Ghana’s first satellite now orbiting earth | Hacker News Reader

Ghana’s first satellite now orbiting earth

techcrunch.com

148 pointsjessiemcr61 comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_National_Space_A...

> In 1999, South Africa launched its first satellite, SUNSAT from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the USA. A second satellite, SumbandilaSat, was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan in 2009.

Notably, both were indigenous designs created by the University of Stellenbosch and the CSIR.

TechCrunch needs to amend/correct the headline, it doesn't even jibe with the article's contents.

It's not even the first African-designed and -built satellite, which was NigeriaSat-X. In fact, Nigeria has had a space program for some time, starting in 2001, with satellite launch plans as early as 1976:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Space_Research_and_De...

Technically speaking, the first African-designed and built satellite, albeit one that never flew, was South Africa's Greensat, which began as a military reconnaissance project in 1985 and was converted to an earth observation satellite in 1993.[0]

Beyond that, Stellenbosch University's SUNSAT (designed and built entirely by its students and professors under the SunSpace spinoff) went up in 1999, 18 years ago, and 12 years earlier than NigeriaSat-X.[1] I'm not saying this to score points, only to establish the proper context for why this piece is inaccurate, in that African countries have been sending up indigenous satellites for decades.

Basically this is just incredibly lazy reporting. It could've been an interesting story about how Cubesats are enabling space access for scientists, students, and engineers in nations like Ghana which lack the resources of their richer global and even continental neighbours, but instead TechCrunch went for the easy way out.

[0]http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/greensat.htm [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUNSAT

I didn't know about SUNSAT. Thanks for the link!

It could be me and changing perspectives but I find myself opening TC articles much less lately.

Most of them feel like filler content that, in case you were into the article topic, make you look for the substantial information elsewhere.

I also realized I am not seeing TC headlines anymore in my feeds. It only happens on HN.

TechCrunch hasn't been relevant for years.

I'm glad to see that Ghana is gaining experience with satellites. I'm not going to read the article because of the headline but it seems like Ghana could be a great place to be involved in space launches eventually, as close to the equator as they are.

While people talk about the Chinese century or the rise of India, I think even more interesting will be the continued development of Africa.

> it seems like Ghana could be a great place to be involved in space launches eventually, as close to the equator as they are.

Unfortunately Ghana lacks a downrange ocean. Launching to the east is just as helpful as launching close to the equator.

Ghana can launch south into polar orbits.

Proximity to the equator doesn't do anything for polar launches, any country with open ocean to the north or south can do a polar launch.

In fact it does do something for polar launches, but it's bad. Being close to the equator means cancelling out more rotational velocity to go into a polar orbit.

... and Ghana is one of them. I was responding to a guy incorrectly saying Ghana did not have a downrange ocean. I did not assert anything about the equator.

The context of "downrange ocean" was for launches that benefit from being near the equator. So while your statement was true, it wasn't very relevant, and your "..." is not deserved.

I had no idea. Thanks for explaining; next time I see a completely incorrect statement on HN I'll be sure to split hairs about the context and not comment unless it meets your relevance standard.

When the US launches a satellite they don't write "North America" enters the space race, so why does Ghana represent all Africa?

Also the "space race" is an ancient term referring to the US/Soviet rivalry many decades ago.

The way the western Media reports on this continent is downright negligent. It's misleading and honestly hinders the world's perception of the reality here.

I'm in West Africa right now, moving South, and it boggles my mind to see how the world reports on "Africa".

Every day people ask me questions online and I read articles about "Africa" - so many people genuinely think it is one "place" a can be all lumped together. Because of that people assume that for example if there is war in South Sudan, then "Africa" is very dangerous. Or drought in Northern Kenya means "Africa" is desperate for water. They have no understanding there are over a billion people living in 54 separate countries spread out by tens and tens of thousands of miles.

If there was war or a nasty disease breakout in Northern Oregon would it be dangerous to visit Costa Rica? of course not.

If a war somehow reached Northern Oregon, most of the planet would instantly become a much more dangerous place. Some parts because the USA might lash out. Other parts because their local powers might play their hands more forcefully while the USA was preoccupied with its domestic war.

I live in Portland. Some days it does feel like there's a war outside when the protestors hit the street.

A good way to convey perspective:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/sub11/true-size-of-a...

Of course, the more distant an object is, the fewer details we see. I can differentiate between the houses on my block, but not the ones in the next neighborhood. I know the neighborhoods in my city, but not the ones in, for example, Austin TX. Most people know the nations on their continent, but not in far away places ...

The problem is that we need more voices in the news media from Africa. I've actually tried to find some quality, serious, English (because that's what I read fluently) news from Africa, and it's tough. The Daily Kenyan and East African, both from the same publisher, are pretty good, but of course focused on their region only. I've seen others from European countries, but with an outside perspective of course. AllAfrica.com is far too much.

Other suggestions are welcome if anybody has them. I'm looking for a high signal (serious news of wide impact) to noise (celebrities, sports, news of only local impact like the local city council race) ratio.

The daily maverick is a good news site focusing on South Africa

I think there is value in treating Africa as a country.

There is a PC war against it, but personally I think that's ignoring the real issues of third world poverty and arm-chairing away from the real problems.

PS We mostly say American has done X, Y, Z so not a great example. And we use words like issues in the Middle East/South East Asia, which once again I think has value at the higher level of world news.

The do, frequently. I'm told daily that America did something. As a Canadian, we just accept that you guys have no idea how continents or countries work.

Not really related, but I continue to find it fascinating that South Africa had nuclear weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

Sweden also had a fairly advanced nuclear weapons program in the 1950s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

It is somewhat related, in that as part of that programme South Africa built the RSA series of space launchers, doubling up as nuclear-armed ICBMs, with technical assistance from Israel.

The 'R5b' space programme would've used the RSA-3 and RSA-4 launchers, with the former designed to place a 330 kg satellite in a 41 degree low earth orbit and the RSA-4 able to place a satellite into a medium earth orbit.

As part of this, the Greensat earth observation satellite was designed and built, initially for military surveillance and later for civilian uses.[0]

Four RSA-3s were built, three were launched on sub-orbital test trajectories from Overberg Test Range, and the fourth remains preserved at the South African Air Force Museum at Air Force Base Swartkop, complete with mock satellite in the final stage.[1][2]

Had the programme not been cancelled in 1990, it's likely that South Africa would've been able to launch Greensat by 1992 or 1992. However, it was prohibitively costly and of questionable benefit for a country slashing budgets after the end of war, preparing to end apartheid, and acceding to international protocols on the use of ICBMs and nuclear weapons. Attempts were made at commercial sales, but the programme was never really cost effective.

[0]http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/greensat.htm

[1]http://www.astronautix.com/r/rsa-3.html

[2]http://www.astronautix.com/r/rsa-4.html

It's 2017. The space race has been over for decades.

No!

We need it for capitalism!

If we letting people own property, we need more of it so everyone can have some

What do you mean?

I believe the poster is saying that "if we are letting people own land/factories/capital on Earth, then the space race must continue.

This will ensure that the technologies will be democratized, and people can go claim land elsewhere to begin building their destiny."

This is perhaps a critique of potential lack of opportunity and growth here on Earth.

Proudhon picked up on this point at the start of the 19th century; there isn't enough property (private property) for everyone, ignoring of course critical depletion of all the earth's resources such that even personal property becomes infeasible.

The solution proposed is to abandon the idea of property, not merely make it common to all, but rather to abolish it as a right.

I do agree, thank you for sharing!

Humanity has made plenty of strides in democratizing technology that improve the length, quality, and self-sufficiency of many peoples lives (internet, medicine, clothing, water purificiation, food production etc)

Many people have been "lifted out of poverty" by technology, yet this has led to renewed and different types of conflict.

Many more remain in dire straits.

I'm not sure that moving to Mars would solve 4 billion people's problems, but I guess it's an idea!

yes, thank you.

Too bad for Space X and company, I guess.

I'm pretty sure they don't specifically mean the space race from the soviets and the US, it's just a generic term for achieving access to space.

It would help if we were all a little less pedantic about things that don't really affect the bulk of the article.

Chile also got its first one up not too long ago: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/primer-satelite-hecho-chile...

Some technical info here: http://spel.ing.uchile.cl/suchai.html

Good space year for developing countries!

Chile is as developed as Spain, Portugal etc. Light years ahead of Ghana. With an economy more free than the USA.

There is a race?

I kind of feel like entering the space race requires building a rocket, not paying someone else to launch your satellite.

Like they did 55 years ago? NASA nowadays uses someone else's rockets to launch its own satellites, and it makes sense economically and strategically.

Rockets cannot be a smart space system, we have to invent something else, more fluide, secure, economical and less catastrophic in its essence.

>we have to invent something else, more fluid, secure, economical and less catastrophic in its essence.

like UFOs?

Without going as far in the unknown there is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive#Spac...

> Rockets cannot be a smart space system

It's chemical rockets, nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.

In your answer you mix a space elevator with rockets, a space elevator is not a rocket. But people have invented many other designs that are not rockets, there is a huge page on Wikipedia about them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch

How do I mix them? I said the alternatives to rockets are nukes or a space elevator, both of which, for Earth to space launch, are beyond current feasibility. Ditto with most of the ideas on that Wikipedia page. Air breathing only gets you 10% of the way and the others are limited by our materials.

Sir, English is not my native language but what I see on my screen is that you wrote:

> It's chemical rockets, nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.

So I have a hard time to understand how that would mean: "the alternatives to rockets are nukes or a space elevator"

In addition nukes are rockets (as far I know), so how could they be alternatives to rockets?

And they are not beyond feasibility, NOVA has been studied at NASA extensively, I think it was even fired for testing but I can't find a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(rocket)

And there are other proposals, rockets are really a dead end, I only need a few centuries to be proved right!

Regarding the interpretation of

> It's chemical rockets, nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.

He's giving a series of 3 things that he's asserting are viable given known physics, so the second two are alternatives to the first. Would it make more sense to you with an Oxford comma? E.g.

> It's chemical rockets, nukes, or a space elevator. At least given known physics.

Are you interpreting the nukes/elevator as sub types of chemical rockets? That might be written (counterfactually) as

> It's chemical rockets: nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.

> He's giving a series of 3 things that he's asserting are viable given known physics, so the second two are alternatives to the first.

To be clear, the meaning of the construction used is that, given known physics, the only alternatives are the list elements (chemical rockets, nukes, or a space elevator). This is completely conventional American English.

I wonder why you got downvoted. Cubesats aren't usually newsworthy. You can buy kits, or build one as a thousand-dollar hobby.

Space becoming more accessible is great! But a cubesat launch means nothing on the international level.

It's about time

Reply on news.ycombinator.com