Iran in space(therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk)
therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk
Iran in space
http://therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/keep-your-eyes-in-sky-iran-in-space.html
57 comments
"The prices has tripled since 4 month ago and middle class society are getting poorer just because of the nuclear ambitions of the leaders" The prices have increased because of the imposed sanctions. This is unrelated political pressure.
"The article is exaggerating heavily about the advancements and they heavily rely on China and Russia."
I remember how ten years ago you could read the same phrase about Chinese program, and now they are on the providing side already!
I remember how ten years ago you could read the same phrase about Chinese program, and now they are on the providing side already!
I don't deny they are making progress. But thats not as what you think it is!
Author of blog piece seems to be very confused about how staged rockets work, and appears to think that a two stage rocket is somehow inherently more efficient than a three stage rocket! Which is just plain wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket
What he might be getting is that, if Iran had stuck a third stage on top of a pre-existing two stage IRBM in order to put a tiny wee satellite into orbit, then it would imply that the rocket in question was borderline-capable and not really amenable to being upgraded further. But the Safir-2 is apparently a 2-stage rocket with the ability to reach orbital velocity, implying that by adding boosters or a third stage to it a much larger payload could be launched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket
What he might be getting is that, if Iran had stuck a third stage on top of a pre-existing two stage IRBM in order to put a tiny wee satellite into orbit, then it would imply that the rocket in question was borderline-capable and not really amenable to being upgraded further. But the Safir-2 is apparently a 2-stage rocket with the ability to reach orbital velocity, implying that by adding boosters or a third stage to it a much larger payload could be launched.
I was thinking that might be what he meant, but then he says this:
>While a three-stage rocket is simple and is limited on how much of a weight threshold it can lift, the more advanced two-stage can be expanded for larger weights.
The first part of that is, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of true. The second part is sort of true, but the "expansion" in question would be... adding a third stage. I think he heard the Geoffrey Forden quote and misunderstood the point, which is admittedly subtle.
I think what Forden meant was: "If they need three stages to do just this, then they'll never be able to use this to launch a human, because a four-stage rocket is completely beyond them. But if they can do this with only two stages, they could get a human to space with three stages."
>While a three-stage rocket is simple and is limited on how much of a weight threshold it can lift, the more advanced two-stage can be expanded for larger weights.
The first part of that is, I'm pretty sure, the opposite of true. The second part is sort of true, but the "expansion" in question would be... adding a third stage. I think he heard the Geoffrey Forden quote and misunderstood the point, which is admittedly subtle.
I think what Forden meant was: "If they need three stages to do just this, then they'll never be able to use this to launch a human, because a four-stage rocket is completely beyond them. But if they can do this with only two stages, they could get a human to space with three stages."
Yup, that was my reading, too.
"Confused" is probably not the correct word here, if this journalist is similar to western journalists then I would expect them not to have any idea how rockets work or even a passing knowledge of physics. Combine that with a language translation stage and well, accuracy is probably not high.
The book "Rocket Propulsion Elements" [1] which is pretty much everything known about rockets that isn't classified, is pretty dense for a reason. I certainly don't hold it against the journalists who are trying to do their job as best they can.
That said, because launching heavy things into space can also be used to launch heavy things around the globe and into other peoples territory, there are aspects of the technology that are closely watched. One of them is cryogenic turbo pumps. These are pumps which can pump a cryogenic fluid at high pressure and flow rates. Those are an essential part of the space puzzle because once you get a functional cryogenic rocket engine you can add additional engines and fuel at a relatively constant mass/payload ratio. And then that means if you have a payload of mass X, and an orbit of O (or sub-orbit if you're talking ICBM) you can build a delivery system to make that work. Of course other controlled technologies are guidance systems and launch 'racks'.
If Iran was looking for something more than a PR ploy I think they should host a middle east space conference with peer reviewed papers. To get to where SpaceX is, and where Iran wants to be, is rocket science but it is also achievable rocket development. Open discussion would lend an air of legitimacy to the research (today most westerners assume its simply a quest for missile technology) and probably advance their programs more effectively.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Propulsion-Elements-George-Sutt...
The book "Rocket Propulsion Elements" [1] which is pretty much everything known about rockets that isn't classified, is pretty dense for a reason. I certainly don't hold it against the journalists who are trying to do their job as best they can.
That said, because launching heavy things into space can also be used to launch heavy things around the globe and into other peoples territory, there are aspects of the technology that are closely watched. One of them is cryogenic turbo pumps. These are pumps which can pump a cryogenic fluid at high pressure and flow rates. Those are an essential part of the space puzzle because once you get a functional cryogenic rocket engine you can add additional engines and fuel at a relatively constant mass/payload ratio. And then that means if you have a payload of mass X, and an orbit of O (or sub-orbit if you're talking ICBM) you can build a delivery system to make that work. Of course other controlled technologies are guidance systems and launch 'racks'.
If Iran was looking for something more than a PR ploy I think they should host a middle east space conference with peer reviewed papers. To get to where SpaceX is, and where Iran wants to be, is rocket science but it is also achievable rocket development. Open discussion would lend an air of legitimacy to the research (today most westerners assume its simply a quest for missile technology) and probably advance their programs more effectively.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Propulsion-Elements-George-Sutt...
When the author says the three stage rocket is simple, he is saying that that rocket is simple, not that three stages is simple.
The author's English is correct with the meaning but can be misread. He hasn't used English that can be unambiguously parsed, presumably because he is not a native English speaker - I assume he is a native Persian speaker.
The author is obviously saying that the rocket currently being deployed in two stages is more advanced than the rocket currently being deployed in three, which is why the former will be capable of more when it too is deployed in three stages.
You just chose to parse it the wrong way, and then call the author's writing just plain wrong.
The author's English is correct with the meaning but can be misread. He hasn't used English that can be unambiguously parsed, presumably because he is not a native English speaker - I assume he is a native Persian speaker.
The author is obviously saying that the rocket currently being deployed in two stages is more advanced than the rocket currently being deployed in three, which is why the former will be capable of more when it too is deployed in three stages.
You just chose to parse it the wrong way, and then call the author's writing just plain wrong.
I'm so glad to see Iran doing this. Not because I have any particular affinity for Iran, but because the technology will improve as competition increases and more nations/companies take steps into space.
This may be a big step for Iran, but it's an even bigger one for the human race as a whole.
This may be a big step for Iran, but it's an even bigger one for the human race as a whole.
Are you glad to see North Korea develop its "space program" too? Yes, I know this is HN where discussions about politics are discouraged, but in this case it's bordering on farcical to ignore it.
I have a lecturer in fluid mechanics who used to be an engineer on the Indian space program. He interchangeably uses the terms "satellite" and "warhead" when discussing the work he used to do.
It may well be that Iran wants to develop orbital launch capability for launching satellites and people into space. But assuming that's the only reason is a little naive.
I have a lecturer in fluid mechanics who used to be an engineer on the Indian space program. He interchangeably uses the terms "satellite" and "warhead" when discussing the work he used to do.
It may well be that Iran wants to develop orbital launch capability for launching satellites and people into space. But assuming that's the only reason is a little naive.
I like the occasional reminder that Iran has never started a war. And it won't unless it plans to be obliterated, so don't worry about that.
That may be the case, but some of the rhetoric their leadership espouses indicates otherwise.
As opposed to "keep nothing off the table" America?
Iran is in a war with its own citizens and its own women especially.
Not true. Stop lying. Are you eg familiar with the actions taken by the Iranian government which made it possible for people in rural areas to send their daughters to school? Being extremely traditional they were afraid of sending their girls all alone to school. Iran has a very high number of educated women thanks to the policies of the Iranian government.
(edit: yes women still have advances to make in rights vis-a-vis men in Iranian society, but you can hardly call that "war" more than a natural struggle for power between the sexes in a society)
(edit: yes women still have advances to make in rights vis-a-vis men in Iranian society, but you can hardly call that "war" more than a natural struggle for power between the sexes in a society)
"natural struggle for power between the sexes"
There's nothing natural about such a struggle. It's cultural.
There's nothing natural about such a struggle. It's cultural.
Yeah, I thought about that use of the word ("natural") after I posted, but decided not to edit it out.
I agree with you that it could be cultural. But the behaviour of men wanting to control women seems to be prevalent in many societies regardless of culture.
I agree with you that it could be cultural. But the behaviour of men wanting to control women seems to be prevalent in many societies regardless of culture.
I think it's possible that it's actually just some people wanting to control other people (and setting their sights on weaker people to improve chances of success), and given the biological differences between men and women that leave women with significantly less muscle mass and mass in general, for any given male choosing to act in this way, women are on average easier targets.
Yeah downvote me, when confronted with a different set of facts, in the spirit of the free liberal society you advocate.
I have a feeling that your intentions are sincere, so let me try to help.
Your comment was probably not downvoted because of your views, but because you said "Stop lying", which violates this community's standard of civility. It also makes you sound boorish, which hurts your argument. I appreciated the informative part of your comment, but your tone unfortunately canceled it out.
(Your other comment, complaining about downvoting, violates the HN guidelines even worse. Please don't ever do that. It makes you look bad and is rude to everyone reading.)
On controversial topics, including Iran, HN has its share of zealots. One need not look far for an example: responding to a claim that Iran has started no wars by redefining "war" to mean "unsavory domestic policy" is mind-bogglingly contemptuous of fact. But there are also many fair-minded people who are not so excitable and denunciatory. Here is how to reach them: (1) supply good information; (2) stop. (2) is harder than it sounds.
Keep in mind that most Westerners have no way of distinguishing propaganda from fact in the many things they hear about Iran. That's not because they're bad or dumb, it's because they haven't specifically looked into it. But most don't want to, which means there are limits to how convincing you can expect to be even in your best-case scenario. The only way to optimize that is to be scrupulously polite.
Your comment was probably not downvoted because of your views, but because you said "Stop lying", which violates this community's standard of civility. It also makes you sound boorish, which hurts your argument. I appreciated the informative part of your comment, but your tone unfortunately canceled it out.
(Your other comment, complaining about downvoting, violates the HN guidelines even worse. Please don't ever do that. It makes you look bad and is rude to everyone reading.)
On controversial topics, including Iran, HN has its share of zealots. One need not look far for an example: responding to a claim that Iran has started no wars by redefining "war" to mean "unsavory domestic policy" is mind-bogglingly contemptuous of fact. But there are also many fair-minded people who are not so excitable and denunciatory. Here is how to reach them: (1) supply good information; (2) stop. (2) is harder than it sounds.
Keep in mind that most Westerners have no way of distinguishing propaganda from fact in the many things they hear about Iran. That's not because they're bad or dumb, it's because they haven't specifically looked into it. But most don't want to, which means there are limits to how convincing you can expect to be even in your best-case scenario. The only way to optimize that is to be scrupulously polite.
Thanks. I suppose I kind of went too far in some places. And you're quite right, the "2nd" part is somewhat difficult...
"Keep in mind that most Westerners have no way of distinguishing propaganda from fact in the many things they hear about Iran. That's not because they're bad or dumb, it's because they haven't specifically looked into it. But most don't want to, which means there are limits to how convincing you can expect to be even in your best-case scenario. The only way to optimize that is to be scrupulously polite."
I know this. And I'm keeping your quote as a reminder.
"Keep in mind that most Westerners have no way of distinguishing propaganda from fact in the many things they hear about Iran. That's not because they're bad or dumb, it's because they haven't specifically looked into it. But most don't want to, which means there are limits to how convincing you can expect to be even in your best-case scenario. The only way to optimize that is to be scrupulously polite."
I know this. And I'm keeping your quote as a reminder.
I find this all a bit sad - just like the Cold War, ever step taken by each player looks completely rational from their perspective, but will we still end up in a position that is utter lunacy.
I imagine that HN crowd, being very rational and diverse, have adopted world-view perspective, rather than petty nationalistic views. Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot and all that.
[deleted]
I've seen this too often to ignore, but I have to ask, and I am sorry if it comes across a bit rude. It's just a curios question.
Do you mean specie (as opposed as to what you stated: 'race')?
Do you mean specie (as opposed as to what you stated: 'race')?
couple of points:
in english usage 'human race' generally equates to 'human species'
the singular is 'species' with an 's'. if you look it up you will find that 'specie' means something quite different (it has to do with money).
in english usage 'human race' generally equates to 'human species'
the singular is 'species' with an 's'. if you look it up you will find that 'specie' means something quite different (it has to do with money).
Great to hear. We in Israel are also planning on sending a person to the moon soon: http://www.spaceil.com Innovation in the Middle East is much needed.
Wait what? The project you link to attempts to send a small robotic spacecraft to the moon, not a person.
The project seems quite interesting, though it has a bit too much of a nationalistic angle for my taste (Their headline is "Sending our flag to the moon"... is that really the most important thing people see in the ability to send a probe to the moon?)
The project seems quite interesting, though it has a bit too much of a nationalistic angle for my taste (Their headline is "Sending our flag to the moon"... is that really the most important thing people see in the ability to send a probe to the moon?)
Ah good point, it will still make Israel the 3rd country to land on the moon though, even if it's not a human.
They will need to be quick, China announced they are going to land a probe on the moon next year:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jp07qg62e...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jp07qg62e...
Umm actually india already has, look up chandrayaan..
Chandrayaan was a "crash landing" of an impactor (there were four others of those, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#20th.E2.80.9321st...). I think they claim they want to be the third nation to a land a small operating space craft on the moon, or something like that.
I don't think that goal by itself is all that special, because in light of the fact that in the meantime many different nations have sent stuff to lunar orbit or to other planets, it doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard for any of them to land a small probe on the moon, it's just that they have prioritized different things.
What would be impressive about SpaceIL would be that they would apparently be pulling it off with very little resources. But then again, there are many teams other than to SpaceIL in the Google Lunar X Prize competition, and at this point they may all have an equal right to claim to try to be the "third on the moon"...
I don't think that goal by itself is all that special, because in light of the fact that in the meantime many different nations have sent stuff to lunar orbit or to other planets, it doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard for any of them to land a small probe on the moon, it's just that they have prioritized different things.
What would be impressive about SpaceIL would be that they would apparently be pulling it off with very little resources. But then again, there are many teams other than to SpaceIL in the Google Lunar X Prize competition, and at this point they may all have an equal right to claim to try to be the "third on the moon"...
I'm surprised, that you are glad to hear, that a country with relatively unstable government is making progress toward having ballistic missile capabilities. Actually scratch that. It is progress toward ICBMs, not just ballistic missiles.
Here's a reference to the current state of the program: http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-...
And a bit more recent update: http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm
Here's a reference to the current state of the program: http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-...
And a bit more recent update: http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm
You're right, that is worrisome but I highly doubt it will reach that point. The US and Israel will never allow that to happen.
If only the Iranian government cared about its people and making the world a better and more innovative place...
If only the Iranian government cared about its people and making the world a better and more innovative place...
Well, one fact to keep in mind - developing capabilities to launch satellites [payload to orbit] is inseparable from capability to launch ICBMs. That's why first sputnik was both, so inspiring and so scary.
As to 'never allowing this to happen'. There are no such guaranties. I'd guess, the opposite is true. Technology [and as a result advanced weaponry] is only getting more and more accessible.
As to 'never allowing this to happen'. There are no such guaranties. I'd guess, the opposite is true. Technology [and as a result advanced weaponry] is only getting more and more accessible.
a country with relatively unstable government is making progress toward having ballistic missile capabilities
Is unstable a euphemism for bad bad bad or do you actually know a damn thing about Iranian stability?
And who is Iran unstable relatively to? Congo? North Korea? Russia under Yeltsin?
Is unstable a euphemism for bad bad bad or do you actually know a damn thing about Iranian stability?
And who is Iran unstable relatively to? Congo? North Korea? Russia under Yeltsin?
Regardless of your views on the sanctions themselves, this blog post illustrates how effective the US blockade of technology to Iran really is. The Iranian space program is just starting to reach the level of sophistication of hobbyists in the western world.
The post however fails to mention Iran has actually launched a total of 5 satellites, the first two being joint launches with Russia and China.
The post however fails to mention Iran has actually launched a total of 5 satellites, the first two being joint launches with Russia and China.
You are plain wrong. Any space program takes years and starts with satellite launches. Look at the Chinese program for example. There is no reason to think US blockade somehow harmed the progress of the program there. And it does not matter much since USSR is known to launch anything they wanted before the modern globalized economics that made blockades possible even existed.
Your comment about hobbysts is plain misleading to. How many hobbysts launch pets into suborbital and orbital flights and get those back in one piece? How many hobbysts can launch a satellite, anyway? Using their own rocket? You can pimp SpaceX to defend your misleading statement, but they are not in any sense hobbysts and their work would not be possible without NASA and it took them long years anyway.
So please stop disregarding other people's achivements. This is just lame.
Your comment about hobbysts is plain misleading to. How many hobbysts launch pets into suborbital and orbital flights and get those back in one piece? How many hobbysts can launch a satellite, anyway? Using their own rocket? You can pimp SpaceX to defend your misleading statement, but they are not in any sense hobbysts and their work would not be possible without NASA and it took them long years anyway.
So please stop disregarding other people's achivements. This is just lame.
No but Copenhagen Suborbitals are hobbiests. And they expect to launch a suborbital rocket with a human onboard.
And their combined budget is properly less than what NASA use on toilets.
And their combined budget is properly less than what NASA use on toilets.
Some of those "hobbyists" at Copenhagen Suborbitals are former NASA contractors and they have been working on that project since May 2008, so I think his main point still stands.
It also looks like they're still doing a lot of testing on active guidance systems, rather than trying to put a human up any time soon.
You can see their plans for the rest of this year under Campaigns > 2012 on their main site: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com
It also looks like they're still doing a lot of testing on active guidance systems, rather than trying to put a human up any time soon.
You can see their plans for the rest of this year under Campaigns > 2012 on their main site: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com
No but Copenhagen Suborbitals are hobbiests. And they expect to launch a suborbital rocket with a human onboard.
And their combined budget is properly less than what NASA use on toilets.
I've noticed this in many of your comments, so I thought I'd point out that you are using "properly" in place of "probably" quite frequently. Also, this is a common mistake, but it's "hobbyist" rather than "hobbiest."
And their combined budget is properly less than what NASA use on toilets.
I've noticed this in many of your comments, so I thought I'd point out that you are using "properly" in place of "probably" quite frequently. Also, this is a common mistake, but it's "hobbyist" rather than "hobbiest."
Note the "Suborbital" in their name - they aren't trying to go into orbit, but send someone straight up and pretty much straight down again - so similar to Virgin Galactic.
Putting a satellite in orbit is significantly more complex than sending someone straight up and down again.
No, I think the Iranian space program has always been much lower priority than the Iranian demand for healthcare.
What really demonstrates how effective the US blockade of technology to Iran really is is all the innocent Iranian civilian cancer patients who can't get the medicines they need to keep them alive.
What really demonstrates how effective the US blockade of technology to Iran really is is all the innocent Iranian civilian cancer patients who can't get the medicines they need to keep them alive.
The reason that Iran has no nukes is by self choice. They have always wanted the Japan model, to reach the technological threshold of having nukes without physically building them. This they reached years ago.
If Iran is capable of technological progress at this rate, how did Pakistan get a nuke before Iran?
Pakistan was originally signed up to a civilian programme, but after war with India and Indian nuclear testing decided they needed nuclear weapons following a predominently second strike doctrine. However, Pakistan's position is that in the event of invasion they will respond immediately with nuclear weapons[1].
They received substantial help from the Chinese, and had nuclear reactors at the time the programme started in the 70s (under the codename Project 706[2]). They're not signed up to the NPT or CTBT either (choosing to sign neither until India do).
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-706
They received substantial help from the Chinese, and had nuclear reactors at the time the programme started in the 70s (under the codename Project 706[2]). They're not signed up to the NPT or CTBT either (choosing to sign neither until India do).
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project-706
A new book has just been released on the history of Pakistan's nuclear program: Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan (http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=21098).
It bears pointing out that the decision to build a nuclear weapon is at least as much a political one as a technical one.
It bears pointing out that the decision to build a nuclear weapon is at least as much a political one as a technical one.
Who told you Iran is developing a nuke?
Pakistan has operated nuclear reactors since the 1950s and they undertook a nuclear weapons development program starting in the 1970s and reaching fruition in the late 80s. They already had plentiful sources of weapons grade Plutonium and through what should properly be called espionage they gained access to advanced technologies in nuclear fuel reprocessing, Uranium isotope separation, and nuclear weapon design.
Is it because Pakistan needed it badly a few decades before Iran felt any need?
China
[deleted]
Thanks user9756 for posting this!
I should also state that I don't believe Iran is making nuclear weapon nor can I deny it. I think western countries would've had the same policy even if no nuclear activity was there and some other excuse will be used in order to protect Israel. Western media have prepared people so well in case they need to take any action against Iran. Well, I hope that does not happen.