3 ms·

It's a game theory problem - even if Starlink wasn't happening, OneWeb would be going ahead anyway. So if the GEO satellite operators are going to be running sc

It's a game theory problem - even if Starlink wasn't happening, OneWeb would be going ahead anyway. So if the GEO satellite operators are going to be running scared anyway, SpaceX might as well get its own entrant into the market.

someperson 8y ago
I don't think this argument holds up to analysis. According to the OneWeb and Starlink Wikipedia pages: 1. May 2014: OneWeb (formerly 'WorldVu') receives its initial $500 million in funding [1] 2. January 2015: SpaceX's satellite constellation is announced. [2] 3. December 2016: OneWeb receives an extra $1.2 billion from SoftBank and existing investors [3] 4. March 2017: Blue Origin signs OneWeb as a customer [4] If SpaceX was a neutral transport provider, there's little reason that OneWeb would have chosen Blue Origin over SpaceX. Blue Origin is probably offering very low prices, but SpaceX arguably could match them. [1] https://spacenews.com/40736google-backed-global-broadband-venture-secures-spectrum-for-satellite/ https://spacenews.com/40736google-backed-global-broadband-ve... [2] http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025480750_spacexmuskxml.html http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/20254807... [3] http://fortune.com/2016/12/19/softbank-oneweb/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/19/softbank-oneweb/ [4] https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-glenn-customer/ https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-...
- azernik 8y ago
  I meant - no reason not to get that market share in the small-comsat market. As to why do it themselves as opposed to just be a provider to OneWeb, I think this is a sneaky way to do some price discrimination - SpaceX, like everyone else, may have some spare launch capacity, so having an internal (hopefully-profitable) project to soak up that demand rather than cratering launch prices may be worth it.

someperson 8y ago

I don't think this argument holds up to analysis. According to the OneWeb and Starlink Wikipedia pages: 1. May 2014: OneWeb (formerly 'WorldVu') receives its initial $500 million in funding [1] 2. January 2015: SpaceX's satellite constellation is announced. [2] 3. December 2016: OneWeb receives an extra $1.2 billion from SoftBank and existing investors [3] 4. March 2017: Blue Origin signs OneWeb as a customer [4] If SpaceX was a neutral transport provider, there's little reason that OneWeb would have chosen Blue Origin over SpaceX. Blue Origin is probably offering very low prices, but SpaceX arguably could match them. [1] https://spacenews.com/40736google-backed-global-broadband-venture-secures-spectrum-for-satellite/ https://spacenews.com/40736google-backed-global-broadband-ve... [2] http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025480750_spacexmuskxml.html http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/20254807... [3] http://fortune.com/2016/12/19/softbank-oneweb/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/19/softbank-oneweb/ [4] https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-glenn-customer/ https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-...

azernik 8y ago
I meant - no reason not to get that market share in the small-comsat market. As to why do it themselves as opposed to just be a provider to OneWeb, I think this is a sneaky way to do some price discrimination - SpaceX, like everyone else, may have some spare launch capacity, so having an internal (hopefully-profitable) project to soak up that demand rather than cratering launch prices may be worth it.