←back to thread

395 points vinnyglennon | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
echoangle ◴[] 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 #
parsimo2010 ◴[] No.43486503[source]
Very few organizations and even countries can develop both a launch vehicle and a satellite. Botswana has done fine to develop a satellite that integrates onto a rideshare launch. They aren't working with anything close to the headcount or budget of NASA or even the ESA.

Edit (rather than reply and make the comment chain long): It's fine that you read it that way. I figure that if the article were about a launch vehicle then it would have been the rocket's name in the title, and if the article were about the satellite then it would have the satellite's name (BOTSAT-1). If Botswana had developed both an orbital launch vehicle and their first satellite then I'd bet the headline would have been sensational.

replies(7): >>43486541 #>>43486619 #>>43486769 #>>43487047 #>>43487902 #>>43488229 #>>43490087 #
Dylan16807 ◴[] No.43487047[source]
> Very few organizations and even countries can develop both a launch vehicle and a satellite.

I would remove the last three words from that.

Launch vehicles are hard. Satellites are easy. This is a cubesat, even.

replies(2): >>43488224 #>>43489634 #
fastasucan ◴[] No.43488224[source]
Why remove it? It doesn’t change what they say.
replies(3): >>43488335 #>>43488444 #>>43488579 #
1. kortilla ◴[] No.43488335[source]
Because it’s not clear which of the two things makes doing both hard.

Developing a basic satellite is very straightforward at this point and there are countless unrecognizable companies that help do this.

replies(1): >>43498367 #
2. fastasucan ◴[] No.43498367[source]
Its not clear which is hard, yet there are hundreds in the comments pointing it out.
replies(1): >>43498789 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.43498789[source]
It's not clear from the original bad phrasing.