I am very familiar with the purchasing process of satellites by LATAM countries. Basically the Chinese or the French (i.e. Airbus) come in and offer you a satellite that ranges between 180M-380M USD in price depending on what you want. The price includes a building with a ground station, the launch, and some basic training. If you negotiate correctly, the full telemetry is send only to you and you process it all locally. If you don’t, then they have a hook on you and hand hold you through the entire process - at an additional cost.
Additionally, after a country purchases one, they tend to have their own development path for the future ones.
For example, the Argentinians did their first four satellites with the help of the US (SAC-A, SAC-B, SAC-C, SAC-D), the next two were done by themselves (ARSAT-1, ARSAT-2), two more with the Italians (SAOCOM-A, SAOCOM-B) and one with the Brazilians (SABIA-MAR).
It is a process filled with a lot of politics, questionable monetary interests, and pseudo national pride.
It is the new shortcut process by which countries are entering the space era. Buy a satellite when you don't know what you are doing, then co-build it with somebody, then build it by yourself. It effectively saves you billions in trial and error tests that other countries had to go through... but it really begs the question of when is it truly yours, because if you don’t follow the rules (e.g. taking high res imagery of an area you are not supposed to), “your” satellite can easily be temporarily or permanently disabled... and there goes your 300M
Nothing is "truly yours" at a national scale. Inventions happen everywhere and nations get concentrated expertise by either accumulating it by being on the receiving end of brain drain, purchasing it, or stealing it. This is purchasing, like buying a national course in basic space ops.
It seems like college students can design, build, & launch a microsat for $50k-$1M. Why jump straight to $200M+ for those learnings? It shouldn't take $Billions to start getting your feet wet.
Sub-Saharan Africa feels like a missed opportunity now for Europe and the US.
While the US and EU has been focused on donating aid, or through NGOs merely shipping Africans into Europe without much of a plan and then shrugging their shoulders when problems arise, China has been making deals there and investing an utterly staggering amount on an on-going basis into its development and future prosperity.
Some will proclaim "But they'll owe China! That won't end well!", which is shortsighted, lacking in self-awareness and playing into the "everyone that isn't us is the boogeyman" narrative the West likes to maintain.
In the same time that China has been spending its money on African investment, the US has been spending literally trillions on literally baseless wars, directly costing the lives of a countless amount of people in doing so and upending the lives of countless others.
Good on China, and good for Africa. I hope to live to see that continent prosper, although if any success is in sight I'm sure we'll see the US find somereason to deploy the so-richly invested military there.
> While the US and EU has been focused on donating aid, or through NGOs merely shipping Africans into Europe without much of a plan and then shrugging their shoulders when problems arise, China has been making deals there and investing an utterly staggering amount on an on-going basis into its development and future prosperity.
If these really cared about Africa, they would have stopped subsidizing their agriculture. They don't. "Aid" here is a way to hinder development.
China is being scummy, but who's criticizing China here? Europeans who did far worse to the African continent and their inhabitants? talk about lacking of any sense of self-awareness.
>> Some will proclaim "But they'll owe China! That won't end well!"
That's being "proclaimed" in that case because there's increasing and obvious evidence of that country's government using debt being to control governments, political decisions and societies:
There was a time, probably late 60s to early 80s when western firms went into LatAm and had moderate success and the economies began to transition from (subsistence) farming to light manufacturing, but due to pop explosion ran into a gringo go home resistance. Wonder if China will manoeuver around that kind of thing.
> Some will proclaim "But they'll owe China! That won't end well!", which is shortsighted, lacking in self-awareness and playing into the "everyone that isn't us is the boogeyman" narrative the West likes to maintain.
Exactly. There aren't many Uighurs in Africa, so Africa should be fine.
I mean no disrespect to Ethiopia but no, China launched it.
This is important because the ability to put an object in space is a huge achievement with geopolitical consequences. If you can put an object into space (even low earth orbit) you can put one in Time Square or the Kremlin and no one can stop you. That's why it's a big deal when a country first launches a satellite...
Sorry to be the arsehole here. But it should be made clear Ethiopia has NOT just jumped up on the possible threat scale...
It would be interesting to see what the geopolitical consequences would be of another nation "helping" a smaller nation become ICBM capable. I know that this was basically the premise of the late Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis, but in all those instances the Soviet Union and United States owned all their missiles - their individual satellite states didn't have the ability to launch them.
But if, say, China were to give away ICBM technology to an ally, for "national security" reasons, so that they could claim plausible deniability...
Ethiopia's GDP growth has been on a tear since 2000. [1]
If you visit the capital, you can't miss the Chinese influence. Last time I was there, a huge Chinese bank building was going up kiddy corner to the Airport in Addis.
BTW, if you haven't visited Ethiopia, put it on your list. It's an amazingly beautiful country.
I just spent three years driving around Africa. I visited 35 different countries all around the continent. [1]
The Chiense influence is staggering. I'm writing a book about it now. Many, many parts of Africa are developing faster than any of us can comprehend, because we've never seen it.
In the last ~20 years cities like LA and Vancouver have gotten bigger, but they're more or less what they were - there were skyscrapers, electricity, water, freeways etc. Now it's just a bit bigger.
There are hundreds of cities in Africa that have gone from dirt streets to modern city with skyscrapers, 4G internet, subways (or above ground rail), running water end electricity, etc. in just 10 years.
The GDP growth rate per capita is a better measure in my opinion. The population of Ethiopia is growing very fast and despite the high GDP growth rate there is still serious concern about the job market for the nation's under 18 population about to hit the labour market.
> The Chinese satellite was designed and built at a cost of $8 million, with China paying around $6 million of the capsule’s price
It is odd that the article mentions these details about the satellite cost, but then completely ignores the much larger cost of the launch itself, which should be on the order of $50M.
Ethiopia is on a real tear right now! The prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, came into power about 2 years ago and the first thing he did was release 100% of political prisoners in the country. It's the first time the country has had no political prisoners in decades. He then grabbed all his opposition together and worked with them. The reforms he's introduced are incredible, and show how things can be fixed in a nation that's torn apart for years by dictatorship and war. Abiy is definitely the greatest leader of our modern era. The man took a totalitarian country at war with its neighbors and flipped it 180 degrees in 18 months. He ended the war, removed totalitarian policies, and the country's people can even admit that there were government funded murder campaigns, something that if you'd talked about previously, you'd have been murdered. A great story all around. He heartily deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Almost every time there is a story about a non western country launching rockets or satellites, the trolls come out commenting on how these countries need to be focusing on poverty instead of launching satellites. As if science isn’t a way to improving the lot of people. As if science isn’t a way to motivate a new generation of kids. As if all the communications, weather monitoring, and resource management that satellites make possible aren’t ways to improve the place. As if national pride amounts for nothing. As if countries can only focus on one thing at a time. As if western countries fixed all of their social and economic problems before working on technological advances.
Racism has many forms, and this is one. Learn to recognize it and move away from it.
> The EPRDF won the 2010 elections by a landslide, taking 499 seats, while allied parties took a further 35. Oppositions parties took just 2. Both opposition groups say their observers were blocked from entering polling stations during the election on Sunday, May 23, and in some cases the individuals were beaten. The United States and the European Union have both criticized the election as falling short of international standards. Additionally, the EPRDF won all but one of 1,904 council seats in regional elections.
China is looking for an African location for its deep space network. Perhaps a dual use station in Ethiopia will fill in that gap. The third partner is Argentina.
There is a dead comment by someone whose grandma kept donating to charity for Ethiopia. The grandma died poor save the poster is upset that nobody from Ethiopia ever thanked her and now they are prospering. I don't like that comment, but it is actually quite interesting, especially if taken together with another comment on a parallel discussion about the huge growth in Africa and the very visible Chinese influence.
It makes you wonder how China's involvement has lead to do much growth in such short time, while the West had been focused on providing to poor, starving African children for decades. I wonder how much the attitude reflected in the comment about the donating grandma is common and how it contributed to the connotative lack of results from Western aid efforts. Did we deep down not want results, but instead mainly make ourselves feel good while keeping Africa in a position where they can provide that feeling to us? What concretely is China doing that we failed to do? How will this pan out on the long term for Africa? So many interesting topics in here!
The food sent over via charity often had a religious conversion implied.
China's belt and road initiative has specific goals in Africa that require something closer to real economic development. With a tether of course, but real development.
Very anecdotal evidence here but I worked in the African Union in the 2000s. There were already many Chinese businessmen around which surprised me a bit. To be honest the difference in the interactions couldn't have been much clearer. Most European and U.S. consultants/business people that I met basically treated Africa as a lesser continent to be exploited. I got a very colonial vibe, except with some sugarcoating. Either that or a obnoxious "we need to save poor Africa" attitude.
At the same time the Chinese almost religiously mentioned that they saw Africa as an equal partner. It seemed like a very conscious and deliberate strategy.
So my anecdotal summary would be...the Chinese got involved early, went in guns blazing (money wise) and didn't behave like total pricks out for a quick buck but rather like friends and real business partners.
It's important to look at the political component of our approach as well. The Western political-economic growth model for the third world - fostering democratic institutions while giving basic aid to the poor - is not productive from the perspective of nation building and wealth creation. Democracy is not conducive to growth for poor, diverse nations, especially those still deeply rooted in genuine tribalism as many nations in Sub Saharan Africa are.
While I fundamentally disagree with China's political model, we may have better luck in third world development deemphasizing democracy and focusing instead on rule of law, stability and cultural cohesion.
There is some historical context that a lot of people outside of China don`t know. China is a big country with a huge diversity in development as well as Chinese people( You believe Chinese are diligent? You are wrong. Not all of them. Even Han Chinese). Many places used to be historically poor areas for very long time. China used to have a very socialist policy for long time before late 70`s which resulted in the associated mentality. The policy of "helping poor" was mostly donations. This was a failure policy that resulted in the poor area stayed in poor. There were many stories such as the people kill the donated plowing ox for meat because they know next year donation will come again. The people in developed areas often feel upset about the wasted donation. The "helping poor" policy changed later towards encouraging entrepreneurship, vocational training (Sounds familiar?), etc. In other words: The policy of giving fishing tool instead of giving bread works better.
That's why most of today's "Chinese Influence" are bound with conditions like business deals. It's a better way to help others in addition to capitalist selfish greediness described in many media. It's mutual beneficial. The approach was from hard lessons that donation can not stimulate sustainable growth.
It's the type of offer they can't refuse even if they wanted to.
I get it, but this "help" has a tremendous cost, a cost many future generations of Ethiopians will pay dearly.
While the "West" has been a mixed bag between good and bad, there's always been some kind of moral "checks and balances" and pressure from their voters. You get none of that with China.
China is doing what Europe did in the 19th century. Anti-colonial independence movements and wholesale nationalization of existing infrastructure put a hell of a clamp on that sort of investment after the second world war. Why would you put up money to build ports or railroads or factories when political instability could mean that next year a tinpot dictator might decide that he was taking it at bayonet-point and seizing all your in-country assets? Especially when your government had demonstrated time and again that they had no interest in retaliating for that kind of trespass.
> Did we deep down not want results, but instead mainly make ourselves feel good while keeping Africa in a position where they can provide that feeling to us? What concretely is China doing that we failed to do?
I'd argue that it's more important to understand the context from the African perspective, and not just from the Western or Chinese perspective. Ethiopia, for example, has transitioned from a monarchy to a communist dictatorship/Soviet satellite to a non-communist dictatorship to a semi-democracy in just the last 40 years. They've fought a major war with a neighbor, had several famines, and are in the middle of a massive population boom.
So, "did _we_ not want results" isn't a great the best way to view the situation on the ground. China came in at a time where they had money to burn and found a semi-stable group of countries to trade with. That stability was created via the work of Western efforts and massive amounts of hard work by the Africans themselves.
Also, FWIW, the dead comment was likely just a troll: most (all?) donations to the major relief groups get a thank you letter.
Finally: it's worth noting that it's not like Western influence isn't apparent, either. The US Embassy in Addis is hard to miss and steps from the Prime Minister's palace.
Be careful what you wish for: economic growth in Africa is going to come directly at the expense of the local and international environment, in the form of land clearance and coal and oil emissions.
Africa desperately needs to stabilise its population, so that it can focus on infrastructure and capital deepening. The West can help by redirecting all food aid instead towards education, contraception and abortion for women.
Are you trying to say that this is some kind of waste of money? This is literally a weather satellite to help them plan for future events, which should have a direct impact on agriculture. In my mind, a country that can go from famine ravaged to space faring within a single generation should be tremendously lauded. And the fact that it's trying to do something to help prevent another famine is commendable too.
(I realize that it's not black & white and there's likely a lot of corruption and other not-nice-things happening along the way.)
[+] [-] rburhum|6 years ago|reply
Additionally, after a country purchases one, they tend to have their own development path for the future ones.
For example, the Argentinians did their first four satellites with the help of the US (SAC-A, SAC-B, SAC-C, SAC-D), the next two were done by themselves (ARSAT-1, ARSAT-2), two more with the Italians (SAOCOM-A, SAOCOM-B) and one with the Brazilians (SABIA-MAR).
It is a process filled with a lot of politics, questionable monetary interests, and pseudo national pride.
It is the new shortcut process by which countries are entering the space era. Buy a satellite when you don't know what you are doing, then co-build it with somebody, then build it by yourself. It effectively saves you billions in trial and error tests that other countries had to go through... but it really begs the question of when is it truly yours, because if you don’t follow the rules (e.g. taking high res imagery of an area you are not supposed to), “your” satellite can easily be temporarily or permanently disabled... and there goes your 300M
[+] [-] chirau|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmdshiftf4|6 years ago|reply
While the US and EU has been focused on donating aid, or through NGOs merely shipping Africans into Europe without much of a plan and then shrugging their shoulders when problems arise, China has been making deals there and investing an utterly staggering amount on an on-going basis into its development and future prosperity.
Some will proclaim "But they'll owe China! That won't end well!", which is shortsighted, lacking in self-awareness and playing into the "everyone that isn't us is the boogeyman" narrative the West likes to maintain.
In the same time that China has been spending its money on African investment, the US has been spending literally trillions on literally baseless wars, directly costing the lives of a countless amount of people in doing so and upending the lives of countless others.
Good on China, and good for Africa. I hope to live to see that continent prosper, although if any success is in sight I'm sure we'll see the US find some reason to deploy the so-richly invested military there.
[+] [-] throw_m239339|6 years ago|reply
If these really cared about Africa, they would have stopped subsidizing their agriculture. They don't. "Aid" here is a way to hinder development.
China is being scummy, but who's criticizing China here? Europeans who did far worse to the African continent and their inhabitants? talk about lacking of any sense of self-awareness.
[+] [-] privateprofile|6 years ago|reply
That's being "proclaimed" in that case because there's increasing and obvious evidence of that country's government using debt being to control governments, political decisions and societies:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
- https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/re...
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-16/are-china-cheap-loans...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/...
- https://qz.com/1223768/china-debt-trap-these-eight-countries...
[+] [-] rb808|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tines|6 years ago|reply
Exactly. There aren't many Uighurs in Africa, so Africa should be fine.
[+] [-] mercurysmessage|6 years ago|reply
What, exactly, are you trying to say here?
[+] [-] LatteLazy|6 years ago|reply
This is important because the ability to put an object in space is a huge achievement with geopolitical consequences. If you can put an object into space (even low earth orbit) you can put one in Time Square or the Kremlin and no one can stop you. That's why it's a big deal when a country first launches a satellite...
Sorry to be the arsehole here. But it should be made clear Ethiopia has NOT just jumped up on the possible threat scale...
[+] [-] oefrha|6 years ago|reply
The original title, “Ethiopia has launched its first satellite into space with China’s help”, is still mostly accurate with a generous reading.
The submitted title was strangely altered to drop the key caveat, not sure if the submitter disapproves of “Chinese influence” or something.
[+] [-] nexuist|6 years ago|reply
But if, say, China were to give away ICBM technology to an ally, for "national security" reasons, so that they could claim plausible deniability...
[+] [-] wiremine|6 years ago|reply
If you visit the capital, you can't miss the Chinese influence. Last time I was there, a huge Chinese bank building was going up kiddy corner to the Airport in Addis.
BTW, if you haven't visited Ethiopia, put it on your list. It's an amazingly beautiful country.
[1] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
[+] [-] grecy|6 years ago|reply
The Chiense influence is staggering. I'm writing a book about it now. Many, many parts of Africa are developing faster than any of us can comprehend, because we've never seen it.
In the last ~20 years cities like LA and Vancouver have gotten bigger, but they're more or less what they were - there were skyscrapers, electricity, water, freeways etc. Now it's just a bit bigger.
There are hundreds of cities in Africa that have gone from dirt streets to modern city with skyscrapers, 4G internet, subways (or above ground rail), running water end electricity, etc. in just 10 years.
It boggles the mind
[1] http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview & http://instagram.com/theroadchoseme
[+] [-] 3pt14159|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kilroy123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aaron_Putnam|6 years ago|reply
Ethiopia has a population of 105 million, yet it has the gross scientific output of Latvia, a country of only 1.92 million:
https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo...
What is growing is CO2 emissions, at 14.9 million tonnes. By contrast, Latvia emits only 8 million tonnes.
On a per-CO2 basis, Latvia is twice as efficient as Ethiopia in producing science. On a per-capita basis, Latvia is 55x as efficient.
The situation is the same across the world when you compare countries populated by Europeans or East-Asians against everyone else.
[+] [-] wcoenen|6 years ago|reply
It is odd that the article mentions these details about the satellite cost, but then completely ignores the much larger cost of the launch itself, which should be on the order of $50M.
edit: apparantly it was a rideshare with 9 satellites total. https://www.space.com/china-long-march-4b-rocket-launches-9-...
[+] [-] rory096|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VonGuard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphakappa|6 years ago|reply
Racism has many forms, and this is one. Learn to recognize it and move away from it.
[+] [-] Giorgi|6 years ago|reply
How the hell is this "Ethopian"?
[+] [-] ttttodayjunior|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeristor|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21850364
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
> The EPRDF won the 2010 elections by a landslide, taking 499 seats, while allied parties took a further 35. Oppositions parties took just 2. Both opposition groups say their observers were blocked from entering polling stations during the election on Sunday, May 23, and in some cases the individuals were beaten. The United States and the European Union have both criticized the election as falling short of international standards. Additionally, the EPRDF won all but one of 1,904 council seats in regional elections.
[+] [-] peter303|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dole|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajmurmann|6 years ago|reply
It makes you wonder how China's involvement has lead to do much growth in such short time, while the West had been focused on providing to poor, starving African children for decades. I wonder how much the attitude reflected in the comment about the donating grandma is common and how it contributed to the connotative lack of results from Western aid efforts. Did we deep down not want results, but instead mainly make ourselves feel good while keeping Africa in a position where they can provide that feeling to us? What concretely is China doing that we failed to do? How will this pan out on the long term for Africa? So many interesting topics in here!
[+] [-] _Microft|6 years ago|reply
GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-real-gdp-per-capi...
Literacy rate: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cross-country-literacy-ra...
Life expectancy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1950...
Hunger and undernourishment: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-undernouris...
(I removed the HDI as there was only data from 2000 on.)
[+] [-] lallysingh|6 years ago|reply
The food sent over via charity often had a religious conversion implied.
China's belt and road initiative has specific goals in Africa that require something closer to real economic development. With a tether of course, but real development.
[+] [-] kriro|6 years ago|reply
At the same time the Chinese almost religiously mentioned that they saw Africa as an equal partner. It seemed like a very conscious and deliberate strategy.
So my anecdotal summary would be...the Chinese got involved early, went in guns blazing (money wise) and didn't behave like total pricks out for a quick buck but rather like friends and real business partners.
[+] [-] corporate_shi11|6 years ago|reply
While I fundamentally disagree with China's political model, we may have better luck in third world development deemphasizing democracy and focusing instead on rule of law, stability and cultural cohesion.
[+] [-] blackearl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcc|6 years ago|reply
That's why most of today's "Chinese Influence" are bound with conditions like business deals. It's a better way to help others in addition to capitalist selfish greediness described in many media. It's mutual beneficial. The approach was from hard lessons that donation can not stimulate sustainable growth.
[+] [-] trianglem|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PedroBatista|6 years ago|reply
I get it, but this "help" has a tremendous cost, a cost many future generations of Ethiopians will pay dearly.
While the "West" has been a mixed bag between good and bad, there's always been some kind of moral "checks and balances" and pressure from their voters. You get none of that with China.
[+] [-] thrower123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wiremine|6 years ago|reply
I'd argue that it's more important to understand the context from the African perspective, and not just from the Western or Chinese perspective. Ethiopia, for example, has transitioned from a monarchy to a communist dictatorship/Soviet satellite to a non-communist dictatorship to a semi-democracy in just the last 40 years. They've fought a major war with a neighbor, had several famines, and are in the middle of a massive population boom.
So, "did _we_ not want results" isn't a great the best way to view the situation on the ground. China came in at a time where they had money to burn and found a semi-stable group of countries to trade with. That stability was created via the work of Western efforts and massive amounts of hard work by the Africans themselves.
Also, FWIW, the dead comment was likely just a troll: most (all?) donations to the major relief groups get a thank you letter.
Finally: it's worth noting that it's not like Western influence isn't apparent, either. The US Embassy in Addis is hard to miss and steps from the Prime Minister's palace.
[+] [-] Aaron_Putnam|6 years ago|reply
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat...
Be careful what you wish for: economic growth in Africa is going to come directly at the expense of the local and international environment, in the form of land clearance and coal and oil emissions.
Africa desperately needs to stabilise its population, so that it can focus on infrastructure and capital deepening. The West can help by redirecting all food aid instead towards education, contraception and abortion for women.
[+] [-] jaco8|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] HorizonXP|6 years ago|reply
(I realize that it's not black & white and there's likely a lot of corruption and other not-nice-things happening along the way.)
[+] [-] droithomme|6 years ago|reply
Evidence has built up that food dumps destabilize areas, undermine local food costs, drive local farmers out of business, and exacerbate suffering.
https://abcnews.go.com/WN/Health/us-food-aid-contributing-af...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-idead-aidi-is-dead-wr_b_1...
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food...
As is pointed out in another comment, this weather satellite on the otherhand is going to tremendously help local farmers.
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saschag|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]