Iranian Satellite?

[bdewoody]

<font size="2">It has been in the news today that Iran has successfully launched a communications satellite and I wonder if it has been confirmed.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been in the news today that Iran has successfully launched a communications satellite and I wonder if it has been confirmed. <br />Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p>Apparently so!&nbsp; It has set off discussions (on the media, of course) that if the Iranians can launch a satellite into space, they might also be able to hit the U.S. with a nuk-u-lar warhead!&nbsp; (North Korea, BTW, is reported to be readying a Typodong II, which could also reach Alaska and possibly the West Coast!)</p><p>I had the same concerns when I learned that the Soviets had successfully launched Sputnik I into orbit.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Ohmygosh! If they can do that it means they have an ICBM!"&nbsp; The question is...and it may be also a fact...which, in the case of the Soviets was FALSE...is: do they have the re-entry vehicle problem solved!!&nbsp; Now, that doesn't mean the Iranians HAVEN'T solved the re-entry problem, and I haven't heard one way or another.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has been in the news today that Iran has successfully launched a communications satellite and I wonder if it has been confirmed. <br />Posted by bdewoody</DIV><br /><br />I hope this is a good thing.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently so!&nbsp; It has set off discussions (on the media, of course) that if the Iranians can launch a satellite into space, they might also be able to hit the U.S. with a nuk-u-lar warhead!&nbsp; (North Korea, BTW, is reported to be readying a Typodong II, which could also reach Alaska and possibly the West Coast!)I had the same concerns when I learned that the Soviets had successfully launched Sputnik I into orbit.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Ohmygosh! If they can do that it means they have an ICBM!"&nbsp; The question is...and it may be also a fact...which, in the case of the Soviets was FALSE...is: do they have the re-entry vehicle problem solved!!&nbsp; Now, that doesn't mean the Iranians HAVEN'T solved the re-entry problem, and I haven't heard one way or another.&nbsp; <br />Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>But the Soviet R-7 became one of the best launch vehicles ever built.&nbsp; I just read a book about S. Korolev, he was an awesome guy that built some amazing stuff.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Satellite watchers have reported seeing the spacecraft and its spent upper stage.&nbsp; It's dim -- you need binoculars to see it.&nbsp; But it's definitely confirmed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the Soviet R-7 became one of the best launch vehicles ever built.&nbsp; I just read a book about S. Korolev, he was an awesome guy that built some amazing stuff. <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV><br /><br />True!&nbsp;But the reason Korolev was able to convince Nikita Khrushev to launch an Earth satellite was because Korolev had NOT solved the reentry problem...at that time, and Khrushev needed something spectacular to keep his Kremlin rivals at bay.&nbsp; Of course, shortly thereafter, the Soviets DID come up with the materials to permit an ICBM warhead to survive reentry.</p><p>The difficulty with Iran's satellite launch is that the technology for reentry (RV) design is known, and probably available from some source...Russian, North Korean, Chinese, etc. If and when that becomes combined with a nuclear warhead capability, the World, including Isreal and even the U.S., could be threatened.&nbsp; Let us hope we can put a stopper in this bottle before the nuclear genie can get out!</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>I'm inclined to doubt that North Korea has the reentry problem licked, and while China has the tech, nevertheless they have continued to try to wrangle information out of America on reentry technology.&nbsp; Even the US could stand to improve on it.&nbsp; It's a non-trivial problem, even when the information is out there.</p><p>Heck, strictly speaking, the information about how to build a working nuclear weapon is out there.&nbsp; It's the *details* that are the tricky part, and developing the expertise to pull off the implementation successfully.&nbsp; In other words, I'm not worried.&nbsp; Iran's got a ways to go. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[BSJ]

And Obama says we might not need missle defense! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>Why does everyone here seem to think this is a bad thing?&nbsp; Sputinik was a wonderful achievement for the world, the dawn of a new era.&nbsp; Omid is hardly in the same class but it is still a great achievement for Iran.&nbsp; Good on them!</p><p>And no, a satellite launcher does not equate to an ICBM.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why does everyone here seem to think this is a bad thing?&nbsp; Sputinik was a wonderful achievement for the world, the dawn of a new era.&nbsp; Omid is hardly in the same class but it is still a great achievement for Iran.&nbsp; Good on them!And no, a satellite launcher does not equate to an ICBM.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Besides, isn't it pretty clear that launching a nuclear attack on the US would be a bad thing for your country? If you have a desire to be glass, it might be a good idea, but I can't see how it would be a useful thing for a nation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>True!&nbsp;But the reason Korolev was able to convince Nikita Khrushev to launch an Earth satellite was because Korolev had NOT solved the reentry problem...at that time, and Khrushev needed something spectacular to keep his Kremlin rivals at bay.&nbsp; Of course, shortly thereafter, the Soviets DID come up with the materials to permit an ICBM warhead to survive reentry.The difficulty with Iran's satellite launch is that the technology for reentry (RV) design is known, and probably available from some source...Russian, North Korean, Chinese, etc. If and when that becomes combined with a nuclear warhead capability, the World, including Isreal and even the U.S., could be threatened.&nbsp; Let us hope we can put a stopper in this bottle before the nuclear genie can get out! <br /> Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>One report I read is the Iranian expect to stay in orbit for a few weeks and recover the vehicle. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Besides, isn't it pretty clear that launching a nuclear attack on the US would be a bad thing for your country? If you have a desire to be glass, it might be a good idea, but I can't see how it would be a useful thing for a nation. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Exactly.&nbsp; And the Iranians have constantly condenmned&nbsp;WNDs as un-Islamic and refused to develop them.&nbsp; Their refual to retailiate in kind&nbsp;to Iraq's chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq war, even though such weapons were well within Iran's substantial industrial capacity.</p><p>Obviously they ahve a desire and a rationale for long range ballistic missiles.&nbsp; But these can be effective enough for their purpose with convewntional warheads.</p><p>Since they have this technology, I think they use of it for peaceful purposes should be encouraged.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Exactly.&nbsp; And the Iranians have constantly condenmned&nbsp;WNDs as un-Islamic and refused to develop them.&nbsp; Their refual to retailiate in kind&nbsp;to Iraq's chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq war, even though such weapons were well within Iran's substantial industrial capacity.Obviously they ahve a desire and a rationale for long range ballistic missiles.&nbsp; But these can be effective enough for their purpose with convewntional warheads.Since they have this technology, I think they use of it for peaceful purposes should be encouraged.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />It's a shame that we don't make something like this the norm for measuring one's&nbsp;power and influence&nbsp;in the world(and by that i mean space exploration).&nbsp; Instead we base it on how many nuclear weapons you have<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-frown.gif" border="0" alt="Frown" title="Frown" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>Now that's a good idea!&nbsp;</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dryson]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hope this is a good thing.&nbsp; <br />Posted by rocketwatcher2001</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;It is a good thing anytime a nation&nbsp;sends a vehicle into space that has never sent one before. It means that another nation has joined the space faring culture, even though they may have been deemed a terrorist nation, they should sit with us now and be recognized as friends of the many who value space exploration. One more nation that has realized that the human endeavour to push past the confines of this Earth are not reticent on only thinking about the possibilities but those possibilities can be achieved through faith.</p><p>&nbsp;Space exploration will mend old wounds and create new friendships of peace and harmony. Let it begin.</p>

 

[elguapoguano]

Just before the Iranian Satellite exploded a single transmission was heard " la la la la la la la la.... Boom!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One report I read is the Iranian expect to stay in orbit for a few weeks and recover the vehicle. <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>If they can do that, they'll be demonstrating a fair bit of ICBM capability.&nbsp; (Note to those concerned about nuclear holocaust; ICBM does not neccesarily mean nukes.&nbsp; You can put conventional weapons on ICBMs too.&nbsp; It's just an awfully expensive way to deliver conventional bombs -- unless you're having problems maintaining your bomber fleet.)</p><p>However, it seems odd to me that something as light as this satellite could be recoverable.&nbsp; They can't just be trusting it to decay naturally, not if they're expecting to recover it.&nbsp; (Your odds of recovery in that situation are basically zip, even if it reenters okay, because the Earth is an awfully big place to have to search for something this small.)&nbsp; It's possible that it has an ejectable capsule, though.&nbsp; Such devices were used in the earliest spy satellites to return film capsules, because in those days, you couldn't get enough resolution from a video camera to be very useful.&nbsp; Still, I would think they'd want to test a plain old satellite before getting fancy like that.&nbsp; But we shall see.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>