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

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#31

Post by jagged-chisel »

kilroy123 wrote: post #27
shantara wrote: post #16

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.

Well I always thought they were insane not utilizing SpaceX for launching and bringing down costs. Iridium used SpaceX very successfully to get their entire new constellation up.

I was initially confused because I missed “new” - Iridium’s new constellation is Iridium NEXT.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#32

Post by bryanlarsen »

mrfusion wrote: post #29
drmpeg wrote: post #23

Spacex could be in trouble too. http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2020/03/21/why-spacex-desperat...

Don’t spread rumors. This was thoroughly debunked on r/Spacex. https://pay.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/fmp7sv/why_spacex_d...

Yes, that's far from a credible source. However SpaceX's latest round (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/spacex-raising-500-million-i...) has not yet closed and undoubtedly due to the situation some of the investors in that round are getting itchy feet.

I have no doubt that SpaceX can raise (I'd invest), but that $36B valuation might be in trouble.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#33

Post by greglindahl »

redis_mlc wrote: post #8
londons_explore wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> they are launching on Soyuz, which isn't exactly cheap Exactly. Musk started making rockets when Russia wouldn't sell them on reasonable terms. The closer OneWeb got to finishing their constellation, the higher the bids would've been.

OneWeb bought 21 Soyuz launches at once, which is enough for the initial constellation.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#36

Post by squarefoot »

JackPoach wrote: post #34

I think this is bad news for SpaceX as well. Investors are going to be very reluctant to give more money to Musk.

These days most investors would probably look only at developments in the medical field; Covid19 is affecting just about every business everywhere.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#37

Post by erwinh »

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?

The FT article I think claims that after the bankruptcy there will remain a small team to maintain them for now. Don't know if the plan is to de-orbit them, maybe there are still some stakeholders interested in running some experiments on them...

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#38

Post by greglindahl »

hylaride wrote: post #15
blackhaz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They aren't in a low orbit, the decay time is a lot more than 25 years.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#40

Post by greglindahl »

tyingq wrote: post #6
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…

Is there a niche where they can survive? Iridium (IRDM) is still afloat, though with a lot more coverage and a solid niche.

Iridium launched a complete, working constellation before going bankrupt.
Post reply on HN