Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran Forced To Cancel Its Space Program

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-space-for-you dept.

MarkWhittington writes The War is Boring blog reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been obliged to cancel its nascent space program. This development means that former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's dream of being the first astronaut to be launched into space by Iran have been dashed. Ironically, Anousheh Ansari, who was obliged to flee to the United States from Iran to avoid religious oppression, remains the only Iranian-born space traveler. She did it by going to Texas, making her fortune in the electronics business, and paying for her trip to the International Space Station.

91 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. WHO forced them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Couldn't put that in the abstract, could you.

    1. Re:WHO forced them? by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2

      Well, they probably couldn't figure out how to Photoshop their way into space.

    2. Re:WHO forced them? by pjt33 · · Score: 2

      What I'd like to see in the abstract is an explanation of what the submitter thinks "ironically" means. Maybe Mark Whittington is Alanis Morrisette's alias.

    3. Re:WHO forced them? by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More probably plunging oil prices have wiped out the Iranian governments revenue stream. There is speculation that one of the reasons Saudi Arabia is continuing to pump oil and crater oil prices is to cripple Iran, a bitter Shia enemy, and defund programs like uranium enrichment, missile development, their miliary in general and their support for other anti Sunni groups in the Middle East.

      The other speculations for continued Saudi efforts to crash oil prices are to wipe out frackers in the U.S. so they can regain more political control over the U.S., to wipe out expensive offshore and artic oil exploration, to punish Russia at the behest of the U.S. or because Russia is a key benefactor of Iran.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:WHO forced them? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the Islamic State, which also counts oil as its primary source of income. Saudi Arabia has no shortage of reasons to drive down oil prices.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:WHO forced them? by neilo_1701D · · Score: 3, Funny

      What I'd like to see in the abstract is an explanation of what the submitter thinks "ironically" means.

      I saw that too. Looks like the submitter was trying to distance himself from the "literally" crowd. Ironically, he fell flat on his face.

    6. Re:WHO forced them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They discovered Jebediah Kerman is, in fact, not real.

    7. Re:WHO forced them? by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about 'all of the above.'

      The Saudis have a stated policy of pumping the oil while it is still valuable. They expect technology to make oil obsolete in 100 years or so. Even plastic feed stock can come from plants. That said; I'm not sure I believe them.

      They also claim to have about 200 years worth of oil and the lowest costs in the world. If all that is true, then they should pump like mad. The market will find a new equilibrium, if some nations can't turn a profit at that price, that is not the Saudi's problem. Everybody involved understands sunk costs though.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:WHO forced them? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the fact that $100/barrel oil and $4.00/gallon gasoline means that consumers have a strong incentive to look at alternate forms of energy. Houses get built that don't use "home heating oil" for their furnaces, cars that are increasingly fuel efficient become more popular, and some car buyers actually look at their driving patterns to see if electrics can meet their needs.

      If oil remains expensive for the long-term, oil finds its customer base slowly evaporating, until a tipping-point is reached where economies of scale suddenly make the new stuff even more practical, and as that happens, politicians start seeing an opportunity to restrict the manufacture of new products that operate the old way, and then the oil market shrinks even further.

      I'm not saying that internal combustion engines in cars would go away quickly as soon as extremely cheap electric cars come into production, but look at the number of cars still on the road that lack airbags, or that lack antilock brakes, or that have carburetors instead of some form of fuel injection. It takes less than fifteen years for the bulk of cars on the road to no longer have the older technology once the new one is standard, and less than 20 years for the old way to be legitimately rare. That's the danger the oil producers face with $100/barrel oil, that the car companies will start making electrics due to customer demand, and that more and more customers will like them and buy them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:WHO forced them? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      They expect technology to make oil obsolete in 100 years or so.

      Which makes you wonder why they're doing fuck all to develop a non-oil-based economy. Eventually they're not going to be able to buy off their unemployed young men or divert them all to a lifetime of study in madrassas.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    10. Re:WHO forced them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are diversifying by buying assets in the US. When the oil finishes they (Saudi elite)will move to the US and leave the Saudi population to wallow in misery. This is not a democracy we are talking about here

    11. Re:WHO forced them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WHO did, even though they usually handle more health-related situations. I guess Iran will not be able to join our glorious fleet of armed space craft, defending the world against the Nazis from the moon.

    12. Re:WHO forced them? by GNious · · Score: 2

      Best I can tell, based on US Pro-Republican/Anti-Obama images I'm receiving online, the Saudis have absolutely nothing to do with the drop in oil-prices; it is all due to the Republicans being elected into Congress and having changed all laws to be pro-US instead of pro-Islam.

    13. Re:WHO forced them? by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      The frackers aren't going to stop - the technology is at the point where it actually makes sense to extract horizontally.

      That said I've often maintained if we want to cripple the jihadist strains of Islam we need to dump money into R&D for advanced electric storage and charging infrastructure and tell the middle east to go get fucked.

      Deny them revenue and all of a sudden they don't have the money to do anything, look at Russia for example.

    14. Re:WHO forced them? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Ask them who had just been elected the last time oil prices collapsed, in late 2008.

      But really, the GOP and the fossil carbon industry have been BFF for a long time. Collapsing prices is the last thing they want.

    15. Re:WHO forced them? by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Yeah but with oil price per barrel hovering around $50 right now that might not be the case. However as many have warned, there's only so much oil in the ground. The smart money is on renewables.

    16. Re:WHO forced them? by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. The World Health Organization doesn't have much stake in this matter.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    17. Re:WHO forced them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Best I can tell, based on US Pro-Republican/Anti-Obama images I'm receiving online, the Saudis have absolutely nothing to do with the drop in oil-prices; it is all due to the Republicans being elected into Congress and having changed all laws to be pro-US instead of pro-Islam.

      Of course the falling prices are due to the Republican win! Why, just in the last two weeks since the Republicans took office, even the length of the day is getting longer after the long _black_ night of Obama's Winter. Mark my words, though, these sunny days won't last. I predict that, if Obama is still in office in six months, that the entire country will start to get colder and darker.
      http://earthsky.org/earth/everything-you-need-to-know-december-solstice

    18. Re:WHO forced them? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      And with regenerative braking even the brakes are likely to last much longer on electric vehicles.

    19. Re:WHO forced them? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Yeah but with oil price per barrel hovering around $50 right now that might not be the case. However as many have warned, there's only so much oil in the ground. The smart money is on renewables.

      I bought some oil shares once, with the thought that they're not making any more dinosaurs.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    20. Re:WHO forced them? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Not least of which is climate change and a growing global movement to cut fossil fuel burning. Catch with fossil fuel corporations is the value is not just derived from how much money they make each year but the value of the assets they hold underground that were to used to produce the product they sell for decades to come. So not just this years value but value going forward decades ahead. When the likelihood of being able to sell that product 10 to 50 years from now diminishes so does the value of the product in the ground and it pretty much drops to zero. So sell as much as you can, for as long as you can and drive all other competitors out of the market because you are only ever going to be able to sell a portion of what you have and how big a portion will depend upon how many players are left in the market (please ignore the US fossil fuel investment black hole, does not exist, please go back to sleep, baa baa baa). So not so much Iran and Russia but very much fracking and tar sands. So how is that pipeline going, perhaps instead of oil you can pump something that is likely to become far more valuable, fresh potable water.

      Besides independent space programs are always tough, Iran would be far better off contributing to and sharing a space program with another country, like Russia or China or both.

      Let's not ignore of course the propaganda elements of the story, Iran has nuclear weapons and intends to use them, uh huh, this story brought to you by your friends in the military industrial complex, that help themselves to your wallet and your children, it's future canon fodder in the wars it starts. Never forget Iraq has proven the best way to prop up oil prices is to declare war on countries producing oil and stop them producing or selling it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:WHO forced them? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from the fact that nuclear war would be bad for the health of everyone in the world.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re:WHO forced them? by swillden · · Score: 1

      And with regenerative braking even the brakes are likely to last much longer on electric vehicles.

      It's even possible that tires get a little more longevity due to regenerative braking, which tends to be smoother and gentler than friction braking. The limited battery capacities of current EVs probably help as well, since they encourage efficient driving, which means no hard braking or acceleration.

      I'm not sure if these factors make a measurable difference in tire wear, but it's plausible.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:WHO forced them? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, I would say it was meant as an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected. in reference to the "Anousheh Ansari, who was obliged to flee to the United States from Iran to avoid religious oppression, remains the only Iranian-born space traveler" with regard to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's dream of being the first astronaut.

      Or other words, the attempts to keep her down caused her to surpass the dreams of the leader who attempted to keep her down.

      But then again, maybe I'm trying too hard.

    24. Re:WHO forced them? by demachina · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m not exactly sure why Saudi Arabia would want to harm Islamic State. ISIS is Sunni, fundamentalist and they are tearing apart the Alawite and Shia pro Iranian states in Syria and Iraq. You would almost figure some Saudiâ(TM)s are funding ISIS under the table.

      ISIS is undoing some of the damage George W. did to Sunni interests by toppling Saddam and unleashing a wave of Shia ascendence in Iraq.

      --
      @de_machina
    25. Re:WHO forced them? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Why did you have to remind me of that film?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    26. Re:WHO forced them? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Well, my plan is to consider electrics once they're at the 150-mile-range point in a pricepoint that I can afford, assuming that they're not butt-ugly like so many of them have been. I'm not exactly a Ford fan, but that hatchback electric based on a conventional car isn't too bad. Given that my commute is about 20 miles round-trip, I'd probably drive it like I stole it rather than driving it like a little old lady that only goes to church on Sundays...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    27. Re:WHO forced them? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure if these factors make a measurable difference in tire wear, but it's plausible."

      EVs are HEAVY. So far all the indications I've seen is that the tires wear faster as a result.

    28. Re:WHO forced them? by swillden · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure if these factors make a measurable difference in tire wear, but it's plausible."

      EVs are HEAVY. So far all the indications I've seen is that the tires wear faster as a result.

      Good point. I wanted to argue but I looked up some numbers, and EVs tend to be several hundred pounds heavier than comparable ICEVs. I though the weight of the batteries would be offset by the lighter motor, but apparently not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:WHO forced them? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      They expect technology to make oil obsolete in 100 years or so.

      Which makes you wonder why they're doing fuck all to develop a non-oil-based economy. Eventually they're not going to be able to buy off their unemployed young men or divert them all to a lifetime of study in madrassas.

      Because it's still 100 years away. Let others be the pioneers, spend the research money, and then come in and deploy the same tech for cheap.

  2. Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever you think of their politics, I'm sorry to see them leave the club, even if it's only temporarily. Spaceflight is one of the few remaining areas of "friendly rivalry" where everybody still cheers for the other teams' success, even as we hope to best them. Nobody ever watches a launch and thinks "I hope it explodes! I hope it explodes!" No... you always think "Go, baby, go!"

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Too bad! by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, the problem with rocketry is the ability to launch people/satellites into space is pretty much the same as required to lob missiles onto someone else.

      And, let's face it, Iran is largely under the sway of people who are a little on the crazy side. Ahmadinejad is pretty much batshit crazy and deluded.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Too bad! by houghi · · Score: 2

      That would make them fit pretty wel with the other crazy countries that have a space program.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Too bad! by neilo_1701D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then I guess you forgot about some Arabs cheering in the streets as Columbia broke up.

    4. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ahmedinijad is out of power and the tales of Iran's nuclear program (from what I can see) appear to be mostly overblown propaganda. I'll grant that this is a "legitimate" issue among "experts" in diplomacy, but I'm not buying it. YMMV...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    5. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      No, I didn't forget about it, I never heard of it before. That is sad. Citation....??

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    6. Re:Too bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can always find idiots who will cheer about someones misfortune. They exist all over the world, even on slashdot.

    7. Re:Too bad! by neilo_1701D · · Score: 4, Informative

      Given that it was so long ago, finding actual news sites is hard. I found http://www.memri.org/report/en... which has a summary of Arab reactions; some good and some bad.

    8. Re:Too bad! by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't discount the fact that a significant minority of the world has been working towards keeping Iran out of the nuclear club. Small countries can have success with nuclear programs and also long range rocketry. It's not like they need to reinvent the wheel to get these things.

      If you run a tightly managed and budgeted program to build a nuke these days, you can probably do it on a (relative) shoestring. What the West has done is work to increase the overhead for completing the project to unsustainable levels, both directly via sabotage and embargoes, and indirectly via sanctions.

      Iran could probably afford to assemble weapons, what it cannot do is afford to do that and maintain high security in addition to lack of access to experts and materials.

    9. Re:Too bad! by mi · · Score: 2

      Whatever you think of their politics

      Well, it is exactly those policies, that made them a pariah of the world (except, of course, Russia) and caused the very poverty, that forced them cancel the space-program.

      Spaceflight is one of the few remaining areas of "friendly rivalry" where everybody still cheers for the other teams' success

      That may be so between Europe and US. Russia — and knowing Russian I know it for sure — stopped cheering American successes about 10 years ago. USSR never did either — when the Moon-landing was watched world-wide by everyone with a TV, USSR's television was broadcasting a ballet — the news appeared in news-papers the next day, but there certainly was no "cheering" of the other team's success.

      I dare speculate, the official Iran today are much the same. As the old Russian saying goes: "tell me, who your friend is, and I'll say, who you are."

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      You're right. A nuclear "terrorist" attack is not impossible in the next 10 years, esp. the "dirty bomb" variety. But I don't think even the the "loonies" in Iran would launch a first strike. What possible benefit could be gained? At what cost? The entire proposition is ludicrous. Please explain.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    11. Re:Too bad! by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope - that was the Arabs (Palestinians) too.

      http://www.snopes.com/rumors/r...

    12. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Ditto!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    13. Re:Too bad! by murdocj · · Score: 2

      Hmm... you mean enriching uranium far beyond the needs of producing power? That "overblown propaganda"?

      Let's enter reality here. If all Iran wanted was nuclear power, the deal would take about an hour to conclude. Limited enrichment and international inspection... sanctions lifted as they demonstrate they are willing to follow thru. Huge benefit to the Iranian people. Pretty hard not to notice that they at least want to have the option to produce a bomb, even if they aren't going there straightaway.

    14. Re:Too bad! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Look at North Korea. They've proven that the main value of having a nuclear weapon isn't launching an actual attack. It's having the card to get admitted to the big boys club. Iran wants the same thing. With the added advantage that Iran's threat is more realistic, given the sabre rattling towards Israel. After all, destroying Israel would probably only take 3 or 4 nuclear bombs, so it's a much more realistic scenario.

    15. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Ok, sure. But given the prevailing wind patterns, wiping out Israel with nukes would not have favorable "fallout" for Iran. Therefore, why would they do it? I still don't see it.

      It's the same MAD conundrum that kept the USA and USSR from wiping each other out a few decades ago. We survived that threat ok, and the USSR was a much worse threat than puny Iran ever was or will be.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    16. Re:Too bad! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      How can you claim to have any knowledge of the degree to which Iran is enriching its uranium? Citation please! What we've heard from international inspectors seems to indicate that they are playing above board, just as it seemed in the run-up to the Iraq war... Pardon me if some of us get a sense of "deja-vu" in this situation.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    17. Re:Too bad! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, sure. But given the prevailing wind patterns, wiping out Israel with nukes would not have favorable "fallout" for Iran.

      Depends on what they think the costs and benefits are. But fallout from a few small nuclear bombs just isn't that much of a cost on its own, especially when you're not going to get that much in the way of fallout.

    18. Re:Too bad! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      The hard part would rather be reliability and very fast deployment and fueling. A space launch can be prepared for weeks with many people working on it and failure is not a huge deal, a missile must work on short notice, preferably can be moved and failure is less of an option.

    19. Re:Too bad! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The run-up to the second US Iraq war was not indications that they were playing above board, simply that we could find no evidence that they had any WMDs (primarily gas being the one they had used in the past, which somehow is being classified in the same category as nuclear weapons).

      They were not cooperative or open about what they were doing though, which would have been part of being above board.

      Additionally, gas was found after the primary invasion recent reports say, the information was not shared because it was deemed a bigger embarrassment to have it shown that the gas was given to them by the USA than to not find them.

      Note: not defending the war, but it's a little absurd to pretend that Saddam was above board with what he was doing, he was trying to act like he was hiding something as a form of posturing, probably thinking he could negotiate a deal where he gave up the "program" (that didn't exist, the weapons found were from the US)in exchange for something, not realizing the crazy the US populace was feeling at the time (and our government too).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re:Too bad! by antdude · · Score: 1

      That print link tried to print literally!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re:Too bad! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      There are people who believe that you can win a nuclear war. There are also those who believe that it can be kept regional.

      Of course, I doubt Iran even under its current regime wants a nuclear war with Israel.

      However, destroying Israel doesn't require nukes to be used, just held. Nukes would be used as leverage and security against others retaliating against Iran for more conventional actions they might take.

      As a historical example, the German navy in WWI and WWII was unable to challenge the British directly at sea, although they had a lot of success with subs. What they could do with their fleet was maintain a fleet-in-being which limited the options of the British for using their sea power. They had to concentrate their assets, even though they knew the Germans were unlikely to come out and fight a battle that did not catch the Grand Fleet or Home Fleet separated.

      With nukes, Iran can be a lot more effective than that. The last thing they would want to do is use them, unless they were attacked. There are a lot of conventional things Iran could do which would warrant a military response against them, which would go badly for the regime. With a nuclear weapon to use against attackers, they could prop up their regime.

      Obviously, that is an issue for us, but another issue the West will have is if Iran falls apart on its own and becomes a failed state like Syria. Pakistan is the current worry right now with the Taliban all over the place there, but a nuclear Iran would only worsen the potential for problems.

    22. Re:Too bad! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They were not cooperative or open about what they were doing though, which would have been part of being above board."

      As soon as the USA threatened to play hardball, Iraq cooperated. The USA invaded anyway.

    23. Re:Too bad! by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

      "Well, it is exactly those policies, that made them a pariah of the world"

      Iran used to be a friendly westernised, secular, relatively neutral country.

      It got a bit too friendly with russia, so the CIA sponsored a coup and put a young colonel named Palavi in as Shah.

      The Shah then proceeded to rule with an iron fist and stomp all over religion - who got good at clandestine organising for survival purposes.

      After 30 years people got sick of the brutality and had a revolution, organised by the religious groups as they had a lot of experience at it. Unfortunately they proved no better than what had gone before, HOWEVER they were "home grown" despots, rather than "despots put in by the west"

      Iran's "attitude" is mostly sabre rattling because it generates a response which can be used as a bogeyman to keep their own population under a tight leash. If western powers simply went "yeah, right. Whatever", the Iranian leadership would lose credibility and power in a short period of time.

      That won't happen, simply because it's _convenient_ for western powers to have a bogeyman of their own to keep their populations on a leash and the US federal govt on the war footing it's been flailing about trying to keep going since the end of the cold war (as soon as it steps down from that, it must devolve power back to the individual states). Iran is providing the Bogeyman.

      It was western interference with an elected democratic govt and support of a vicious despot which eventually led to religious nutters getting control in Iran and western interference which then caused ongoing economic problems. Do you think the population needs much encouragement to spout anti-western comments? (FWIW the prime reason the religious nutters are still in control is because they have control of the military. Iran's young people have made things pretty clear about the way they feel on a number of occasions as as they comprise half the population, they will be a force to be reckoned with in the next couple of decades.)

    24. Re:Too bad! by mi · · Score: 1

      It got a bit too friendly with russia

      You mean, a "Worker's Revolution" made it likely to become USSR's 16th republic — fixed that for you.

      That won't happen, simply because it's _convenient_ for western powers to have a bogeyman of their own to keep their populations on a leash

      Conspiracy theory nonsense.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Where did you read WHO forced them? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    I don't see it in the article.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Where did you read WHO forced them? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the tone of the articles, it seems more like "they couldn't justify continued funding with current levels of success". In other words, they're having a budget crunch (not unreasonable given the current economy), and the space program vanity-project was one of the first things on the chopping block.

  4. space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In space you can't hear a jihadist scream...

  5. Self-aggrandizing by kylegordon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTA "but had to become an American to realize her full potential."

    Where others might say "had to leave Iran to realize her full potential" ...

    1. Re:Self-aggrandizing by neilo_1701D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

      If she left Iran and went to (say) Afghanistan, would that have have helped her realize her full potential? Doubt it. Or let's pick another country: Australia. Suppose she went there. Given the state of the Australian space program, could she have realized her full potential? Of course not; Australia can barely launch a helium balloon (I'm Australian, BTW).

      No, if her full potential was to go into space, there's only really three countries available: China, Russia and the United States. Of those three, given the choice, which would you pick? So, saying that she "...had to become an American to realize her full potential." is completely fair.

      I don't understand how you get 'Self-aggrandizing' out of this.

    2. Re:Self-aggrandizing by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Others could say that, but the fact remains that this is how she managed it.

      Although I understand the desire to point out that the US has no monopoly on successful immigrants, it is also important to point out that this is something you can do as someone who moves to America. If she had moved to Britain or France or Germany and had the same career, would that not reflect credit on those countries as well?

      More to the point, leaving Iran isn't enough. There are a lot of places she could have gone which might not have allowed her to succeed.

    3. Re:Self-aggrandizing by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      She had to make money to go to space (as I read TFS), so I imagine anywhere that there was a good enough economy to get rich would suffice, once someone has that kind of money, they can certainly afford to fly somewhere for the launch.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  6. plenty will help Ahmadinejad realize his dream by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the USA will be more than happy to help Ahmadinejad realize his space launch dreams.

    We're too creative to just dump terrorists from helicopter into the sea, we can also launch them into the Sun!.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:plenty will help Ahmadinejad realize his dream by PPH · · Score: 1

      Project Orion lives!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think "I hope it explodes! I hope it explodes!" when it's a country like Iran. If they can figure out space travel, they can figure out how to nuke us from space.

    1. Re:Wrong! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The question is why do you think they would be stupid enough to even consider doing that when they know we could turn their country into a parking lot in response? It's been centuries since Iran/Persia launched an offensive war.

  8. Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She did it by going to Texas, making her fortune in the electronics business, and paying for her trip to the International Space Station.

    Now, if an immigrant from a 3rd-world country — coming here with little English and knowledge of culture, can do it, what is the excuse of the natively born-and-raised Americans?

    Whom can they blame for being unable to afford whatever they want by age of 40?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People win the lottery all the time. That doesn't mean everybody can win the lottery.

    2. Re:Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Selection bias. Only the restless care to leave their homes and support networks behind to try to navigate an alien, racist culture where people are measured by how much money they make.

      I'm concerned about the dog-whistle racism in your post. It sounds like you're bitching about a certain group that was recently the victim of police violence.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      A combination of luck and talent is my guess.

    4. Re:Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the same argument be made that a person of the Earth made enough money to visit the ISS, what's your excuse for not having that much money?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Hurrah for America, the land of opportunity by mi · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the same argument be made that a person of the Earth made enough money to visit the ISS, what's your excuse for not having that much money?

      An old saying (by Confucius, I think) goes like this: "It is a shame to be rich in a poorly-governed country. It is also a shame to be poor in a well-governed one."

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  9. Fled religious oppression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why does the poster think that Anousheh Ansari had to leave Iran due to religious oppression? Apparently she is Muslim [Wikipedia], didn't leave until 1984, and her personal website doesn't mention fleeing or religion at all.

  10. Want Is An Active Thing, Want Vs Wish by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    People say they want X, Y or Z. But it isn't what people "say they want" (you can say anything) but are they pursuing it?

    It is how you spend your time and what you pursue. If you have a stated goal and aren't pursuing it it isn't a "want", it is a "wish".

    People that want something often end up getting it. The metric of whether someone wants something is if they are doing something about it.

    Most people "wish" for things and sit on the sidelines.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Want Is An Active Thing, Want Vs Wish by mi · · Score: 1

      Most people "wish" for things and sit on the sidelines.

      And for such people the answer to my question is: themselves.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  11. In that case by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be best to reduce oil consumption quickly by replacing SUVs with fuel efficient cars. City cars with busses, mass transit, and electric cars, and long distance freight transportation from trucks to trains, which could ultimatively run on electricity too.

    In addition we could sell the tech to the Chinese. Of course this will only work with renewable energy sources.

    1. Re:In that case by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Another half smart central planner on his quest to run the world has he sees fit.

      Please proceed to replace your own SUV with a small car/bus pass and shut the fuck up while the rest of us go on with our lives.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: In that case by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      I will always express my views and will not shut up. And I don't have a car, as it would serve no purpose living in a town with 250 000 inhabitants. However, it sucks big time when people use the pedestrian way and bicycle roads as parking space all week.

      BTW visit Copenhagen if you think cars are the only proper solution to traffic problems. And you are also a central planner as you request that cities are layed out for cars only.

    3. Re: In that case by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Keep talking. We want to know who the likes of you are.

      Keep beating that straw-man. You are the one who is trying to tell others how to live.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Outing racism by mi · · Score: 4, Funny

    It sounds like you're bitching about a certain group that was recently the victim of police violence.

    Ah! He got me, he got me! Please, please, do not report my thought-crime to the authorities — I'll do anything!..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Ballistic missile deception no longer affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Iran's real purpose here never was spaceflight.

    It was improving their ballistic missiles. Making them more accurate, have longer ranges, etc. So they could drop payloads on Israel, Europe, or even America.

    Launching satellites, animals, or even astronauts into space is a great coverup for ballistic missile research.

    Even the New York Times, not exactly a hotbed of right-wing reactionary fervor, noted that Iran's space program was basically a sham:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/world/middleeast/launching-site-in-iran-raises-missile-worries.html

    But with Iran's economy already hurting from sanctions, and now probably in free fall from the oil price implosion, this dream of theirs is not currently affordable.

    GOOD.

  14. Bad article by Superdarion · · Score: 2

    The blog from the summary cites no sources. Hell, they don't even hint at where they get their information. The other link to a story is a rehash of the blog post. The others are unrelated to the main story.

    And in case you're wondering, the blog post doesn't say why they quit or what does "quitting" mean. One can assume from the text (though it doesn't actually say it) that the main space agency was disbanded by the government, but that's all. Why? Who knows!

    This is some high-quality journalism here.

  15. Reasoning.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently they've had issues sourcing large cardboard boxes.

  16. Saudi copes with low prices for at least 8 yrs by amplesand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

    "Saudi Arabia can cope with low oil prices for "at least eight years", Saudi Arabia's minister of petroleum's former senior adviser has told the BBC. Mohammed al-Sabban said the country's policy was to defend its current market share by enduring low prices. "You need to allow prices to go as low as possible in order to see those marginal producers move out of the market," he said."

    Eight happy years!

    http://www.theweek.co.uk/busin...

    "The dramatic fall in the oil price will spur the UK economy to grow faster than had been predicted this year, according to influential forecaster the EY ITEM Club."

    Yo-hoo

  17. The thing about space programs by Kuroji · · Score: 2

    Is that they're great to simultaneously develop accurate ICBMs.

    Iran no longer having a space program means that its neighbors in the region don't have to worry about missiles being developed under such a banner, at least; anything they develop will be made for military use. Also possibly badly photoshopped.

  18. examiner.com needs editors by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    A more ominous purpose existed for the Iranian space program existed, however. Iran, which is in the process of making a nuclear bomb, needs a way to deliver such a weapon.

    LOL!

  19. Re:Saudi copes with low prices for at least 8 yrs by Samuel+Dravis · · Score: 1

    Sorry, posting to remove mistaken moderation.

  20. And the author of TFS... by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    ...was obliged to use a concise term of action instead of the oddly constructed term of obligation "has been obliged."

    Iran canceled its space program; Ansari fled to the US. That wasn't so hard!

    I, on the other hand, have erstwhile been obliged to undertake in grammatical pedantry.

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  21. Re:Saudi copes with low prices for at least 8 yrs by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    I remember when those fuckers (OPEC) were terrified to let it go over $25 a barrel. It's not "low" now. It's just low enough to fuck over the competition from fracking wells in North America. Maybe if they keep it where it is for two or three years, the current round of investors in North American fracking companies will lose a fuck-ton of money and be a little more shy about investing in the technology next time OPEC lets it spike up.

    They let it run a little too long this time, though. Hybrids and electrics have had a chance to get a foothold in the market, and some people are already starting to think about how pure electric vehicles and ones with fuel cells could potentially change how electric grids work. It wouldn't take a very big push for countries to start adopting electric vehicles powered with Clean Atomic Energy. And that'll plunge us into the next ice age lickety split, once global warming starts to reverse. Hah, didn't see THAT coming, did you?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  22. Kickstarter! by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there's a large group of Iranian counter-revolutionists (those that want to return Iran to its former pre-1979 glory) contemplating a Kickstarter; to set aside their differences and come up with the money to send former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in low Earth orbit and realize his dream. I'm not so sure they will reach the stretch-goal of providing him with a re-entry vehicle, though...

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  23. Re:Saudi copes with low prices for at least 8 yrs by swillden · · Score: 1

    I don't think they can just wait out the shutdown of the low-margin producers, then bump the prices back up. Or at least, they can't bump them back up very far, because the technology used by the low-margin producers will not be lost. It will likely get a little bit better. So they'll have to keep the price low enough that the low-margin producers can't re-enter the market.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.