Eutelsat OneWeb: Constellation - General Thread

[Vanspace]

And, I wouldn't say that investment motivation is OT. The reasons this venture is still theoretically alive sounds relevant to me. Surviving on technical merit would be nice, but not likely.

so far if Bhati is that rich why they even saw the need to have the British govt involved at all is quite baffling. Given that the UK has spent a long time getting rid of all of its state owned industries this seems eccentric to put it mildly*


*A few other adjectives come to mind the sites filtering system will prevent me from using them. 

From Bhati's side the advantage is pretty obvious, beside capital access benefits, most of the network is not over India so having the UK along helps a lot to get entry to at least the commonwealth countries and a fair number of non-aligned countries. Particularly if the choices come down to US, China or India/UK.

I suspect that the UK side may be more strictly realpolitik. If the UK wants to continue its pretension to major world military power status post brexit it will have to show a dramatic improvement in capabilities. Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

[ChrisWilson68]

Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  When you say "world wide sensor layer", I don't think OneWeb, I think Planet Labs.  Are you imagining the UK developing another payload to put on the OneWeb bus that would do imaging or some other remote sensing?  It's not at all clear that buying a bankrupt communications business is the best value for the money if you want a sensor network, not a communications network.

Or are you saying that they could spy on the communications that go on over the OneWeb network?  Wouldn't encryption largely negate the value there?

[Vanspace]

Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  When you say "world wide sensor layer", I don't think OneWeb, I think Planet Labs.  Are you imagining the UK developing another payload to put on the OneWeb bus that would do imaging or some other remote sensing?  It's not at all clear that buying a bankrupt communications business is the best value for the money if you want a sensor network, not a communications network.

Or are you saying that they could spy on the communications that go on over the OneWeb network?  Wouldn't encryption largely negate the value there?

First remember politics and reality do not always coincide. The ability to say "Our wise investment has made us a world leader in space" does not have to reflect technological truth to be politically valuable.

The UK is already claiming they will put SatNav hardware on the birds to justify the purchase. At which point "sensor layer" is mostly a question of what gets put on the bird. Even the pure communications system has strong implications for modern military credibility particularly in the era of drone swarms.

Just as a thought experiment try this relationship between the parties: Bhati gets a constellation and help opening markets while the UK get military coms and maybe 20kg of SatNav/ secret equipment on each bird. The announced relationship would likely look exactly like the one we have seen.

[RedLineTrain]

We'll see if this passes muster with CFIUS.  There could be a negotiation ahead...

I would guess CFIUS thinks that this outcome is better than the alternative.

Strictly speaking, the US doesn't need to weigh alternatives.  It could just keep rejecting bidders until an acceptable bidder shows up (if it does).

We'll see how hard of a bargain the US strikes.

[MikeAtkinson]

The UK has Skynet comms satellites, which provide mil/gov communications and is part of the UK's contribution to NATO. They are currently on the Skynet 5 series, 3 sats + 1 on orbit spare, but all these satellites are getting old. There is a £6B Skynet 6 programme to replace the capability, but this seems to have been delayed due to government dithering, in the meantime there is a Skynet 6A satellite due to be launched in 2024, which seems to be an upgraded Skynet 5 satellite, not a completely new design.

Having a constellation of LEO communication satellites might just be insurance against Skynet 6 running late or being a complete disaster as many recent UK government procurements have been, but I think there is more than that.

Adding intersatellite links would be essential for any military use, allowing communication back to the UK without using foreign ground stations. So that implies using second generation OneWeb satellites.

A worldwide sensor suite could be created either by using a secondary payload on the satellites or by using the bus with a dedicated payload. This is more likely than using it for a navigation constellation IMO, that I think would require a whole new bus.

With a spaceport being built in northern Scotland, perhaps their idea is to launch at least some satellites from there.

Like many countries the UK government has a commitment to provide high speed internet to the whole population. The last 100,000 homes are going to be very expensive to connect, way more than 5,000 on average, so providing satellite based internet will be a good deal. Note these homes are widely spaced and so are suited to the low density provision that OneWeb will be able to provide.

Also this allows the UK government to provide internet as part of foreign aid, this is ideal from the government's point of view as the aid is given as a service while the money is spent in the UK.

All in all, this could be a good move on the part of the UK government, even if they have been suckered into it by fairy tales of a navigation satellite constellation.

[Oli]

Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  When you say "world wide sensor layer", I don't think OneWeb, I think Planet Labs.  Are you imagining the UK developing another payload to put on the OneWeb bus that would do imaging or some other remote sensing?  It's not at all clear that buying a bankrupt communications business is the best value for the money if you want a sensor network, not a communications network.

Or are you saying that they could spy on the communications that go on over the OneWeb network?  Wouldn't encryption largely negate the value there?

First remember politics and reality do not always coincide. The ability to say "Our wise investment has made us a world leader in space" does not have to reflect technological truth to be politically valuable.

The UK is already claiming they will put SatNav hardware on the birds to justify the purchase. At which point "sensor layer" is mostly a question of what gets put on the bird. Even the pure communications system has strong implications for modern military credibility particularly in the era of drone swarms.

Just as a thought experiment try this relationship between the parties: Bhati gets a constellation and help opening markets while the UK get military coms and maybe 20kg of SatNav/ secret equipment on each bird. The announced relationship would likely look exactly like the one we have seen.

Except the public doesn't know OneWeb. There was no need for the government to save it, no public outrage if it didn't.

Airbus has built the UK's military sats in the past, and it owns half of OneWeb satellites, so I'm not sure what capability the UK acquired that it didn't have access to anyway.

[DigitalMan]

Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  When you say "world wide sensor layer", I don't think OneWeb, I think Planet Labs.  Are you imagining the UK developing another payload to put on the OneWeb bus that would do imaging or some other remote sensing?  It's not at all clear that buying a bankrupt communications business is the best value for the money if you want a sensor network, not a communications network.

Or are you saying that they could spy on the communications that go on over the OneWeb network?  Wouldn't encryption largely negate the value there?

First remember politics and reality do not always coincide. The ability to say "Our wise investment has made us a world leader in space" does not have to reflect technological truth to be politically valuable.

The UK is already claiming they will put SatNav hardware on the birds to justify the purchase. At which point "sensor layer" is mostly a question of what gets put on the bird. Even the pure communications system has strong implications for modern military credibility particularly in the era of drone swarms.

Just as a thought experiment try this relationship between the parties: Bhati gets a constellation and help opening markets while the UK get military coms and maybe 20kg of SatNav/ secret equipment on each bird. The announced relationship would likely look exactly like the one we have seen.

Except the public doesn't know OneWeb. There was no need for the government to save it, no public outrage if it didn't.

Airbus has built the UK's military sats in the past, and it owns half of OneWeb satellites, so I'm not sure what capability the UK acquired that it didn't have access to anyway.

I'm interested to see if they will make an effort to deal with light pollution issues.

[Welsh Dragon]

I'm sorry, but people trying to find technical justifications for a political move are doomed to fail. I guess many of you aren't familiar with current British politics.

[ncb1397]

Having control of a world wide sensor layer can go a long way to shore up credibility a lot cheaper than a new carrier or sub. Additionally, there will shortly be a political need to be able to point at some economic good news, any economic good news. Being able to say the UK has become a world leader in space capabilities for cheaper than say a program to hire more teachers has much political sense. In simply political terms the 500m price tag is amazing value for money.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  When you say "world wide sensor layer", I don't think OneWeb, I think Planet Labs.  Are you imagining the UK developing another payload to put on the OneWeb bus that would do imaging or some other remote sensing?  It's not at all clear that buying a bankrupt communications business is the best value for the money if you want a sensor network, not a communications network.

Or are you saying that they could spy on the communications that go on over the OneWeb network?  Wouldn't encryption largely negate the value there?

First remember politics and reality do not always coincide. The ability to say "Our wise investment has made us a world leader in space" does not have to reflect technological truth to be politically valuable.

The UK is already claiming they will put SatNav hardware on the birds to justify the purchase. At which point "sensor layer" is mostly a question of what gets put on the bird. Even the pure communications system has strong implications for modern military credibility particularly in the era of drone swarms.

Just as a thought experiment try this relationship between the parties: Bhati gets a constellation and help opening markets while the UK get military coms and maybe 20kg of SatNav/ secret equipment on each bird. The announced relationship would likely look exactly like the one we have seen.

Except the public doesn't know OneWeb. There was no need for the government to save it, no public outrage if it didn't.

Airbus has built the UK's military sats in the past, and it owns half of OneWeb satellites, so I'm not sure what capability the UK acquired that it didn't have access to anyway.

I'm interested to see if they will make an effort to deal with light pollution issues.

Has there been any affects on astronomical observations from the existing satellites? Because we have seen photographs clearly demonstrating this for starlink...

see below:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-constellation-astronomy-coating

It seems that their satellites already have a reduced optical signature in relation to starlink. I don't know what it is. Perhaps it is the insulation applied to the outside of the body that is not flat that scatters light. You can see the outside surfaces of starlink and oneweb here:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/03/uk-government-commits-500-million-in-bid-to-rescue-bankrupt-oneweb/
https://www.starlink.com/

Regardless, OneWeb's entire gen 1 constellation is similar in count to the unmitigated starlink satellites.

[meberbs]

Has there been any affects on astronomical observations from the existing satellites? Because we have seen photographs clearly demonstrating this for starlink...

see below:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-constellation-astronomy-coating

It seems that their satellites already have a reduced optical signature in relation to starlink. I don't know what it is. Perhaps it is the insulation applied to the outside of the body that is not flat that scatters light. You can see the outside surfaces of starlink and oneweb here:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/03/uk-government-commits-500-million-in-bid-to-rescue-bankrupt-oneweb/
https://www.starlink.com/

Regardless, OneWeb's entire gen 1 constellation is similar in count to the unmitigated starlink satellites.

OneWeb's entire constellation is at higher altitudes that cause significantly more problems, even with smaller numbers of satellites. Certain sources have been providing rather biased information, always referencing SpaceX and ignoring OneWeb, probably to get more "clicks" or such, though some of the recent difference in reporting has probably been because a constellation going through bankruptcy is less of a concern.

Take a look at the impacts thread, Starlink with mitigations can be acceptable, since it is moving all satellites to lower altitude, OneWeb is entirely at a completely unacceptable altitude. It is not expected to be dark enough to make up for this. (Actually, you didn't provide any evidence that it actually is darker to begin with.)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48302.msg2104497#msg2104497

[gongora]

Further posts on satellite visibility moved to the Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy Thread

[Rondaz]

Conservative MP @Mark4WyreForest says @OneWeb "is not only internet 5G connectivity, but secure government communications, as well as a satellite navigation system", low cost and shorter lifetime of sats gives HMG "an extraordinarily degree of versatility"

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1280274591320072194

[ChrisWilson68]

Adding intersatellite links would be essential for any military use, allowing communication back to the UK without using foreign ground stations. So that implies using second generation OneWeb satellites.

So if the benefits to the UK government come only with designing a second generation of OneWeb satellites that add intersatellite links, is there really a benefit to buying OneWeb?

The OneWeb satellites were being manufactured by a joint venture between OneWeb and Airbus, but Airbus itself designed the satellites.  So Airbus could just as easily design an LEO satellite with intersatelite links for the UK whether OneWeb disappears or not.  And the factory building the OneWeb satellites was in Florida.  The UK wants to build satellites in the UK.  If they need a substantially different design for the satellites and a new factory anyway, and the satellites were designed by Airbus in the first place, what exactly does the UK benefit from buying OneWeb?

A worldwide sensor suite could be created either by using a secondary payload on the satellites or by using the bus with a dedicated payload. This is more likely than using it for a navigation constellation IMO, that I think would require a whole new bus.

There doesn't seem to be anything magical about the OneWeb bus.  Lots of companies sell satellite buses.  And Airbus designed this bus.  Starlink has a bus that is already being produced at very large scale.  It seems to me there are cheaper ways to get a bus than to buy OneWeb.

With a spaceport being built in northern Scotland, perhaps their idea is to launch at least some satellites from there.

With what launch vehicle?

Like many countries the UK government has a commitment to provide high speed internet to the whole population. The last 100,000 homes are going to be very expensive to connect, way more than 5,000 on average, so providing satellite based internet will be a good deal. Note these homes are widely spaced and so are suited to the low density provision that OneWeb will be able to provide.

Couldn't the UK just buy this service from Starlink and provide it to its own citizens?

[ChrisWilson68]

What are the upcoming milestones OneWeb needs to meet to maintain its spectrum rights?  How many satellites deployed by what dates?

There's been a lot of talk about the UK developing new versions of the OneWeb satellites.  I'm wondering if there's time for them to develop anything substantially different and still maintain the spectrum rights or whether they'll have to go ahead and launch a large constellation of substantially the current design or have to start from scratch on frequency allocation.

[gongora]

What are the upcoming milestones OneWeb needs to meet to maintain its spectrum rights?  How many satellites deployed by what dates?

There's been a lot of talk about the UK developing new versions of the OneWeb satellites.  I'm wondering if there's time for them to develop anything substantially different and still maintain the spectrum rights or whether they'll have to go ahead and launch a large constellation of substantially the current design or have to start from scratch on frequency allocation.

https://spacenews.com/oneweb-falls-back-to-earth/

That priority status is ensured until 2026, at which point OneWeb will need 50% of its constellation in orbit to retain that status for a full 720 satellites. If OneWeb, or a future OneWeb owner, fails to launch at least 360 satellites by then, its spectrum rights will be reduced to the number in orbit.

If OneWeb, or a future owner of OneWeb’s assets, was to deorbit its satellites, it would have three years to field new spacecraft in the same spectrum before the license becomes invalidated

That's for ITU.  For U.S. market the dates are a little different

[ChrisWilson68]

What are the upcoming milestones OneWeb needs to meet to maintain its spectrum rights?  How many satellites deployed by what dates?

There's been a lot of talk about the UK developing new versions of the OneWeb satellites.  I'm wondering if there's time for them to develop anything substantially different and still maintain the spectrum rights or whether they'll have to go ahead and launch a large constellation of substantially the current design or have to start from scratch on frequency allocation.

https://spacenews.com/oneweb-falls-back-to-earth/

That priority status is ensured until 2026, at which point OneWeb will need 50% of its constellation in orbit to retain that status for a full 720 satellites. If OneWeb, or a future OneWeb owner, fails to launch at least 360 satellites by then, its spectrum rights will be reduced to the number in orbit.

If OneWeb, or a future owner of OneWeb’s assets, was to deorbit its satellites, it would have three years to field new spacecraft in the same spectrum before the license becomes invalidated

That's for ITU.  For U.S. market the dates are a little different

Thanks!

OneWeb has also applied for an extended constellation of tens of thousands of satellites.  I'm unclear on how that would affect the milestones they would have to meet.  If they get approved for 50,000 satellites does that mean they would need 25,000 by 2026 or they lose the spectrum entirely?  Or would the date for half the larger constellation be farther in the future?  If they didn't meet the requirements for the larger constellation, could they just re-apply later for the larger constellation using the same frequencies?  Would their smaller constellation permanently give them priority on those frequencies for future larger constellations?

[gongora]

The older ITU filing and the newer filing are completely separate.

[Vanspace]

Conservative MP @Mark4WyreForest says @OneWeb "is not only internet 5G connectivity, but secure government communications, as well as a satellite navigation system", low cost and shorter lifetime of sats gives HMG "an extraordinarily degree of versatility"

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1280274591320072194

When a politician claims obvious problems (higher cost low lifespan sats) are actually a virtue (versatility), there is no clearer sign that the politics involved are far more important than mere reality.

I wish I had a monorail project to sell these guys.

[MikeAtkinson]

Adding intersatellite links would be essential for any military use, allowing communication back to the UK without using foreign ground stations. So that implies using second generation OneWeb satellites.

So if the benefits to the UK government come only with designing a second generation of OneWeb satellites that add intersatellite links, is there really a benefit to buying OneWeb?

The OneWeb satellites were being manufactured by a joint venture between OneWeb and Airbus, but Airbus itself designed the satellites.  So Airbus could just as easily design an LEO satellite with intersatelite links for the UK whether OneWeb disappears or not.  And the factory building the OneWeb satellites was in Florida.  The UK wants to build satellites in the UK.  If they need a substantially different design for the satellites and a new factory anyway, and the satellites were designed by Airbus in the first place, what exactly does the UK benefit from buying OneWeb?

As well as getting the satellites they get the bandwidth rights. Creating a completely new constellation would mean that they go to the back of the queue (and its quite a long queue now) for frequency allocation.

Buying OneWeb (at 20% of the total investment) is a really good deal for the UK Government from a financial point of view. Assuming that about half the investment is spent in the UK, that total initial investment is £2.5 B and that the UK government investment is £500 M, and that 40% of whatever is spent in the UK comes back to the government in taxes: the net UK government spend is ZERO.

Yes, they do have to create a second generation satellite with inter-satellite links developed, but that is small change to the $6B for Skynet 6. One possibility is the implied threat to the Skynet 6 bidders: keep your prices low and make sure you deliver on time, or else we will cancel the project and go with OneWeb.

GCHQ and HMGCC are both likely to have lobbied behind the scenes for this, their satellite communication costs are high and this promises lower cost and new capabilities - low latency and path diversity (making interception and jamming difficult) among them.

[Star One]

Conservative MP @Mark4WyreForest says @OneWeb "is not only internet 5G connectivity, but secure government communications, as well as a satellite navigation system", low cost and shorter lifetime of sats gives HMG "an extraordinarily degree of versatility"

https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1280274591320072194

To paraphrase a former British sitcom he would say that wouldn’t he.