatively small amount of additional funding to finish the constellation, they could have sold stock to raise the funding and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt in the first place.

SpaceX is under some impetus to have the constellation pay back its initial development costs, these new investors are not.

False.  Money spent so far is a sunk cost for SpaceX just as much as it's a sunk cost for OneWeb.  The difference is that SpaceX has more to show for it.  This has no negative effect for SpaceX.

And reusable rockets from other providers are available potentially as soon as next year (electron, new glenn).

Eventually, other launch providers are likely to match Falcon 9.  But it took SpaceX a long time to perfect this.  It's unlikely that the others will match Falcon 9 for several years.

Meanwhile, SpaceX is hard at work on Starship at a ferocious pace.  It seems likely that by the time others match Falcon 9 SpaceX will have moved on to Starship.  Nobody is yet working on something to match Starship.

Will others match SpaceX eventually?  Yes, very likely they will.  But they'll need to match Starship to do it.  Nobody has even started on that.  It's unlikely that anyone else will do it for about 10 years.  So SpaceX likely has an overwhelming advantage in launch costs over OneWeb for about 10 years.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50668
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85173
  • Likes Given: 38157
Quote
UK wins bidding war for satellite firm OneWeb
The satellite operator could provide the UK with internet and navigation services
By
Matthew Field
3 July 2020 • 10:14am

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/07/03/uk-wins-oneweb-bidding-war/

Announcement in about 20 mins:

https://twitter.com/bbcamos/status/1279000471735336961

Quote
OneWeb statement due at midday BST.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 10:40 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
The Telegraph is saying the group that included the UK government won the auction.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/07/03/uk-wins-oneweb-bidding-war/

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
If they had only needed a relatively small amount of additional funding to finish the constellation, they could have sold stock to raise the funding and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt in the first place.

Under this theory, Iridium wouldn't have gone bankrupt either. The constellation was essentially 100% completed. The problem was the financial picture, not constellation completion percentage.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2020 10:51 am by ncb1397 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
If they had only needed a relatively small amount of additional funding to finish the constellation, they could have sold stock to raise the funding and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt in the first place.

Under this theory, Iridium wouldn't have gone bankrupt either. The constellation was essentially 100% completed.

No, because we know that the Iridium financing came from debt while the OneWeb financing was largely from equity.  Just look at the bankruptcy filings.

Online donaldp

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 5

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Quote
If the Bharti-led option goes through, it will represent a bold intervention by the UK government, who are understood to be prepared to put $500m (£400m) into the purchase for an equity stake of 20% in the new operation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53279783

So, if I am reading this right, OneWeb was valued under auction for $2.5 billion? 100x what Iridium went for post bankruptcy. That is a big stack of cash, I wonder who gets what.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
Quote
If the Bharti-led option goes through, it will represent a bold intervention by the UK government, who are understood to be prepared to put $500m (£400m) into the purchase for an equity stake of 20% in the new operation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53279783

So, if I am reading this right, OneWeb was valued under auction for $2.5 billion? 100x what Iridium went for post bankruptcy. That is a big stack of cash, I wonder who gets what.

The article doesn't say that.

Everyone knows that OneWeb needs billions going forward to finish building and launching its constellation.  If you're getting a deal together to try to buy it out of bankruptcy and get it operational, you'd better have a plan to raise both the money for the auction and all the money to finish building and launching the constellation.  The group putting together the bid would have had to work out who pays what for the full cost.  It could well be that a commitment of $500 million from the UK government is toward the total cost, which includes the price paid at the bankruptcy and everything going forward.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50668
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85173
  • Likes Given: 38157
UK Government PR:

Quote
Press release
UK government to acquire cutting-edge satellite network
Government leads a successful bid to acquire OneWeb which develops cutting-edge satellite technology in the UK and in the US.

Published 3 July 2020
From:
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and The Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP

+ Government-led consortium’s ownership of OneWeb strengthens UK’s place on the world stage
+ government will provide $500 million to deliver first UK sovereign space capability, alongside $500 million from Bharti Global
+ successful bid puts UK at the cutting-edge of the latest advances in space technology

The government has today (3 July) led a successful bid to acquire OneWeb, which develops cutting-edge satellite technology in the UK and in the US.

The move signals the government’s ambition for the UK to be a pioneer in the research, development, manufacturing, and exploitation of novel satellite technologies through the ownership of a fleet of Low Earth orbit satellites.

Business Secretary Alok Sharma confirmed that the government will invest $500 million and take a significant equity share in OneWeb. This is alongside Bharti Global Ltd, which is part of a group that controls the third largest mobile operator in the world. Bharti will provide the company commercial and operational leadership, and bring OneWeb a revenue base to contribute towards its future success.

The deal will enable the company to complete construction of a global satellite constellation that will provide enhanced broadband and other services to countries around the world.

The deal also offers the UK strategic opportunities across a wide range of other applications, working with our international allies.

With a sovereign global satellite system, the UK will further develop its advanced manufacturing base, making the most of its highly skilled workforce as the hardware is further developed and equipment and services are deployed to make the most of this unique capability.

OneWeb will also contribute to the government’s plan to join the first rank of space nations, along with our commitment to making the UK a world leader in science, research and development.

The deal is subject to US court approval and regulatory clearances and is expected to close before the end of the year.

It follows the formation of the UK’s first-ever National Space Council, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider how space policy can enhance the country’s prosperity and place in the world, as well as our wider national security interests.

Business Secretary Alok Sharma said:

This deal underlines the scale of Britain’s ambitions on the global stage.

Our access to a global fleet of satellites has the potential to connect millions of people worldwide to broadband, many for the first time, and the deal presents the opportunity to further develop our strong advanced manufacturing base right here in the UK.

The UK space sector is an economic success story, growing by over 60% since 2010. The sector, which already supports £300 billion of UK economic activity through the use of satellite services, is expected to grow further as new commercial opportunities are unlocked by this agreement.

OneWeb was formed in 2012, and has been developing cutting-edge satellite technology from its bases both here in the UK and in the United States.

The UK government will have a final say over any future sale of the company, and over future access to OneWeb technology by other countries on national security grounds.

Notes to editors
Bharti, through Bharti Airtel, is the third largest mobile operator in the world, with over 425 million customers. Bharti Airtel has its own extensive mobile broadband networks and enterprise business, which will act as the testing ground for all OneWeb products, services, and applications. Bharti Airtel also operates India’s leading satellite broadcasting service through Airtel Digital TV to over 16 million households.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-acquire-cutting-edge-satellite-network

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
NEWS: The government has secured a stake in cutting-edge satellite firm @OneWeb, putting the UK at the forefront of the latest advances in space tech, improving access to broadband and developing our advanced manufacturing base

https://twitter.com/beisgovuk/status/1279018429975011328

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10435
  • US
  • Liked: 14349
  • Likes Given: 6148
If they had only needed a relatively small amount of additional funding to finish the constellation, they could have sold stock to raise the funding and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt in the first place.

Under this theory, Iridium wouldn't have gone bankrupt either. The constellation was essentially 100% completed.

No, because we know that the Iridium financing came from debt while the OneWeb financing was largely from equity.  Just look at the bankruptcy filings.

It turned out a good bit of the Softbank money that we all assumed was equity was really debt.  Just look at the bankruptcy filings.

Offline TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Germany
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 116
I am not surprised about the result now. What I do wonder as there is no deal between the UK and the EU and there are more and more signs (at least in German press reports) to let it become a "no-deal" in December 2020, what will be about exporting (or denial of export) of Airbus-related stuff. If things go bad, OneWeb might be stripped of their Airbus-related things. I'm watching the near future with great interest.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10435
  • US
  • Liked: 14349
  • Likes Given: 6148
I am not surprised about the result now. What I do wonder as there is no deal between the UK and the EU and there are more and more signs (at least in German press reports) to let it become a "no-deal" in December 2020, what will be about exporting (or denial of export) of Airbus-related stuff. If things go bad, OneWeb might be stripped of their Airbus-related things. I'm watching the near future with great interest.

I really don't think that would have an effect on the use of comsat components for UK satellites.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • uk
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 0
I am not surprised about the result now. What I do wonder as there is no deal between the UK and the EU and there are more and more signs (at least in German press reports) to let it become a "no-deal" in December 2020, what will be about exporting (or denial of export) of Airbus-related stuff. If things go bad, OneWeb might be stripped of their Airbus-related things. I'm watching the near future with great interest.

No deal just means you trade on WTO terms like most countries do.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
I am not surprised about the result now. What I do wonder as there is no deal between the UK and the EU and there are more and more signs (at least in German press reports) to let it become a "no-deal" in December 2020, what will be about exporting (or denial of export) of Airbus-related stuff. If things go bad, OneWeb might be stripped of their Airbus-related things. I'm watching the near future with great interest.

No deal just means you trade on WTO terms like most countries do.

Yeah, I think most on here understand that.

I think the concern is that if there's a lot of bad feelings parties on both sides might take retaliatory action.  Some people in government might pressure Airbus to make things difficult for OneWeb just because it has a high-profile connection to the UK government.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10435
  • US
  • Liked: 14349
  • Likes Given: 6148
For those unaware, Airbus has a large presence in the UK, with over 10,000 employees

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1