Iran launches another satellite
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
I supposed I'm peeved that Iran can do both and we can't, and are not even interested in trying (or can't afford to). Down another rung we go.
I think an Israeli satellite called 'Bagel 2' would be fun though.
Forget the rung, we got off the ladder ages ago. I think an Israeli satellite called 'Bagel 2' would be fun though.
Launching rockets as a willy-waving exercise (which a lot of it is, frankly - especially by countries that cannot really afford such extravagance) is a genuine waste of money. Iran are doing this to let everyone know that they have a potential method of delivering a weapon on any of its likely enemies - especially Israel.
Britain adopted a much more pragmatic approach many years ago.
Simpo Two said:
I supposed I'm peeved that Iran can do both and we can't, and are not even interested in trying (or can't afford to). Down another rung we go.
The UK is in the forefront of the manufacture and sales of small satellites which even the 'big boys' want to buy. Just because we don't have an indigenous launcher or make 'big' satellites doesn't put us in "Division 2" regards space tech. Besides, rocket-based SLVs are not an area for technological growth or innovation. They're so last century....;-)
Simpo Two said:
An ICBM needs a bit of work before it can put a satellite in orbit.
I expect we sent 'aid' to Iran to help pay for it too.
Nah, we don't send much to Iran these days. My ICBM point was that the initial drive to getting things into orbit was to prove that Russia had the capability to drop a nuke anywhere they liked, and that's the path Iran is going down. I expect we sent 'aid' to Iran to help pay for it too.
I'm sure you're right. And so we'll add Iran to the list of countries we need to bomb/invade.
It's getting to be a very long list. Perhaps they should all just have a jolly good scrap and get it over with, winner takes all. At least then we'd only have one bunch of bandits to deal with.
It's getting to be a very long list. Perhaps they should all just have a jolly good scrap and get it over with, winner takes all. At least then we'd only have one bunch of bandits to deal with.
And, of course, the UK has had no land based ICBMs ever (and before anyone says anything, the Thor was an IRBM).
Indeed, sub-based solid fueled ICBM technology has not really been a source for satellite launchers. Even today, many of the launchers used for putting satellites into orbit are descendants of the 1950s generation of early and impractical liquid fueled ICBMs - Soviet R7, US Atlas and Delta and the now retired Titan family.
Indeed, sub-based solid fueled ICBM technology has not really been a source for satellite launchers. Even today, many of the launchers used for putting satellites into orbit are descendants of the 1950s generation of early and impractical liquid fueled ICBMs - Soviet R7, US Atlas and Delta and the now retired Titan family.
Eric Mc said:
And, of course, the UK has had no land based ICBMs ever (and before anyone says anything, the Thor was an IRBM).
Indeed, sub-based solid fueled ICBM technology has not really been a source for satellite launchers. Even today, many of the launchers used for putting satellites into orbit are descendants of the 1950s generation of early and impractical liquid fueled ICBMs - Soviet R7, US Atlas and Delta and the now retired Titan family.
It's been done, but obviously a bit impractical. Iran's "peaceful" Nuclear power research and "peaceful" space programme do add up to a not particularly peaceful conclusion.Indeed, sub-based solid fueled ICBM technology has not really been a source for satellite launchers. Even today, many of the launchers used for putting satellites into orbit are descendants of the 1950s generation of early and impractical liquid fueled ICBMs - Soviet R7, US Atlas and Delta and the now retired Titan family.
Eric Mc said:
Exactly. large Solid fuelled boosters (most practical for ICBMs) are not great for satellite launching - except when used as strap on boosters (like on the Titan III and IV, Shuttle, Ariane V and Delta Heavy.
There was an effort to use surplus Minutemen as launchers, but it seems to have hidetheelephants said:
Eric Mc said:
Exactly. large Solid fuelled boosters (most practical for ICBMs) are not great for satellite launching - except when used as strap on boosters (like on the Titan III and IV, Shuttle, Ariane V and Delta Heavy.
There was an effort to use surplus Minutemen as launchers, but it seems to have I wonder what the specific problems were with the Minuteman?
davepoth said:
Because, even if they don't actually bother doing it, Iran now have the capability to enrich Uranium in sufficient quantities to build a viable bomb, and also the capability to drop that bomb on Washington DC if they like. So even if they never build it, they can pretend they have.
Enriching uranium to levels to produce nuclear power does not mean they can enrich to weapons grade uranium. Entirely different levels by a long way. Well, you have to ask yourself: 'Would Iran like to have a nuclear bomb?'
A: Yes
B: No
And then you have to ask yourself: 'Is Iran an unstable religious hotbed where anything could kick off?'
A: Yes
B: No
So you either bomb them to stop them or you let them carry on. I'm not sure either is good.
A: Yes
B: No
And then you have to ask yourself: 'Is Iran an unstable religious hotbed where anything could kick off?'
A: Yes
B: No
So you either bomb them to stop them or you let them carry on. I'm not sure either is good.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff