4 ms·

OK. But you're still not addressing the main problem. LEO means you meed more satellites because they're closer to the earth. If look at the proposed OneWeb s

OK. But you're still not addressing the main problem. LEO means you meed more satellites because they're closer to the earth. If look at the proposed OneWeb satellites, they need 650 of them for their constellation. I'm sure there's some overlap there, but probably not a ton. With GPS, you need much more overlap - specifically, every part of the earth need to be able to get a signal from a minimum of 4 satellites. So you might be looking at somewhere between 650 and 2600 satellites in LEO to run a GPS type system instead of 24 at the traditional orbit. I just don't see how that makes sense.

credit_guy 6y ago
The number doesn’t seem to be a problem. Specifically, per wikipedia [1]: “Despite the bankruptcy process in the end of May 2020, OneWeb filed an application to FCC for increasing the number of satellites to 48,000” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > “Despite the bankruptcy process in the end of May 2020, OneWeb filed an application to FCC for increasing the number of satellites to 48,000” It's pretty easy to see that this isn't a real plan; that is to say, if OneWeb weren't bankrupt, they could never accomplish this. The math is pretty simple. If we assume that their satellites have a lifespan 2x as long as SpaceX (10 years) and they continue to launch on Soyuz (34 / launch), then they'd need 48000 / 10 / 34 = 141 launches per year for the life of the company. I hope it's obvious to you that that simply would never happen. Even if OneWeb could afford to buy that many launches, it's doubtful that Russia could manufacture and launch them at that pace. Even SpaceX (who is planning a similar sized constellation) can't launch their lower cost/kg F9 twice per month, and they have the benefit of reusing the 1st stage and fairing halves. > The number doesn’t seem to be a problem. The number matters if the UK cares about money.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    You mentioned 2600 as the top range for the number of satellites needed for a GPS system. Let's use this number, shall we? Second, OneWeb already has bought rights for 3 launches with Ariane 6 [1]; ArianeGroup is a joint venture of Airbus and some other company. Airbus was reported to be quite enthusiastic about the UK bid, so Soyuz is unlikely to be in the picture for long if UK wins the auction. An Ariane 6 launch can bring between 10 and 22 tons to LEO. Let's take the middle number of 15 t, that would be 100 of their current satellites in one shot. That's in line with the 60 satellites per launch for Starlink (which are heavier at about 250kg). They could maintain a fleet of 2600 satellites in orbit for less than 3 launches per year. Did I mention that Airbus is the biggest OneWeb creditor? They have all the reasons to see OneWeb succeed, so I don't think they'll limit OneWeb's access to Arianne 6 launches. If anything, one could be worried about a conflict of interests, that they'll get more launches than one would strictly need. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6#Launch_contracts_and_scheduled_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6#Launch_contracts_and_...

credit_guy 6y ago

The number doesn’t seem to be a problem. Specifically, per wikipedia [1]: “Despite the bankruptcy process in the end of May 2020, OneWeb filed an application to FCC for increasing the number of satellites to 48,000” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

nordsieck 6y ago
> “Despite the bankruptcy process in the end of May 2020, OneWeb filed an application to FCC for increasing the number of satellites to 48,000” It's pretty easy to see that this isn't a real plan; that is to say, if OneWeb weren't bankrupt, they could never accomplish this. The math is pretty simple. If we assume that their satellites have a lifespan 2x as long as SpaceX (10 years) and they continue to launch on Soyuz (34 / launch), then they'd need 48000 / 10 / 34 = 141 launches per year for the life of the company. I hope it's obvious to you that that simply would never happen. Even if OneWeb could afford to buy that many launches, it's doubtful that Russia could manufacture and launch them at that pace. Even SpaceX (who is planning a similar sized constellation) can't launch their lower cost/kg F9 twice per month, and they have the benefit of reusing the 1st stage and fairing halves. > The number doesn’t seem to be a problem. The number matters if the UK cares about money.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  You mentioned 2600 as the top range for the number of satellites needed for a GPS system. Let's use this number, shall we? Second, OneWeb already has bought rights for 3 launches with Ariane 6 [1]; ArianeGroup is a joint venture of Airbus and some other company. Airbus was reported to be quite enthusiastic about the UK bid, so Soyuz is unlikely to be in the picture for long if UK wins the auction. An Ariane 6 launch can bring between 10 and 22 tons to LEO. Let's take the middle number of 15 t, that would be 100 of their current satellites in one shot. That's in line with the 60 satellites per launch for Starlink (which are heavier at about 250kg). They could maintain a fleet of 2600 satellites in orbit for less than 3 launches per year. Did I mention that Airbus is the biggest OneWeb creditor? They have all the reasons to see OneWeb succeed, so I don't think they'll limit OneWeb's access to Arianne 6 launches. If anything, one could be worried about a conflict of interests, that they'll get more launches than one would strictly need. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6#Launch_contracts_and_scheduled_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6#Launch_contracts_and_...