←back to thread

Botswana launches first satellite BOTSAT-1 aboard SpaceX Falcon 9

(spaceinafrica.com)
395 points vinnyglennon | 8 comments | 26 Mar 25 16:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.619s | source | bottom
Show context
echoangle ◴[26 Mar 25 18:51 UTC] No.43485519[source]▶
Don’t want to belittle the achievement but they launched it as in „had it launched by the commercial launch provider SpaceX“, not on a self-developed rocket as it sounds like on the first read.
replies(10): >>43486164 #>>43486176 #>>43486389 #>>43486503 #>>43487344 #>>43488249 #>>43488350 #>>43489132 #>>43490828 #>>43494066 #
mainecoder ◴[26 Mar 25 19:36 UTC] No.43486164[source]▶
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming off the line meet the basic electrical specifications. Even then, the functional yield (the percentage that actually performs the intended computation correctly at the target speed) might be even lower, say 5%. You'd be throwing away 95 out of every 100 chips, and the cost per usable die would be astronomical due to the sheer expense of acquiring and maintaining the lithography equipment, cleanroom facilities, and specialized expertise – resources that are heavily concentrated in a few leading nations and require years, if not decades, to build from scratch.
replies(5): >>43486382 #>>43486523 #>>43486860 #>>43488167 #>>43495285 #
1. wat10000 ◴[26 Mar 25 20:01 UTC] No.43486523[source]▶
SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5nm chip making.

An organization that can produce Ariane 6 should be able to produce a Falcon 9 clone with similar effort. The real problem is overcoming the of the old, slow, expensive way of doing things.

replies(5): >>43486861 #>>43487478 #>>43488215 #>>43490440 #>>43496245 #
2. notahacker ◴[26 Mar 25 20:25 UTC] No.43486861[source]▶
Funnily enough the European Launcher Challenge just dropped recently, supposed to be modelled on NASA's procurement process that ultimately lead to SpaceX being a thing. But the EUR169m contracts aren't likely to get you a Falcon 9 clone, and there isn't exactly a ton of private capital for newspace sloshing around in Europe

If anything Europe has the opposite problem: the launch startups are all far too small to do anything on a Falcon 9 scale. SpaceX did't get to Falcon 9 early either. Sure, Arianespace probably could build a Falcon 9 clone, but it's not something they'd want to self fund, and there's quite a few ESA members that don't want to see most of their budget contributions go to funding the development of a foreign launch monopolist...

3. perihelions ◴[26 Mar 25 21:24 UTC] No.43487478[source]▶
If it's so easy to clone it, where are the clones?

I've been reading about Airbus' reusable/recoverable SpaceX-killers for over a decade now. They've yet to have anything to show for their work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056 ("Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept" (2015))

- "...Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-tested small demonstrators..."

(That BBC article predates the first Falcon rocket landing).

replies(1): >>43487759 #
4. wat10000 ◴[26 Mar 25 21:46 UTC] No.43487759[source]▶
Don't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
replies(1): >>43488145 #
5. trothamel ◴[26 Mar 25 22:23 UTC] No.43488145{3}[source]▶
Note that in doing so, they'd be reaching where SpaceX was a decade ago, and by the time they got there, it seems pretty likely that full reusability will be working a year or so from now, at least for basic earth-orbit flights.
6. TimTheTinker ◴[26 Mar 25 22:31 UTC] No.43488215[source]▶
> SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is

That's part of the genius of SpaceX's approach, which culminated in achieving what no one else has achieved on a comparatively shoestring budget.

Credit where it's due: Elon Musk (a) comprehended enough of the technical challenge to ask great questions (and see through BS answers), (b) set and maintained a ruthlessly efficient operational vision, (c) repeatedly took existential financial risks to achieve the next milestone, and (d) set a company vision that motivated people to work extremely hard to achieve what was previously impossible, and (e) worked his butt off solving problem after problem alongside employees.

Love or hate him, very few leaders have ever existed who led companies to accomplish similar feats.

7. cjbgkagh ◴[27 Mar 25 04:39 UTC] No.43490440[source]▶
Building rockets as cheaply as they did is the impressive part.

The EU can certainly throw money at the problem but that doesn’t necessarily manifest cheap rockets. It’s a product of leadership and culture. My experience with the EU is one of a top heavy bureaucracy that’s not overly conducive to this type of cowboy rocketry. Consider the absence of an EU version of Silicon Valley, it’s just computers and with the internet people can program from anywhere…

8. lupusreal ◴[27 Mar 25 18:07 UTC] No.43496245[source]▶
The old slow way of doing things is deeply embedded in the organizational DNA of Arianespace (and ULA.). It would actually be easier for a brand new company to do it than one of these legacy behemoths (particularly Arianespace, which is dragged down by the international way in which they build.)

Arianespace is so thoroughly broken that they genuinely believed that reusability, if they could even accomplish it, would be bad for their business because it would reduce the number of rockets they build. Bonkers.