SpaceX F9 : OneWeb F15 (40x) : KSC LC-39A : 8 December 2022 (22:27 UTC)

[woods170]

I'm sure there is some interesting clauses in this contract such as, "OneWeb will not seek to inhibit any approvals, deployments, or operations of SpaceX's Starlink system".  I really didn't see OneWeb working with SpaceX after everything they have done to interfere with Starlink over the last several years.

Emphasis mine.

Me neither. So, I expect that whatever interference OneWeb was still running against Starlink, will suddenly disappear like a snowball thrown onto a blazing furnace.

[GWR64]

Arianespace has its back to the wall.
OneWeb might sue them, or may have to sue them, they owe their owners money.
No action can be seen or not possible from Arianespace, not on ASI/CSG-2, not on Galaxy 37 or now on OneWeb. Another customer gone.

[alexterrell]

I don't think SpaceX really had a choice. If they'd refused, they would have invited the Government's antitrust business into the space industry.

Nonsense, SpaceX is nowhere near a monopoly and would have been well within their rights to claim their launch manifest solidly booked with commercial, governmental, and internal launches for the foreseeable future.

The fact they did not is predictable (and was predicted by many here) because it's simply good business.

That is nonsense. SpaceX dominate the free market for launch services. OneWeb and others can't go to China, can't go to Russia, so that leaves:
SpaceX (31 launches in 2021)
Arianne (3 launches)
Delta (1 launch)
Atlas (4 launches)

That is more market power than Microsoft had in the 1990s. They (SpaceX launch services legal team) would not risk harming a Starlink competitor by denying launch services.

[russianhalo117]

Arianespace has its back to the wall.
OneWeb might sue them, or may have to sue them, they owe their owners money.
No action can be seen or not possible from Arianespace, not on ASI/CSG-2, not on Galaxy 37 or now on OneWeb. Another customer gone.

They went with what could get them to orbit quickest. This also not the thread for general OneWeb discussion.

[JayWee]

Rogozin posted something regarding Falcon 9 upper stage capabilities vs Fregat.
What's the real difference between the two? (and if applicable to OneWeb deployment)

[Thorny]

That is nonsense. SpaceX dominate the free market for launch services. OneWeb and others can't go to China, can't go to Russia, so that leaves:
SpaceX (31 launches in 2021)

Well, yes but 18 of those launches were for themselves (Starlink and Inspiration 4) and I really wouldn't call that 'free market'. Commercially competed in 2021 they really only had three: Turksat, Sirius XM, and Transporter 2. The rest were NASA/DOD customers.

[baldusi]

Rogozin posted something regarding Falcon 9 upper stage capabilities vs Fregat.
What's the real difference between the two? (and if applicable to OneWeb deployment)

Kinda orange to apples comparison. Fregat is an orbital maneuvering stage, actually based off the Phobos bus, if I recall correctly. The F9 upper stage is a very capable stock upper stage. Also there's a massive size difference. But even for a couple of different orbit deployments, there's really nothing for Fregat that can do that the F9 can't. And they do it with just two stages, while Soyuz-2.1B-/Fregat needs between four or seven (depending if you count Blok-B, V, G, D as a single stage or four separate).
In any case, OneWeb shouldn't really care for anything but: F9 can launch more payload, with more volume, to their needed orbit, with about just 30% of the failure points of Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat.

[baldusi]

That is nonsense. SpaceX dominate the free market for launch services. OneWeb and others can't go to China, can't go to Russia, so that leaves:
SpaceX (31 launches in 2021)

Well, yes but 18 of those launches were for themselves (Starlink and Inspiration 4) and I really wouldn't call that 'free market'. Commercially competed in 2021 they really only had three: Turksat, Sirius XM, and Transporter 2. The rest were NASA/DOD customers.

That was Turksat-5A, Transporter-1, Sirius-XM-8, Transporter-2, Crew Dragon Inspirtation4, Turksat-5B. Plus 17 (!) Starlink missions. All of those were purely commercial. SpaceX is a private company and by its very definition whatever it does for themselves to sell to private consumers, is a commercial operation. Particularly Inspiration4, which was paid by Mr. Isaac. That's 74% of their launches during 2021. And all the NASA/DoD launches were commercially competed with ULA and NG. But I digress.

[wannamoonbase]

Rogozin posted something regarding Falcon 9 upper stage capabilities vs Fregat.
What's the real difference between the two? (and if applicable to OneWeb deployment)

Kinda orange to apples comparison. Fregat is an orbital maneuvering stage, actually based off the Phobos bus, if I recall correctly. The F9 upper stage is a very capable stock upper stage. Also there's a massive size difference. But even for a couple of different orbit deployments, there's really nothing for Fregat that can do that the F9 can't. And they do it with just two stages, while Soyuz-2.1B-/Fregat needs between four or seven (depending if you count Blok-B, V, G, D as a single stage or four separate).
In any case, OneWeb shouldn't really care for anything but: F9 can launch more payload, with more volume, to their needed orbit, with about just 30% of the failure points of Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat.

Regarding the potential failure points, sounds like SpaceX thought carefully about what they were designing.  The number of configurations on Russian vehicles can be pretty confusing.

[SweetWater]

OneWeb sats are manufactured on Merritt Island, so it might make sense to launch them all from SLC-40 which is literally right next door and can launch to the required inclination. It would be much simpler this way logistics-wise, compared to having to truck the sats to California.

Wikipedia (I know, I know....) lists 34 SpaceX launches scheduled for the remainder of 2022, which includes 1 OneWeb launch (just listed with '2022' launch date). Only 9 of those launches are either scheduled for Vandenberg or potentially launching from Vandenberg. Schedule at the Cape is a lot tighter, including 4 crew launches (Ax-1, Crew 4, Crew 5, and Polaris Dawn), CRS-25 and as many as 5 Falcon Heavy launches.

Even accounting for the Cape having 2 pads available, Vandenberg has more space in the schedule. My bet would be for most of the OneWeb flights to launch from there.

[gongora]

The most vociferous opponent of Starlink the last couple years has been Viasat, not Oneweb.  Wyler is gone from Oneweb.  Masterson doesn't have an axe to grind, he just wants his satellites on orbit.

[darkenfast]

I'm sure this won't hurt SpaceX's reputation with the UK government, given their stock in OneWeb.

[M.E.T.]

Strange move by SpaceX.

It is interesting to speculate on their motivations.

I don’t put much stock in the anti-monopoly concerns raised by some. Their manifest is full enough to easily have delayed OneWeb’s first launch slot to early 2023, with subsequent launches stretching into 2024 even. Certainly no one else could offer OneWeb a better launch schedule at this stage. So it’s not that.

As for the money, assume 6 launches at say $65m each. But that’s revenue, not profit. Even at a (very high) 50% operating profit margin, that’s just ~$30m per launch. To get to actual net profit, this would drop down to maybe $20m. So we are optimistically talking ~$120m net profit from 6 launches stretching well into 2023.

This should be weighed up against how quickly Starlink would earn an extra $120m if OneWeb were to go bankrupt. I would suspect they would easily earn an additional $120m PER YEAR within 3-5 years from government business that migrated from OneWeb to Starlink out of necessity.
So this short term launch revenue boost is dwarfed by the long term, recurring revenue lost from not letting OneWeb sink now.

So, what am I left with? Basically, that Elon was going on his emotions here. He likes to be able to stick it to his critics, even if it costs him money in the long run.

In this case, it was more valuable for him to once again be able to say : “Fate loves irony”, than to earn an extra $120m a year for the next decade or more.🤷‍♂️

I don’t agree with it. Business is war, and this was a chance to seriously damage a competitor. But Elon’s the richest guy in the world, not me. So he no doubt knows better.

[alugobi]

Maybe it was Shotwell's call.

[Jcc]

I don't think Starlink has much to worry about as far as competition. They will have lowest latency, highest, bandwidth, and now proven in war and disasters, including against cyber attacks. They certainly don't need to advertise.

[Mark K]

Strange move by SpaceX.

It is interesting to speculate on their motivations.

I don’t put much stock in the anti-monopoly concerns raised by some. Their manifest is full enough to easily have delayed OneWeb’s first launch slot to early 2023, with subsequent launches stretching into 2024 even. Certainly no one else could offer OneWeb a better launch schedule at this stage. So it’s not that.

As for the money, assume 6 launches at say $65m each. But that’s revenue, not profit. Even at a (very high) 50% operating profit margin, that’s just ~$30m per launch. To get to actual net profit, this would drop down to maybe $20m. So we are optimistically talking ~$120m net profit from 6 launches stretching well into 2023.

This should be weighed up against how quickly Starlink would earn an extra $120m if OneWeb were to go bankrupt. I would suspect they would easily earn an additional $120m PER YEAR within 3-5 years from government business that migrated from OneWeb to Starlink out of necessity.

This is quite the fantasy that SpaceX would make over  $120M a year if Oneweb wasn't there. The Oneweb that was saved from bankruptcy to provide national independence in this space? (that is, it means the people running it would not likely turn to SpaceX to give up that independence?) Let's just say I think this case falls apart right there.

I think SpaceX is burning money at an incredible rate currently and any decent income would be highly welcomed. Several hundred million dollars of income for incremental launches is not negligible. It is good solid income right down their main street as it were.

[kevin-rf]

Wow, why does everything have to have a dark and sinister motive? Sometimes and opportunity for a launch contract is just that and SpaceX had space to accommodate this one.

Guess my tinfoil hat is on just a bit to tight.

[Lars-J]

Wow, why does everything have to have a dark and sinister motive? Sometimes and opportunity for a launch contract is just that and SpaceX had space to accommodate this one.

Guess my tinfoil hat is on just a bit to tight.

Indeed. I fail to see the mystery here, there are many benefits:
- A paying customer (vs self-funded Starlink launches)
- Positive PR to both potential customers and the public
- Oneweb has some potential customer overlap with Starlink but they also some unique different customer segments that don’t overlap in the near future.

Also, since they hope to start launching Starlink with Starship later this year (based on what we are seeing), the Starlink schedule pressure on the F9 flight schedule should become less intense in the fall.

It makes sense.

[M.E.T.]

Wow, why does everything have to have a dark and sinister motive? Sometimes and opportunity for a launch contract is just that and SpaceX had space to accommodate this one.

Guess my tinfoil hat is on just a bit to tight.

Haha, I think in this case there is nothing dark and sinister. That’s what I’m lamenting. It’s a missed opportunity.😀

[wocanak]

Strange move by SpaceX.

It is interesting to speculate on their motivations.

I don’t put much stock in the anti-monopoly concerns raised by some. Their manifest is full enough to easily have delayed OneWeb’s first launch slot to early 2023, with subsequent launches stretching into 2024 even. Certainly no one else could offer OneWeb a better launch schedule at this stage. So it’s not that.

As for the money, assume 6 launches at say $65m each. But that’s revenue, not profit. Even at a (very high) 50% operating profit margin, that’s just ~$30m per launch. To get to actual net profit, this would drop down to maybe $20m. So we are optimistically talking ~$120m net profit from 6 launches stretching well into 2023.

This should be weighed up against how quickly Starlink would earn an extra $120m if OneWeb were to go bankrupt. I would suspect they would easily earn an additional $120m PER YEAR within 3-5 years from government business that migrated from OneWeb to Starlink out of necessity.

This is quite the fantasy that SpaceX would make over  $120M a year if Oneweb wasn't there. The Oneweb that was saved from bankruptcy to provide national independence in this space? (that is, it means the people running it would not likely turn to SpaceX to give up that independence?) Let's just say I think this case falls apart right there.

I think SpaceX is burning money at an incredible rate currently and any decent income would be highly welcomed. Several hundred million dollars of income for incremental launches is not negligible. It is good solid income right down their main street as it were.

In fact one can argue SpaceX may even lose money as the market may not grow as much in the absence of an alternate provider like Oneweb. Commercial customers will not significantly invest in a solution without multiple providers. They may dabble or do what is minimally required, but will not do large scale roll outs until there are alternate providers.

At this early stage, growing the market faster will be more important than squeezing out competition.