23 ms·

OneWeb will resume satellite launches with SpaceX as the launch provider

335 points by MPSimmons 5y ago

labrador 5y ago
The Russian space program was the most impressive thing to me about Russians, so to see it destroyed before my very eyes saddens me. Russians are quite clever about making do with little, but I don't see how a declining country like Russia is today can compete with the Indian or Chinese space programs, who are also doing amazing things that don't get a lot of press in America.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  Yes, the decline russia will face is tragic, and for what? At best they will own some land that has had all the buildings and infrastructure ground to dust and citizens who have all been murdered. Russia is spending tremendous resources to destroy more resources, but physical and social. It is the stupidest thing I've seen in my life.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    - gameswithgo 5y ago
      No you misunderstand, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much a tie in my mind, and should the USA invade anyone in the future, please sanction us until I starve to death or leave.
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        Like syria, you're occupying now?
        mminer237 5y ago
        I don't think 900 servicemen supporting the local SDF to defend certain locations in a de facto autonomous region is really comparable in any way to Russia sending 200,000 soldiers to conquer a sovereign nation and indiscriminately shell all major cities.
        ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        If eg. mexico bombed the shit out of USA, because it didn't like their leaders, basically destroyed the country, change the government, kill a bunch of people, and then leave behind 900 mexican soldiers, would you see those soldiers as "someone defending you", or as an occupation?
    - khuey 5y ago
      Ignoring morality entirely for a moment it is rather remarkable that Russia watched the US experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and said "yes, we'd like that for us, but on hard mode".
      - gameswithgo 5y ago
        Russia did the same thing in Afghanistan shortly before! With the same result!
        ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        Well yeah, and americans trained osama bin laden to fight them. Oh how the turntables... So we basically agree, that both countries are bad, but we somehow act as if somehow americans are the "good guys" for bombing weddings in pakistan and killing afghanis, and bunch of other people, and that russians deserve the sanctions, while other countries currently occupying eg. syria don't.
        adventured 5y ago
        The US are the good guys, quite obviously. That's why nearly all the good - liberal, democratic, freedom-oriented - nations are specifically aligned with the US, and why Russia's only pals are tyrants. It's also why Ukraine is friends with the US (despite the distance and cultural separation) and is fighting a war against Russia, because Russia are the bad guys (anti democratic, anti liberal, regressive, dictatorship, conquest-oriented). Nobody thinks the US are the good guys for bombing a wedding in Pakistan. It's for countless other reasons that people still think the US are on the side of good, as it always has been. You're of course attempting to use a particularly weak argument to prove a massive claim. The US doesn't have to be perfect to be good. What Germany did in WW2 doesn't preclude them from being good now; what the British Empire did doesn't preclude them from being good now; and so on. The US have been such extraordinary good guys across time, we even saved millions of Russians from starvation by their own government (even while Russia was broadly considered an enemy of the US at the time, we saved them anyway): https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2011/pr-famine-040411.html https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2011/pr-famine-040411.html Things like that are what have built the US moral credibility, which stacks against its various mistakes (and everyone here knows well all the prominent US mistakes). The US invaded Germany, the US invaded Italy, the US invaded France (and several other European nations), the US invaded Japan, the US invaded Korea. Now contrast what the US did after invading Europe, with what Russia did. It's the difference between being the good guys and being the bad guys, just ask Poland what the difference is - they know exactly what the stark separation between the US and Russia represents (the difference between freedom and slavery, affluence and poverty). There's a reason why Poland welcomes US soldiers on its soil, and why they'd fight to the death to keep Russian soldiers out of their territory. Ask Czechia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania what the difference is, they all know. Why are all of Russia's weaker neighbors afraid of it? Meanwhile, there's affluent, free, peace-loving Canada, not afraid in the least (witness their military spending) that the US superpower of the last 75 years would invade and attempt to conquer them. The difference between the US and Russia could hardly be any greater, now or in the past. The Canadians know it, the Polish know it, the Ukrainians know it. What Russia is doing right now is evil, and they are the villains in this war, regardless of what they did in the past. We don't need to eg go into the history of the Holodomor and other things Russia has done to Ukraine and its people to demonstrate their evil, all we need is to focus on what Russia is doing at present (intentionally genociding the civilians of Ukraine). Russia are the bad guys and it couldn't be any more clear than it is - which is again why Ukraine (freedom-seeking, aspirational democracy, liberal-leaning, West-leaning) is asking the US to help them fight against Russia and why Ukraine appeals to the US about shared liberal values just as they have with other European democracies. The US didn't train bin Laden. It didn't invent Al Qaeda. It didn't train or create the Taliban either. Funding various Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the decade prior to the founding of the Taliban, doesn't equate to training bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
    - newaccount2021 5y ago
    - randomsearch 5y ago
      > for what? For Bin Laden. America has done terrible things, but what Russia is doing to Ukraine is much worse than Afghanistan or Iraq. When in recent history did the UK surround a city of another country and starve it to death whilst deliberately shelling civilians? There isn't a comparison. Russia's actions in Syria are the most similar to the Ukraine situation that I'm aware of in recent history.
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        So, destroy a country for one man? Good guys americans! > When in recent history did the UK surround a city of another country and starve it to death whilst deliberately shelling civilians? Yugoslavia, 1999... civil buildings were actual targets, not just "accidents"... from tobacco factories, to public television, bridges, etc. Also cluster bombed a city... If you count the "mistakes", also a passenger train, bus, group of escaping refugees, hospitals, schools, etc. Oh, and let's not forget the chinese embassy. And USA is also currently occupying syria.
        adventured 5y ago
        As the parent correctly pointed out, it's not even remotely close to comparable. The Russians are intentionally destroying entire large cities, intentionally committing genocide against thousands of civilians in Ukraine. Intentionally seeking to starve and deprive the civilian population of the basic requirements of survival to further their conquest aims. At the rate Russia is going, it'll have intentionally murdered tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians before the war is likely to end.
        camdat 5y ago
        >At the rate Russia is going, it'll have intentionally murdered tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians before the war is likely to end And it will pale in comparison to the 300 thousand civilians killed in the US intervention in Afghanistan alone. At least Russia will likely succeed in it's military objectives.
  - loudmax 5y ago
    I don't think there was any scenario where the invasion was a benefit to Russia. But if it had gone the way most analysts had expected, with Kyiv falling after four days, it could have been a benefit to Vladimir Putin. With the invasion having gone horribly wrong it's clear to everyone that it's in Russia's best interest to withdraw immediately. But what's in Russia's best interest isn't necessarily in Putin's personal interest. So better to keep on killing Ukrainian men, women, children by the thousands to save his own skin. Some call Putin a "genius". I'd call him something different.
    - necovek 5y ago
      He's also sending Russian soldiers into death. Mutiny is hard and complicated, and runs a huge risk for your life and life of your family, so even those convinced they are doing the wrong stuff will have a hard time stopping themselves.
  - icu 5y ago
    Before I begin to offer a different view, please allow me to say that I in no way condone what is happening. So why is Putin invading Ukraine now? There are several logical reasons if you understand Russian history, geography, psychology and demography. In terms of history, in the past 500 years, Russia has been invaded several times from the west. Specifically, Moscow has been attacked and conquered six times in its history by foreign armies, and usually via the same routes. This is also where geography plays an important role in understanding the Russian invasion. In terms of geography, the Carpathian Mountains are a natural land defence between the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea. Indeed, in the days of the USSR, under the Warsaw Pact, the Russians could project military power in the land gaps either side of the Carpathian Mountains on Baltic and Black Seas. This is where NATO expansion has worried the Russians because, post the USSR, I speculate they feel Moscow is exposed, and is being encircled by NATO. I also speculate the psychology of the Russian leadership is one of paranoia of land invasion, and they want to push out territory (or at least project military power) to fight an invasion from the historical routes Russia has been invaded from. Post-communist Russia has been doing just this and is why Crimea was effectively annexed by Russia (because they wanted to project naval power into the Black Sea). From a US perspective we like to think that the US was the biggest factor in the Allied win of WWII, but little thought is given to how important the Russians were and how many Russians lost their lives. This is where, most mainstream media has completely omitted the rise of far-right violence and politics in Ukraine. No one in the West wants to think they are supporting Nazis even if they are fending off the Russians. Please note that I am not saying that all Ukrainians are far-right, however I speculate that the Russians do care about the rise of the far right in Ukraine (as it is along their border), and from their perspective see it as stopping the rise of another WWII Nazi-Germany type situation. Lastly, demography plays a part because Russia has had several 'baby busts', that is not enough babies have been born. I speculate that the Russian leadership believes that if Russia does not plug the geographic routes for invasion now, it never will. Sadly, I also don’t see Russia stopping with Ukraine. If the Russians will stop at nothing to gain geographic security this puts Russia in a direct confrontation with NATO member states. I also worry about the second order consequences, like the loss of life and suffering that will happen due to a loss of Ukrainian wheat crops, and the loss of global crops due to sanctions on fertilizers from Russia.
    - deleted 5y ago
  - perlgeek 5y ago
    Not to mention that reproduction rates both in Russia and in the Ukraine are below replacement levels, so they'll have more land for a shrinking population.
    - necovek 5y ago
      Wasn't that the case in Western countries as well 30 years ago? Basically, formerly communist countries are 20-30 years behind in the sociological development, even if they catch up economically in some aspects earlier (though those are closely intertwined, because they are still at "I can't reasonably provide for more than 1-2 children").
  - golergka 5y ago
    > Yes, the decline russia will face is tragic, and for what? For Putin to stay in control of the country. And also, for majority of Russians, to finally have the moment of their fascist pride.
- redisman 5y ago
  The brain drain will get a huge spike again unless they’re literally stopped from leaving the country. So all industries will be affected for a long time
  - antattack 5y ago
    They might switch to hyper-sonic missile development.
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      Sounds expensive..
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Why bother, Brahmos is likely unstoppable for its purposes for quite some time. Brahmos 2 is likely going to work too so there's no reason to man-month it.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      There has already been reporting of hypersonic missiles launched at Ukraine, which is not at all surprising.
      - gliptic 5y ago
        Those in the know suspect these are just the upper stages of Iskanders launched from jets.
        robonerd 5y ago
        asah 5y ago
        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launched-hypersonic-weapon-appears-to-be-a-modified-iskander-ballistic-missile https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launc... https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/ https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-h...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I had assumed that Russia would want to embrace trying to land first stage boosters after SpaceX proved it was do-able. With the vast amount of territory they have they could avoid the trouble of trying to land on a droneship and perhaps even develop a large structure to catch fairings downrange.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    They have been using the same rocket for like 30 years. I'm not sure they are organizationally equipped to innovate anymore. Similar to the standard NASA contractors, who are rearranging shuttle parts to make the SLS and costing and order of magnitude more than even SpaceX's outlandish experiments from scratch. Also its entirely possible the cost of a Soyuz launch is cheaper than a Falcon9 despite re-use, due to it being used for so long and slightly smaller.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      Well, previously commercial outfits were choosing SpaceX in large numbers. So if Soyuz is cheaper, why not Soyuz. Both these vehicles have government orders which are never going on a foreign platform, so there is no price cap for those, but if I'm a comms satellite outfit (and there isn't currently a war) surely I just pick whichever is cheapest?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jccooper 5y ago
        Soyuz isn't really in the same class as F9; its GTO payload is something like 2.5t, where F9 is like 5.5t. (The equivalent launcher on the Russian side was Proton at 6+t. And indeed, it sold lots of commercial launches until eclipsed by F9/FH... and its own poor reliability.) So Soyuz wasn't really competitive for most commercial launch, which until recently was largely GEO comsats. It was well-suited for MEO and LEO, which (until recently) was mostly scientific and surveillance, which is mostly government customers. But it was also well placed for the new commercial LEO com constellations, until they decided to throw that away.
- justin66 5y ago
  > The Russian space program was the most impressive thing to me about Russians, so to see it destroyed before my very eyes saddens me. It's been dead for thirty years. Russia has done an admirable job using, reusing, and repurposing tools developed during the Soviet Union's existence, but that is all they have had going for them - aside from cash related to Mir and ISS and the associated launches, which kept the whole thing on life support.
  - labrador 5y ago
    "It's not dead, it's resting!" I had hopes for a comeback, but that looks highly unlikey in Putin's regime or whatever dictator follows him.
    - MrZongle2 5y ago
      "...or whatever dictator follows him." This phrase saddens me, but it seems the most likely outcome. When the power brokers in Moscow acknowledge that Putin has become a liability, they'll replace him so they can return to the kleptocratic status quo. I highly doubt there will be a popular uprising against him, which at least would allow for a chance for democratic progress.
      - lhoff 5y ago
        I was listening to a podcast recently where they were discussion the best possible outcome for Russia in the comming years and there conclusion was a strong but benevolent dictator (maybe a women) that slowly paves the way towards democracy. There sentiment was that Russia is not ready for democracy right now because of years and years of propaganda and suppression of an intellectual elite.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        They had that. Gender aside, Gorbachev did just that. And then the thieves moved in.
        ordu 5y ago
- chaostheory 5y ago
  It may be declining in the short term, but Russia will be one of the winners as climate change continues to progress.
  - necovek 5y ago
    You mean as Siberia turns into beautiful sunlit coastal area? I've long suggested buying seaside plots there as a viable investment strategy, with the only issue not knowing where the coast will be :D
    - redisman 5y ago
      I’d rather buy in Canada which has its own “Siberia” and a functional rule of law. Look at YT, NT, NU
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        I agree. I’m just pointing out that Russia will be a superpower again one day due to inaction on climate change. Far too little and too late.
        redisman 5y ago
        I’m sure the peoples republic of northern China will enjoy them very much.
        chaostheory 5y ago
        That’s a good point. They’ve had border clashes before in the 1960s. It’s going to happen again.
      - AYBABTME 5y ago
        I thought about this for years but then the thoughts of flies always breaks the spell for me. All this thawed organic matter...
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  The moment that clown Dmitry Rogozin was appointed as a director of Roscosmos, I knew it is a death sentence for Russian cosmonautics. But in a larger context, it is all a consequence of Putin's rule. The guy is like Midas in reverse: everything he touches turns to shit.
totetsu 5y ago
And they suspended launches because they had used rockets from Russia https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60602512 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60602512
- _joel 5y ago
  ESA have also pushed pause on their side of the new mars rover too. There's a complete bifurcation that seems to be happening. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-work-solo-mars-mission-after-europe-freezes-joint-project-interfax-2022-03-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-work-solo-mars-m...
iSloth 5y ago
It does seem a little odd when SpaceX have Starlink, surely these two are each other’s main competition.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I wonder if OneWeb has no other choice. I'm sure executives at SpaceX realize that Starlink would be the superior product and they don't stand to lose that many potential customers to OneWeb. I bet they figure they can make more money from the launch costs than potential impact of competition from OneWeb. I also wonder if this will end up helping OneWeb. I can't imagine using Soyuz 2.1 rockets is cheaper than paying for reusable Falcon 9's.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    If OneWeb wins, SpaceX makes a ton of money launching for them, and doesn't have to bother running an internet company.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      I wonder to what degree satellite internet is winner-takes-all. They are competing for customers but, at least last I checked, they weren't putting a ton of bandwidth into orbit (compared to existing land based stuff). Maybe they'll both end up just selling as much as they can produce.
      - wongarsu 5y ago
        It's probably less winner-takes-all than ground based internet. At scale, putting infrastructure into space is a much lower barrier to entry than putting a fiber line into every household. The limiting factor will be spectrum allocations. You only have so much bandwidth per area, giving an advantage to those that either have more directional antennas or more spectrum available.
        hedora 5y ago
samwillis 5y ago
I don't think this was an unexpected result of the situation with Russia, there wasn't really any other options, but interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. I suppose they always made it clear that they were not going to let their investment in Starlink stop them launching competitors constellations. I am still somewhat surprised by the UK governments investment in OneWeb, I hope the strategy pays off and it becomes an important national infrastructure project. My thoughts where that it may be about providing a future proof network for the remote areas of the UK but we aren't exactly a big country so I'm not convinced that's the case. The rubbish that was written about it being a route to our own GPS system after Brexit forced us to leave the Galileo program was clearly all fluff to make it sound more impressive and tie it to a post Brexit strategy in some way.
- eganist 5y ago
  > interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. Interesting, but entirely expected. They'd be investigated in a heartbeat if they didn't.
  - NotEvil 5y ago
    I don't think so. That's not anti-competive. Its like intel refusing to make amd chips on intel fabs. Perfectly logical
    - bpye 5y ago
      I think that only works when there is other capacity available. If Intel was suddenly the only fab available to western companies but they refused to fab AMD chips I suspect that would result in intervention.
      - j_walter 5y ago
        Not so sure. AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to serve a direct competitor...or offer the service at a huge expense that would make it unreasonable for the competitor.
tempnow987 5y ago
I always thought of oneweb has a kind of govt boondoggle project for the UK. These are the projects that aren't commercially able to attract funding (which in this day is a bit wild) but have some weird pitch that gets a government somewhere to jump on them. I believe the UK claims this will result in jumping the UK to the forefront of space commercialization? I thought secretly that oneweb was actually maybe making the sats in the US and the UK mfg of the sats was basically just govt hype? Anyone know the real scoop?
- ID1452319 5y ago
  The satellites are made in the USA, by, ironically, Airbus Space and Defence (who's largest shareholders are the French and German governments). OneWeb have said they will move manufacturing to the UK, but this was stated in a Select Committee meeting, so could well be simply blowing smoke up the collective 'arrises of their investors.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    it's owned by multiple parties, with the UK Gov a minority shareholder, so i don't get what's ironic about that statement.
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      The UK govt was the key investor in terms of bailing them out. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/07/uk-acquires-oneweb/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/07/uk-acquires-oneweb/ From the UK's own website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-acquire-cutting-edge-satellite-network https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-acquire-... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-satellite-network-oneweb https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-sat... "This deal gives us the chance to build on our strong advanced manufacturing and services base in the UK, creating jobs and technical expertise." The issue I have is they keep on describing the network as "cutting edge" without describing the breakthrough features of the project as well as a lot of talk about building up the UK sat mfg base, but of all the companies they pump half a billion pounds into, they choose one where at least SOME of the work is in the US.
perihelions 5y ago
Galileo too, quite likely. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872 (Eric Berger / Ars Technica) - "Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets." - "This will almost certainly be resisted by France-based Arianespace. However it may ultimately be necessary because there are no Ariane 5 cores left, and the new Ariane 6 rocket is unlikely to have capacity for a couple of years."
- pixl97 5y ago
  This war is SpaceX's black friday. While everyone else was pissing off using old technology, SX was moving ahead (not counting small launch providers).
takk309 5y ago
If SpaceX were to deny OneWeb the launch space, or charge an excessive fee as compared to other commercial launches, would that have run afoul of anti-trust laws? Seems to me that SpaceX should not be able to be picky about what they launch as long as the cost is paid (within technical limitations, of course).
- atty 5y ago
  I don’t think that we should be essentially punishing spacex for their massive success by suddenly telling them they’re required to take every customer at government-approved prices. SpaceX isn’t a utility, and no one/no government has a right to deploy their technology in space.
  - IMSAI8080 5y ago
    I don't think he was suggesting a government regulated price, I think he was meaning not charging above the usual commercially offered price. Unlike other operators SpaceX launches have a retail price. They have a tool on their website where they will give you a quote for launching a satellite.
secondcoming 5y ago
Did they get the satellites back from Russia?
- coder543 5y ago
  Not yet, if at all.[0] > The company isn’t sure what happened to the spacecraft or if they’ll ever be returned. “The thing about the satellites is honestly they’re the least of our problems,” Chris McLaughlin, chief of government, regulatory, and engagement at OneWeb, tells The Verge. “We make two a day in the factory in Florida. So we can find ways to get a resilient solution.” [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/21/22988867/oneweb-spacex-launch-agreement-russia-roscosmos-soyuz https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/21/22988867/oneweb-spacex-la...
  - trollied 5y ago
    It wouldn't surprise me if they never get them back. The Russians would be wise to try and extract the software on board, just in case there are any private keys, or other useful things.
    - monkeybutton 5y ago
      Yikes, suddenly your trusted hardware floating in space is anything but.
- wedn3sday 5y ago
  Im still curious about this as well. I wonder if their insurance policy categorizes being seized during war time by a hostile government as "force majeure".
  - hedora 5y ago
    Schedule delay and engineering challenges are going to dwarf the cost of a few unlaunched satellites.
- MPSimmons 5y ago
mooktakim 5y ago
This could actually save them money
- kobalsky 5y ago
  these guys probably talked with and turned down a spacex proposal in the past. these are multi-billion dollar businesses and that's basic due-diligence. spacex has better leverage now, there's no chance in hell they went home with a better deal.
  - mooktakim 5y ago
    Yes but a reusable rocket will always be cheaper than a one-off rocket. They could charge twice as normal and still be overall cheaper.
    - kobalsky 5y ago
      do you think oneweb just bumped into spacex and they haven't considered them before? evidently spacex's previous proposal had either a technical compromise they weren't willing to take, or it was more expensive than roscosmos. now oneweb basically has been forced to make a deal with spacex and they don't run a charity, specially now that one of their main competitors is off the market. I don't know how you go from there to say that oneweb will save money. spacex will make a ton of money, that I don't doubt.
vaxman 5y ago
Elon is a winner, even supports competitors building EVs so it’s not surprising he supports competition in the LEO consumer communications market. If Apple had bought them when they still could have afforded it, I wonder if President Musk would have changed Apple or if Apple would have changed Musk? Ah well, eventually we will all have Starlink tPhones and tPads and will stop pondering such questions.
geocrasher 5y ago
This is a massive growth opportunity for SpaceX. Launching competitors is not only good press but good business. Blue Origin has yet to even deliver orbital booster engines. SLS is... uh... well it's SLS. There are other orbital launch options in the US, but they are a heck of a lot more expensive than a Falcon 9 launch. It would not surprise me if SpaceX started offering a stand-in for the Russian engines as well. I wouldn't expect that they'd sell Raptor engines to competitors, as those engines are very much their Special Sauce- but they have the experience to make an orbital booster engine, and right now that's a pretty unique opportunity in the US.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Not really a big growth opportunity. operating telecomm satellites itself is a much bigger market than building them which is a bigger market than launching them and that is a bigger market than just providing the engines.
  - jakswa 5y ago
    I assume by "operating telecomm satellites" you mean operating starlink? Last I read, SpaceX hoped to spin starlink out into a separate business, and even IPO it. So in the long run, it didn't seem like SpaceX wanted to count on the starlink market revenue. I'd be curious to hear that this is outdated/wrong now. It was interesting at the time because Musk has said he intends for SpaceX to stay private forever.
    - Cerium 5y ago
      If you are staying private and want the flexibility that gives you, it makes sense to me to spin out and IPO successful businesses. That lets you convert private equity into public and leave your core business unencumbered with additional logistics.
- sebazzz 5y ago
  > It would not surprise me if SpaceX started offering a stand-in for the Russian engines as well. Would they? Selling an engine is different to using an engine internally.
oxplot 5y ago
One thing to keep in mind is that satellite design takes into account, in no trivial amount, the specific ship that takes it to orbit. It's therefore, not a simple switch to use a new ship for existing hardware. Everything from G-force limits to fairing payload geometry and weight characteristics and more affect satellite design. Combine that with the long iteration development of the average satellite maker, it's not always economical to switch to an alternative launch provider, even if the new provider offers a ride for less cost. This is an addition to the reasons such as long term partnerships and discounts.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Oneweb explicitly designed their satellite to be able to launch on multiple launch vehicles
taf2 5y ago
It’ll be great to see these launch on broomsticks. In all seriousness, I wonder if this ends up saving or costing oneweb … I guess they really don’t have much bargaining power in this case so kind of curious…
tnli 5y ago
I'm 100% certain that SpaceX is happy for more outside work that actually pays them instead of changing numbers internally.

335 points by MPSimmons 5y ago

The Russian space program was the most impressive thing to me about Russians, so to see it destroyed before my very eyes saddens me. Russians are quite clever about making do with little, but I don't see how a declining country like Russia is today can compete with the Indian or Chinese space programs, who are also doing amazing things that don't get a lot of press in America.

gameswithgo 5y ago
Yes, the decline russia will face is tragic, and for what? At best they will own some land that has had all the buildings and infrastructure ground to dust and citizens who have all been murdered. Russia is spending tremendous resources to destroy more resources, but physical and social. It is the stupidest thing I've seen in my life.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    No you misunderstand, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much a tie in my mind, and should the USA invade anyone in the future, please sanction us until I starve to death or leave.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      Like syria, you're occupying now?
      - mminer237 5y ago
        I don't think 900 servicemen supporting the local SDF to defend certain locations in a de facto autonomous region is really comparable in any way to Russia sending 200,000 soldiers to conquer a sovereign nation and indiscriminately shell all major cities.
        ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        If eg. mexico bombed the shit out of USA, because it didn't like their leaders, basically destroyed the country, change the government, kill a bunch of people, and then leave behind 900 mexican soldiers, would you see those soldiers as "someone defending you", or as an occupation?
  - khuey 5y ago
    Ignoring morality entirely for a moment it is rather remarkable that Russia watched the US experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and said "yes, we'd like that for us, but on hard mode".
    - gameswithgo 5y ago
      Russia did the same thing in Afghanistan shortly before! With the same result!
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        Well yeah, and americans trained osama bin laden to fight them. Oh how the turntables... So we basically agree, that both countries are bad, but we somehow act as if somehow americans are the "good guys" for bombing weddings in pakistan and killing afghanis, and bunch of other people, and that russians deserve the sanctions, while other countries currently occupying eg. syria don't.
        adventured 5y ago
        The US are the good guys, quite obviously. That's why nearly all the good - liberal, democratic, freedom-oriented - nations are specifically aligned with the US, and why Russia's only pals are tyrants. It's also why Ukraine is friends with the US (despite the distance and cultural separation) and is fighting a war against Russia, because Russia are the bad guys (anti democratic, anti liberal, regressive, dictatorship, conquest-oriented). Nobody thinks the US are the good guys for bombing a wedding in Pakistan. It's for countless other reasons that people still think the US are on the side of good, as it always has been. You're of course attempting to use a particularly weak argument to prove a massive claim. The US doesn't have to be perfect to be good. What Germany did in WW2 doesn't preclude them from being good now; what the British Empire did doesn't preclude them from being good now; and so on. The US have been such extraordinary good guys across time, we even saved millions of Russians from starvation by their own government (even while Russia was broadly considered an enemy of the US at the time, we saved them anyway): https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2011/pr-famine-040411.html https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2011/pr-famine-040411.html Things like that are what have built the US moral credibility, which stacks against its various mistakes (and everyone here knows well all the prominent US mistakes). The US invaded Germany, the US invaded Italy, the US invaded France (and several other European nations), the US invaded Japan, the US invaded Korea. Now contrast what the US did after invading Europe, with what Russia did. It's the difference between being the good guys and being the bad guys, just ask Poland what the difference is - they know exactly what the stark separation between the US and Russia represents (the difference between freedom and slavery, affluence and poverty). There's a reason why Poland welcomes US soldiers on its soil, and why they'd fight to the death to keep Russian soldiers out of their territory. Ask Czechia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania what the difference is, they all know. Why are all of Russia's weaker neighbors afraid of it? Meanwhile, there's affluent, free, peace-loving Canada, not afraid in the least (witness their military spending) that the US superpower of the last 75 years would invade and attempt to conquer them. The difference between the US and Russia could hardly be any greater, now or in the past. The Canadians know it, the Polish know it, the Ukrainians know it. What Russia is doing right now is evil, and they are the villains in this war, regardless of what they did in the past. We don't need to eg go into the history of the Holodomor and other things Russia has done to Ukraine and its people to demonstrate their evil, all we need is to focus on what Russia is doing at present (intentionally genociding the civilians of Ukraine). Russia are the bad guys and it couldn't be any more clear than it is - which is again why Ukraine (freedom-seeking, aspirational democracy, liberal-leaning, West-leaning) is asking the US to help them fight against Russia and why Ukraine appeals to the US about shared liberal values just as they have with other European democracies. The US didn't train bin Laden. It didn't invent Al Qaeda. It didn't train or create the Taliban either. Funding various Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the decade prior to the founding of the Taliban, doesn't equate to training bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
  - newaccount2021 5y ago
  - randomsearch 5y ago
    > for what? For Bin Laden. America has done terrible things, but what Russia is doing to Ukraine is much worse than Afghanistan or Iraq. When in recent history did the UK surround a city of another country and starve it to death whilst deliberately shelling civilians? There isn't a comparison. Russia's actions in Syria are the most similar to the Ukraine situation that I'm aware of in recent history.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      So, destroy a country for one man? Good guys americans! > When in recent history did the UK surround a city of another country and starve it to death whilst deliberately shelling civilians? Yugoslavia, 1999... civil buildings were actual targets, not just "accidents"... from tobacco factories, to public television, bridges, etc. Also cluster bombed a city... If you count the "mistakes", also a passenger train, bus, group of escaping refugees, hospitals, schools, etc. Oh, and let's not forget the chinese embassy. And USA is also currently occupying syria.
      - adventured 5y ago
        As the parent correctly pointed out, it's not even remotely close to comparable. The Russians are intentionally destroying entire large cities, intentionally committing genocide against thousands of civilians in Ukraine. Intentionally seeking to starve and deprive the civilian population of the basic requirements of survival to further their conquest aims. At the rate Russia is going, it'll have intentionally murdered tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians before the war is likely to end.
        camdat 5y ago
        >At the rate Russia is going, it'll have intentionally murdered tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians before the war is likely to end And it will pale in comparison to the 300 thousand civilians killed in the US intervention in Afghanistan alone. At least Russia will likely succeed in it's military objectives.
- loudmax 5y ago
  I don't think there was any scenario where the invasion was a benefit to Russia. But if it had gone the way most analysts had expected, with Kyiv falling after four days, it could have been a benefit to Vladimir Putin. With the invasion having gone horribly wrong it's clear to everyone that it's in Russia's best interest to withdraw immediately. But what's in Russia's best interest isn't necessarily in Putin's personal interest. So better to keep on killing Ukrainian men, women, children by the thousands to save his own skin. Some call Putin a "genius". I'd call him something different.
  - necovek 5y ago
    He's also sending Russian soldiers into death. Mutiny is hard and complicated, and runs a huge risk for your life and life of your family, so even those convinced they are doing the wrong stuff will have a hard time stopping themselves.
- icu 5y ago
  Before I begin to offer a different view, please allow me to say that I in no way condone what is happening. So why is Putin invading Ukraine now? There are several logical reasons if you understand Russian history, geography, psychology and demography. In terms of history, in the past 500 years, Russia has been invaded several times from the west. Specifically, Moscow has been attacked and conquered six times in its history by foreign armies, and usually via the same routes. This is also where geography plays an important role in understanding the Russian invasion. In terms of geography, the Carpathian Mountains are a natural land defence between the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea. Indeed, in the days of the USSR, under the Warsaw Pact, the Russians could project military power in the land gaps either side of the Carpathian Mountains on Baltic and Black Seas. This is where NATO expansion has worried the Russians because, post the USSR, I speculate they feel Moscow is exposed, and is being encircled by NATO. I also speculate the psychology of the Russian leadership is one of paranoia of land invasion, and they want to push out territory (or at least project military power) to fight an invasion from the historical routes Russia has been invaded from. Post-communist Russia has been doing just this and is why Crimea was effectively annexed by Russia (because they wanted to project naval power into the Black Sea). From a US perspective we like to think that the US was the biggest factor in the Allied win of WWII, but little thought is given to how important the Russians were and how many Russians lost their lives. This is where, most mainstream media has completely omitted the rise of far-right violence and politics in Ukraine. No one in the West wants to think they are supporting Nazis even if they are fending off the Russians. Please note that I am not saying that all Ukrainians are far-right, however I speculate that the Russians do care about the rise of the far right in Ukraine (as it is along their border), and from their perspective see it as stopping the rise of another WWII Nazi-Germany type situation. Lastly, demography plays a part because Russia has had several 'baby busts', that is not enough babies have been born. I speculate that the Russian leadership believes that if Russia does not plug the geographic routes for invasion now, it never will. Sadly, I also don’t see Russia stopping with Ukraine. If the Russians will stop at nothing to gain geographic security this puts Russia in a direct confrontation with NATO member states. I also worry about the second order consequences, like the loss of life and suffering that will happen due to a loss of Ukrainian wheat crops, and the loss of global crops due to sanctions on fertilizers from Russia.
  - deleted 5y ago
- perlgeek 5y ago
  Not to mention that reproduction rates both in Russia and in the Ukraine are below replacement levels, so they'll have more land for a shrinking population.
  - necovek 5y ago
    Wasn't that the case in Western countries as well 30 years ago? Basically, formerly communist countries are 20-30 years behind in the sociological development, even if they catch up economically in some aspects earlier (though those are closely intertwined, because they are still at "I can't reasonably provide for more than 1-2 children").
- golergka 5y ago
  > Yes, the decline russia will face is tragic, and for what? For Putin to stay in control of the country. And also, for majority of Russians, to finally have the moment of their fascist pride.
redisman 5y ago
The brain drain will get a huge spike again unless they’re literally stopped from leaving the country. So all industries will be affected for a long time
- antattack 5y ago
  They might switch to hyper-sonic missile development.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    Sounds expensive..
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Why bother, Brahmos is likely unstoppable for its purposes for quite some time. Brahmos 2 is likely going to work too so there's no reason to man-month it.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There has already been reporting of hypersonic missiles launched at Ukraine, which is not at all surprising.
    - gliptic 5y ago
      Those in the know suspect these are just the upper stages of Iskanders launched from jets.
      - robonerd 5y ago
      - asah 5y ago
        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launched-hypersonic-weapon-appears-to-be-a-modified-iskander-ballistic-missile https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launc... https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-hypersonic-missile-is-a-stretch/ https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/why-calling-russias-kinzhal-a-h...
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I had assumed that Russia would want to embrace trying to land first stage boosters after SpaceX proved it was do-able. With the vast amount of territory they have they could avoid the trouble of trying to land on a droneship and perhaps even develop a large structure to catch fairings downrange.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  They have been using the same rocket for like 30 years. I'm not sure they are organizationally equipped to innovate anymore. Similar to the standard NASA contractors, who are rearranging shuttle parts to make the SLS and costing and order of magnitude more than even SpaceX's outlandish experiments from scratch. Also its entirely possible the cost of a Soyuz launch is cheaper than a Falcon9 despite re-use, due to it being used for so long and slightly smaller.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Well, previously commercial outfits were choosing SpaceX in large numbers. So if Soyuz is cheaper, why not Soyuz. Both these vehicles have government orders which are never going on a foreign platform, so there is no price cap for those, but if I'm a comms satellite outfit (and there isn't currently a war) surely I just pick whichever is cheapest?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jccooper 5y ago
      Soyuz isn't really in the same class as F9; its GTO payload is something like 2.5t, where F9 is like 5.5t. (The equivalent launcher on the Russian side was Proton at 6+t. And indeed, it sold lots of commercial launches until eclipsed by F9/FH... and its own poor reliability.) So Soyuz wasn't really competitive for most commercial launch, which until recently was largely GEO comsats. It was well-suited for MEO and LEO, which (until recently) was mostly scientific and surveillance, which is mostly government customers. But it was also well placed for the new commercial LEO com constellations, until they decided to throw that away.
justin66 5y ago
> The Russian space program was the most impressive thing to me about Russians, so to see it destroyed before my very eyes saddens me. It's been dead for thirty years. Russia has done an admirable job using, reusing, and repurposing tools developed during the Soviet Union's existence, but that is all they have had going for them - aside from cash related to Mir and ISS and the associated launches, which kept the whole thing on life support.
- labrador 5y ago
  "It's not dead, it's resting!" I had hopes for a comeback, but that looks highly unlikey in Putin's regime or whatever dictator follows him.
  - MrZongle2 5y ago
    "...or whatever dictator follows him." This phrase saddens me, but it seems the most likely outcome. When the power brokers in Moscow acknowledge that Putin has become a liability, they'll replace him so they can return to the kleptocratic status quo. I highly doubt there will be a popular uprising against him, which at least would allow for a chance for democratic progress.
    - lhoff 5y ago
      I was listening to a podcast recently where they were discussion the best possible outcome for Russia in the comming years and there conclusion was a strong but benevolent dictator (maybe a women) that slowly paves the way towards democracy. There sentiment was that Russia is not ready for democracy right now because of years and years of propaganda and suppression of an intellectual elite.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        They had that. Gender aside, Gorbachev did just that. And then the thieves moved in.
      - ordu 5y ago
chaostheory 5y ago
It may be declining in the short term, but Russia will be one of the winners as climate change continues to progress.
- necovek 5y ago
  You mean as Siberia turns into beautiful sunlit coastal area? I've long suggested buying seaside plots there as a viable investment strategy, with the only issue not knowing where the coast will be :D
  - redisman 5y ago
    I’d rather buy in Canada which has its own “Siberia” and a functional rule of law. Look at YT, NT, NU
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      I agree. I’m just pointing out that Russia will be a superpower again one day due to inaction on climate change. Far too little and too late.
      - redisman 5y ago
        I’m sure the peoples republic of northern China will enjoy them very much.
        chaostheory 5y ago
        That’s a good point. They’ve had border clashes before in the 1960s. It’s going to happen again.
    - AYBABTME 5y ago
      I thought about this for years but then the thoughts of flies always breaks the spell for me. All this thawed organic matter...
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
The moment that clown Dmitry Rogozin was appointed as a director of Roscosmos, I knew it is a death sentence for Russian cosmonautics. But in a larger context, it is all a consequence of Putin's rule. The guy is like Midas in reverse: everything he touches turns to shit.

totetsu 5y ago

And they suspended launches because they had used rockets from Russia https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60602512 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60602512

_joel 5y ago
ESA have also pushed pause on their side of the new mars rover too. There's a complete bifurcation that seems to be happening. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-work-solo-mars-mission-after-europe-freezes-joint-project-interfax-2022-03-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-work-solo-mars-m...

iSloth 5y ago

It does seem a little odd when SpaceX have Starlink, surely these two are each other’s main competition.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I wonder if OneWeb has no other choice. I'm sure executives at SpaceX realize that Starlink would be the superior product and they don't stand to lose that many potential customers to OneWeb. I bet they figure they can make more money from the launch costs than potential impact of competition from OneWeb. I also wonder if this will end up helping OneWeb. I can't imagine using Soyuz 2.1 rockets is cheaper than paying for reusable Falcon 9's.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  If OneWeb wins, SpaceX makes a ton of money launching for them, and doesn't have to bother running an internet company.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    I wonder to what degree satellite internet is winner-takes-all. They are competing for customers but, at least last I checked, they weren't putting a ton of bandwidth into orbit (compared to existing land based stuff). Maybe they'll both end up just selling as much as they can produce.
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      It's probably less winner-takes-all than ground based internet. At scale, putting infrastructure into space is a much lower barrier to entry than putting a fiber line into every household. The limiting factor will be spectrum allocations. You only have so much bandwidth per area, giving an advantage to those that either have more directional antennas or more spectrum available.
      - hedora 5y ago

samwillis 5y ago

I don't think this was an unexpected result of the situation with Russia, there wasn't really any other options, but interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. I suppose they always made it clear that they were not going to let their investment in Starlink stop them launching competitors constellations. I am still somewhat surprised by the UK governments investment in OneWeb, I hope the strategy pays off and it becomes an important national infrastructure project. My thoughts where that it may be about providing a future proof network for the remote areas of the UK but we aren't exactly a big country so I'm not convinced that's the case. The rubbish that was written about it being a route to our own GPS system after Brexit forced us to leave the Galileo program was clearly all fluff to make it sound more impressive and tie it to a post Brexit strategy in some way.

eganist 5y ago
> interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. Interesting, but entirely expected. They'd be investigated in a heartbeat if they didn't.
- NotEvil 5y ago
  I don't think so. That's not anti-competive. Its like intel refusing to make amd chips on intel fabs. Perfectly logical
  - bpye 5y ago
    I think that only works when there is other capacity available. If Intel was suddenly the only fab available to western companies but they refused to fab AMD chips I suspect that would result in intervention.
    - j_walter 5y ago
      Not so sure. AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to serve a direct competitor...or offer the service at a huge expense that would make it unreasonable for the competitor.

tempnow987 5y ago

I always thought of oneweb has a kind of govt boondoggle project for the UK. These are the projects that aren't commercially able to attract funding (which in this day is a bit wild) but have some weird pitch that gets a government somewhere to jump on them. I believe the UK claims this will result in jumping the UK to the forefront of space commercialization? I thought secretly that oneweb was actually maybe making the sats in the US and the UK mfg of the sats was basically just govt hype? Anyone know the real scoop?

ID1452319 5y ago
The satellites are made in the USA, by, ironically, Airbus Space and Defence (who's largest shareholders are the French and German governments). OneWeb have said they will move manufacturing to the UK, but this was stated in a Select Committee meeting, so could well be simply blowing smoke up the collective 'arrises of their investors.
- kmlx 5y ago
  it's owned by multiple parties, with the UK Gov a minority shareholder, so i don't get what's ironic about that statement.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    The UK govt was the key investor in terms of bailing them out. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/07/uk-acquires-oneweb/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/07/uk-acquires-oneweb/ From the UK's own website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-acquire-cutting-edge-satellite-network https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-to-acquire-... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-satellite-network-oneweb https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-secures-sat... "This deal gives us the chance to build on our strong advanced manufacturing and services base in the UK, creating jobs and technical expertise." The issue I have is they keep on describing the network as "cutting edge" without describing the breakthrough features of the project as well as a lot of talk about building up the UK sat mfg base, but of all the companies they pump half a billion pounds into, they choose one where at least SOME of the work is in the US.

perihelions 5y ago

Galileo too, quite likely. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872 (Eric Berger / Ars Technica) - "Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets." - "This will almost certainly be resisted by France-based Arianespace. However it may ultimately be necessary because there are no Ariane 5 cores left, and the new Ariane 6 rocket is unlikely to have capacity for a couple of years."

pixl97 5y ago
This war is SpaceX's black friday. While everyone else was pissing off using old technology, SX was moving ahead (not counting small launch providers).

takk309 5y ago

If SpaceX were to deny OneWeb the launch space, or charge an excessive fee as compared to other commercial launches, would that have run afoul of anti-trust laws? Seems to me that SpaceX should not be able to be picky about what they launch as long as the cost is paid (within technical limitations, of course).

atty 5y ago
I don’t think that we should be essentially punishing spacex for their massive success by suddenly telling them they’re required to take every customer at government-approved prices. SpaceX isn’t a utility, and no one/no government has a right to deploy their technology in space.
- IMSAI8080 5y ago
  I don't think he was suggesting a government regulated price, I think he was meaning not charging above the usual commercially offered price. Unlike other operators SpaceX launches have a retail price. They have a tool on their website where they will give you a quote for launching a satellite.

secondcoming 5y ago

Did they get the satellites back from Russia?

coder543 5y ago
Not yet, if at all.[0] > The company isn’t sure what happened to the spacecraft or if they’ll ever be returned. “The thing about the satellites is honestly they’re the least of our problems,” Chris McLaughlin, chief of government, regulatory, and engagement at OneWeb, tells The Verge. “We make two a day in the factory in Florida. So we can find ways to get a resilient solution.” [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/21/22988867/oneweb-spacex-launch-agreement-russia-roscosmos-soyuz https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/21/22988867/oneweb-spacex-la...
- trollied 5y ago
  It wouldn't surprise me if they never get them back. The Russians would be wise to try and extract the software on board, just in case there are any private keys, or other useful things.
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    Yikes, suddenly your trusted hardware floating in space is anything but.
wedn3sday 5y ago
Im still curious about this as well. I wonder if their insurance policy categorizes being seized during war time by a hostile government as "force majeure".
- hedora 5y ago
  Schedule delay and engineering challenges are going to dwarf the cost of a few unlaunched satellites.
MPSimmons 5y ago

mooktakim 5y ago

This could actually save them money

kobalsky 5y ago
these guys probably talked with and turned down a spacex proposal in the past. these are multi-billion dollar businesses and that's basic due-diligence. spacex has better leverage now, there's no chance in hell they went home with a better deal.
- mooktakim 5y ago
  Yes but a reusable rocket will always be cheaper than a one-off rocket. They could charge twice as normal and still be overall cheaper.
  - kobalsky 5y ago
    do you think oneweb just bumped into spacex and they haven't considered them before? evidently spacex's previous proposal had either a technical compromise they weren't willing to take, or it was more expensive than roscosmos. now oneweb basically has been forced to make a deal with spacex and they don't run a charity, specially now that one of their main competitors is off the market. I don't know how you go from there to say that oneweb will save money. spacex will make a ton of money, that I don't doubt.

vaxman 5y ago

Elon is a winner, even supports competitors building EVs so it’s not surprising he supports competition in the LEO consumer communications market. If Apple had bought them when they still could have afforded it, I wonder if President Musk would have changed Apple or if Apple would have changed Musk? Ah well, eventually we will all have Starlink tPhones and tPads and will stop pondering such questions.

geocrasher 5y ago

This is a massive growth opportunity for SpaceX. Launching competitors is not only good press but good business. Blue Origin has yet to even deliver orbital booster engines. SLS is... uh... well it's SLS. There are other orbital launch options in the US, but they are a heck of a lot more expensive than a Falcon 9 launch. It would not surprise me if SpaceX started offering a stand-in for the Russian engines as well. I wouldn't expect that they'd sell Raptor engines to competitors, as those engines are very much their Special Sauce- but they have the experience to make an orbital booster engine, and right now that's a pretty unique opportunity in the US.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Not really a big growth opportunity. operating telecomm satellites itself is a much bigger market than building them which is a bigger market than launching them and that is a bigger market than just providing the engines.
- jakswa 5y ago
  I assume by "operating telecomm satellites" you mean operating starlink? Last I read, SpaceX hoped to spin starlink out into a separate business, and even IPO it. So in the long run, it didn't seem like SpaceX wanted to count on the starlink market revenue. I'd be curious to hear that this is outdated/wrong now. It was interesting at the time because Musk has said he intends for SpaceX to stay private forever.
  - Cerium 5y ago
    If you are staying private and want the flexibility that gives you, it makes sense to me to spin out and IPO successful businesses. That lets you convert private equity into public and leave your core business unencumbered with additional logistics.
sebazzz 5y ago
> It would not surprise me if SpaceX started offering a stand-in for the Russian engines as well. Would they? Selling an engine is different to using an engine internally.

oxplot 5y ago

One thing to keep in mind is that satellite design takes into account, in no trivial amount, the specific ship that takes it to orbit. It's therefore, not a simple switch to use a new ship for existing hardware. Everything from G-force limits to fairing payload geometry and weight characteristics and more affect satellite design. Combine that with the long iteration development of the average satellite maker, it's not always economical to switch to an alternative launch provider, even if the new provider offers a ride for less cost. This is an addition to the reasons such as long term partnerships and discounts.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Oneweb explicitly designed their satellite to be able to launch on multiple launch vehicles

taf2 5y ago

It’ll be great to see these launch on broomsticks. In all seriousness, I wonder if this ends up saving or costing oneweb … I guess they really don’t have much bargaining power in this case so kind of curious…

tnli 5y ago

I'm 100% certain that SpaceX is happy for more outside work that actually pays them instead of changing numbers internally.