Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Television Says Iran Launches New Satellite Into Space

Posted by samzenpus on from the putting-it-out-there dept.

An anonymous reader writes State television in Iran is reporting the Islamic Republic has launched a new satellite into space, its fourth in recent years to orbit the Earth. The report Monday quoted Defense Minister Gen. Hossein Dehghan saying the satellite, designed and built in Iran, is named "Fajr," or dawn in Farsi. The report did not elaborate.

56 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. I love the snark here by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if the Sputnik launch was accompanied by snarky headline "Soviet News Agency Claims to Have Launched Satellite (that's what they CLAIM, wink, wink)"

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re: I love the snark here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Sputnik produced a signal, a repetitive beep, that could be picked up by amateur radio operators. Not only could US citizens verify Sputnik for themselves, but cold war paranoia ascribed various sinister purposes to the beep. It was to signal sleeper agents or mind control people or something. In reality, it was just a beep. The soviets had a proper satellite (Sputnik 3) that they wanted to send up but it wasn't ready in time

    2. Re:I love the snark here by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Iran has faked missile launches before...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re: I love the snark here by crunchy_one · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The signal emitted by Sputnik allowed mapping of the Earth's gravitational field. Something that needed doing for subsequent flights.

    4. Re: I love the snark here by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact, the US Navy's Transit satellite navigation system was conceived when JHU engineers used a computer to determine the exact orbit of the satellite from the doppler shift of the beep received on the ground and realized that if the orbit of the satellite were known a priori, the computation was equivalent to locating yourself (ie a ship) on the surface of the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    5. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's newsworthy because there was a reasonable amount of evidence showing that their space program was simply an ICBM program by another name.

      What makes this stand out, is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that they said they were shutting down their space program, and the world was relieved, because the threat of an Iranian ICBM/Nuclear program whether real or imagined was off the table.

      Whether it's true or not, this puts it back on the table, and that brings back the risks of instability.

    6. Re:I love the snark here by Motard · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I refuse to believe this until I see a photoshop image proving it.

    7. Re:I love the snark here by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Here's some CGI video

      http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-says-it-launches-domestically-made-satellite-into-orbit-389709

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    8. Re:I love the snark here by sigxcpu · · Score: 1

      It exists because the rockets used for satellites and for ballistic missiles are close enough for the former to be a way to get the latter.

      It's much cheaper to rent payload space from Russia, the only reason to do it yourself is if you want the military capability.

      The same goes for enriching uranium to 20%, there is only one reason to do that.

      --
      As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
    9. Re: I love the snark here by deadweight · · Score: 1

      That old system was a PITA compared to GPS. You needed sever passes at specific times to get your position plotted.

    10. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 2

      that brings back the risks of instability.

      At the same time they propose to route Azerbaijani gas through their country in an offer to diversify the EUs energy sources (and also buying themselves an insurance policy against military strikes), while high-profile western politicians suck up to the new Saudi King lauding reforms in the country with an unparalleled hypocrisy (e.g. in relation to human rights issues, etc.) just because it suits them.
      Fuck politics and fear mongering war hawks.

      Let Iran do whatever they want, they're a sovereign nation and should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're defending themselves, as opposed to the EUSA banking cartel(s), which should be restrained over their (its?) constant interference and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

      Ah, feels good to vent...

    11. Re:I love the snark here by FranklinWebber · · Score: 1

      Apparently not this time:

      NORAD ID 40387

    12. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      The problem with letting a country do whatever it wants as long as it's not impacting anyone else is that sometimes, eventually it does.

      The West let Germany do whatever it wanted in the 1930s as long as it wasn't impacting anyone else, and it was great, until it did. Similarly the last 15 years has seen the West leaving Russia alone, and look what happened, it invaded Georgia and has now invaded Ukraine.

      You need not just to know that they're not currently impacting anyone else, but confidence to believe that they wont be impacting anyone else in the future. Politics isn't black and white, you can't assume that because a country is keeping to itself now that it always will.

    13. Re:I love the snark here by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      One of the things that Iran wants is Israel destroyed. Do you really want to give Iran what it wants, as this is why it has a nuclear program to begin with?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure *this* is why Iran has a nuclear program. That'd be too easy. Also it is possible to let them have a purely civilian program, but somehow that is not in the news.
      If I look at what Israel was doing this last year alone, I'd say they deserve a thorough beating.
      They're definitely not being good sports with their (surely difficult) neighborhood, but since they probably won't be able to continue playing dirty for much longer anyway that won't matter much if they'll get a good slap from the rest of the world and maybe iran will be contempt with that? Who knows.

    15. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1
      You're waaay oversimplifying events here.

      Regardless of that and the notion of "who are 'you' to decide the future of another nation" -- the attitude that is probably creating most tensions all over the world and should be long gone --, it is possible to have a check on all and any movement of every military unit.
      Such an omniscience in relation to reconnaissance coupled with the military capability of the UN is more than enough to prevent any of the non-superpower countries from doing anything that could seriously affect stability in the surrounding region(s).

      Regarding Russia's so-called aggression, I'd recommend at least trying to understand their position: NATO should have long been disbanded, instead it's encroaching on Russia's borders; cold-war rhetorics long since obsolete are still in use by neo-cons and their puppets to form public opinion via mass media; NGOs and other "institutions" are financing color revolutions all over the world (e.g. USAID), in the name of "democracy" (i.e. privatize everything, enslave your people, follow our lead); I could go on, but to summarize, I'll just use your own words: "Politics isn't black and white."

      Also, if everything you know about a region or culture comes from the media, you should be extra careful when jumping to conclusions. There's always multiple perspectives to a story, and you're only hearing one (orchestrated by the interests of a few powerful people who'd be glad to send you to your doom for a penny or two extra in their accounts). Instead of letting yourself be instrumentalized, better remember that these are all people like you and me, who didn't have the luck to be born into our consumerist society constantly striving for more markets to sell their crap to. And maybe it's ok if they don't agree with this world-view and defend their own.

    16. Re:I love the snark here by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Civilian nuclear would be great. Iran doesn't want civilian nuclear or they would have no need for the centrifuges that were damaged by Stuxnet. Iran has come out and said on numerous occasions that they want Israel destroyed for the crime of existing.

      As far as what Israel has been doing for the past year; self defense from a constant aggressor is always allowed, oh, unless it is Israel responding to constant attacks from Palestine, then they are evil people and should be slapped for being bad.

      I cannot believe you would honestly be supportive of people being killed for trying to live.

      If you look at history, the Palestinians look particularly foolish. They have on numerous occasions been offered Israeli citizenship, but they would rather continue fighting towards the destruction of the Israeli people.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1
      As far as I remember, a deal was brokered, but Israel insisted on being the Jewish state of Israel, so who's really obstructing a peaceful solution there?
      Same ol' hardliners...
      Yeah, it's harder to constantly strive for win-win situations, but in the end it's much more rewarding.
      I don't understand why they can't just throw religion out of the equation and have two secular countries, one predominantly Jewish, the other Muslim? Do a Middle Eastern Union for fucks sake. Accept that there's two (or more) interpretations of history. Stop insisting on yours being the proper one.

      I cannot believe you would honestly be supportive of people being killed for trying to live.

      Are you serious? They launched a full-scale war last year over what should have been a fucking criminal case.
      I'm completely opposed to any deaths, but unfortunately my opinion counts little, because apparently hypocrisy is rooted so deep that people in neighboring countries are not regarded as humans but as animals for slaughter.

    18. Re:I love the snark here by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      Clearly a legitimately ad-laden non-.gov NORAD site.

    19. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      "You're waaay oversimplifying events here."

      No on the contrary, I'm doing the opposite, I'm bringing the complexities of reality into your simplification.

      "Regarding Russia's so-called aggression"

      Sorry, I'm struggling to take you seriously. Even if you disagree on Eastern Ukraine being a de-facto Russian invasion now, even Russia itself admits the military units that locked down Crimea were Russian soldiers. How can you possibly believe this is anything other than aggression? Once you move your troops onto foreign soil, that's aggression. You can argue that the people their wanted it, but they weren't given the chance to tell us openly, there was no Scottish style referendum where the people were given the option without being asked at gunpoint.

      As for NATO, it's worth keeping in mind that Russia was given the option to join and become part of it before criticising it, but Putin put the final nail in that coffin because he had other ideals about his own soviet empire.

      I absolutely agree that the US funds lots of NGOs in foreign countries to pursue it's interests, for example, organisations pushing for greater democracy in Russia. You can argue that that's not right, that it shouldn't meddle. But compare and contrast to Russia, Russia is outright funding not NGOs, but GOs in Europe, such as France's far right National Front. Why is it bad when the US funds NGOs but okay for other nations to fund GOs?

      "Also, if everything you know about a region or culture comes from the media, you should be extra careful when jumping to conclusions."

      It comes from a number of sources, broad swathes of the media, through to having actually travelled widely around the world and experienced many cultures first hand.

      This is why I firmly believe it's nonsense to keep criticising the US and to defend Russia, because whether you read the Western Media, the Middle Eastern Media, or even Asian, including Chinese media - they're all reporting that Russia is the aggressor, the only one that isn't is Russia itself.

      Don't get me wrong, I recognise the US is guilty of many wrongs, Iraq 2003 should never have happened, and IS wouldn't be what it is now. More money could've been poured into Afghanistan infrastructure like schooling and so forth instead of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have seen the resurgent Taliban. It was easy from 2001 up until a couple of years ago to believe the US was the only problem in the world, the only real group of people with imperialist tendencies.

      But I think the last few years have made that less clear, it's pretty clear the IS folks want to spread their own caliphate, it's pretty clear that Russia is continuing to expand it's territory outside it's own borders, not just with Crimea, but by also trying to annex parts of Georgia that want to be independent from both of them. This concerns me because whilst you may well be right about the US twisting countries to it's ways, it at least hands territory back after it thinks it's done that. Russia doesn't just invade, and try and push it's ideals, it just outright expands it's borders.

      Similarly China (which I actually largely respect) is clearly trying to more forcefully expand it's claims in the South China seas, some of which is arguably justified, some not. I don't think it's a problem now, but it could be.

      It's pretty clear that the US' reputation took a massive hit in the decade following 9/11, and it's pretty clear that because of that it's no longer the only bully in the playground.

    20. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      I guess we both agree that it's humiliating for all participating parties to let it have come to this and both hope that the situation won't escalate further.

      Regarding Crimea, and after looking at what is happening in the east, I fully support Russia's sending in of troops to avert the coup-powers treating the Crimean peoples as "subhumans". Besides, the only issue, where they've overstepped their boundaries is exactly that: overstepping the boundaries of their bases' perimeters. Russia was allowed to have a *lot* of troops in Crimea (AFAIK up to 50k or so). So it's not as black and white as you seem to understand it.

      "they weren't given the chance to tell us openly"
      Crimea (and Sevastopol) was an autonomous region of Ukraine with a predominantly Russian population (which has been so since Catherine the Great). They chose to secede.
      Tell me, if you were distinguishable as a foreigner and the Ku Klux Clan/Nazis/whatever would take over the Hill, wouldn't you want to make use of your autonomy as fast as possible to declare yourself independent of them? Because that's what happened there. Somehow, though, the "international community" wanted them to wait and see what would happen. (Hint, look at Odessa, Donbass and other examples and you can have an idea of what would have happened.)

      [In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, btw, Crimea (and Sevastopol) voted with only ~56% for the independence of Ukraine (turnout at 60%). Also, on 01/20/1991, there was another referendum in Crimea (and Sevastopol) about its reinstitution as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the participants of the union agreement (i.e. the USSR) in which ~81% of the Crimean population voted affirmative (i.e. to become part of the union as an autonomous republic again.) and, though previously existing as an an ASSR only as part of the RSFSR, it was instead integrated into the Ukrainian sphere of influence. (Crimean ASSR)
      I think this is also an interesting and often forgotten tidbit in the argument about where Crimea belongs.]

      there was no Scottish style referendum where the people were given the option without being asked at gunpoint.

      You mean a Scottish style referendum, where the BBC was used to sway public opinion in London's favor? What happened to the promises of greater autonomy for Scotland? Regardless of these rhetorics, I haven't seen any conclusive indication of the 2014 Crimean referendum being held at gunpoint. What I did see is that the (western) media didn't have issues accepting the transparent ballot boxes during the Ukrainian election, while the same containers were heavily criticized during the Crimean refendum.
      Regarding NATO, again, it should have ceased to exist together with the Warsaw Pact, instead NATO builds anti-missile systems in Europe that point you know where.

      "Why is it bad when the US funds NGOs but okay for other nations to fund GOs?" First of all, what's the difference, whether you fund the opposition directly or indirectly?
      And second, the extortionist methods of the US using economic blockades, briberies and corporate takeovers of other countries together with the installation of puppet governments stands in absolutely no comparison to the (also embarrassing) actions of any other country including Russia. The dollar imperialism along with might projections to subjugate other nations and countries is just wrong by any (untwisted) ethical measure.
      "far right National Front"
      Just look at who's in power in Kiev. Same shit. Probably worse; one word: "Subhumans."

      "it's nonsense to keep criticising the US and to defend Russia" Both sides are bad^h^h^hterrible, but the truth is what matters. And it is being twisted in many ways. I've seen many times how the media presents single data points as common practice, totally distorts reality or makes up things to suite their current policy. Seen this in

    21. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're ignorant, or just Russian, but what? -

      "Regarding Crimea, and after looking at what is happening in the east, I fully support Russia's sending in of troops to avert the coup-powers treating the Crimean peoples as "subhumans"."

      You realise that's exactly how Russia has treated that Tatars there right by marking crosses on their doors and gates, and disappearing them in the night much like Russia used to do when it ran the USSR?

      "Crimea (and Sevastopol) was an autonomous region of Ukraine with a predominantly Russian population (which has been so since Catherine the Great). They chose to secede."

      No it hasn't, it's was a primarily Tatar population until post-World War II when the USSR ethnically cleansed them from the region.

      When even Chinese media, much more a friend of Russia then the West is even criticising the Russian annexation of Crimea you know it's a fact that it was wholly unjustified. The fact you're trying to justify it tells us one thing, that you only support the Russian point of view, and are wholly against the view of almost the entirety of the rest of the world. That's not balanced or rational, that's called being a Russian puppet. Even Russia's closest allies like Belarus fell strangely silent refusing to fully support Russia's actions despite being wholly dependent on Russian for the existence of the regimes running them. If that isn't a message I don't know what is, how can you have such a naive one sided view unless you only believe Russian media which is wholly contrary to what you're claiming?

    22. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're ignorant, or just Russian, but what? -

      Lots of Russians don't support what's happening, Captain Stereotype.

      You realise that's exactly how Russia has treated that Tatars [...]

      You do realize what the Tatars were doing during WWII? You also do realize that the USSR != Russia? You do realize that the USSR apologized?

      No it hasn't, it's was a primarily Tatar population until post-World War II when the USSR ethnically cleansed them from the region.

      Get your facts straight: "[Tatars were] the relative largest ethnic population until the end of 19th century[...]" ([Crimean Tatars]

      The fact you're trying to justify it tells us one thing, that you only support the Russian point of view, and are wholly against the view of almost the entirety of the rest of the world. That's not balanced or rational, that's called being a Russian puppet.

      Right. Because there's only one "right" view. You know what your opinion tells me? That you've been successfully brainwashed.
      As opposed to you, my view is not one-sided. I do, however condemn the actions of all participating parties: US, EU and Russia. It's embarrassing to have such petty conflicts, in the XXI century.
      Also, as opposed to you, I've actually been around the places we're talking about, so please, kindly, do shut up if you have no clue of what you're talking about.

    23. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      "You do realize that the USSR apologized?"

      Yeah, they also promised not to harm Ukrainian territorial integrity if Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal too.

      It turns out that nothing that comes out of the Russian government's mouths is trustworthy.

      "my view is not one-sided"

      Except it is. Your anti-US rhetoric makes that pretty clear.

      Is there a lot the US did wrong last decade? Fuck yes. Has it learnt lessons? Most definitely. Is it still the biggest problem this decade? Definitely not - Russia is clearly the biggest threat to world peace this decade and you're still harping on about last decade's fuck-ups.

    24. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they also promised not to harm Ukrainian territorial integrity if Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal too.

      First of all, it's still up for debate, whether they did. Crimeans voted to secede, which is one of the provisions of the UN Charta.
      Also, the US (as one of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum) was supposed to

      3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

      Instead it pumped over 5 billion USD into it and was responsible for TWO coups, one of them successful. (Check Nuland, or Obama's recent speech about how the US "brokered a deal" to transition power).
      Also, stop acting as if it wasn't in everybody's fucking best interest to not have another country with nuclear capabilities in Europe.

      It turns out that nothing that comes out of the <insert any country except for Finland here> government's mouths is trustworthy.

      FTFY. You can't trust any government (except the Finns).

      Your anti-US rhetoric makes that pretty clear.

      in response to

      Right. Because there's only one "right" view. [...] I do, however condemn the actions of all participating parties: US, EU and Russia. It's embarrassing to have such petty conflicts, in the XXI century.

      Very anti-US what I'm writing there. Extremely. Not.

      Has it learnt lessons? Most definitely.

      LOL, wut?! Apparently not the right ones, see NSA, Lybia, Syria, ISIL, Sudan, Venezuela, Iraq #3 (or was it 4?), Afghanistan, support of Gaza war^H^H^Hgenocide last summer, fucking Ferguson, the list goes on and on.

      And then you're calling me one-sided? Get off those hard drugs/pharmaceuticals, dude. They're bad for your perception of actual reality. Try some LSD instead.
      You don't have to admit that you're wrong, just do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance in front of every other sane person in the room.

    25. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      Alright Putin, calm down. It's pretty obvious you've been reading too much RT.

    26. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're out of arguments. As expected.

    27. Re:I love the snark here by Xest · · Score: 1

      No, I just fully believe in the phrase "Don't argue with an idiot, they'll just bring you down to their level and win".

      The only way to win, is hence not to play.

      But just on the rare off chance you are salvageable, I'll leave you with a hint as to why your whole argument is stupid. You reel off indiscretions such as US incursions into Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and so forth as unjustified examples of imperialism. Yet you write off outright annexation of part of a foreign sovereign state (Crimea), military invasion of Eastern Ukraine, Russian incursions into Moldova, Azerbaijan, Syria, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, and Sweden as what, "humanitarian"? Russia just being the good guy?

      Hell, just a couple of weeks ago Russia flew a pair of nuclear bombers only a few miles off the coast around almost the entirety of Britain and Ireland with transponders off and no communications. When do you think the last time the UK flew a silent nuclear bomber off the coast of Russia was?

      If you can't see the hypocrisy in the entirety of your argument with your desperate primarily US focus then you're beyond hope. You've fallen so far into Putin's propaganda machine that you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face in the form of an aggressive Russian invasion.

    28. Re:I love the snark here by qpqp · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm trying real hard to explain the other perspective to you, you know, the one, where there's not a one-sided synchronization of all^H^H^Hmost available media, but you know, one based on certain historical facts and tidbits you might not have known, because they are not presented by the western propaganda machine (which is working just as good as the Russian one).

      "military invasion of Eastern Ukraine, Russian incursions into Moldova, Azerbaijan, Syria, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, and Sweden as what, "humanitarian"?" [citation needed, citation needed, citation needed, ...]
      Please be so kind and provide something that actually proves what you are claiming. I know this is an old argument, and is often used to discredit someone using it as a "Russian puppet," but please, for gods sake, fucking provide EVIDENCE! You know, hard, tangible evidence, not some bullshit rhetorics. It's been what, almost a year and there's not a single reliable satellite photo depicting the alleged thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks and APCs. WTF?! And the other countries... just WTF are you talking about? Japan? Latvia? Estonia? Sweden? WTF, WTF, WTF are you fucking talking about?? The "submarine", which was later found out to be a hoax? What?
      And Please, fucking J-A-P-A-N? WHAT THE FUCK?! You mean the friggin' Kuril Islands that they're disputing for decades? The fuck you talking about?
      The Baltic countries? They're in NATO, do you understand the absurdity of your statement that Russia had incursions into their territory? Do you know what collective security is and means? Man... You're waaaaaay out of your comfort zone. This is ridiculous.
      Azerbaijan... Hmm, please read about the frozen conflict there, please understand the genocide of the Armenians that happened with the help of Azerbaijani mercenaries orchestrated by Turkey. You're conflating things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, even if we assume your invalid premise of Russian imperialism.

      As opposed to you, I did provide at least rudimentary links to non-media sites that back up the claims I make. But you're just lacking them altogether.
      Like: "Hell, just a couple of weeks ago Russia flew a pair of nuclear bombers only a few miles off the coast [...]" [...] in international waters [...] [!!!!!!!!!!] Here, fixed that for you. Or did you miss the memo that you can do whatever the fuck you want there? Really, please do read some of the numerous sources from your country that are more critical of The Media Script (tm).
      If you want, look up in historical sources how often the UK scrambles their jets for stuff like this. Or the US. Or Russia. This is fucking normal! (Not that I don't think it's batshit crazy to do, but it's happening regularly!)

      "If you can't see the hypocrisy in the entirety of your argument with your desperate primarily US focus then you're beyond hope"
      Bullshit. It's not an anti-US focus, read it again and again, until you finally fucking get it. At least look at some of the proof/backup for the arguments that I use! Understand that you're being just as manipulated with as what you allege me to be. You're just plain wrong on so many counts, that I don't know what else to tell you other than to get a history book.

  2. No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by popo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.

    Cubesats are 10cm x 10cm satellites that can be built using off-the-shelf components and cost as little as $50,000 to produce *and* launch into orbit. (Although launch costs are ramping).

    If Iran state media isn't "elaborating" on the nature of the satellite then we have no reason to believe the Iranian government has done anything more impressive than launch a 10cm DIY satellite.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  3. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's an X10 camera on a USB stick for some advanced Iranian space photography.

  4. Ephemerides by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Ephemeris table or it didn't happen.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Ephemerides by FranklinWebber · · Score: 1

      This page has a Two-Line Element Set, from which you can compute an ephemeris:

      NORAD ID 40387

  5. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    That seems too large and too expensive to me. I'm not calling you wrong but why can't you just embed a radio signal emitter and battery in plastic and call it a satellite? If you want to get fancy a slightly larger battery and a small heater.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  6. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by popo · · Score: 2

    You absolutely could.

    But keep in mind that the principal expense is actually the "launch" part, not the satellite part. It's difficult to translate prices from what an orbital launch costs to achieve in the US vs. what it would cost for the government to achieve an orbital launch in Iran -- but using CubeSats as a metric, consider that the development cost of a CubeSat can be as low as $10k USD, with the remaining cost going to placing the satellite in orbit.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  7. We need to "up" the game... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Defense Minister Gen. Hossein Dehghan saying the satellite, designed and built in Iran, is named "Fajr," or dawn in Farsi.

    I guess the designing and launching of satellites isn't the preserve of the so called "developed" nations only these days. the other month, it was India. Now Iran! Folks, we need to raise the bar.

    1. Re:We need to "up" the game... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And as an American, I'd rather live in India or South Korea over Iran and North Korea. Same way I'm sure many many people would have rather lived in late 50's America than late 50's Russia.

    2. Re:We need to "up" the game... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So if you want to decide where to live, I guess you can't decide by the orbital launch capability of the government.

      Dictatorships and such tend to do very well at prestige projects.

      The US struggled to raise the funds to site the statue of liberty, despite the statue itself being a gift. I'm sure that if NK wanted to put up a Kim Jong-il statue they could make it 3x taller without any issue. It isn't about engineering talent - it is about the will of the government to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on a statue when people are starving.

  8. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.

    What if that country is also developing nuclear weapons? If you can sent a satellite around the world, you can also send a warhead around the world.

  9. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

    Nah, it's a GoPro, an arduino board, and an iPhone 3.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  10. Do they do this every February? by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why this is news, according to this article They have done it before. Was that discovered to be a lie? So little info.

  11. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

    The launch of cubesats is a government subsidized program. They use leftover lift capacity on NASA and USAF launches to carry the cubesats into orbit. The cost is not at all reflective of the true cost of launching a satellite.

  12. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Norway can't, except as part of the ESA.

    Hell, Britain has only done it once.

    (Good joke: Britain put a satellite into orbit after cancelling the program because it cost too much, they had one launcher on the pad after the cancellation and it was cheaper to try to launch it than to dismantle it).

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  13. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by JerryLove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.

    I could be wrong: but I'm pretty sure that the ability to place anything into orbit shows considerable technical and engineering skill.

    The ability to put even a small payload into orbit implies the ability to put a larger payload on an intercontinental suborbital arc... at least based on my time in Kerbal Space Program.

  14. swan song? by tloh · · Score: 1

    Didn't Iran just cancel their space program?

    https://medium.com/war-is-bori...

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  15. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by jcfandino · · Score: 2
    Here: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/02/iran-launches-observation-satellite-2012-150202134514005.html
    Some quotes:

    The Fajr (Dawn) satellite was successfully placed 450km above Earth on Monday

    The satellite was locally made, said the official IRNA news agency, as was its launcher

    Fajr satellite, weighing 52kg would be able to take accurate pictures from space.

    the 21-metre and 26 tonne launcher, named Safir-Fajr, shows "the ability of Iran to build satellite launchers".

  16. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

    It is a camera but it wasn't launched per se - it's on a very long selfie stick.

    --
    BM3
  17. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Wootery · · Score: 1

    There can't have been many situations in human history where Just launch it into space was genuinely the right (and economical) move.

  18. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Unless they publish orbital parameters, we don't even know that they've launched a cubesat. It's not like they've never lied before about their capabilities.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  19. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by smithmc · · Score: 1

    "Nuclear weapon" does not automatically mean "missile warhead". The first nuclear bombs were huge and required B-29s to carry them. Taking that and miniaturizing (and ruggedizing) it to the point where it can launched off the tip of a missile is another matter.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  20. Just me? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Perusing the comments I am a bit shocked that nobody else seems to have noticed that the Iranian space agency there has totally ripped off their logo from the United Federation of Planets. I think somebody watched too much next-gen.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  21. pre-emptive move to rip off NASA by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    NASA's Dawn spacecraft is approaching Ceres; by naming their new satellite Dawn, the Iranians have positioned themselves to rip-off NASA press releases for propaganda purposes for their own population.

  22. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by GloomE · · Score: 1

    We have enough space over here already thanks.

  23. Re:No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    The launch of cubesats is a government subsidized program. They use leftover lift capacity on NASA and USAF launches to carry the cubesats into orbit. The cost is not at all reflective of the true cost of launching a satellite.

    Yup, it is a bit like saying that you can build and fly a jet across the Atlantic for $100 because there was a last-minute fare special for that price.

  24. Re: No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I would like to point out that that person was also claiming to have WMD at the time, and was threatening their further use against the Kurds.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  25. Re: No elaboration? Is it a cubesat? by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Congratulations on completely missing the point, Coward.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!