4 ms·

Wonder if space x would buy them... wonder how much of a difference between their current satellites and one webs there is...

londons_explore 7y ago
Oneweb's satellites are 'bent pipes', which means they don't decode/route the data. They act like a mirror just reflecting signals back. That used to be a great design when satellites were expected to last 30 years, and the 'bent pipe' design meant data compression, encoding, error correction and modulation could be upgraded without changing the satellite hardware. In today's world where satellites are lower, cheaper and only last ~5 years, it makes more sense for the satellite to be able to decode and route data, which gives it a significant capacity boost for the same power and spectrum usage (since you aren't amplifying and forwarding noise). Phased arrays with hundreds or thousands of beams also don't work well with the bent pipe architecture, since cross-talk between streams is hard to reduce.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Is there a niche where they can survive? Iridium (IRDM) is still afloat, though with a lot more coverage and a solid niche.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    Iridium launched a complete, working constellation before going bankrupt.
    - lmm 7y ago
      And came very close to deorbiting it all in the bankruptcy.
- blackhaz 7y ago
  I wonder what happens with the satellites. Are they just expected to decay?
  - hylaride 7y ago
    They eventually re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, especially if they’re low orbit.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      They aren't in a low orbit, the decay time is a lot more than 25 years.
      - hylaride 7y ago
        Usually at the end of their life, the owners intentional change their orbit to burn them up. I’m not sure about OneWeb, but most of the new satellite internet companies are/were planning low orbit satellites to keep latency down.
        greglindahl 7y ago
        A "low" (LEO) orbit doesn't necessarily mean that satellites burn up within 25 years if they fail and are unable to do a deorbit burn. Of the proposed constellations, the lowest orbit so far is Starlink. OneWeb is much higher but supposedly the satellites are more guaranteed to be reliable.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    I’m almost positive they have the means to De orbit them if they decide to.
    - z3t4 7y ago
      Would be cool if they would let radio amateurs use them, rather then destroying. Could probably find many use cases, if not for learning and experimentation. Maybe use if for Internet peering.
  - erwinh 7y ago
    The FT article I think claims that after the bankruptcy there will remain a small team to maintain them for now. Don't know if the plan is to de-orbit them, maybe there are still some stakeholders interested in running some experiments on them...
- thecybernerd 7y ago
  Would SpaceX find value in their spectrum holdings?
bryanlarsen 7y ago
I think the most likely candidate is Amazon's Project Kuiper who do not yet have the spectrum they need. OneWeb's spectrum will be very valuable to Amazon.

londons_explore 7y ago

Oneweb's satellites are 'bent pipes', which means they don't decode/route the data. They act like a mirror just reflecting signals back. That used to be a great design when satellites were expected to last 30 years, and the 'bent pipe' design meant data compression, encoding, error correction and modulation could be upgraded without changing the satellite hardware. In today's world where satellites are lower, cheaper and only last ~5 years, it makes more sense for the satellite to be able to decode and route data, which gives it a significant capacity boost for the same power and spectrum usage (since you aren't amplifying and forwarding noise). Phased arrays with hundreds or thousands of beams also don't work well with the bent pipe architecture, since cross-talk between streams is hard to reduce.

tyingq 7y ago
Is there a niche where they can survive? Iridium (IRDM) is still afloat, though with a lot more coverage and a solid niche.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Iridium launched a complete, working constellation before going bankrupt.
  - lmm 7y ago
    And came very close to deorbiting it all in the bankruptcy.
blackhaz 7y ago
I wonder what happens with the satellites. Are they just expected to decay?
- hylaride 7y ago
  They eventually re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, especially if they’re low orbit.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    They aren't in a low orbit, the decay time is a lot more than 25 years.
    - hylaride 7y ago
      Usually at the end of their life, the owners intentional change their orbit to burn them up. I’m not sure about OneWeb, but most of the new satellite internet companies are/were planning low orbit satellites to keep latency down.
      - greglindahl 7y ago
        A "low" (LEO) orbit doesn't necessarily mean that satellites burn up within 25 years if they fail and are unable to do a deorbit burn. Of the proposed constellations, the lowest orbit so far is Starlink. OneWeb is much higher but supposedly the satellites are more guaranteed to be reliable.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  I’m almost positive they have the means to De orbit them if they decide to.
  - z3t4 7y ago
    Would be cool if they would let radio amateurs use them, rather then destroying. Could probably find many use cases, if not for learning and experimentation. Maybe use if for Internet peering.
- erwinh 7y ago
  The FT article I think claims that after the bankruptcy there will remain a small team to maintain them for now. Don't know if the plan is to de-orbit them, maybe there are still some stakeholders interested in running some experiments on them...
thecybernerd 7y ago
Would SpaceX find value in their spectrum holdings?

bryanlarsen 7y ago

I think the most likely candidate is Amazon's Project Kuiper who do not yet have the spectrum they need. OneWeb's spectrum will be very valuable to Amazon.