Iran Announces Manned Space Mission Plans

Lucas123 writes "After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere (though Iran claimed it made it into orbit), government officials stated they intend to put a man into space within 10 years. The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into space can also be used for launching weapons. Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."

but will they get him back down?

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?

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?

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:That's Not "Ironic"

You must really be crazy to call the proven conspiracy of Bush's team members to arm Iran something worthy of a "tinfoil hat".

Especially when you yourself link Rumsfeld and Cheney with Ford. But then, you don't bother to point out that Rumsfeld and Cheney met while working together for Nixon. All of which is consistent with working with America's enemies.

You've got your tinfoil hat on backwards. It's frying your brain.

Re:That's Not "Ironic"

I don't think you really know what's going on here.

Cheney and Rumsfeld kept their top-level jobs their whole lives because they were good at it. Sure, they caused catastrophes wherever they went. Sure, their careers cost America vast, often irreparable damage, and many, many lives (and even more of non-Americans). But their bosses made out like bandits. That's not "incompetent". That's highly productive, while not caring who or what they destroy to get what they want.

Re:but will they get him back down?

What problem was solved by the establishment of Israel?

My understanding was that after hundreds of years of being persecuted and murdered by the Christians in Europe and then on a far more massive scale by Hitler and the rest of WWII era Christians in Germany and by pretty much everyone else, it was supposed to be a small piece of land where they could feel safe from such persecution and actually have the power of a government to defend themselves. It is not surprising that the rest of the world should object to such a refuge. After Hitler, I think it was supposed to be a sort of "enough is enough!" kind of thing. I'm not clear on whether people who object to the existence of Israel are doing so on the basis of the particular spot that was chosen (The Holy Land! LOL) or on the fact that a refuge for Jews should exist at all.

They will start...

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

How is this a threat anymore?

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?

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

Have you not been paying attention? Its 'use' is simply to be able to award no-bid contracts to defense contractors.

Next question...

Atmosphere out of reach...

"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!

Re:Atmosphere out of reach...

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...

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.

Should provide entertainment.

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.

I know you're making a joke here, but the joke is less funny the more you know about Iran. Iran and Iraq differ by a lot more than one consonant. For one thing, the way their government works is much more complicated than the old Baghdad Bob's Baathist regime.

First of all, charming Mr. Ahmadinejad, although he is quite capable of saying some pretty outrageous things, doesn't wield supreme power, or even anything close to it. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni, is much more powerful. But even his power is arguably the ultimate one, it is by design much more awkward for him to wield than, say, Saddam's version of ultimate power.

There are even relative moderates in the government like Akbar Rafsanjani, former president and current chairman of both the Expendiency Council and Assembly of Experts. The Assembly theoretically has the power to dismiss the Supreme Leader, although no actions in that direction have ever, so far as we know, been taken.

The point here is that the Iranian government isn't even close to being the kind of dictatorship where everybody has to parrot the President's fantasies. To tell you the truth, it isn't quite like any other form of government I can think of, it's more like a hybrid of a democratic Republic and a theocracy, with the theocracy acting primarily in a judicial role but with certain executive powers theoretically in their direct or indirect control. Ack, that's a really bad summary, but the best I can do.

The important thing that everybody should understand about Iran is that the Iranian government is not anything monolithic entity driven by the ego or ideology of any single person, not even the Supreme Leader.

The way we deal with such a country isn't quite the same as you would deal with a dictatorship. Perhaps one might approach Iran in the way we dealt with the old totalitarian states, although Iran isn't really very much like them. There is a power structure there which, through its various organs, might be dealt with pragmatically. Such dealings might even, in some cases, tip the balance of power between factions.

The Iranians take seriously the idea of being an "Islamic Republic". It seems almost incomprehensible to the Western mind that this could be anything but a sham, but it's not. There's a thousand years of Shiite historical and religious thought which limits the ability of even senior religious leaders to wield absolute power.

Re:Should provide entertainment.

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?

just slight of hand

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.

Sensationalism Much?

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!

Religion in space

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?

Irans business-plan

1. Drill a lot of oil.

2. Send iranians into space.

3. ???????

4 Prophet!!!

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

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

Bullshit. It is completely different thing to use suicide attacks in warfare or terrorism and to commit a national suicide.

We heard this same crap about Chinese and Russians. You know, they're not real people, they're not thinking like us etc. etc. etc.

The leaders of Iran are very much interested in maximizing their well-being in this world. And filling up their pockets in the process. Most of Iran's theocrats are also businessmen. Christians are not the only hypocrites.

Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg

Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?

If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.

The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.

Re:Countering propaganda

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

Re:uh huh...

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:Just remember. . .

All of that could true (i'm not going to get into the details of your delusional post)... AND Iran could be up to something that violates the NPT they signed. There was an Iran before Bush, and (just maybe) there will be one after. Just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean that the Iranian gov't doesn't mean us harm. Bush's idiocy and Iran's theocracy seeking WMD are not mutually exclusive.

If Bush did nothing about Iran, and Iran does something bad in 2009... "Bush let Iran build nukes!". Looks like a lose/lose proposition. Act, and he's an evil dolt. Do nothing, calamity strikes, and Bush is still an evil dolt.

Are you an brilliant troll or are you really that blinded by partisanship?