Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OneWeb files for bankruptcy

oneweb.world

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#11

Post by thecybernerd »

londons_explore wrote: post #3
tiernano wrote: post #2

Wonder if space x would buy them... wonder how much of a difference between their current satellites and one webs there is...

Oneweb's satellites are 'bent pipes', which means they don't decode/route the data. They act like a mirror just reflecting signals back. That used to be a great design when satellites were expected to last 30 years, and the 'bent pipe' design meant data compression, encoding, error correction and modulation could be upgraded without changing the satellite hardware. In today's world where satellites are lower, cheaper…

Would SpaceX find value in their spectrum holdings?

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#12

Post by bryanlarsen »

redis_mlc wrote: post #7

You would have thought that Iridium would have been a cautionary tale. The first company went bk in 1999, losing $6 billion, and it could only make money when the buyer bought it for $35 million and didn't have to pay for the capital assets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications

Not only Iridium, but Globalstar and Orbcomm also went through bankruptcy before becoming successful businesses.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#13

Post by bryanlarsen »

tiernano wrote: post #2

Wonder if space x would buy them... wonder how much of a difference between their current satellites and one webs there is...

I think the most likely candidate is Amazon's Project Kuiper who do not yet have the spectrum they need. OneWeb's spectrum will be very valuable to Amazon.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#14

Post by bryanlarsen »

londons_explore wrote: post #5
synctext wrote: post #4

Key bits; almost ready; then Corona came: "To date, the Company has successfully launched 74 satellites as part of its constellation, secured valuable global spectrum, begun development on a range of user terminals for a variety of customer markets, has half of its 44 ground stations completed or in development, and performed successful demonstrations of its system with broadband speeds in excess of 400 Mbps and late…

74 out of 648 required for full service... They're 10% complete... And they are launching on Soyuz, which isn't exactly cheap when they need to do another 16 launches...

Elon Musk has indicated that he would be happy to launch OneWeb satellites. Obviously it's tough to give your competitor money, but at this stage the viability of SpaceX is not in doubt so OneWeb should go for the cheaper launches.

Perhaps one goal of this bankruptcy reorganization is to break their Soyuz contract.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#15

Post by hylaride »

blackhaz wrote: post #9
londons_explore wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oneweb's satellites are 'bent pipes', which means they don't decode/route the data. They act like a mirror just reflecting signals back. That used to be a great design when satellites were expected to last 30 years, and the 'bent pipe' design meant data compression, encoding, error correction and modulation could be upgraded without changing the satellite hardware. In today's world where satellites are lower, cheaper…

I wonder what happens with the satellites. Are they just expected to decay?

They eventually re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, especially if they’re low orbit.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#16

Post by shantara »

I don't think it's exactly fair of them to blame "financial impact and market turbulence related to the spread of COVID-19" for their bankruptcy. The history of space industry is full of companies that ran out of money when attempting to launch massive satellite constellations.

And let's be frank, an attempt to out-compete SpaceX on mass satellite production and cheap launches was doomed to fail.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#17

Post by redis_mlc »

jessriedel wrote: post #10
redis_mlc wrote: post #7

You would have thought that Iridium would have been a cautionary tale. The first company went bk in 1999, losing $6 billion, and it could only make money when the buyer bought it for $35 million and didn't have to pay for the capital assets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications

Except Iridium recently launched an entire new generation of satellites to replace their old one, and it is expected to be profitable. Likewise, lots of people expect SpaceX to make a killing on Starlink. There were good reasons to be skeptical of OneWeb, but "consumer satellite communication companies have gone bankrupt before" is not one of them.

Nonsense, fanboi.

The only reason SpaceX is going into the satellite business is because they have 5,000 employees sitting around doing nothing. The "launch business for paying clients" just isn't big enough.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#18

Post by aquadrop »

redis_mlc wrote: post #17
jessriedel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Iridium recently launched an entire new generation of satellites to replace their old one, and it is expected to be profitable. Likewise, lots of people expect SpaceX to make a killing on Starlink. There were good reasons to be skeptical of OneWeb, but "consumer satellite communication companies have gone bankrupt before" is not one of them.

Nonsense, fanboi. The only reason SpaceX is going into the satellite business is because they have 5,000 employees sitting around doing nothing. The "launch business for paying clients" just isn't big enough.

And? If they can simultaneously create demand for the launches and create global internet service business, what's the problem?

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#19

Post by RivieraKid »

jessriedel wrote: post #10
redis_mlc wrote: post #7

You would have thought that Iridium would have been a cautionary tale. The first company went bk in 1999, losing $6 billion, and it could only make money when the buyer bought it for $35 million and didn't have to pay for the capital assets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications

Except Iridium recently launched an entire new generation of satellites to replace their old one, and it is expected to be profitable. Likewise, lots of people expect SpaceX to make a killing on Starlink. There were good reasons to be skeptical of OneWeb, but "consumer satellite communication companies have gone bankrupt before" is not one of them.

> lots of people expect SpaceX to make a killing on Starlink

What lots of people expect is kind of irrelevant... OneWeb going bankrupt suggests that profit margins will be low at best, negative at worst. Cheaper launch cost is not enough to change the business from to non-viable to hugely profitable.

Who will be the customers of Starlink? Internet is a commodity for the average person, you can't make money in that market. This leaves special cases such as abandoned areas, airlines, ships, but that market is much smaller and it's unclear whether it can feed the massive capital costs of Starlink: launches, satellites, ground stations.

Edit: Providing service to ships in the ocean could be a problem, because of the lack of ground stations.

Post reply on HN