Talk:OneWeb satellite constellation

This article was nominated for merging with OneWeb on 12 November 2022. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was merge.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles

Article needs an (accurate) image

I've added an image of GPS satellites, to provide some idea of a satellite constellation.

It would be better to have a more accurate image of the proposed Google constellation.

Might we be able to use the image here [1] under the Fair Use criteria? Will leave that question for the more wiki-image knowledgeable editors to think over.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a request for this on the Wikigraphist project page to see if one of those fine folk might help over here.

Also, editor User:LowLevel73, just wrote me to say that this open source software tool for Satellite Visualizaton might be helpful. Looks like it would be, at least to my weak-graphics-fu head. N2e (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That request got no answer, nor volunteer to help, by 23 December and was archived. I'm endeavoring to find out what the process is over there, or how the request might be made better and more actionable if I were to ever make a second request. N2e (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related to this article

It is now late-October 2015, and I recently noticed a bit of a controversy from early-October over article content in the recent edit history of this article. I have not previously been involved in that controversy, but did think I might offer a third opinion, and possibly help make progress in improving the encyclopedia. In the interest of transparency, to anyone else who might be following this page, I'll mention it here.

To the end of potentially improving the article, I placed a comment on the Talk page of Fatima Dyczynski, and that comment is here: diff.

Dyczynski responded on my Talk page: diff.

And I have now further responded there: diff.

Not sure how the discussion will turn out; but just wanted to document here, on this article Talk page, that a discussion on improving this article has begun elsewhere, and that the Wiki page archives will, of course, have all the relevant historical detail. (By the way, my original intent in commenting on a USer Talk page was merely to help Dycznski better understand secondary sources, and ask for any pointers to any that might exist, so that I might (independently) evaluate them for possible use in improving the OneWeb article. The discussion on those two user talk pages, however, also relates to some specifics on this article, so I thought I ought to note it here.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OneWeb, the company

This article has been, since inception, about the satellite constellation. As it was the only article, it necessarily collected a fair amount of info about the company (was WorldVu, now OneWeb) as well.

In my view, it is (probably past) time for this notable company to have a Wikipedia article on the company, which is separate from the more spaceflight- and telecommunications-related article on the sat constellation.

If no one else gets to it first, I will probably create such an article soon. N2e (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa2432a, let me know if you are still thinking of doing this, per your comment on your Talk page. I'm happy to hold off; just thought we should note that discussion here on this Talk page so other interested editors will know what is going on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I started working on an article here: OneWeb, which previously existed as a redirect. I pulled some information from OneWeb satellite constellation and also did an initial search for a few new sources. Obviously still needs more work, but it's a start. --Aa2432a (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Launch

When will it take place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.233.255 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Israël (CEO ArianeSpace, @arianespaceceo) says on twitter

Happy to share that the launch date targeted for @OneWeb #VS21 launch is February 22, 2019! @OneWebSatellit1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldmaggots (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VS21 launch date has been pushed back and is now February 26/27. There is no mention of this in the article, which needs serious updating. Press kit for VS21 can be found here:

http://www.arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/VS21-launchkit-EN.pdf 122.252.159.213 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, here is a better link that is regularly updated: http://www.arianespace.com/mission/ariane-flight-vs21/

Launch time and date is now scheduled for 21:37 UTC on February 27 (18:37 local time). The time and date provided in the press kit is incorrect, as it was published on February 20 and the expected launch date was pushed back by a day on February 23 due to technical reasons. 122.252.159.213 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuous "and"

OneWeb is registered in St. Helier, Jersey and is expected to require up to US$3 billion in capital by the time the full constellation becomes operational in 2019–2020.

Is there any kind of semantic link across the "and" here? Are we to assume that Jersey is the ideal tax haven from which to raise US$3b?

The goal, of course, is to avoid the following clunker:

OneWeb is registered in St. Helier, Jersey. OneWeb is expected to require up to US$3 billion in capital by the time the full constellation becomes operational in 2019–2020.

But do we even mean "OneWeb requires US$3b" or do we in fact mean "the OneWeb launch program [is expected to] require US$3b", or something else along those lines?

OneWeb is registered in St. Helier, Jersey. The OneWeb launch program is expected to require up to US$3 billion in capital by the time the full constellation becomes operational in 2019–2020.

Clunker averted, if that's what we actually meant. The fatuous "and" is often the handmaiden of sloppy specificity.

One another note, I suggest "St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands" as I had never heard of Jersey, and I'm the kind of person who has visited well in excess of 50,000 Wikipedia pages (not that I know everything, but I certainly make an effort). — MaxEnt 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planned launches / launch contracts

Do we collect them somewhere? 12 Soyuz launches in 2020 --mfb (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on company

Hi

I have just changed the country in the infobox.

The original company, as well as thie current one, are "ltd" companies, and based in the United Kingdom (Jersey):

as per this article "However it remains unclear of the impact this filing will have on its London-based parent company, OneWeb Communications Ltd as well as its Jersey business, OneWeb Ltd and WorldVu Satellites Ltd."

as per this article "is based in Britain’s Channel Islands and its home regulatory agency is Britain’s Ofcom."

as per this article "WorldVu Satellites Limited "

as per this article: "The article refers to OneWeb as UK-based — they have operations in the US, but must be incorporated in the UK." ... [which references this article: www.cbronline.com/news/oneweb-space-agency ]

I cannot see that changing until incorporation papers are changed to be USA based, which they are currently not. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upload capacity is documented or it isn't, so 'citation needed' usage seems oxymoronic

Has anyone determined the upload speeds during testing? Any statement on upload speeds? Any documentation of the equipment, showing hardware capable of uplink to a satellite? _Any_ official document whatsoever stating anything about uplink besides ground-based-to-ground-based (or even any technical details for that)?

I'm not sure 'citation needed' is needed, so much as clarifying the sentence from "probably lower" to, effectively, "we don't know & they aren't saying".

Their current documents describe the connections as offering "broadband-style data speeds", which sounds like weasel wording to me...

One of the early documents put forth by OneWeb mentioned a curated _subset_ of internet content (including Wikipedia & YouTube, as I recall), offered through high speed download; while upload was only mentioned in the context of land-based systems. Essentially, they proposed a sort of one-way approved-content-only download service, vaguely akin to the AOL web portal service of old. I have yet to see anything contradicting or modifying this plan; just the omission of any words describing it, in subsequent documents. Is there _anything_ from OneWeb stating uplink capability, even as a planned feature?

Surely the equipment running in a client's LEO dish either has uplink capability or not!

Their current documents indicate an early stage of service & a later stage, with the early stage relying on land-based communication for uplink & the satellites providing only downlink capacity; I find no description of the later stage's proposed uplink capability.

If there's a document we can point to citing uplink capacity, we should do that; otherwise shouldn't the sentence regarding uplink speeds be amended to, essentially "potential uplink speeds, whether by land-based or satellite communication, are unknown, as no such information regarding current or proposed uplink capacity for client equipment is known to have been released"? ProphetZarquon (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]