OneWeb Launches 36 Satellites (cnet.com) 30
OneWeb is back. The company on Friday made its fourth launch of a batch of satellites to build up its constellation in low-Earth orbit that eventually will provide broadband internet access around the globe. From a report: The latest group of 36 satellites headed to orbit atop a Russian Soyuz rocket from Vostochny Cosmodrome, ending a long delay since the last OneWeb launch, on Feb. 6. The nine months since then have seen the company file for bankruptcy at the start of the coronavirus pandemic only to re-emerge under new ownership led by the British government and India's Bharti Global. OneWeb is now flying over 100 satellites of a planned 648-bird constellation.
SpaceX (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably Musk's rockets are currently in huge demand, and booking a slot isn't straightforward
Or maybe SpaceX's launch cadence is so high that squeezing one more flight is way easier for them than it is for other launch services which have to manufacture an additional booster (with a significant lead time) when you order a launch with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consedering Musk's stated goal is to continue to decrease costs on launches to make space travel more commonplace and ultimately lead us to being multi-planetary, I have my doubts that he'd about-face even if he did lose all competition.
That being said, there's still plenty of competition out there when it comes to launches. It's not like SpaceX and Russia are the only two options. And I am in full agreement with anyone saying more competition is a positive thing when it comes to orbital and beyond launch
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that was my first thought as well. They have 100 satellites so far. Heck, SpaceX sends that many up within a matter of months. A total of 648 satellites planned? At their current deployment rate that will only take what, another 7 to 10 years or so. Yeah, not seeing an advantage here.
Can I join in? I have my pants down, jerking-off and saying: Elon Musk is awesome! He does everything better!! He is soooo good! Space X is the leader! Oh!!!! oh! Oh!!!!
I would swear that there is a legion of shills for old Muskie. It's getting so tha any posts that dare mention anyone else are descended on like locusts by people or maybe bots that earn the moniker fanboi.
Russia Launches a brand new rocket, and Reee, Spacex is better, and blah blah blah.
Oneweb launches satellites, and no way! Spacex has the market cornered, and no one will compete with them! And blah, blah blah
Finally, A Starship in it's assembly building tips over and hits the opposite part of the st
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was my first thought as well. They have 100 satellites so far. Heck, SpaceX sends that many up within a matter of months. A total of 648 satellites planned? At their current deployment rate that will only take what, another 7 to 10 years or so. Yeah, not seeing an advantage here.
Can I join in? I have my pants down, jerking-off and saying: Elon Musk is awesome! He does everything better!! He is soooo good! Space X is the leader! Oh!!!! oh! Oh!!!!
It is called Public Relations. When I was in college I had A job in PR and it was to make my employer look awesome and challenge any and all critics. We used to have emergency meetings when the media would say something bad about the bosses
This whole bullshit about the shorts making shit up about Musks enterprises was the PR staff trying to neuter stories that stated facts.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called Public Relations. When I was in college I had A job in PR and it was to make my employer look awesome and challenge any and all critics. We used to have emergency meetings when the media would say something bad about the bosses
This whole bullshit about the shorts making shit up about Musks enterprises was the PR staff trying to neuter stories that stated facts.
It's a bad look, especially when they try to make a major screwup like a rocket tipping over in an assembly building into a great thing. That should have been a warning, because if you don't have your assembly tech down solid t this point, you either made a bad engineering mistake, or are in too much of a rush. My assessment is that in their hell bent for election approach they are going to eventually screw up really badly. We'll see how the shills react when their headlong rush results in people terribly
Re: (Score:1)
> Can I join in? I have my pants down, jerking-off
> It is called Public Relations. When I was in college I had A job in PR and it was to make my employer look awesome and challenge any and all critics.
I can see why you were fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, A Starship in it's assembly building tips over and hits the opposite part of the structure, and its, "This is just how Spacex fails quick and it shows how we are movin on to Mars!" I poe'd a couple by saying the rocket tip over was a success, and Elon took two years off the 2024 landing on Mars schedule.
You do know that right now there's eight more Starships in various phases of completion?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, A Starship in it's assembly building tips over and hits the opposite part of the structure, and its, "This is just how Spacex fails quick and it shows how we are movin on to Mars!" I poe'd a couple by saying the rocket tip over was a success, and Elon took two years off the 2024 landing on Mars schedule.
You do know that right now there's eight more Starships in various phases of completion?
Not even my point. My point is that if anyone dares to report on another rocket, the cult comes in to spew derision. One fellow this morning unironically mad the claim that Spacex has made much more technological innovation than NASA or Roscosmos.
I had to point out that I didn't know that Spacex had sentseveral astronauts to the moon, landed on Venus built a GPS or Glonass system, landed on Mars with spacecraft and Rovers, Surveyed the outer planets, built and launched space telescopes of visual, IR, and
Re: (Score:2)
One fellow this morning unironically mad the claim that Spacex has made much more technological innovation than NASA or Roscosmos
If you could point out the technological innovation of Roscosmos, I'm sure all of us be very interested in hearing about it...seeing as Angara 5 just flew for the second time in 25 years (!) since its inception. Not much progress going there. Considering that SpaceX has successfully flown three different new LVs in half the time and now they're testing components of the fourth one, I'm pretty sure that at least compared to Roscosmos they fare quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
One fellow this morning unironically mad the claim that Spacex has made much more technological innovation than NASA or Roscosmos
If you could point out the technological innovation of Roscosmos, I'm sure all of us be very interested in hearing about it...seeing as Angara 5 just flew for the second time in 25 years (!) since its inception. Not much progress going there. Considering that SpaceX has successfully flown three different new LVs in half the time and now they're testing components of the fourth one, I'm pretty sure that at least compared to Roscosmos they fare quite well.
Space stations like Salyut 1 and Mir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Veneras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and the RD-180 engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] are just a couple things. And the SoyuzRocket familyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family) is about as close as we can get to an "everyday rocket", with exceptional reliability.
Do you not know of these things? Or am I accidentally engaging with one of the cult?
Yes, Musk is doing interesting things. But whether you like it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the SoyuzRocket familyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family) is about as close as we can get to an "everyday rocket", with exceptional reliability.
BTW I've just checked the most recent numbers for Soyuz reliability over the past ten years and it turns out that it completed 155 out of 165 missions nominally (93.9% success rate), whereas the 100 launches of Falcon 9 in the same period completed nominally in 98 cases (98% success rate). I guess that makes F9 doubly exceptional or something?
Re: (Score:3)
I've read something about OneWeb using lower frequencies, and trying to focus on IoT devices.
The advantage *might* be that it has a lower cost per connected device through a receiver that is much simpler than Starlink's motorized dish.
That said, it frankly sounds like a doomed project that is only alive for the moment because of the backing of the UK government. They went from 500 employees in March to around 80 now.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read something about OneWeb using lower frequencies, and trying to focus on IoT devices. The advantage *might* be that it has a lower cost per connected device through a receiver that is much simpler than Starlink's motorized dish. That said, it frankly sounds like a doomed project that is only alive for the moment because of the backing of the UK government. They went from 500 employees in March to around 80 now.
That said, it frankly sounds like a doomed project that is only alive for the moment because of the backing of the UK government. They went from 500 employees in March to around 80 now.
Is that necessarily a problem? Once you've designed the satellites and receivers, started launching, and tested and refined your constellation management software, it's reasonable to me that fewer workers would be required.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't going to be a direct price competition for the same customers. Starlink doesn't plan to be able to serve everybody any decade soon. There's plenty of room for OneWeb to serve different people.
Re: (Score:3)
OneWeb satellites have polar orbits. The obvious benefit for this is with the US military since they fly over the poles to China and Russia. Plus anyone in Northern Canada, Alaska, and maybe even N. Scotland might see more benefit with OneWeb compared to Starlink, for now. I've also heard that it means that OneWeb can operate a full constellation with fewer satellites compared to Starlink.
The downside I see is that the UK government has direct ownership in the company which is kind of "eh" in my opinion. Pl
Re: (Score:2)
The UK bought it because it failed to negotiate access to the Galileo project and was booted out, leaving it with a bunch of space tech companies in need of a new market.
In other words it's just there to funnel money to mates of the Tory party, not to do anything useful.
Costs/Speeds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of room for everyone up there ...
If only it was this simple, honestly. It starts with spots that are more precious than others and it ends with trash burning up in the atmosphere if it doesn't just crash into somebody's house by accident. The problems will range from international bureaucracy and politics to space warfare. It's a gold rush and everyone who is able to tries to be first, to create precedences for the future, and to let others clean up the mess afterwards. Best is not to look too close, because it's going to get ugly soon eno