Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Announces Manned Space Mission Plans

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the look-out-below dept.

Space 559

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

but will they get him back down? (4, Insightful)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693461)

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?

Re:but will they get him back down? (2, Funny)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693589)

sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there.

No, see, you're assuming Iran wants them back. And that they were given oxygen.

Re:but will they get him back down? (4, Funny)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693629)

There will be no homosexuals in Iran because the government will send them all into orbit without means to get back down alive.

Re:but will they get him back down? (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693857)

They're going to send a man into space so that he can make a satellite map of the world...and then wipe Israel off of it :)

Re:but will they get him back down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693605)

Agreed--

Countries like Iran, China, etc, are essentially an "axis of evil" in terms of deplorable human rights.

Consider these same countries have very poor quality control standards for everything from children's toys and food (China tends to put lead in everything) to nuclear facilities (the rest of the aforementioned countries), and I think the question is more along the lines of:

Will they have names, faces, heck, will they even be DOA?

Re:but will they get him back down? (4, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693635)

I find this progression of events intersting...

Iran: "Yes, we're enriching nuclear material, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're employing nuclear scientists, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're creating nuclear production facilities, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're developing a missle for our space program, but we promise it's not to deliver warheads."

Wouldn't it be poetic justice and just a tad ironic if the US spent all this time and money on the "boogey man in Iraq", then like the boy who cried wolf, is criticized and ignored over Iran?

That's Not "Ironic" (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693715)

That wouldn't be ironic. That would simply be consequences.

And no coincidence. The Bush dynasty has been working closely with Iran, arming it, even protecting AQ Khan (the Pakistani whose stolen nuke secrets started the Iranian, N Korean and Libyan nuke projects). That's why the "Iran" in "Iran/Contra" was always the worst part of that traitorous operation out of Oliver North's White House basement office. And why the resumes of the Bush Jr "brain trust" are full of "Iran/Contra" experience.

That would mean they have weapons of (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694029)

mass destruction, a non-democratic theocracy and oil. I can't possibly see what could go wrong.

Re:That's Not "Ironic" (2, Insightful)

gormanw (1321203) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694043)

Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the Iranian govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the mullahs, and the face of Iranian govt. is the whack job Ahmedinijad (sp). Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.

Re:That's Not "Ironic" (3, Informative)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694105)

Worse, there's a case that can be made that it's Napoleonic crossed with some sort of Messiah complex. Some of those guys REALLY don't like everyone else, and may take the admonition in the Koran that a Muslim can lie to a non-Muslim in a time of war seriously.

Re:That's Not "Ironic" (1)

gormanw (1321203) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694357)

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. All of the goofball's talk about the 13th or 12th Imam in hiding and how his actions will bring him out is a little scary. Fortunately, we have a very large military presence on Iran's flanks, as well as fleet of ships in the gulf. Go ahead punk, make my day.

Re:That's Not "Ironic" (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694317)

That's a really nice tinfoil hat there. Where did you get it? I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to know where I can get one.

P.S. Some of his "brain trust" go back farther than that. [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's Not "Ironic" (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694365)

Are you proposing that we should be at war against Iran right now instead? Just what is it that Iran is doing that you think they wouldn't be doing if we weren't in Iraq?

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.

And the spread of nuclear tech is hardly a Bush legacy- when I read heavily on the subject (up to the point got my BA in PoliSci in 1995) it was all but universally seen as inevitable. The debate was over how to handle it.

Bush is not my favorite guy. I didn't vote for him either time(although I certainly didn't vote for that ridiculous parody of a political candidate John Kerry- sat that one out). But you're giving aid and comfort to Bush and his set by demonizing him- just like the GOP gave aid and comfort to Clinton with their rabid hyperbole in the 90's.

Re:but will they get him back down? (1, Troll)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693817)

Good for Iran. Nice to see them doing well over there.

Wonder if they'll fix that Israel problem for us....

Re:but will they get him back down? (1, Troll)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694133)

Wonder if they'll fix that Israel problem for us....

No need, David Ben Gurion did just that. The problem has been solved 60 years ago.

Re:but will they get him back down? (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694059)

Wouldn't it be poetic justice and just a tad ironic if the US spent all this time and money on the "boogey man in Iraq", then like the boy who cried wolf, is criticized and ignored over Iran?

I guess. I knew that was going to be the score from the second Bush uttered the words "Axis of Evil". I knew damn well that the actually dangerous countries, Iran and North Korea, would be left more or less alone while the weak and harmless one was going to be invaded. That it was going to be the one invaded exactly because it was harmless. I mean, we wouldn't invade a country if we really thought they could retaliate with nukes. So NK and Iran, the ones with real nuclear programs, get all the diplomacy while Saddam got the U.S. Armed Forces Steamroll.

If it makes you feel any better, lots of countries are worried about Iran's nuclear program. They agree with the U.S. even if they aren't listening to U.S. "intelligence" any more. Just don't expect them to invade any time soon; even the Bush admin realizes how nasty and terrible that would be.

Re:but will they get him back down? (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694349)

Well it could just be that they want nuclear power and a peaceful space program.
Not that I believe it of course.

Re:but will they get him back down? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693637)

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?

In 20 years. It's like backing up your data: Concentrate on the backup infrastructure, we'll worry about restore later.

Re:but will they get him back down? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693961)

This begs the question - if an Iranian astronaut dies because they can't bring him down successfully, does he still get his 40 virgins?

Re:but will they get him back down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694163)

does he still get his 40 virgins?

I just think they're going to be pissed when they don't find a star in the dead center of their crescent moon.

Re:but will they get him back down? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694231)

Knowing Iran their first astronauts will be gay. That way after a few years of launches they will be correct in saying that there are no gays in Iran

They will start... (4, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693485)

with a budget of $50 and use a hedgehog [armorgames.com] as a proof of concept to secure further funding.

Re:They will start... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693797)

I love that game. I found it a couple of days ago and have already gotten my hedgehog into space in 7 days.

Re:They will start... (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693809)

Promotion whore.

erm... nevermind... this game isn't that bad.. hmmm...

Re:They will start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694263)

You're evil... I just spent over an hour at that game... first game - 15 days. Every subsequent game, 17 days. Gaaaaahhhh!

How is this a threat anymore? (4, Interesting)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693487)

I thought we neutralized the ICBM boogey man with our missile defense stuff. Isn't that why Russia's pissed at Poland right now?

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (2, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693671)

Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693903)

Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.

Which makes Russia's bellyaching over our deployment all the more amusing. The base in Poland can't intercept missiles launched from Russia to North America (they tend to go over the pole) and even if it could Russia probably has the technology to defeat or at least overwhelm it.

That 50% might just be enough to stop an Iranian or North Korean missile though.

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694087)

Actually, it makes Russia's bellyaching all the more appropriate and reasonable. There's no way this system could be used to provide any reasonable sort of defense. It just doesn't work well enough.

So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for? Most likely offense.

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694047)

To be fair, it's possible that the anti-ballistic-missile tech will progress in the time that it takes Iran to finally get an ICBM with nuclear warhead working.

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (3, Insightful)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693869)

I thought we neutralized the ICBM boogey man with our missile defense stuff. Isn't that why Russia's pissed at Poland right now?

This is the problem with having a defense that is somewhat effective but not perfect. If you have a system that can shoot down, say, 50% of nuclear missiles, the Russians look at it and see that their nuclear arsenal is only half as effective a threat as it once was, and get annoyed. However, you still don't want to trust your life to something that has become a coin toss (maybe the shield will shoot the missile down, maybe the city will be obliterated, who knows?) The Russians also want to discourage further development of missile defense, because if America ever does manage to get it reliable enough to count on, that leaves them in the same losing position that unilateral disarmament would.

Re:How is this a threat anymore? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694313)

Not for several years. So far we have a design and a plan, but no actual sites.

Russia is pissed at Poland because they've sided with the West and Russia can't be loved so they'll go for feared. Russia needs an enemy too, it seems.

Atmosphere out of reach... (5, Funny)

MarvinIsANerd (447357) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693489)

"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!

You're Doing It Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693537)

"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!

"No, no, no, point UP, stupid!"

Re:You're Doing It Wrong! (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693639)

"I know! We'll dig our way out!"

"No no no, dig up, stupid."

Re:Atmosphere out of reach... (0, Redundant)

fitten (521191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693643)

Yeah... that stood out for me as well... how do you *fall short* of reaching Earth's atmosphere? ;)

Re:Atmosphere out of reach... (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693759)

Simple! Perpetual orbit with booster rockets. It's a lot like missing the ground.

Re:Atmosphere out of reach... (5, Funny)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693709)

And if you read to the end, you see it took four people to come up with that linguistic gem... The author, two contributors, and an explicitly named editor.

From people who are paid to communicate. That's all they do.

The species is doomed...

Fortunately I hear magpies are self-aware...

Re:Atmosphere out of reach... (4, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693741)

And we all know how hard it is to reach the Earth's atmosphere!

It is if your launching a missile from underwater [wikipedia.org] you insensitive clod!

Wow, I never thought I would use the "insensitive clod" joke... but there it is.

Nit picker (0)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694165)

You knew what I meant.

Aliens out of reach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694243)

"And we all know how hard it is to reach the Earth's atmosphere!"

Even Martians don't have a problem reaching our atmosphere.

zimbabwe space program (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693495)

I heard that zimbabwe planed to do that once too. We all know what became of that.

Are they selling bridges too? (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693521)

Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."

Yeah, suuuuuuuure you won't.

Re:Are they selling bridges too? (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694319)

Just like USA, UK, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan et al then ... Nobody "SAYS" they will launch a nuclear warhead, they're all to deter the other bunch of crazy bastards from doing it. So why is is okay for say Israel to have them pointed at Iran, and yet Iran cannot have any "deterrant" ? And don't say that Iran are crazy religious nuts, because Israel would launch one in 5 seconds if they could get away with it (and probably would too). Unfortunately there is no "-1 painful truth hurts" moderation.

uh huh... (4, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693525)

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.

Re:uh huh... (1, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693727)

Oil costs the Iranians just as much as everyone else.

Re:uh huh... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693941)

"Oil costs the Iranians just as much as everyone else."

How, exactly, is that? If they use it internally, the shipping costs are much lower than buying off the world market.

Re:uh huh... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694183)

"Oil costs the Iranians just as much as everyone else."

How, exactly, is that? If they use it internally, the shipping costs are much lower than buying off the world market.

I'm sure they'd rather sell the oil at the very high price that it soon will be (think $300/barrel in ten years, when the Iranian atomic program is production-ready and peak oil has hit) and use nice, cheap, clean nuclear at home.

I'd like to see the US with a similar policy, actually.

Re:uh huh... (5, Informative)

L Boom (1274024) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694255)

Pretty simple, actually. Iran has very limited capability to refine their own oil, so they need to pay to get it to a country with more refining capability, then pay to get it back.

Re:uh huh... (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694293)

Yes, but the parent's point (I believe) is that Iran has *A LOT* of state-owned oil (as in free) and more Natural Gas than everyone at the Bush's Baked Beans company picnic!

For argument's sake, let's say one is Iran... So it's preferred to build a 5 Billion dollar highly scrutinized and controversial nuclear power plant that happens to be a breeder reactor design (that will be abruptly bombed by Israel once it is fueled and operating).... OR might one would be wiser and have a better result by instead building 10x the number of equivalently power-producing hydrocarbon (gas) powered electric power plants (for 10x the power output) using what Iran has plenty of and also dodging international "sanctions" and criticisms... hum, what does one think???... What is the Real Modus Operandi here?
And please don't give me that FUD about Iran being concerned about "Climate Change" and that this is the reason why they are interested in specifically *nuclear power*, I am sure the Iranians are NOT concerned over the climate issue... they live in a hot hot desert *already*... If anything, "Climate Change, (AKA "Global Warming"), might make that part of the world cooler and have more rainfall...

Anyone that is free thinking and has half a functioning brain that *really really truly* thinks that Iran is NOT after Nuclear Weapons (As in REAL WMD's) needs to go to Room 12A...

Iran has no gays (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693531)

This country has got CREDIBILITY!

Re:Iran has no gays (1)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693633)

Iran has no gays

they probably don't... since they are all being send into space!

And nuclear enrichment... (2, Funny)

snaildarter (1143695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693549)

is just for a peaceful (and extremely expensive) nuclear power program. Not that I blame them.

Should provide entertainment. (5, Funny)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693557)

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?

Re:Should provide entertainment. (1)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693689)

Our cosmonauts have reported to have seen from space that Italy looks like the boot of Allah striking the Zionist regime.

The Jews control Sicily now?!

Re:Should provide entertainment. (2, Funny)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693781)

Sicily is shaped like a pyramid ... like the one in the dollar bill .... COINCIDENCE?

Re:Should provide entertainment. (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694235)

The Jews control Sicily now?!

You really didn't think that Moshe's Pizza in Haifa would keep us satisfied for very long, did you?

Re:Should provide entertainment. (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693997)

Maybe you're just trollbait.

Re:Should provide entertainment. (1)

JackCroww (733340) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694083)

Why would Iran refer to their space travelers with a Russian word?

just slight of hand (5, Interesting)

jriding (1076733) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693583)

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.

Re:just slight of hand (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693977)

Manned space program is an elegant way of proving your ICBM technology to the rest of the world: if you can put a fragile human being into space and bring him down at a specific location, you can do the same with a fragile nuclear warhead.

Did it say if (0, Flamebait)

jarek (2469) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693601)

they intended to bring him back? I mean, its a fair question considering how much value Iran puts on a human life after all,

Did your comment say if (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694065)

you knew anything about Iran, or its people? Oh I guess from your comment you pretty well summarized your ignorance, and borderline racism fairly well. Sorry, my mistake.

Sensationalism Much? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693603)

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 [wikipedia.org] or Daikatana

You think that we could leave the nefarious plans, no matter how obvious, up to the readers? Sheesh!

Countering propaganda (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693653)

The easiest way to counter propaganda - from any nation, not just Iran - is to take this attitude:

"k, now do it."

Re:Countering propaganda (4, Funny)

Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694077)

Or, you could just say "Bring it on!" That worked wonders for us in Iraq.

developing technology for a nuclear weapons prgrm? (3, Interesting)

Webious (1317179) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693665)

despite all the propaganda, I really don't see the Iranians ever developing a nuclear weapons programs as it will ultimately work against them. They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel. Maybe they really want to use nuclear energy for power generation as their population is exploding, creating more demand for energy (at this time they import more than %40 of the gasoline they need for domestic consumption and have to burn fuel to generate electricity). and maybe they do want to have a space program without diverting the technology for use in ICBMs.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (4, Funny)

Life+Liberty+Freedom (1345021) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693905)

And maybe the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny are real too....

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694005)

They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel

They don't have to match our arsenal. All they need to be able to do is reach a major city in any one of the countries you mentioned. Yeah, we could obliterate them (to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton) if they hit us but would we be willing to go to war with them in the first place if it was going to cost us New York City or Washington?

We need a workable missile defense technology.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (5, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694053)

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 [wikipedia.org] (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.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (3, Insightful)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694139)

Maybe. Or it's Government that's feels continually threatened by Western powers and Israel, it finds it's control continually slipping among the populace, worried about their enemy to the South will become more of a threat now that it's an American ally, a leadership that's embolden by Islamic militancy to stand up to the Great Satan, and a Government that fears that unless it goes nuclear, it will never be treated with the respect, no reverence, it thinks it deserves from the International Community.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (2, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694143)

I really don't see the Iranians ever developing a nuclear weapons programs as it will ultimately work against them.

No, it will work for them by being a deterrent to Israel (and by extension the U.S.) with its nuclear armament. It will be the same situation as exists between the U.S. and Russia with one vital difference: when Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it can hold the oil fields of the entire Middle East hostage if the U.S., or Israel, decides to attack it.

And before someone asks the obvious question, "What's to stop them from holding the oil fields hostage regardless of being attacked?", there would be no benefit to threaten the oil fields other than to drive up the cost of oil. However, as a poster up the way has already pointed out, Iran imports roughly 40% of its gasoline. Thus, any benefit from higher oil prices would be negated by the higher gas prices.

now that's thinking outside the box (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693729)

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.

Piss People Off (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693731)

Does anyone else get the impression that Iran doesn't really want to fight anyone, they just want to get other country's goats?
Like first they had a nuclear program and Bush flipped shit, so now they are going into space to see how much more angry they can make him.

Re:Piss People Off (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693813)

Does anyone else get the impression that Iran doesn't really want to fight anyone, they just want to get other country's goats? Like first they had a nuclear program and Bush flipped shit, so now they are going into space to see how much more angry they can make him.

They don't want to fight anyone, they just want to kill infidels.

Re:Piss People Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693943)

Not if they know anything of the events of the last 20-30 years.

Iran is far from a peacful nation.

Re:Piss People Off (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694021)

they just want to get other country's goats

To eat them, or for other purposes? [bbc.co.uk]

Iran so far away (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693753)

And Iran, Iran so far aw... crap.

Space X (2, Insightful)

Bombula (670389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693833)

So how did Iran - apparently a country containing only religious nutbags, comic book villains, and the lost apprentices of the former Iraqi Intelligence Ministry, according to the news - manage to successfully launch rocket capable of carrying a satellite while Space-X os 0-for-3?

Maybe we should be a little concerned...

Re:Space X (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693935)

They've a young population and a reasonable education system. The kids spawned when Khomeini said he wanted the population to boom are now science and engineering graduates.

Re:Space X (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694057)

There are conflicting reports but virtually every independent observer outside of Iran concurs that the launch failed after second stage ignition, well short of orbital insertation.

Been watching SpaceX for awhile and part of their problem is that they are making changes and upgrading between sparse launches. For example the failure #3 was caused because they upgraded their first stage engine, which had residual thrust for an additional 1.5 seconds, which was not accounted for in the timeline for second stage ignition, causing it to ram into second stage as it ignited, causing failure. Had they not upgraded the first stage engine (or had the bookkeeping noted the extra thrust, and updated the control logic for second stage ignition) that anomaly would not taken place.

So upgrade-itis caused at least 1 of 3 failures. Kinda makes sense coming from a computer guy :)

Re:Space X (1)

Jubedgy (319420) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694203)

Trick question: they didn't actually manage to successfully launch it. Unless you count the launch in 2005 which was a Russian rocket. Though Iran claims it was successful, I haven't seen any footage of the success. That, coupled with the reports [aviationweek.com] from USN and USAF assets in the area paints a bleak picture for that poor satellite.

But hey, it's not that hard...it's just rocket science!

Re:Space X (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694211)

manage to successfully launch rocket capable of carrying a satellite while Space-X os 0-for-3?

For various values of "successful".

Re:Space X (1)

bbn (172659) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694213)

This is Irans second try, and it was approximately as successful as the second try of Space X.

Meaning, the first stage worked, the second stage kinda worked but in the end failed.

Now, if their third attempt works out, they did it better than Space X. But we don't know that yet.

I am still betting on Space X as having the better rocket.

Re:Space X (1)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694351)

take a look at any US University's Physics, Comp. Science, and Mathematics department and you'll see 50% Asians (mostly Chinese), followed closely by Persians (Iranians), Indians, Pakistani... etc. somewhere, in there, there are also a few Americans. maybe around 10-15% of the student body. We are educating the world. Sometimes for better. Sometimes for worse.

Launch scheduled for February 15th 2009.......... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24693851)

Services for the astronaut to be held on February 16th.

Model Rocket already available! (2, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693859)

Get out the sandpaper and white glue space cadets, it's
The Gee-Hod! [semroc.com] .

no nuclear weapons ambitions (1)

miserere nobis (1332335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24693959)

Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads

"No, we are not threatening anybody with weapons; we just want to help out with the worldwide energy crisis. We plan to use the missiles for donating nuclear reactors to Tel Aviv and Washington, DC."

space... the final frontier (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694003)

shit man, we will have flying cars in about 5 years. all they have to do is buy one and drive it straight up.

Just remember. . . (1, Flamebait)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694073)

I hope people don't forget, (I'm talking to YOU Slashdot), how everybody bought into the whole propaganda push to invade Iraq. "Cakewalk" "War over in Ten Weeks" "WMD's"

People around here were salivating with images of Command & Conquer tanks dancing in their heads and I got slammed for saying, "Uh, this is going to be a quagmire, it's going to be incredibly expensive and the justification for this war is thin to the point of not even being there." --And that was before all the lies and manipulations became public.

The Bush gang are sick war-hawks eager to create conditions for a world-wide police state where massive amounts of the world population can be culled, oil profits can be had by a very small few, war profits can be had by a very small few, and opium profits can by maintained. These wars are about greed and control, and they have nothing to do with the stated rationalizations and these stupid stories about, "Oooh, Iran is Sooo ScArY". Don't get fooled again!

But most of you will, and the economy will tank even worse than it already has, and many of you will be starving in concentration camps before the next five years are out. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm usually not. Sorry. Bush blew up frogs with firecrackers before going on to become a coke-head. He's a psychopath, and he'll smile and be all cuddly as he continues to set the world on fire.

You think you've seen the story and know the details, but the investigations continue with new data rising to the top. Here's one of the latest on 9-11. [freedocumentaries.org]

-FL

Those Iranian Aliens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694119)

Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere

Well, Iran is from another planet, so I could see how getting to Earth could be a little difficult for them. Let's hope they fail.

Diplomat Speak (1)

svnt (697929) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694197)

I love when anonymous sources still feel the need to phrase their responses as government PR drones would.

Source: "It could be characterized as a dramatic failure."

The news would be more entertaining if journalists stopped kidding themselves and just geared everything to real lowest common denominator: the NASCAR fans.

Translation: "Man it took off like a rabid 'coon on fire then KABOOM like somebody shot it in the face with a Howitzer! (But listen, I never said nothin')."

Missing tag... (1)

JJRRutgers (595466) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694205)

This headline screams "goodluckwiththat" as an additional tag.

Oh I bet (1)

soapdog (773638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694227)

they will be the first country to actually an astrounaut in poland or wherever their rocket falls before reaching orbit.

Weapons vs. Science (2, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694257)

Why is it every time Iran is mentioned in the mass media, that 'Nuclear weapons' has to be included?? Seems like we're just awaiting the day that they do something even remotely close to that, so we can say "SEE?? I TOLD YOU SO!"

Jeez. Just let them go to the moon already. Not like we don't have an arsenal of nukes pointed in their direction anyway. Why are we any better? Because we already *have* them?

Kamikaze ICBMS !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24694267)

oy vey!

Russia? (3, Insightful)

sckeener (137243) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694269)

Is it any wonder that they are doing this? I'm sure this has been in the works, but with what Russia is doing, how many things can the US be a watch dog on? I'm sorry world...but at some point y'all have to be concerned too...can't just rely on the US...and you shouldn't because by evidence of the Iraq War, we aren't always (or even close to) right.

Religion in space (4, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694275)

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?

Call Bart Sibrel! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24694345)

This space program really will be a hoax. I'm sure they have their best photoshop monkeys on it as we speak.

-jcr

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?