OneWeb files for bankruptcy • Hacker News Board

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#81

Post by mrep » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

Thlom wrote: post #72

RivieraKid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

I think Elon has been talking about floating ground stations. Not sure if that is even viable. My best guess is that ships, at least ocean going ships, will stay with GEO operators for the time being.

Starlink is planning on adding laser links to the satellites so that when one satellite is out of range of a ground station it can beam packets to other satellites that are in range of a ground station.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#82

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #75

I've met some of the senior executives at OneWeb, and think highly of them. My understanding is that from day one they were under pressure from Softbank and other backers to spend the initial capital aggressively -- to secure spectrum as quickly as possible, build out ground stations as quickly as possible, build out global operations as quickly as possible, and start launching satellites as quickly as possible -- wi…

> My understanding is that from day one they were under pressure from Softbank and other backers to spend the initial capital aggressively

Totally agree. This isn’t a Covid-19 story. It’s another SoftBank story.

The SoftBank-fuelled impatience led to strategic blunders including premature spectrum accumulation, vendor lock-in with Airbus, launch services lock-in with legacy providers and over hiring.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#83

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

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.

> an attempt to out-compete SpaceX on mass satellite production and cheap launches was doomed to fail

Not necessarily. SpaceX has an advantage in owning the rails. It isn’t, however, decisive.

OneWeb failed to bring any advantages of its own to the table. It compounded its launch and first mover disadvantages by launching with ArianeSpace. It gave away any satellite advantages by using Airbus to make the birds.

There simply wasn’t any strategic ground for OneWeb to stand on.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#84

Post by greglindahl » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

InTheArena wrote: post #67

This is also a hammer blow to Soyuz and the European launchers. Payloads are becoming very scarce.

I wonder what the Soyuz folks are going to do with 18 half-paid-for, partially-built rockets?

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#85

Post by jesseb » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

drmpeg wrote: post #23

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

NASA just yesterday selected SpaceX for a new contract regarding the Lunar Gateway, so they have at least some confidence SpaceX is sticking around.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contr...

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#86

Post by fludlight » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

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.

Almost all bankruptcies in the next two years are going to blame COVID-19. "It wasn't us, it was the $external_factor" is a way for management to avoid blame. In some cases (restaurants especially) the health crisis has wrecked businesses that have been profitable for many years and the external factor is legitimately the main cause. In other instances, the company was already headed toward bankruptcy and the virus is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#87

Post by redis_mlc » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #33

redis_mlc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That was smart, wonder if they can get a refund. :)

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#88

Post by greglindahl » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #76

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.

ALL companies who attempted to launch massive satellite constellations ran out of money, often pushed by financial markets around the dotcom bubble bursting. Many of them ended up being salvaged afterward and many are still operating today (some at a profit) after going through bankruptcy: ORBCOMM, Iridium, Globalstar. All three have launched second generation satellite constellations. Bankruptcy doesn't have to mean…

OneWeb is more likely to end up like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic -- not much value has been created yet, just a partially launched constellation with costs still rising.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#89

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

reportingsjr wrote: post #77

milankragujevic wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but cities have FTTH, rural areas have.. often times nothing that approaches >5 Mbps.

This will always be the case, unless rural subsidies are increased even more drastically (not really a good thing). Infrastructure in cities is far cheaper than rural areas, so this is kind of a cat and mouse game for rural areas where internet will be x times slower than in cities.

Rural internet is expensive because no PRIVATE company wants to put up a tower or run fiber for a couple dozen people.

A satellite covers a much wider area. We'll see how it plays out, but as a person living out here, I'm excited.

Re: OneWeb files for bankruptcy

#90

Post by fragmede » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #79

InTheArena wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth noting that when the started, there was not reusable rockets, and Tesla was not in the satellite business.

It looks like Oneweb first received funding in January 2015. It looks like they had started working on the idea in 2014. (Per Wikipedia) SpaceX's first propulsive landing attempt was September 2013, by the end of 2014 they had twice succeeded at controlled descents over the ocean. Their first landing on a solid surface (i.e. actual recovery of the booster) was late 2015. So yes, there weren't yet reusable rockets, bu…

> the writing was very clearly on the wall.

With the gift of hindsight that's true, but I disagree, it wasn't clear back then. Keep in mind that the concept of reusable rockets has been around ever since the first rocket launch around the 1960's, and we (humanity) threw away the entire thing. It took SpaceX to make reusable rockets real, but not for lack of trying on the part of Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors (in the US). SpaceX had only a very small (single digits) number of test launches they could do before running out of money. A couple more grid fin unknowns causing failures and SpaceX would have gone bankrupt so it wasn't clear back then.

Also keep in mind that back in 2015, it wasn't clear that Tesla was necessarily going to be successful either. The Model 3 was still a couple years away so nothing was really proven, publicly.

What would have happened if SpaceX had run out of money, we'll never know, but in the interim 5 years, the reusability of SpaceX's rockets has become clear. Despite all the shorts betting against Tesla, Elon Musk succeeded and smart money has learned not to bet against him, whether it be SpaceX or Tesla.