Russia places extraordinary demands on OneWeb prior to satellite launch

Cooperation in space among Russia and the West has been stripped to the bone.

Read the whole story

 

[ab78]

The only secure future Russia has is with Europe not China.

and I think most Russians know that but it is incompatible with Putin's dream of rebuilding the Soviet Union. They aren't going to gobble up European countries and have a close relationship with Europe.

I really doubt most of the Oligarchs really care about Putin dream though. Empire building is expensive. The status quo is very profitable for them.

It's just become somewhat less profitable though, and generally a bit more awkward. On the grounds that to find the source of power, follow the money, I hope they're all seriously comparing their economic outlook with Putin in charge vs. their economic outlook with someone else in charge - presumably a useful idiot who can allow them to continue their kleptocrat ways but without Putin's dirty little USSR fetish.

 

[rochefort]

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.

Even better, this has given Rogozin a chance to demonstrate his loyalty to Putin. The article in MK was a dangerous sign for Rogozin, indicating levels of corruption and incompetence unacceptable in a flagship agency.

But fortunately for Rogozin, loyalty always trumps honesty and competence in Putin's Russia.

 

[rochefort]

OneWeb was founded to bring the world closer together, but that is hard to do when the world is falling apart

.

Eric, I'd say at this point in time, the world is fairly united.

BRICS countries which represent 48% of the world population all declined to suppor the UN resolution condemning Russia. Doesn't seem like a united world...

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.

And India and Brazil are currently run by right-wing nutjobs, which isn't always the case there.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

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.

Even better, this has given Rogozin a chance to demonstrate his loyalty to Putin. The article in MK was a dangerous sign for Rogozin, indicating levels of corruption and incompetence unacceptable in a flagship agency.

But fortunately for Rogozin, loyalty always trumps honesty and competence in Putin's Russia.

Maybe we should send Rogozin a case of kneepads?

 

[NetMage]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

 

[alastairmayer]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

 

[cbrubaker]

We should have never been cooperating with the criminals in the first place.

It didn't have to end like this. The ISS was meant to foster cooperation toward shared goals and a better future. It worked, too. For a time. But a small man's fears were greater than his vision and now he wants to set the world on fire.

He's no different than that man who murdered his children last weekend. Both men could have taken a different path.

Looks like Putin bought into the Rostand quote a little too literally"

"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God."

Right now, on that scale, he's pretty much at "serial killer", but I'm thinking he has high hopes...

(and I just indirectly referenced at least two rock songs in there - anybody care to guess which?)

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

We should have never been cooperating with the criminals in the first place.

It didn't have to end like this. The ISS was meant to foster cooperation toward shared goals and a better future. It worked, too. For a time. But a small man's fears were greater than his vision and now he wants to set the world on fire.

He's no different than that man who murdered his children last weekend. Both men could have taken a different path.

Looks like Putin bought into the Rostand quote a little too literally"

"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God."

Right now, on that scale, he's pretty much at "serial killer", but I'm thinking he has high hopes...

(and I just indirectly referenced at least two rock songs in there - anybody care to guess which?)

The only one I recognize off the top of my head is Megadeth's Captive Honour.

 

[Oteph]

One web is truly in a tough position. They need lots of launches at a low price per kg.

Ariane launches are way too expensive even if they would be available. And with OneWeb being owned by the UK - there ought to be very litte political interest from the EU side to help them out.

Why should there be little political interest in helping them out? Because of Brexit? Look, I get it that the EU would rather they stayed in the EU, but whatever. They are a major economy, and a democracy, and part of NATO. Get over it. They left, it's done. The EU should still seek to do business with them. If for no other reason, than to keep them from doing business with the likes of Russia and China.

Before there was an EU, countries managed to figure out how to do beneficial trade deals with each other, and the EU needs to not throw a fit, and just do business with the UK the same way they would do business with the US who is also not a member of the EU. I mean, does the EU really not want to do business with the UK? That seems like it hurts EU members as much as it hurts the UK.

The EU even has trouble launching its own satellites, thanks to russia pulling the launch agreement - i am pretty sure that the eu will be solve first https://meincmagazine.com/science/2022/02 ... ed-launch/

 

[brionl]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Have you not seen the news stories about ESA officials (not a gov't agency, but the next best thing) complaining about SpaceX's unfair practices? Blue Origin would love to use any excuse to spoke Musk's wheels (turbines?).

 

[rochefort]

We should have never been cooperating with the criminals in the first place.

Economic interdependence has historically been pretty effective at preventing wars.

Cooperation with the USSR during the cold war (and countries like Russia afterwards) have, historically, been meant to reduce the chance of war as well as create change (see: democritization of eastern Europe).

Sometimes been effective at preventing wars, I'd say.

Here's JM Keynes on the situation prior to WWI, emphasis mine:

Spoiler

What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August, 1914!... The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice.

 

[rpbsjy]

The UK government should reply that fine, but in exchange Russia must give up ownership of anything they have and will ever have inside Ukraine's 1991 borders

Or, they can overthrow Putin and extradite him to the West. Also, withdraw from Ukraine; pay reparations; release Navalny and hold free and fair elections.

That would be a win for the entire population of the world, minus a few dozen, and one in particular.

 

[rpbsjy]

We should have never been cooperating with the criminals in the first place.

It didn't have to end like this. The ISS was meant to foster cooperation toward shared goals and a better future. It worked, too. For a time. But a small man's fears were greater than his vision and now he wants to set the world on fire.

He's no different than that man who murdered his children last weekend. Both men could have taken a different path.

Looks like Putin bought into the Rostand quote a little too literally"

"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God."

Right now, on that scale, he's pretty much at "serial killer", but I'm thinking he has high hopes...

(and I just indirectly referenced at least two rock songs in there - anybody care to guess which?)

The only one I recognize off the top of my head is Megadeth's Captive Honour.

Immigrant Song

 

[wagnerrp]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/tech/russian-oneweb-launch-refusal/index.html

Apparently there are more (and more ridiculous) demands now.

Maybe I missed something, but CNN just lists the same two original demands.

 

[wagnerrp]

If there is no Russian launch option anymore, SpaceX has a monopoly here. And even worse, Starlink is a direct competitor to OneWeb. So I wouldn't be surprised if some government agency would call for SpaceX to be split up.

Other groups are still launching. Other groups just don’t have any excess capacity in the short term. There is no monopoly, and unless SpaceX starts price gouging (and in reality, they seem to keep offering lower prices), there would be no grounds for any sort of actuion against them anyway.

 

[Oteph]

If there is no Russian launch option anymore, SpaceX has a monopoly here. And even worse, Starlink is a direct competitor to OneWeb. So I wouldn't be surprised if some government agency would call for SpaceX to be split up.

Other groups are still launching. Other groups just don’t have any excess capacity in the short term. There is no monopoly, and unless SpaceX starts price gouging (and in reality, they seem to keep offering lower prices), there would be no grounds for any sort of actuion against them anyway.

And how would split them up anyway? Its not like they are Boeing with lots of different sectors.

 

[nights]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

 

[hoverslam]

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.

Put another way - it's shocking to think how screwed we would be without Musk and SpaceX right now.

 

[blackhawk887]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

You have the primary and secondary businesses backwards. The satellite business is 10x the size of the launch business. Any satellite operator interested in a competitive constellation will have a launch business as a minor component of that.

And there are no natural or IP-protected monopolies here. Anyone can build a launch business.

 

[bryanlarsen]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

You have the primary and secondary businesses backwards. The satellite business is 10x the size of the launch business. Any satellite operator interested in a competitive constellation will have a launch business as a minor component of that.

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

And there are no natural or IP-protected monopolies here. Anyone can build a launch business.

This is (mostly) irrelevant. Nobody currently has one that is usable by OneWeb.

The fact that SpaceX has a monopoly is not in any way illegal or bad. They earned it fair and square through clean competition.

And as long as they continue to compete fairly they will encounter no problems from the FTC. It wasn't illegal for Microsoft to have their monopoly, nor was it illegal for them to develop Internet Explorer. The only thing that was illegal was for them to give Internet Explorer an advantage over Netscape. Similarly, SpaceX must not advantage Starlink over OneWeb. And they won't.

 

[Wickwick]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

You have the primary and secondary businesses backwards. The satellite business is 10x the size of the launch business. Any satellite operator interested in a competitive constellation will have a launch business as a minor component of that.

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

And there are no natural or IP-protected monopolies here. Anyone can build a launch business.

This is (mostly) irrelevant. Nobody currently has one that is usable by OneWeb.

The fact that SpaceX has a monopoly is not in any way illegal or bad. They earned it fair and square through clean competition.

And as long as they continue to compete fairly they will encounter no problems from the FTC. It wasn't illegal for Microsoft to have their monopoly, nor was it illegal for them to develop Internet Explorer. The only thing that was illegal was for them to give Internet Explorer an advantage over Netscape. Similarly, SpaceX must not advantage Starlink over OneWeb. And they won't.

But SpaceX does not have a monopoly on commercial launches. They are the only ones with capacity to launch for about 2 years. But that sort of lead time isn't unheard of in satellite launches. Ariane will bring their payloads to orbit. So will RocketLabs, Mitsubishi, Astra, etc. In the same time frame as those companies might be able to meet their needs, ULA and BO will hopefully be able to be added to the list along with a few more New Space companies.

If SpaceX says "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" that's not monopolistic. These payloads were already scheduled before Roscosmos gave OneWeb the middle finger. That's not SpaceX's fault. Hell, OneWeb made the deal with Roscosmos in 2015 and didn't launch until 2019. So a four year lead isn't unusual.

 

[blackhawk887]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

You have the primary and secondary businesses backwards. The satellite business is 10x the size of the launch business. Any satellite operator interested in a competitive constellation will have a launch business as a minor component of that.

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

And there are no natural or IP-protected monopolies here. Anyone can build a launch business.

This is (mostly) irrelevant. Nobody currently has one that is usable by OneWeb.

The fact that SpaceX has a monopoly is not in any way illegal or bad. They earned it fair and square through clean competition.

And as long as they continue to compete fairly they will encounter no problems from the FTC. It wasn't illegal for Microsoft to have their monopoly, nor was it illegal for them to develop Internet Explorer. The only thing that was illegal was for them to give Internet Explorer an advantage over Netscape. Similarly, SpaceX must not advantage Starlink over OneWeb. And they won't.

That's the legal perspective. I'm talking about a practical perspective. Large constellation operators will develop launch capabilities. All the prospective operators except OneWeb already do.

And SpaceX does not have a monopoly. All their major customers buy launches from at least 1 other company, usually 2 or 3 others. DoD and NASA buy both ULA and NG. GEO operators from all of the above plus Ariane.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

Do they?

Different launches require different services, and they have published prices on their website.

 

[fcrary]

https://oneweb.net/media-center/the-board-of-oneweb-has-voted-to-suspend-all-launches-from-baikonur

OneWeb suspends all launches from Baikonur

They didn't have a choice. I wonder how they plan to meet the FCC deadlines. Or at least continue launching so they don't fall too far behind. If I were to guess, the plan involves using all available launch they can outside of Russia and China that can lift their sats. small launchers, the Indian launchers, as well as SpaceX

I suspect they'll ask the FCC for an extension, due to circumstances beyond their control. They'll probably get one. The reason (or at least one of the main reasons) for those deadlines it to make sure companies can't block the competition by getting a big allocation and not using it. As long as OneWeb is making a good faith effort to get their constellation up, they'd probably aren't in trouble with the FCC.

 

[fcrary]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Neither one is a magic wand, but that doesn't change the laws and the fact that some people might want to apply them (correctly or incorrectly.) The reality is that, with a launch monopoly (which they basically have at the moment), SpaceX has to be careful about what they charge a Starlink competitor for launch services. Some government official might open an antitrust investigation. At that point, SpaceX would have to show the investigators the justification for what they charged. Go through the list of additional services, how much each one contributed to the total bill, and show that they treated the Starlink competitor like any other customer. I have no doubt they could do so. It's just a matter of documenting their accounting and contract negotiating practices. But there is a very real possibility they would be required to provide that cost justification.

 

[Wickwick]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Neither one is a magic wand, but that doesn't change the laws and the fact that some people might want to apply them (correctly or incorrectly.) The reality is that, with a launch monopoly (which they basically have at the moment), SpaceX has to be careful about what they charge a Starlink competitor for launch services. Some government official might open an antitrust investigation. At that point, SpaceX would have to show the investigators the justification for what they charged. Go through the list of additional services, how much each one contributed to the total bill, and show that they treated the Starlink competitor like any other customer. I have no doubt they could do so. It's just a matter of documenting their accounting and contract negotiating practices. But there is a very real possibility they would be required to provide that cost justification.

Except I disagree with your premise on its face. SpaceX isn't a de facto monopoly launch provider. OneWeb's original contract with Roscosmos took 4 years to go from launch purchase to actual launch. Why should SpaceX be expected to perform in a more timely manner than that? That's industry standard (as had already been demonstrated). In that same time frame, there are at least 3 providers who could launch their payloads - possibly many more.

There is no requirement that SpaceX service a third party out of order. And if they choose to, they are welcome to charge a premium for the privilege.

 

[wagnerrp]

https://oneweb.net/media-center/the-board-of-oneweb-has-voted-to-suspend-all-launches-from-baikonur

OneWeb suspends all launches from Baikonur

They didn't have a choice. I wonder how they plan to meet the FCC deadlines. Or at least continue launching so they don't fall too far behind. If I were to guess, the plan involves using all available launch they can outside of Russia and China that can lift their sats. small launchers, the Indian launchers, as well as SpaceX

I suspect they'll ask the FCC for an extension, due to circumstances beyond their control. They'll probably get one. The reason (or at least one of the main reasons) for those deadlines it to make sure companies can't block the competition by getting a big allocation and not using it. As long as OneWeb is making a good faith effort to get their constellation up, they'd probably aren't in trouble with the FCC.

OneWeb was granted a spectrum license in June 2017, so they have until June 2023 to hit 50%. They're already passed that. The next deadline isn't until 2026. Surely they will be able to find another launch provider within the next four years.

 

[blackhawk887]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Neither one is a magic wand, but that doesn't change the laws and the fact that some people might want to apply them (correctly or incorrectly.) The reality is that, with a launch monopoly (which they basically have at the moment), SpaceX has to be careful about what they charge a Starlink competitor for launch services. Some government official might open an antitrust investigation. At that point, SpaceX would have to show the investigators the justification for what they charged. Go through the list of additional services, how much each one contributed to the total bill, and show that they treated the Starlink competitor like any other customer. I have no doubt they could do so. It's just a matter of documenting their accounting and contract negotiating practices. But there is a very real possibility they would be required to provide that cost justification.

SpaceX lawyers would have a field day with that.

 

[Reynold]

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

I would argue that the fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX does not mean SpaceX has a monopoly, at least as defined by anti-monopoly law.

Lets say a new car company, AmazeCar, comes along and decides to make cars, but doesn't want to make engines for the cars because it is too hard, and Ford agrees to sell them engines when nobody else will. That doesn't mean Ford has a monopoly position in engines and must be forced to sell them to AmazeCar at a particular price, or at all. AmazeCar just decided they don't want to make engines because it is hard, that is their tough luck if they get stuck without engines because Ford needs all they can make for a year or two. OneWeb could have built their own launchers, if they chose.

What got outfits like Microsoft and Intel back in the day was specific anticompetitive behavior, such as requiring anyone using their software or hardware to ONLY use their software or hardware, and using their large market power to enforce it. If SpaceX said "Oh, you want to launch something on our rocket, you have to use only our rockets for the next 5 years.", that might be anti-competitive, and could get them in trouble.

 

[Caven]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Have you not seen the news stories about ESA officials (not a gov't agency, but the next best thing) complaining about SpaceX's unfair practices? Blue Origin would love to use any excuse to spoke Musk's wheels (turbines?).

That means nothing. Claiming something doesn't make it true, such as OneWeb's claims about a near-collision emergency with a SpaceX satellite not being true.

 

[bryanlarsen]

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

I would argue that the fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX does not mean SpaceX has a monopoly, at least as defined by anti-monopoly law.

Lets say a new car company, AmazeCar, comes along and decides to make cars, but doesn't want to make engines for the cars because it is too hard, and Ford agrees to sell them engines when nobody else will. That doesn't mean Ford has a monopoly position in engines and must be forced to sell them to AmazeCar at a particular price, or at all. AmazeCar just decided they don't want to make engines because it is hard, that is their tough luck if they get stuck without engines because Ford needs all they can make for a year or two. OneWeb could have built their own launchers, if they chose.

What got outfits like Microsoft and Intel back in the day was specific anticompetitive behavior, such as requiring anyone using their software or hardware to ONLY use their software or hardware, and using their large market power to enforce it. If SpaceX said "Oh, you want to launch something on our rocket, you have to use only our rockets for the next 5 years.", that might be anti-competitive, and could get them in trouble.

Anti-competitive behavior is only illegal when you have a monopoly. Lock-in contracts are very common in the business world, but only Intel & Microsoft get into trouble using them because they had a monopoly. Rocket Lab would have no trouble asking its customers to sign a 5 year exclusivity contract, but SpaceX would, because SpaceX is a monopoly and Rocket Lab isn't.

 

[bryanlarsen]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Neither one is a magic wand, but that doesn't change the laws and the fact that some people might want to apply them (correctly or incorrectly.) The reality is that, with a launch monopoly (which they basically have at the moment), SpaceX has to be careful about what they charge a Starlink competitor for launch services. Some government official might open an antitrust investigation. At that point, SpaceX would have to show the investigators the justification for what they charged. Go through the list of additional services, how much each one contributed to the total bill, and show that they treated the Starlink competitor like any other customer. I have no doubt they could do so. It's just a matter of documenting their accounting and contract negotiating practices. But there is a very real possibility they would be required to provide that cost justification.

Except I disagree with your premise on its face. SpaceX isn't a de facto monopoly launch provider. OneWeb's original contract with Roscosmos took 4 years to go from launch purchase to actual launch. Why should SpaceX be expected to perform in a more timely manner than that? That's industry standard (as had already been demonstrated). In that same time frame, there are at least 3 providers who could launch their payloads - possibly many more.

There is no requirement that SpaceX service a third party out of order. And if they choose to, they are welcome to charge a premium for the privilege.

Once Roscosmos and the Chinese are out of the picture, SpaceX has significantly more than a 70% market share. There is no firm definition for what a monopoly is, but 70% is considered a rule of thumb. The existence of MacOS did not prevent Windows from being considered a monopoly.

Another rule of thumb is a high barrier to entry, and rocket science is a colloquial synonym for hard.

A third rule of thumb for a monopoly is the ability to set the price without worry of competition. SpaceX meets that test, too.

Lots of companies have a 70% market share in their market and don't get into trouble with the FTC. It's not a big deal until you do something stupid, and I'm confident Shotwell won't do anything stupid.

Compared to ITAR, the prohibitions that anti-trust laws place on SpaceX are a walk in the park.

 

[bryanlarsen]

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

I never said that I am in favour of such measures. But it seems logical to me that it might become a problem for SpaceX. Much like the browser war became a problem for Microsoft 20 years ago. I see a similar situation here: your main business (rockets/operating systems) is used to create a secondary business (Starlink/Internet Explorer) more easily than it would be possible for the competition, but said competition also relies on your primary business go get their product going. I think the last factor is key, and that is also something I said in my previous post: SpaceX must have a monopoly on launch capability. And if they raise prices due to things that can be well explained, that might be fine, but if they do it just "because they can" that might get them into trouble.

You have the primary and secondary businesses backwards. The satellite business is 10x the size of the launch business. Any satellite operator interested in a competitive constellation will have a launch business as a minor component of that.

It doesn't matter that Starlink is bigger than SpaceX. The fact that OneWeb has no option but SpaceX makes it exceedingly clear that SpaceX is in a monopoly position for launch. That the launch business was used to establish the Starlink business is also very clear.

And there are no natural or IP-protected monopolies here. Anyone can build a launch business.

This is (mostly) irrelevant. Nobody currently has one that is usable by OneWeb.

The fact that SpaceX has a monopoly is not in any way illegal or bad. They earned it fair and square through clean competition.

And as long as they continue to compete fairly they will encounter no problems from the FTC. It wasn't illegal for Microsoft to have their monopoly, nor was it illegal for them to develop Internet Explorer. The only thing that was illegal was for them to give Internet Explorer an advantage over Netscape. Similarly, SpaceX must not advantage Starlink over OneWeb. And they won't.

But SpaceX does not have a monopoly on commercial launches. They are the only ones with capacity to launch for about 2 years. But that sort of lead time isn't unheard of in satellite launches. Ariane will bring their payloads to orbit. So will RocketLabs, Mitsubishi, Astra, etc. In the same time frame as those companies might be able to meet their needs, ULA and BO will hopefully be able to be added to the list along with a few more New Space companies.

If SpaceX says "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" that's not monopolistic. These payloads were already scheduled before Roscosmos gave OneWeb the middle finger. That's not SpaceX's fault. Hell, OneWeb made the deal with Roscosmos in 2015 and didn't launch until 2019. So a four year lead isn't unusual.

I think we've got a confusion of terms. "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" might be *anti-competitive*, but it is never monopolistic. Neither anti-competitive behaviour nor monopolies are illegal or immoral, but both at the same time are.

If "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" is true, then it's not anti-competitive either. They might be forced to prove it in a court of law, but that shouldn't be hard if it is actually the truth.

 

[Wickwick]

Once Roscosmos and the Chinese are out of the picture, SpaceX has significantly more than a 70% market share. There is no firm definition for what a monopoly is, but 70% is considered a rule of thumb. The existence of MacOS did not prevent Windows from being considered a monopoly.

Lots of companies have a 70% market share in their market and don't get into trouble with the FTC. It's not a big deal until you do something stupid, and I'm confident Shotwell won't do anything stupid.

Compared to ITAR, the prohibitions that anti-trust laws place on SpaceX are a walk in the park.

What's the lead-time on purchasing a launch? Is 2 years reasonable? 4? I would argue that up to 4 years is reasonable since that's the time scale that OneWeb signed ahead of their first launch with Roscosmos.

So long as SpaceX offers to lift OneWeb's satellites in about 2 years at their normal rates they won't get in trouble. And in that time frame, there's going to be an overabundance of launch providers available. SpaceX will hardly be a commercial monopoly.

 

[Wickwick]

I think we've got a confusion of terms. "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" might be *anti-competitive*, but it is never monopolistic. Neither anti-competitive behaviour nor monopolies are illegal or immoral, but both at the same time are.

If "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" is true, then it's not anti-competitive either. They might be forced to prove it in a court of law, but that shouldn't be hard if it is actually the truth.

That's sort of my point. Assuming SpaceX's whole-launch manifests are booked 18 months out, OneWeb doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to demand special consideration for launching earlier. If they demand to launch this year, there would be a premium. OneWeb might even pay said premium so they can start charging their customers. But such a premium isn't anti-competitive or monopolistic. It's normal business that if you want a service ahead of a standard lead you pay a premium. SpaceX's market share really has nothing to do with that.

Now, if SpaceX is offering commercial services on a 3-month lead because they're willing to push a Starlink launch if there's a paying customer, then they had better be ready to do the same for OneWeb.

 

[Peevester]

I'm sure Eric will have some hilarious commentary on this shortly...

Apparently Rogozin has stopped all maintenance and delivery of rocket engines to the west, and I quote: “Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don’t know what.”

Clown shoes man, clown shoes.

 

[bryanlarsen]

I think we've got a confusion of terms. "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" might be *anti-competitive*, but it is never monopolistic. Neither anti-competitive behaviour nor monopolies are illegal or immoral, but both at the same time are.

If "our manifest is booked for the next 18 months" is true, then it's not anti-competitive either. They might be forced to prove it in a court of law, but that shouldn't be hard if it is actually the truth.

That's sort of my point. Assuming SpaceX's whole-launch manifests are booked 18 months out, OneWeb doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to demand special consideration for launching earlier. If they demand to launch this year, there would be a premium. OneWeb might even pay said premium so they can start charging their customers. But such a premium isn't anti-competitive or monopolistic. It's normal business that if you want a service ahead of a standard lead you pay a premium. SpaceX's market share really has nothing to do with that.

I think I'm getting downvoted heavily because people think I'm accusing SpaceX of being a big meanie. All I'm saying is that SpaceX is big. It's not illegal to be big, but being big gives you certain responsibilities. 100 pound grandmothers don't get charged when they punch people, but 300 pound men do. SpaceX is the big man of the industry, but since they don't throw low blows, it's almost irrelevant. And to continue the tortured analogy they didn't grow to 300 pounds by using steroids either, they spent their time in the gym and are fairly beating the competitors who didn't put their gym time in.

Now, if SpaceX is offering commercial services on a 3-month lead because they're willing to push a Starlink launch if there's a paying customer, then they had better be ready to do the same for OneWeb.

You don't even have to go that far. SpaceX doesn't have to treat OneWeb as well as they treat NASA or any other VIP customer, they only have to treat OneWeb as well as they treat Starlink.

 

[brionl]

I doubt SpaceX would gouge them - they'd probably charge the same they charge everyone else.

I'd assume doing anything else then charing the standard rates might bring some antitrust action against SpaceX on the way.

Why do so many think antitrust is a magic wand to fix anything you feel might be unfair?

SpaceX can charge different customers different prices just like any other company. In fact, they already do.

It's not that so many feel that antitrust is the magic wand, it's that they feel government intervention is the magic wand. Antitrust is just the excuse.

SpaceX charges standard rates, but additional services, naturally, cost extra, so it just looks like they charge different customers different prices. Those different customers are, in fact, not buying the same packages.

Have you not seen the news stories about ESA officials (not a gov't agency, but the next best thing) complaining about SpaceX's unfair practices? Blue Origin would love to use any excuse to spoke Musk's wheels (turbines?).

That means nothing. Claiming something doesn't make it true, such as OneWeb's claims about a near-collision emergency with a SpaceX satellite not being true.

*I* don't think SpaceX is being anti-competitive. Their competitors are already making noises in that direction though. It wouldn't hurt SpaceX to take some proactive measures to guard against those types of accusations.

 

[Mandella]

I'm sure Eric will have some hilarious commentary on this shortly...

Apparently Rogozin has stopped all maintenance and delivery of rocket engines to the west, and I quote: “Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don’t know what.”

Clown shoes man, clown shoes.

He already has, on Twitter. As far as Eric is concerned, Rogozin is tweeting for one guy and one guy only, who may or may not be in a bunker in the Urals.

But as has been mentioned IIRC, the only US launcher that was still buying Russian engines was Northrop Grumman for Antares, and the bigger problem there is that the whole first stage is built in Ukraine. So, uh, not much use for the engines right now anyway.

 

[blackhawk887]

Once Roscosmos and the Chinese are out of the picture, SpaceX has significantly more than a 70% market share. There is no firm definition for what a monopoly is, but 70% is considered a rule of thumb. The existence of MacOS did not prevent Windows from being considered a monopoly.

Another rule of thumb is a high barrier to entry, and rocket science is a colloquial synonym for hard.

A third rule of thumb for a monopoly is the ability to set the price without worry of competition. SpaceX meets that test, too.

Lots of companies have a 70% market share in their market and don't get into trouble with the FTC. It's not a big deal until you do something stupid, and I'm confident Shotwell won't do anything stupid.

Compared to ITAR, the prohibitions that anti-trust laws place on SpaceX are a walk in the park.

It's still not a monopoly. Anyone that wants a launch can call up Tory Bruno and get one. You might have to cough up an extra $40M for it, but you can get the exact same service SpaceX provides.

Microsoft had a monopoly because the hardware and apps locked users to their OS. That coercion doesn't exist in the launch business. Any EELV-class payload has half a dozen choices, and they are all compatible. The only difference is price (and ITAR, but that's not really a problem for payloads except to China).

What you're saying is that a gas station has a monopoly if it charges half price and gets most of the customers, even if there's a competing station selling the same gas right across the street. That's not how monopolies work.