Iran in space
therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk
therealamirtaheri.blogspot.co.uk
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.
I remember how ten years ago you could read the same phrase about Chinese program, and now they are on the providing side already!
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.
>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."
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 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.
This may be a big step for Iran, but it's an even bigger one for the human race as a whole.
Do you mean specie (as opposed as to what you stated: 'race')?
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).
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.
(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)
There's nothing natural about such a struggle. It's cultural.
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.
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.
"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.
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
If only the Iranian government cared about its people and making the world a better and more innovative place...
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.
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?
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?)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jp07qg62e...
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"...
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.
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.
And their combined budget is properly less than what NASA use on toilets.
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
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."
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.
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...
It bears pointing out that the decision to build a nuclear weapon is at least as much a political one as a technical one.