Slashdot Mirror
Iran Announces Manned Space Mission Plans
Lucas123 writes "After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere (though Iran claimed it made it into orbit), government officials stated they intend to put a man into space within 10 years. The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into space can also be used for launching weapons. Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."
sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there. When will they be able to do that?
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
with a budget of $50 and use a hedgehog as a proof of concept to secure further funding.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I thought we neutralized the ICBM boogey man with our missile defense stuff. Isn't that why Russia's pissed at Poland right now?
"After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere"
And we all know how hard it is to reach the Earth's atmosphere!
The ballistic missiles? Nah, they're just launch vehicles. And the nuclear material? It's just for power plants. We really need these things, since we have so little power-generating natural resources, and such a booming commercial satellite launching industry.
Will there be a Iranian Space Information Minister to tell us about all the wonderful things happening in the space program?
"Our cosmonauts have reported to have seen from space that Italy looks like the boot of Allah striking the Zionist regime. Soon we will harvest the moon for cheese and will no longer rely on the vile cartoon-drawing Danish."
Now mods... before you mod me flamebait, first consider this: could I possibly be trolling, instead?
Just another way to say "we are really not trying to improve our missile technology." then one day they will all of a sudden have a intercontinental missiles, with a look what we found expression on their face.
not good.
love the taste, hate the texture
The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into space can also be used for launching weapons. Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."
It could also be used to deliver a payload of the following things to the earth from orbit
- Ice Cream
- Ninja Stars
- Signed copies of Limbo of the Lost or Daikatana
You think that we could leave the nefarious plans, no matter how obvious, up to the readers? Sheesh!
A small child can be trained on video games and then sealed into the warhead's reentry vehicle to steer it down to its target. Won't add too much weight, and it's probably cheaper to develop than an equivalent electronic guidance package, given the flexibility and intelligence of the control module. A culture of martyrdom gives Iran some interesting design options.
And maybe the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny are real too....
They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel.
They don't care. That is the problem. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that kept the peace (at least relatively, proxy wars were still fought in a limited fashion but only up to a point) for nearly fifty (50) years during the Cold War was based upon one simple notion: the other side might no like us but at least they are not crazy OR in the words of our late great President John F. Kennedy,
"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."
Iran is a theocracy officially governed by religion which doesn't cherish the future of its children (instead it glorifies suicide bombing) and believes in immortality with Allah and 70 virgins in heaven. Now you begin to see why allowing such people to have even one bomb is such a concern. There is more than an outside chance that they might choose to use their bomb against Israel or the United States or Europe regardless of the consequences (i.e. in their minds they all die in the retaliatory strike and go to their reward of 70 virgins). Religion and powerful weapons are and have always been a dangerous mix.
Or, you could just say "Bring it on!" That worked wonders for us in Iraq.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
I enjoy learning about religions. The various traditions and such. And one of the fascinating aspects is translating certain rules, laws, customs, etc into space. Presumably Iran, as an Islamic republic, will send devout Muslims into space and will have to answer some interesting questions. For instance, if you orbit the earth every 90 minutes, you experience a very short day. If you are Muslim, how does that effect praying 5 times a day (every 18 minutes!). And what about direction? If anyone has any serious thoughts, I'm curious hear them. In a related vein, can devout Jews use thrusters (light a fire) on the Sabbath?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Oh good, it's your day they'll be making. So, we can expect your enlistment...when?
All of that could true (i'm not going to get into the details of your delusional post)... AND Iran could be up to something that violates the NPT they signed. There was an Iran before Bush, and (just maybe) there will be one after. Just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean that the Iranian gov't doesn't mean us harm. Bush's idiocy and Iran's theocracy seeking WMD are not mutually exclusive.
If Bush did nothing about Iran, and Iran does something bad in 2009... "Bush let Iran build nukes!". Looks like a lose/lose proposition. Act, and he's an evil dolt. Do nothing, calamity strikes, and Bush is still an evil dolt.
Are you an brilliant troll or are you really that blinded by partisanship?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
You must really be crazy to call the proven conspiracy of Bush's team members to arm Iran something worthy of a "tinfoil hat".
Especially when you yourself link Rumsfeld and Cheney with Ford. But then, you don't bother to point out that Rumsfeld and Cheney met while working together for Nixon. All of which is consistent with working with America's enemies.
You've got your tinfoil hat on backwards. It's frying your brain.
--
make install -not war
I don't think you really know what's going on here.
Cheney and Rumsfeld kept their top-level jobs their whole lives because they were good at it. Sure, they caused catastrophes wherever they went. Sure, their careers cost America vast, often irreparable damage, and many, many lives (and even more of non-Americans). But their bosses made out like bandits. That's not "incompetent". That's highly productive, while not caring who or what they destroy to get what they want.
--
make install -not war
Bullshit. It is completely different thing to use suicide attacks in warfare or terrorism and to commit a national suicide.
We heard this same crap about Chinese and Russians. You know, they're not real people, they're not thinking like us etc. etc. etc.
The leaders of Iran are very much interested in maximizing their well-being in this world. And filling up their pockets in the process. Most of Iran's theocrats are also businessmen. Christians are not the only hypocrites.
1. Drill a lot of oil.
2. Send iranians into space.
3. ???????
4 Prophet!!!
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.
You know at one time Iran had the only democraticly elected secular government in the area. Unfortunatly they ran afoul of the oil companies. Something about wanting a proper return for their natural resources. Anyway this democratic secular governemt was overthrown in a US/UK backed coup and a dictator who was nice to the oil companies was installed. Which leads us to today. If the west would just keep their noses out of everybodies business the world would be so much better off. By the way the same applies to Afganistan, only now we have a real mess to clean up.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I believe parent was talking about the prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953. I suggest you google "Operation Ajax".
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
But at some point the Islamic side will wake up and see just how godless the Chinese can be, and the Chinese will wake up and see just how unsensibly non-pragmatic the Islamic fundamentalists can be, and things will become "interesting", in the Confucian sense.
It isn't reported much, but there ARE Islamic bombings in China already...
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle
1) If you're going to call people idiots, perhaps you should back it up and not make mistakes yourself. 2) You don't look so smart yourself, as it's clear that the parent wasn't talking about the Shah being overthrown, but the government of Mohammad_Mossadegh. 3) The idiom is "it takes two to tango," not tangle.
You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing.
That's a stupid reason not to like a country. Other things the Arab states don't like because it's heretical and/or destabilizing: women's rights, infidels (aka: anyone they disagree with on practically anything), beer, etc, etc.
Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran.
I'm afraid that the prospect of having your neighbor nuked is always cause for concern. Winds and radioactivity don't care about national borders. I suspect that there's some national angst there.
The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat.
Iran is a man now? With an ass to be whipped? You know better than that kind of oversimplification.
Odd, I thought the U.S. was in the region in such force to rebuild Iraq after deposing of Saddam Hussein because he was allegedly violating the terms of the 1991 armistice and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Your language sounds about as jingoistic as I could imagine. It's not an asswhipping, because it's not a fistfight. It's a war your talking about here -- murder writ large and sometimes a bit of actual self defense.
Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
What's the difference between Iran and it's people? Perhaps you shouldn't pity them, but actually work to understand them, and not just the ones who "yearn to be free," but all of the Iranians. I'm not saying agree with them, nor even try to befriend them, but merely to look past Khomeini and friends and view Iran not as a single militant entity, but as millions of different people, many of whom have unjustly suffered at the hands of their neighbors, their religious kin, their government and, sadly, the United States' government.
Cry for them.
I suppose you think we'd be loved and respected by the rest of the world, if ONLY we hadn't invaded Iraq! Iran would be our friend. Europeans-on-the-street would be saying they wish they could be just like us.
Think again. We're unpopular, we're often complained about, BECAUSE WE ARE PREEMINENT. No other reason is necessary.
Actually, before 9/11, the US had fairly strong support in Europe and elsewhere. Not massive, but nothing terribly bad either. After 9/11 when the US retaliated against Afghanistan, there was very strong support. It really is only since the invasion of Iraq for the flimsiest of excuses that recent worldwide anger against the US and its policies became widespread.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
The parent poster is possibly either a Sunni ethnic Muslim, or a Sunni sympathizer of some sort, because his obvious disdain for the Shi'ites in Iran is a classic symptom of this deep, deep schism within Islam.
The Arab states don't like Iran at all, and it's largely because they see Iran as the heretical, more organized, non-Arab, superior brothers. The Gulf Arab states as a group are very suspicious of the relatively successful model of Iran. Shi'ites, as a minority group within Islam, are generally very well-educated in both the religious and secular sciences, and as the grotesquely rich Gulf Arab states have squandered the first few decades of their oil wealth, Iran has a very well-organized military, some great universities, a great sense of national pride that pre-dates Islam, and have committed resources to nation building.
The Sunni Gulf-Arab states dread Iran for these very reasons, and lots of Sunnis hate Shi'ites more than they hate non-Muslims.
Having lived in a Gulf-Arab state for a long time, I have to say, the Gulf-Arab states get a bad rep because of Saudi Arabia. Not all Gulf-Arab states are the same. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, all have very emancipated women in social life, even though their legislation is still based on some form of male chauvinism. Some of these countries have women in their fledgling democratically-elected legislative assemblies, and one of them actually recognizes Israel, if I'm not mistaken.
Many of these countries are moving forward, slowly, but surely. The transition from a nomadic lifestyle diving for pearls or wandering the desert, to a fully modern, post-industrial society is a generations-long journey, and many of these Gulf-Arab states, though with deep-seated social and political immaturity (I would know, I grew up in one), are making the first strides towards some form of acceptable modernity.
I just feel credit must be given where credit is due. :)