Russia places extraordinary demands on OneWeb prior to satellite launch
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Musk (and Shotwell) would no doubt be able to see the benefit of keeping foreign governments on side. The UK may be a bit part player as far as a lot of space activity, but gouging OneWeb may be remembered for a while in London, whereas coming to the rescue would further cement SpaceX's reputation as the one to trust.
In general, absolutely.
As part of a wider deal though, say if Russia accepts that it does not "own" Ukraine, withdraws immediately and pays reparations to Ukraine, then the UK Gov may well be willing to sell their share of OneWeb. I mean, Russia agreeing to that is about as likely as OneWeb and the UK Gov agreeing unilaterally to Roscosmos's demands.
It's not like the OneWeb purchase hasn't been a controversial decision from the start, with some cynical people* suggesting that it was a fairly desperate effort to show how "Brexit Britain" is a go getting, vibrant, successful kind of of place that will have its own satellite network just like all the other big boys.
*not me obviously. I'm not that cynical. No sir.
Upvote
75
(77
/
-2)
Say what you will about Elon Musk, but it's pretty grim to imagine what the space launch environment would look like right now without SpaceX.
ULA, Boeing, Ariane, Blue Origin, etc. really need to get it together, and not just for the sake of competition.
ULA, Boeing, Ariane, Blue Origin, etc. really need to get it together, and not just for the sake of competition.
Upvote
157
(157
/
0)
The truth is that Roscosmos was slowly declining into irrelevance before any of this happened. So basically Putin gave his buddy Rogozin an excuse for his failings.
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
Yea that last bit of the story about the launch not being cheap confused me. SpaceX has not shown any unfair pricing for competitors in the past. I imagine they will get the market rate, or maybe even a bit of a deal since they'd be booking several launches.
Upvote
97
(97
/
0)
There's only one path left economically for Russia. A regime change.
Upvote
89
(90
/
-1)
Upvote
77
(77
/
0)
I dont think its beyond the realms of possibility that they could have been able to hold current ISS astronauts against there will. Without SpaceX and Dragon\Falcon 9, NASA would be reliant on Roscosmos to do manned flights.
Without SpaceX NASA would have to beg Boeing to stop being complete Numpty's with Starliner and I dont think Boeing want to.
Upvote
32
(33
/
-1)
BRICS, even if they did get involved, don't have any where near the financial capability and tech to drive into Putin's heart The West has.
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
Interesting to watch the down votes on this one. It's probably a good proxy for the number of Russian trolls on Ars.
Upvote
-1
(24
/
-25)
Given a Soyuz's small launch capacity, SpaceX might even be able to give them a discount if OneWeb just co-manifests on a starlink launch. SpaceX would only have to take off 26 Starlinks to make mass room for 34 Onewebs.
Upvote
8
(12
/
-4)
You realize 1 of those is Russia? So that null. China is another which doesnt care and probably just wants to screw everyone over regardless. This isnt a valid assessment.
Upvote
84
(87
/
-3)
Dunno how likely it is, but would love to see SpaceX just take this on as though it were just any other cargo. I realize Starlink is competition, but right now we could all use a little cooperative forward thinking.
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the cost of the satellites is almost negligible compared to the launch costs? Particularly with these satellite constellations where they are mass-producing identical satellites, so the marginal cost of each satellite comes down with economies of scale?
The point being, that if the satellites are cheap, and the launch is expensive, and Roscosmos hasn't launched. . . maybe just write off those satellites, build some more, launch them with someone else, and don't pay Roscosmos for that launch (and if you have any unpaid bills from previous launches, maybe just don't pay those either).
Yes, it still sucks because that puts their whole deployment schedule to space behind, will all the problems that entails, but. Well. War, unfortunately, has negative consequences.
Maybe doing business with Russia isn't the best idea.
The point being, that if the satellites are cheap, and the launch is expensive, and Roscosmos hasn't launched. . . maybe just write off those satellites, build some more, launch them with someone else, and don't pay Roscosmos for that launch (and if you have any unpaid bills from previous launches, maybe just don't pay those either).
Yes, it still sucks because that puts their whole deployment schedule to space behind, will all the problems that entails, but. Well. War, unfortunately, has negative consequences.
Maybe doing business with Russia isn't the best idea.
Upvote
55
(59
/
-4)
The new spare launch capacity of Roscosmos can be used for a “round trip” to the sun for Putin. The place he can really “shine”.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
According to BBC, oneweb has already paid for all the launches it needs:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60569300
If thats the case, this could be a way for Roscosmos/Russia to get the money and not provide the service. And maybe to redirect Roscomos focus on more military related matters.
This may be the end of the Russian commercial rocket launch service, at least for any company outside Russia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60569300
If thats the case, this could be a way for Roscosmos/Russia to get the money and not provide the service. And maybe to redirect Roscomos focus on more military related matters.
This may be the end of the Russian commercial rocket launch service, at least for any company outside Russia.
Upvote
111
(111
/
0)
The simple fact is that the people making the decisions on this are ultra-nationalists (pining for the glory of the former Soviet Union, rather than the Russian Empire which predated the USSR) and have more wealth among them than the rest of the population of Russia combined.
They have no shits to give for the rest of the population of Russia combined. Only their own game of "he who dies with the most money wins".
Remember, these are dictator oligarchs descended from (and many were) Russian mob bosses. They only know how to run criminal enterprises. They have no clue how to run a country. And the last ten years of overt, catastrophic decline in the Russian economy proves the point. As long as they continue to operate the military against their own people, and spy on their own people like they do, nothing will change there.
But this ineptitude doesn't surprise me in the least. Knowing where they came from makes predicting the outcomes pretty simple.
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
Companies work with competitors all the time. Samsung has been a major Apple supplier, even all the way through Job's "thermonuclear war" patent case against them. There are countless examples like this. Lots of OEM companies compete for sales against companies without manufacturing facilities who re-badge their own products... it's basically outsourced sales and marketing. All sorts of business arrangements work - as long as both parties think it's good for them.
Will OneWeb be better off launching on Falcon than delaying for years? Absolutely. The relatively small amount of revenue given to a competitor is nothing compared to the savings of avoiding a multi-year delay.
Will SpaceX be better off? Probably... I don't think OneWeb will make much of a dent in Starlink sales. But ther'd be an analysis to do to guess an answer on SpaceX's side about what's best for them financially here... except that analysis won't need to be done. Elon would do this launch on princpal.
Whatever you think of him, Elon's made it incredibly clear what his views on competition and corporate cooperation are - which are incredibly lenient. He makes all his patents available to competitors. He's open to letting other brands use Tesla's SuperChargers. He doesn't believe in walled gardens. He built his factory in China, knowing that China was going to raid every last bit of technology and knowledge there. SpaceX develops Starship in plain sight and lets people live-stream their operations 24/7. He gives tours of Tesla and SpaceX and basically tells anybody anything they want to know. Other car companies hate Sandy Munro for tearing their cars down and selling all their production advantages to competitors. Elon Musk does interviews with him. He doesn't believe in corporate secrets, he believes in letting everyone copy them, and beating them by pace of innovation. He would absolutely launch OneWeb's satellites.
Will OneWeb be better off launching on Falcon than delaying for years? Absolutely. The relatively small amount of revenue given to a competitor is nothing compared to the savings of avoiding a multi-year delay.
Will SpaceX be better off? Probably... I don't think OneWeb will make much of a dent in Starlink sales. But ther'd be an analysis to do to guess an answer on SpaceX's side about what's best for them financially here... except that analysis won't need to be done. Elon would do this launch on princpal.
Whatever you think of him, Elon's made it incredibly clear what his views on competition and corporate cooperation are - which are incredibly lenient. He makes all his patents available to competitors. He's open to letting other brands use Tesla's SuperChargers. He doesn't believe in walled gardens. He built his factory in China, knowing that China was going to raid every last bit of technology and knowledge there. SpaceX develops Starship in plain sight and lets people live-stream their operations 24/7. He gives tours of Tesla and SpaceX and basically tells anybody anything they want to know. Other car companies hate Sandy Munro for tearing their cars down and selling all their production advantages to competitors. Elon Musk does interviews with him. He doesn't believe in corporate secrets, he believes in letting everyone copy them, and beating them by pace of innovation. He would absolutely launch OneWeb's satellites.
Upvote
146
(153
/
-7)
And another is Brazil which can be written off diplomatically as long as Bolsonaro is in charge, while iirc India gets most of its military hardware from Russia.
So yeah, I'm disappointed in South Africa.
Edit: I assumed the OP was talking about the GA vote and that I'd missed it, but on a quick google it's on the Sec Council that have voted so far - Russia vetoed, China and India (& UAE) abstained.
I think India and China abstaining is about as much as could have been hoped for.
2nd edit: someone else pointed out below that Brazil voted for the Sec Council resolution.
Upvote
44
(45
/
-1)
I would expect that even if Russia didn't plan for it to be the end, that any NATO country corporation, and our closest economic allies who can't risk sanctions from us, will not be doing business with Russia for a long time. I don't think the sanctions will go away fast. Even after the sanctions are lifted at some point in the future, it will likely be considered risky, for awhile, doing business with them, after this. Not just risky that, hey, the launch you paid for has been canceled and no refund, but also, risk to your brand if the public finds out you are doing business with Russia.
I HOPE that the public will at this point no longer tolerate corps doing business with Russia, even after the sanctions end.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
Or that Putin must give up ownership of the Russian government... Seems like a more sane Russian leadership would know not to fuck with Mother nature, mother's in laws, or mother fucking Ukrainians!
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
India is in a very tough political position. They've made remarks critical of Russia's invasion but aren't in a position to vote against Russia. But they also didn't vote for them. India chose to abstain which doesn't tilt the needle either way.
Upvote
51
(53
/
-2)
Maybe this is his way of saving his job.
"Look boss! I'm fighting the war too! I have annexed these satellites!"
Upvote
33
(34
/
-1)
India has always had a cozier relationship with Russia, especially when it comes to military hardware and such.
They know there's nothing of substance to be gained by voting for something that has no chance of succeeding, so they're being pragmatic. I have no problem with that.
India does not think Russia invading Ukraine is a good thing, I promise you. When Putin moves to take back the *stans, that puts them on India's doorstep and they most definitely do not want that. A weak-ish Russia is in India's national interest.
Upvote
64
(65
/
-1)
Just the opposite is happening short term. Russia has about $478 billion in foreign debt and about $630 billion in foreign reserves. e.g. on balance, they are a net saver.
But almost 2/3 of those foreign assets have been frozen, possibly for decades. They effectively went from net surplus to net deficit overnight. By disavowing their debt, at best they would be getting back to neutral. China may happily loan money, but ask Sri Lanka what kind of terms to expect.
Upvote
83
(83
/
0)
> Nor would OneWeb likely want to enrich the company trying to better its own satellite network
This hardly matters. Either they launch their satellites or not. Whether SpaceX makes money is a distant concern by comparison.
This hardly matters. Either they launch their satellites or not. Whether SpaceX makes money is a distant concern by comparison.
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
As things are occurring in Russia, I expect them to beg for foreign investments in a few weeks, they cannot afford to refuse launching rockets. Sanctions will be eventually relaxed.
The worst that could occur is the chaos is so pervasive that they cannot build rockets anymore.
The worst that could occur is the chaos is so pervasive that they cannot build rockets anymore.
Upvote
-18
(2
/
-20)
Stick a fork in this turkey, it is done. Ironically, Vlad the Impaler may be doing the British government a favor, if it prevents more taxpayer money from going down this patently obvious rathole.
Upvote
36
(40
/
-4)
You say that like Soyuz was less than 127 million. That is highly debatable since that is about what it would cost on a SpaceX launch for that payload capacity. The problem with Electron isn't the cost per launch. It is the logistics and risk. Getting that many flights up successfully is a lot more unlikely than getting a few up with Soyuz or SpaceX. You are talking 17 launches for one Soyuz or SpaceX launch. That seems like there is a much higher chance for things to go wrong than for a single launch from one of those other two.
But if we compare aggregate launch costs in a vacuum without accounting for risk and logistics, it is probably a win for Electron albeit close.
Upvote
0
(8
/
-8)
The west is united. Russia is falling apart. The “third world” in its original term is hedging its bets.
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
Yeah, I was amazed at how the multinational chemical company I used to work for bent over backwards to supply a competitor with a much needed raw material when their factory went down. I mean, we could have used that raw material to make more product and take market share, and to be fair we did do some of that. However, we helped keep their down-stream plant operational while they worked on the issue. The explanation to us in the trenches was that depending on the business, they might be competitors, customers, or suppliers, and occasionally all 3 at the same time. So good relations was worth more in the long run than capitalizing on a short term crisis. I'm not sure I've ever fully bought into the rationale, but the same kind of "4-D chess" type reasoning likely would apply to Space-X helping out OneWeb here.
Good will from their owners could help get permits and other issues resolved when Space-X starts offering their services in that region. Helping a US ally in a time like this may also bear fruit with the current US administration. Never mind the twitter points for being able to troll the Russian rocket sector by picking up their slack and making them even more irrelevant to the future of space.
Upvote
84
(84
/
0)
Agreed, and SpaceX's decision to vertically integrate their supply chain and manufacturing looks smarter and smarter by the second. The US would be in a world of hurt without them.
ULA has hitched their future onto BO's wagon. I would imagine that there are some even-more-interesting-than-usual GYST meetings going on between the two right now. That said, of the everyone not-SpaceX they are likely the closest to having a secondary solution. It all hinges on Blue to, well, GYST. They say they will produce flight articles of BE-4 this year, and should they not achieve that, they will lose what little credibility they have left and probably drag ULA down with them. Given his druthers, I wonder if Tory Bruno privately wishes his company had chosen AR-1.
Meanwhile, NG made the (now) unfortunate decision to use the RD-181 and a Ukrainian-made first stage for Antares and they are thus a non-factor as well. To get back in the game, they'd either have to use a solid-motor first stage from their Orbital-ATK division, or possibly engage AR to finish out the development of AR-1 and build their own booster to fuel it. Either solution would take a few years to be ready for flight.
Rocket Lab doesn't have enough payload capacity yet, Relativity is yet to launch, and won't initially have enough payload capacity when they do, and Firefly/Astra and the rest have to many problems nor enough payload capacity to really matter even if they were 100% ready. Neutron may change that for Rocket Lab, but it is a 2024 or later solution, not one for the near term.
A lot of people mention Starship, but it has of course not flown yet, and with a system of its size, there are undoubtedly a number of issues that will need to be worked out before it will be ready. I have every bit of faith in SpaceX to solve whatever they come up against, but even they will need time to do that. So all roads lead back to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy for the next year or more.
All in all right now, things are set up perfectly for SpaceX and terribly for everyone else.
Upvote
52
(52
/
0)