Irans attempt to send monkey into space......., page 3

reply to post by ngchunter

---

I said Iran doesnt have the ability for an ICBM to reach the US. You then asked how RSAID-1 was able to fly over washington. RSAD-1 is a satellite and not an ICBM.

The mid course flight phase is the missing link you guys arent grasping. Putting a satellite in orbit requires a few hundred miles going up. An ICBM does not share the same flight characterstics as an ICBM, hence the mid flgiht phase.

So once agian, please read my posts before responding.

Iran can put something into space.
Iran CANNOT get an ICBM to DC - They dont have the technical ability to do so, specifically the range portion.

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

You said the rocket they use to put satellites in space could not reach the us. You are wrong. You don't need to follow a traditional icbm flight profile in order to create an orbit that will reach the us. If I show you a video simulating just such an orbit, will you admit you were wrong? I don't know how many times I have to say it; orbital altitude does not matter. If you can reach orbit, you can reach the us with the same rocket.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

An ICBM does not reach an orbital altitude, its a continous flight on a trajectory to impact a specific location. Because of that continous controlled flight, the range needs to be the 6-7k miles to reach DC, and the longest range rocket they have can reach around 1200-1700 miles, which falls short. You need to take into account atmospheric drag as well.

As I said, its easier to launch something into space than it is to hit a target on the other side of the planet.

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

An icbm produces an extremely elliptical suborbital trajectory. If you can get into orbit though, you can just as easily hit a point on the opposite side of the world with a less eccentric but still suborbital trajectory. Now answer my question; if I show you a simulated video of this using the same type of booster, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no?

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Xcathdra

---

An icbm produces an extremely elliptical suborbital trajectory. If you can get into orbit though, you can just as easily hit a point on the opposite side of the world with a less eccentric but still suborbital trajectory. Now answer my question; if I show you a simulated video of this using the same type of booster, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no?

Sure

Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Xcathdra

---

An icbm produces an extremely elliptical suborbital trajectory. If you can get into orbit though, you can just as easily hit a point on the opposite side of the world with a less eccentric but still suborbital trajectory. Now answer my question; if I show you a simulated video of this using the same type of booster, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no?

Sure

Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015

edit on 16-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

How many times do I need to ask the question before you'll actually answer it? If I show you that you can hit the US from Iran with the missile they used to launch RASAD-1, will you admit you were wrong? I'm not talking about an ICBM following a traditional ICBM profile, that is what your article is about, I'm talking about just reaching and hitting the US using the same missile used to launch RASAD-1. If I show you that it's entirely possible to do that, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no?

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Wow... before yelling at me how about you read my response to your last post. Let me help you out -

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Xcathdra

---

An icbm produces an extremely elliptical suborbital trajectory. If you can get into orbit though, you can just as easily hit a point on the opposite side of the world with a less eccentric but still suborbital trajectory. Now answer my question; if I show you a simulated video of this using the same type of booster, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no?

Sure

Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015

edit on 16-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Anything else you want to over react on?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ngchunter

---

Wow... before yelling at me how about you read my response to your last post. Let me help you out -

If I were yelling at you I would be using all caps. Please quote me where I used all caps to respond to you. I'm just trying to get you to answer a simple yes or no question without evading. Re-posting the same evasion you just posted is not answering my question. I read your post, I don't care what date Iran is projected to have a traditional ICBM. I'm not claiming the missile they used to launch Rasad-1 can hit the US using a traditional ICBM flight profile, that's a strawman argument; an ICBM's highly elliptical very high altitude flight profile is not the only way to achieve a sub-orbital flight from Iran to the US. Rasad-1's rocket could have just as easily hit the US as reach orbit. You claimed it couldn't. If I show you a video showing how it can, will you admit you were wrong? Yes or no? This is now the third time, sorry, fourth time I've had to ask this question.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

I'm tired of having to ask the same question over and over, so I'll just post the video. Yes, a Safir-2 can reach the US just fine:

I never even broke 200 km altitude to do it. If you can reach orbit you can hit any point on the globe at a latitude within your orbital inclination. All I would have had to do to hit DC specifically was tweak the launch heading and the point at which I rotated the rocket to increase drag.

No, I did not follow a traditional ICBM flight profile as you previously mentioned was impossible for this rocket with the US as a target, and I said over and over, I did not need to follow a traditional ICBM profile to do it. You claimed they couldn't hit the US with the rocket they use to put satellites in orbit. You were wrong.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

FFS I answered you. I said SURE, as in post the video, I will watch it, and if I am wrong I will say so.

Talk about drama.. geeze.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Lol.. yeah

I will stand by my origional statement that the rocket they are using to put a settelite in orbit cannot be used to strike the US - DC. It does not have the range to do so. There is a fundamental difference in placing an item into orbit, and attempting to deploy a payload 7k miles away that is not in orbit.

Safir-2 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile

Iran's first orbital launch vehicle, based on the Shahab 3 intermediate range ballistic missile with upper stages.
high resolution Yantar-4K. The project was to be implemented in two phases: the Yantar-4K1, launched by the existing Soyuz-U launch vehicle.

In November 2004 US intelligence sources stated that the version of the missile used in 2004 tests had been stretched 15% and equipped with a larger payload fairing, indicating possible preparations for the long-announced Iranian indigenous satellite launch. A stretched Shahab-3 with improved performance, topped with two upper stages, would be equivalent to the French Diamant launcher of the 1960's. It would certainly be capable of orbiting the 60 kg Mesbah satellite mentioned in the press, and possibly the 170 kg mentioned for the follow-on satellite.

click the link for remainder of info.

what is an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile-

An intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) is a ballistic missile with a range of 3,000–5,500 km (1,865–3,420 miles), between a medium-range ballistic missile and an intercontinental ballistic missile. Classifying ballistic missiles by range is done mostly for convenience, in principle there is very little difference between a low-performance ICBM and a high-performance IRBM. The range definition used here is used within the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. Some other sources include an additional category, the long-range ballistic missile (LRBM), to describe missiles with a range between IRBMs and true ICBMs. The more modern term theater ballistic missile encompasses IRBMs, MRBMs and SRBMs, including any ballistic missile with a range under 3,500 km (2,175 mi).

It does not have the rnage to deliver a payload in ICBM form to hit the US- DC area. The shahab 5 is coming close, with a range of 4-5k miles.

nice computer game video though.

Next time read my responses when you ask a question before going spazzo and yelling at me to answer your question.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ngchunter

---

Lol.. yeah

I will stand by my origional statement that the rocket they are using to put a settelite in orbit cannot be used to strike the US - DC. It does not have the range to do so.

I just showed you that it does have the range you said it did not have, though with a non-traditional flight profile as I previously outlined. You just finished agreeing with my question, which was that if I showed you a video demonstrating that the rocket did have the range to reach the US, you would admit you were wrong. You lied.

There is a fundamental difference in placing an item into orbit, and attempting to deploy a payload 7k miles away that is not in orbit.

I showed you that if you can reach orbit, you can hit the US from Iran with the same missile You agreed that if I showed you that it was possible to do that with a non-ICBM flight profile you would admit you were wrong. You have now been exposed as a liar.

It does not have the rnage to deliver a payload in ICBM form to hit the US- DC area.

Again with the ICBM strawman. You accuse me of not reading your replies, which is a lie, but then you act like you haven't read mine. I have my suspicions about your motivation for lying and it frankly disturbs me greatly, but it does not matter, the facts stand. Using a non-traditional flight profile it is perfectly possible to reach the US with that missile, I already spoke to the issue of the payload size pages ago. That was not the question.

nice computer game video though.

It's a simulator, and a very accurate one at that. It shows that you were completely wrong.

Next time read my responses when you ask a question before going spazzo and yelling at me to answer your question.

Ironic. I just told you that I was not yelling at you. You lied again. It seems to be the way you operate, the only question is why. Asking a liar to tell the truth would be silly though, so I won't bother. You have been exposed. You were wrong.

QED

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Thanks a million for posting this "70,000 feet" video! If you hadn't shared it here, I probably would have never seen it. ATS is a wonderful forum on several levels.

What I don't understand is how IRAN continues to generate so much front-page news. I thought they were being subjected to heavy sanctions directed at their military and nuclear development.
-cwm

Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags

Curiosity "ChemCam": 5 little holes and one strange object nearby...
  Posted 15 days ago with 24 member flags

Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags

Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags

Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags

Curiosity sends back first high- resolution colour picture of Mars+First voice ever heard on Mars
  Posted 14 days ago with 20 member flags

Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags

Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: