British GPS system
Discussion
I know little about the technical aspects of this, but I'd like to make a couple of points about the economics, especially in relation to the UK Government's aerospace and defence projects. Too often, UKGov has failed to see the value of spending and investing in UK industry. The big point to keep in mind is that cash spent here makes the economy go around and in the end goes back to government as tax; cash spent abroad is basically lost.
Over the last decades, UKGov has often tried to buy military and other equipment off-the-shelf where Germany or France would have gone to one of their national suppliers and organised a project to develop the required item. That puts our industry at a disadvantage and increases UKGov's foreign spending. The problem is exacerbated by the difficulty in raising private finance for manufacturing in this country.
When UK industry has won a government sponsored a UK project, there's often been difficulty with specifications. The MoD have a history of wanting equipment that fits in a small, low cost box, yet does everything imaginable and adds more requirements as the project progresses. I understand that they have been trying to control that tendency.
My main point is that in the first paragraph: government money spent in the UK eventually goes back to UKGov, possibly several times over. The money isn't lost, even if the project is a total flop!
Over the last decades, UKGov has often tried to buy military and other equipment off-the-shelf where Germany or France would have gone to one of their national suppliers and organised a project to develop the required item. That puts our industry at a disadvantage and increases UKGov's foreign spending. The problem is exacerbated by the difficulty in raising private finance for manufacturing in this country.
When UK industry has won a government sponsored a UK project, there's often been difficulty with specifications. The MoD have a history of wanting equipment that fits in a small, low cost box, yet does everything imaginable and adds more requirements as the project progresses. I understand that they have been trying to control that tendency.
My main point is that in the first paragraph: government money spent in the UK eventually goes back to UKGov, possibly several times over. The money isn't lost, even if the project is a total flop!
I spotted this in the news and it caught my eye as something unusual, but I've been struggling to put the pieces together from the various rather short news stories. Can anybody let me know if this summary is correct and fill in the missing bits?
- The UK government is putting in US$500m and is getting 45% ownership with a 'golden share' that gives them veto over future owners.
- Bharti Airtel (an existing investor) is putting in US$500m and is getting 45% ownership.
- The remaining 10% goes to someone else, but I can't work out if it's creditors, or prior investors?
- The US$1bn from UK gov and Airtel goes into the company accounts as cash to allow it to operate rather than paying off creditors, or existing investors?
- The satellite 50:50 manufacturing joint venture with Airbus in Florida is somehow separate from the bankruptcy, but not sure quite how?
- There are 74 satellites already in orbit, they are in a parking orbit, but fully functional?
- The satellites cost around US$1m each and the Florida facility can make 2 per day.
- OneWeb planned to launch the 648 satellites (574 remaining) in phase 1 using ArianeSpace; Soyuz for now and then Ariane 6 later this year, at mid 30 satellites per launch, this is another ~17 launches.
- Is Soyuz launch cost going to be around US$35m, giving a launch cost of around US$1m per satellite?
- If the costs are roughly correct, then there would need to be a bit more cash raised to get phase 1 complete and money coming in? Or can money start coming in before all the satellites in phase 1 are launched?
I guess that Airtel who are a major comms company in South-East Asia and Africa want to use the network for backhaul in more remote / less developed regions?
UK gov doesn't appear to need anything immediately, so can let the existing phase 1 project complete & start bringing in money (using Florida manufacturing and ArianceSpace launches)? Maybe some R&D jobs in Airbus UK and start lining up future replenishment launches from Cornwall / Scotland?
Do OneWeb have valuable IP or spectrum licenses?
Is the complexity of location services from low earth orbit due to the higher relative velocity of the satellites, or are there other significant obstacles too?
It instinctively feels like such a weird project for the UK gov to get involved in, but at the same time, quite intriguing.
- The UK government is putting in US$500m and is getting 45% ownership with a 'golden share' that gives them veto over future owners.
- Bharti Airtel (an existing investor) is putting in US$500m and is getting 45% ownership.
- The remaining 10% goes to someone else, but I can't work out if it's creditors, or prior investors?
- The US$1bn from UK gov and Airtel goes into the company accounts as cash to allow it to operate rather than paying off creditors, or existing investors?
- The satellite 50:50 manufacturing joint venture with Airbus in Florida is somehow separate from the bankruptcy, but not sure quite how?
- There are 74 satellites already in orbit, they are in a parking orbit, but fully functional?
- The satellites cost around US$1m each and the Florida facility can make 2 per day.
- OneWeb planned to launch the 648 satellites (574 remaining) in phase 1 using ArianeSpace; Soyuz for now and then Ariane 6 later this year, at mid 30 satellites per launch, this is another ~17 launches.
- Is Soyuz launch cost going to be around US$35m, giving a launch cost of around US$1m per satellite?
- If the costs are roughly correct, then there would need to be a bit more cash raised to get phase 1 complete and money coming in? Or can money start coming in before all the satellites in phase 1 are launched?
I guess that Airtel who are a major comms company in South-East Asia and Africa want to use the network for backhaul in more remote / less developed regions?
UK gov doesn't appear to need anything immediately, so can let the existing phase 1 project complete & start bringing in money (using Florida manufacturing and ArianceSpace launches)? Maybe some R&D jobs in Airbus UK and start lining up future replenishment launches from Cornwall / Scotland?
Do OneWeb have valuable IP or spectrum licenses?
Is the complexity of location services from low earth orbit due to the higher relative velocity of the satellites, or are there other significant obstacles too?
It instinctively feels like such a weird project for the UK gov to get involved in, but at the same time, quite intriguing.
Beati Dogu said:
I fear it has costly white elephant written all over it.
I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
Would you share your opinion on the reason for failure? I thought there would be a big market for LEO data networks for telecoms backhaul as well as direct to premises internet? Is it the OneWeb cost structure vs. Starlink?I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
Interesting that early last month a spin off from Stanford university called Xona Space Systems opened an office in London. They are working on a low cost location services payload to add to existing LEO comms constellations.
https://insidegnss.com/leo-successor-to-gnss-comes...
https://gps.stanford.edu/research/current-research...
Beati Dogu said:
I fear it has costly white elephant written all over it.
I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
Even if it does turn out to be a success, going by past form with high tech projects, the British Government will probably pull out of the project 'to save money' just as it's about to become profitable I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
Scott Manley did a YT-video about it a couple of days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYdSdawgMrw
Remains to be seen if this works out .....
Remains to be seen if this works out .....
grantone said:
...
Is the complexity of location services from low earth orbit due to the higher relative velocity of the satellites, or are there other significant obstacles too?
...
I have done some more reading. Nothing to do with the velocity. It's mainly about the cost and size, the various location services in medium earth orbit have ~30 satellites each, so you can spend a decent amount per satellite and make it big. You are going to need 500+ for low earth orbit, so it needs to be cheap and small.Is the complexity of location services from low earth orbit due to the higher relative velocity of the satellites, or are there other significant obstacles too?
...
One of the bigger problem components appears to be the atomic clocks. On current GNSS satellites they use big, expensive, power hungry hydrogen maser technologies.
The proposed solution appears to be to use less accurate solid state atomic clocks, but sync them more often, maybe once per hour. You get some benefit from the lower radiation at LEO and lower expected satellite life.
Options for sync sources appear to be existing MEO GNSS satellites, or ground stations. But ground station coverage may be difficult in oceans or unfriendly territories.
There also appear to be unknowns on the ionosphere 'space weather' adjustments that may need to be made compared to existing MEO GNSS.
The stronger signal from LEO should be useful though, so if someone cracks it then it will be pretty helpful.
grantone said:
...
- Is Soyuz launch cost going to be around US$35m, giving a launch cost of around US$1m per satellite?
- If the costs are roughly correct, then there would need to be a bit more cash raised to get phase 1 complete and money coming in? Or can money start coming in before all the satellites in phase 1 are launched?
....
This Reuters articles answers a couple of my questions.- Is Soyuz launch cost going to be around US$35m, giving a launch cost of around US$1m per satellite?
- If the costs are roughly correct, then there would need to be a bit more cash raised to get phase 1 complete and money coming in? Or can money start coming in before all the satellites in phase 1 are launched?
....
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-oneweb-britain-i...
+ Launch cost is more like US$70m per launch via an Arianespace contract signed in 2015.
- Current Falcon 9 launch cost looks like US$62m.
- No idea if the Arianespace launch contract is now void and they can do what they want.
- Multi-source Soyuz and Falcon 9? Are capacity constraints similar between those vehicles? Good to have a commercial relationship with SpaceX for early use of StarShip?
- If the factory can pump out 60 satellites / 1.75 launches worth per month, then can Soyuz even keep up with that anyway?
+ ~US$1m per satellite build and ~US$2m per satellite launch is US$1.7bn before other operating & R&D costs, so going to need another ~US$1bn cash to finish phase 1.
+ Limited service in the polar region can start when ~200 satellites are in place.
- Hopefully this means you can cover some decent revenue regions before all 648 of phase 1 are in place. I can't find anywhere that sets this detail out.
The original plan was to launch 34 at a time on Soyuz from 3 launch sites - Kourou (French Guiana), Baikonur (Kazakhstan) and Vostochny (Russian Far East). They're on basically a polar orbit, so flying from Kourou offers no advantages over the other sites. These launches would put up the initial core cluster.
Later on, Ariane 62 would enter service & be able to join in with 36 satellites at a time. Ariane's inaugural launch was supposed to be for OneWeb. Later on the more powerful Ariane 64 with 4 solid booster would be able to take 74 satellites at a time.
Blue Origin were also signed up to launch some on their forthcoming New Glenn rocket. Their second ever customer in fact. They had a contract for 5 launches with options on more.
Virgin Orbit (Virgin were an investor) were set to launch some too, but they don't have working hardware yet either.
Of course all that is moot at the moment. Presumably they're going to want to redesign the satellites and maybe even change their orbits. I can't see SpaceX wanting anything to do with them, but maybe by the time OneWeb get their act together they'll have better launch options than they do now anyway.
Later on, Ariane 62 would enter service & be able to join in with 36 satellites at a time. Ariane's inaugural launch was supposed to be for OneWeb. Later on the more powerful Ariane 64 with 4 solid booster would be able to take 74 satellites at a time.
Blue Origin were also signed up to launch some on their forthcoming New Glenn rocket. Their second ever customer in fact. They had a contract for 5 launches with options on more.
Virgin Orbit (Virgin were an investor) were set to launch some too, but they don't have working hardware yet either.
Of course all that is moot at the moment. Presumably they're going to want to redesign the satellites and maybe even change their orbits. I can't see SpaceX wanting anything to do with them, but maybe by the time OneWeb get their act together they'll have better launch options than they do now anyway.
Is Arianespace notionally the 'home' company due to membership of the European Space Agency? Is that likely to matter as this appears to be a commercial venture?
I am hoping that the involvement of Airtel means that the Comms network is still viable, there isn't a massive pause to redesign and the positioning payload is done as a live R&D on a couple of the satellites each launch. I admit this may be optimistic!
I am hoping that the involvement of Airtel means that the Comms network is still viable, there isn't a massive pause to redesign and the positioning payload is done as a live R&D on a couple of the satellites each launch. I admit this may be optimistic!
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
I fear it has costly white elephant written all over it.
I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
Even if it does turn out to be a success, going by past form with high tech projects, the British Government will probably pull out of the project 'to save money' just as it's about to become profitable I'm interested in what changes they have planned, because to continue on the path it was on will lead to inevitable failure IMHO.
grantone said:
...
- The US$1bn from UK gov and Airtel goes into the company accounts as cash to allow it to operate rather than paying off creditors, or existing investors?
...
It is more complex, looks like US$640m is directly cash available for operations. The other US$360m goes to some creditors and purchase costs, but there may be some pre-payment in that for future operations.- The US$1bn from UK gov and Airtel goes into the company accounts as cash to allow it to operate rather than paying off creditors, or existing investors?
...
Also confusing me is that the bankruptcy court allowed what appears to be an immediate payment of ~US$50m to the satellite manufacturing joint venture, but elsewhere (including OneWeb press site) I see that the deal may not conclude to Q4 2020? Maybe it's not for an immediate resumption to manufacturing, but some kind of supply chain hold, or staff ramp up?
https://www.geospatialworld.net/news/oneweb-satell...
MartG said:
I had just read the same article.Here's the link to the request for ministerial direction and the reply that the story refers to.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministe...
My reading of it is that public accounting rules (quite rightly) make an investment like this the full responsibility of the politicians, not something that can be blamed on the civil service. It's just so out of the ordinary.
There will almost certainly need to be more capital raised to complete & launch the remaining satellites of phase 1, so there is definitely more to come on whether UK dips further into pockets, gives up equity or something else.
I hope I can find the independent technical assessment of the UK space agency.
grantone said:
...
Also confusing me is that the bankruptcy court allowed what appears to be an immediate payment of ~US$50m to the satellite manufacturing joint venture, but elsewhere (including OneWeb press site) I see that the deal may not conclude to Q4 2020? Maybe it's not for an immediate resumption to manufacturing, but some kind of supply chain hold, or staff ramp up?
https://www.geospatialworld.net/news/oneweb-satell...
I should have thought of this sooner, why not check if they are hiring at the factory!Also confusing me is that the bankruptcy court allowed what appears to be an immediate payment of ~US$50m to the satellite manufacturing joint venture, but elsewhere (including OneWeb press site) I see that the deal may not conclude to Q4 2020? Maybe it's not for an immediate resumption to manufacturing, but some kind of supply chain hold, or staff ramp up?
https://www.geospatialworld.net/news/oneweb-satell...
7 live job postings with OneWeb Satellites and 1 with OneWeb.
OneWeb Satellites
+ Controls and Automation Engineer
+ Mechanical Engineer - Satellite and Assembly Line
+ Payload Test Engineer - Final Assembly Line
+ Quality Assurance Inspector - 2nd shift 3-11pm
+ Financial Accounting and Reporting Manager
+ Financial Systems Specialist
+ Senior Accountant
OneWeb
+ Launch Director
This appears to be the official job board for the Satellites company:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/onewebsatellites
The same jobs are marked on Indeed as being new listings in the last week.
https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=Oneweb+Satellites
This sways me towards thinking it will be a fairly quick resumption at the Florida factory, particularly the shift quality inspector role.
Hughes is investing US$50m in OneWeb.
https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/07/27...
A couple of articles about satellite backhaul for telecoms.
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-202...
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-202...
Wikipedia entry about O3b, the previous startup of the OneWeb founder, now part of SES with 20 satellites doing backhaul/leased line at 8000km altitude.
Their proposed new constellation with hundreds of steerable spot beams per satellite sounds very cool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b_Networks
https://www.satellitetoday.com/business/2020/07/27...
A couple of articles about satellite backhaul for telecoms.
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-202...
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-202...
Wikipedia entry about O3b, the previous startup of the OneWeb founder, now part of SES with 20 satellites doing backhaul/leased line at 8000km altitude.
Their proposed new constellation with hundreds of steerable spot beams per satellite sounds very cool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b_Networks
Article about the OneWeb ground station and reseller company in Alaska & Hawaii restarting their project.
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2020/07/29/al...
According to the article they were due to start selling service late this year, but are now delayed by ~4 months. Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection was late March, so maybe that means OneWeb are almost back to normal operations now?
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2020/07/29/al...
According to the article they were due to start selling service late this year, but are now delayed by ~4 months. Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection was late March, so maybe that means OneWeb are almost back to normal operations now?
Interview with head of Airbus US Space Systems who is on the board of OneWeb Satellites.
https://spacenews.com/airbus-eyes-new-customers-fo...
I can't get much from it, they are still producing OneWeb Satellites and are looking for other customers. Not clear if this is for existing capacity. I am sure I read somewhere that they once produced 4 satellites on their peak production day, I don't think that was sustained capacity though.
https://spacenews.com/airbus-eyes-new-customers-fo...
I can't get much from it, they are still producing OneWeb Satellites and are looking for other customers. Not clear if this is for existing capacity. I am sure I read somewhere that they once produced 4 satellites on their peak production day, I don't think that was sustained capacity though.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff