Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX's Rising Tide - Discussion of non-SpaceX launch companies

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#61
I realize the scuttlebutt on Oneweb has been scattered around a couple threads--this seems like probably the best place but mods feel free to move.

Caleb did a webinar with some industry analysts on the Onweb situation. Its a little dry, definitely long, and the first four minutes will give you PTSD from every meeting you've been on in the past month, but there's some good nuggets in there too, including adjacent analysis of Starlink.
Webinar | OneWeb’s Bankruptcy: Impacts and Implications for the Satellite Industry - SpaceNews.com
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Grendal
#67
Grendal said:
There is some article that points out Russia has 56 Soyuz rockets sitting around. So it's not like Russia has an inventory problem.
Click to expand...

There's inventory, but its a tangled web for sure. Rogozin's "...dumping by American companies financed by the US budget..." comment rings a bit hollow given the fact that pretty much everything in Russia is state sponsored to some degree or another. Then fold in the oligarchs that basically control everything anyway and won't allow things to happen without bags of cash...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
#70
And since I'm catching up on SpaceNews, Telesat is threatening to actually make a decision this summer. While this timeline was probably not too impacted by the Oneweb bankruptcy, I'm sure its still nice to basically lose a competitor.

I think pretty much the best chance Telesat has of being successful is the fact that they're a traditional for profit company. So...they're going to come up with a solution (if they can find one) that actually makes money--that means Cap/Opex are balanced with revenue, the terminal cost is bearable, and the user fees are manageable. Starlink obviously has a huge head start in this two horse race; the creative/hope-real-hard accounting from SpaceX is their big variable.

Telesat preparing for mid-2020 constellation manufacturer selection - SpaceNews.com
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Grendal
#71
Huge cascading news week. This is mostly just a link-to-Spacenews post, but there's a ton of stuff going on. This isn't exactly "rising tide" stuff but, again, I think this is the main non-SpaceX thread...

1. Not long after talk of Jupiter-3 delays (the mega HughesNet sat under construction at Maxar) for which Maxar is essentially claiming force majure:
EchoStar says Jupiter-3 launch timing clouded by coronavirus - SpaceNews.com

2. Maxar signs an undisclosed GEO contract that people speculate is either Intelsat or SES (or both--they've been looking for a common, low cost C-band satellite they can both use to replace their legacy c-band services).
Maxar announces multi-satellite GEO order as pandemic crimps quarter - SpaceNews.com

3. Then, BOOM, Intelsat files for bankruptcy, with arguably the biggest wildcard there being their C-band spectrum (relative to the whole C-band *sugar* show that's been going on for a while)
Intelsat declares bankruptcy as means to fund C-band spectrum clearing - SpaceNews.com

4. AND THEN, Spaceforce <said with a whisp> comes in and says "HET!" to Jai-nuh on ambulance chasing bankrupt American space companies (ostensibly, OneWeb, and now Intelsat)
Space Force vice commander: China can’t be allowed to buy bankrupt U.S. space companies - SpaceNews.com
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mike1080i, EVCollies, Solarguy and 3 others
#73
I wouldn't go so far as to call SAD's Tranche 0/1 concept a bellwether, but since it is one of the The Man's first constellations in the new era of LEO (obviously, there's also Blackjack which is farther along), following this and other concepts will certainly be telling with respect to how important things like speed and price are relative to legacy program requirements like documentation/traceability and per-satellite reliability (<ahem> and figuring out how to award contracts to incumbents </ahem>).

Almost certainly the satellite constellation is a bridge too far for SpaceX, but obviously they're well suited for the launch opportunity. What I'm curious to follow is how the launch RFI informs an RFP, and more specifically how the criteria by which the winners are graded are developed.
 
#77
hmcgregoraz said:
Because a Falcon9 would be hugely overkill and way too expensive for a single shot, single satellite, replacement on demand duty.

The right tool for the right job. It would be trying to do finish carpentry with a 50 pound sledge hammer.

-Harry
Click to expand...

Right, And Iridium is a high end commercial customer that can afford to pay a little bit more for a dedicated launch rather than be at the mercy of uncertain rideshare timelines, which is the best that SpaceX could do for such a payload.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
#79
Electroman said:
Why not SpaceX ?
Click to expand...

All valid replies thus far.

On the commercial side, No doubt there's also a really attractive price that makes it really attractive for Iridium, and then of course Relativity gets the market exposure. Program cycles are so long in the space biz that its often about the contracts/backlog you have and not necessarily the programs you've executed.

There's probably also an element where this is more of a MOU than a hard contract, or at a minimum the contract has a lot of outs given that Relativity hasn't actually launched anything yet. Certainly Iridium is sourcing a backup launcher--as most commercial launches do--so its still possible SpaceX is in the mix.

On the technical side, launching replacement sats into the the 6 polar Iridium planes requires a direct shot into the intended plane, almost certainly just a single sat because the odds of two sats failing in one plane is pretty low. For those who read my babbling over in the starlink thread recently there's a phenomenon called precession, where orbital planes rotate around the earth at different rates. This lets you launch sats into the "wrong" plane and wait til the "right" plane comes around, but that won't work at all for Iridium's polar inclinations. Recall that Starlinks need about a month to phase one plane over. An iridium sat would require ~16 months or so to phase one plane over. If it really was intended as an on orbit spare that might be barely acceptable, but if you're trying to replace a failed sat that's not good for business. So...a big rocket that can huck a ton of mass into space isn't the most ideal tool for the job.

Last, if not least, SpaceX isn't the easiest company to work with. PR fluff pieces on the relationship aside, its possible Iridium would prefer a different customer experience.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EVCollies
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Ariane 5 Anomaly
Replies
9
Views
2K
SpaceX
HVM
HVM
Brovane
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program
Replies
1
Views
1K
SpaceX
RDoc
R
A
This Week Tesla & Companies
Replies
0
Views
3K
Tesla, Inc.
Anon2
A
A
This Week Tesla and Companies
Replies
0
Views
2K
Tesla, Inc.
Anon2
A
A
This Week Tesla And Companies
Replies
3
Views
2K
Tesla, Inc.
Anon2
A
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu