4 ms·

It's pretty cool to see competition from SpaceX ramping up. I didn't know that OneWeb already has 652 satellites in operation.

DonHopkins 1y ago
I'm just worried the British will start orbiting satellites in the opposite direction as the rest of the world, for the same reason they drive on the left side of the road. ;)
- 2rsf 1y ago
  Somewhat related to that, but Israel is launching satellites in the opposite direction than the rest of the world when they launch from their shores, this is so the launch is done over the Mediterranean sea and not their neighbors.
  - lifeisstillgood 1y ago
    Even more tangential - one of the “disaster” scenarios is a satellite collision - either East/West vs West/East or East/West vs North/South. The debris then would act as shrapnel taking out more and more satellites. There is an assumption that such a loss would be a prelude to a major attack - but cock up is always more likely.
- perihelions 1y ago
  There's already a broad range of inclinations spanning from equatorial to polar (and slightly beyond polar (slightly "backwards"), for sun-synchronous orbits)—they already have enormous relative velocities, at up to 90-degree relative angles. Satellites going completely "backwards" wouldn't meaningfully make things worse.
imron 1y ago
How did they launch their satellites?
- N-Krause 1y ago
  Seems like they partnered with SpaceX. https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprising-communications-partnership/ https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprisi...
  - WJW 1y ago
    Not false, but they also partnered with every other launch provider under the sun.
    - N-Krause 1y ago
      Good to know, any source for that? I only did a quick websearch and that was in the first results. EDIT: Nvm, just now saw the sibling comment with the wiki article.
- sehansen 1y ago
  From a quick skim of their Wikipedia page[0]: basically anything they could get their hands on. Arianes 1 through 5, Atlas II and III, Delta IV, Proton, Zenit, Long March 3, Falcon 9. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    I've long been of the opinion that launchers are more or less commodities, the interesting stuff is what you shoot up.
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      Not all launches are the same. ULA is still more competitive in geo.
  - oskarkk 1y ago
    You're looking at the list of all Eutelsat satellites, but the satellites the article talks about are not on that list. Eutelsat is an old company that operates mostly geostationary TV/radio/etc satellites. In 2023 they acquired OneWeb, which operates Starlink-like satellites in low orbit, and that's what the article is about. For that the list of launches is much shorter, on fewer rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb#Launches
sp0ck 1y ago
Calling them "competitor" is eufemism. Cheapest plan (Anchor) is $625/month for 40 GB, with 10/2 Mbps speeds. Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.
- kotaKat 1y ago
  And terminal costs will be through the roof in comparison. Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish. People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy. 10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    There's no terminal costs. Eutelsat uses bog-standard 5G. The company and the man behind it cost $300 more per terminal.
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      No it doesn't, not for me and millions of others.
- kitd 1y ago
  How do you know Greenland are paying consumer prices?
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    You're right, they're most likely paying more!
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service. I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration? Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.

DonHopkins 1y ago

I'm just worried the British will start orbiting satellites in the opposite direction as the rest of the world, for the same reason they drive on the left side of the road. ;)

2rsf 1y ago
Somewhat related to that, but Israel is launching satellites in the opposite direction than the rest of the world when they launch from their shores, this is so the launch is done over the Mediterranean sea and not their neighbors.
- lifeisstillgood 1y ago
  Even more tangential - one of the “disaster” scenarios is a satellite collision - either East/West vs West/East or East/West vs North/South. The debris then would act as shrapnel taking out more and more satellites. There is an assumption that such a loss would be a prelude to a major attack - but cock up is always more likely.
perihelions 1y ago
There's already a broad range of inclinations spanning from equatorial to polar (and slightly beyond polar (slightly "backwards"), for sun-synchronous orbits)—they already have enormous relative velocities, at up to 90-degree relative angles. Satellites going completely "backwards" wouldn't meaningfully make things worse.

imron 1y ago

How did they launch their satellites?

N-Krause 1y ago
Seems like they partnered with SpaceX. https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprising-communications-partnership/ https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprisi...
- WJW 1y ago
  Not false, but they also partnered with every other launch provider under the sun.
  - N-Krause 1y ago
    Good to know, any source for that? I only did a quick websearch and that was in the first results. EDIT: Nvm, just now saw the sibling comment with the wiki article.
sehansen 1y ago
From a quick skim of their Wikipedia page[0]: basically anything they could get their hands on. Arianes 1 through 5, Atlas II and III, Delta IV, Proton, Zenit, Long March 3, Falcon 9. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat
- saubeidl 1y ago
  I've long been of the opinion that launchers are more or less commodities, the interesting stuff is what you shoot up.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Not all launches are the same. ULA is still more competitive in geo.
- oskarkk 1y ago
  You're looking at the list of all Eutelsat satellites, but the satellites the article talks about are not on that list. Eutelsat is an old company that operates mostly geostationary TV/radio/etc satellites. In 2023 they acquired OneWeb, which operates Starlink-like satellites in low orbit, and that's what the article is about. For that the list of launches is much shorter, on fewer rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb#Launches

sp0ck 1y ago

Calling them "competitor" is eufemism. Cheapest plan (Anchor) is $625/month for 40 GB, with 10/2 Mbps speeds. Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.

kotaKat 1y ago
And terminal costs will be through the roof in comparison. Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish. People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy. 10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  There's no terminal costs. Eutelsat uses bog-standard 5G. The company and the man behind it cost $300 more per terminal.
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    No it doesn't, not for me and millions of others.
kitd 1y ago
How do you know Greenland are paying consumer prices?
- mlrtime 1y ago
  You're right, they're most likely paying more!
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service. I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration? Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.