
Ghana’s first satellite now orbiting earth - jessiemcr
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/06/africa-enters-the-space-race/
======
pacala
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_National_Space_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_National_Space_Agency)

> 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.

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

------
xenophonf
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Space_Research_and_Development_Agency)

~~~
_djo_
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](http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/greensat.htm)
[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUNSAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUNSAT)

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

------
gcatalfamo
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.

~~~
overcast
TechCrunch hasn't been relevant for years.

------
wavefunction
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.

~~~
usrusr
> 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.

~~~
greglindahl
Ghana can launch south into polar orbits.

~~~
sbierwagen
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.

~~~
greglindahl
... 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.

~~~
Dylan16807
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.

~~~
greglindahl
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.

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

~~~
grecy
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.

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

------
rsync
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons)

~~~
_djo_
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](http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/greensat.htm)

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

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

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

~~~
k__
No!

We need it for capitalism!

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

~~~
ue_
What do you mean?

~~~
quuquuquu
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.

~~~
ue_
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.

~~~
quuquuquu
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!

------
radarsat1
Chile also got its first one up not too long ago:
[http://www.latercera.com/noticia/primer-satelite-hecho-
chile...](http://www.latercera.com/noticia/primer-satelite-hecho-chile/)

Some technical info here:
[http://spel.ing.uchile.cl/suchai.html](http://spel.ing.uchile.cl/suchai.html)

Good space year for developing countries!

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

------
return0
There is a race?

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

~~~
JPLeRouzic
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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Rockets cannot be a smart space system_

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

~~~
JPLeRouzic
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
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.

~~~
JPLeRouzic
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)](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!

~~~
dtparr
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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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.

------
Froyoh
It's about time

