What's new

Iranian Space program

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
1,368
1
4,114
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Harsh competition ahead!


https://archive.is/COY4i/e92363acf08185881047ef01e5d685aca8e45cc0.jpg ; https://archive.is/COY4i/4499076c3b616ef7ccbbc943fc89e5bc8c26d756/scr.png ; https://web.archive.org/web/20210223030032/https://i.imgur.com/amfnJn4.jpg
1. Main competitors for the 4th place as a manned spacefaring power, as of February 2021.



I thought India already pulled out and not going to be there in time (4 year)..
by the way do U have any actual evidence of the Turkish orbital SLV beside the drawings..have you seen physical evidence to this date...can you share if you have.
 

Galactic Penguin SST

FULL MEMBER
Aug 10, 2017
1,449
1
1,428
Country
Hong Kong
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
I thought India already pulled out and not going to be there in time (4 year)..
by the way do U have any actual evidence of the Turkish orbital SLV beside the drawings..have you seen physical evidence to this date...can you share if you have.
The reply to your querry can not be answered by YES or NO.

It is rocket science, therefore of the most complex and certainly not accessible to the 99% of the people, without serious background.

My analyse started with passing all civilizations past and presents through the most severe set of criteria filters.

We saw here in this forum many trolls questioning my methodology, that is nothing but standard practice among the world academic circles, and mocking again and again, my expertise by over-simplifying it to the sole use of the 7th filter!

• 1. Green Light And Historical Milestones As Prerequisites For A Manned Suborbital Flight V1.0
• 2. Space Sci-fi movie development as rule of thumb (censored, please google for mirror)
• 3. Rare Earth Reserve among the future manned space powers (censored, please google for mirror)
• 4. Natural balanced rock wonders among the future manned space powers
• 5. Mega-buildings among the future manned space powers
• 6. Artistic representation of space shuttles among the future manned space powers V1.0.
• 7. State Leader's Body Weight And World Ranking
• 8. Artistic Representation of Space Stations Among The Future Manned Space Powers
• 9. Artistic Representation of The Man On the Moon Among The Future Manned Space Powers
• 10. Artistic Representation of Space Robot Among The Future Manned Space Powers

7. State Leader's Body Weight And World Ranking


https://archive.vn/6qEsa/a1fca281c6b89d56af2c7c2249e12876db4be1e2.png ; https://archive.vn/6qEsa/d9223928a7422a33d21ecfc6a7d34806336254ce/scr.png ; http://web.archive.org/web/20201127173559/https://i.imgur.com/aIga3FC.png
1. 7th analysis through biometric filter. 2020.

These criteria are the results of over a decade of careful peer reviewed OSINT analyses. Published in many forums and several languages, and acclaimed as deserved.

As a result both the case of Myanmar and Turkey have been correctly validated within the last years!

For the latest accomplishment, the validation of the prediction made on Thailand!

As correctly predicted back in 2019, Thailand joining Myanmar and Turkey, now also revealing its ambitions to be part of the global space race!


We are moving forward into a new era by planning to develop space technologies for future space travel. Generally, a majority might view that building a spaceship or spacecraft is a futuristic idea and sometimes it feels surreal.
However, building a spaceship with a complexity of technologies is one of the challenging tasks that a company wants to achieve, it might take 1-2 years to complete, mu Space is the first and only company who steps into this path and strives to make things happen. If we don’t start it now, then when?

Objective

• Orbital Flight
• Earth orbit missions
• ISS resupply
• Cis-lunar missions


https://archive.vn/XJG8z/fa0ebace672320b6c5ce6207458159b5710c4d28.jpg ; https://archive.vn/XJG8z/c0d25c4d5c05dd23288921185e2e675dd9079ef7/scr.png ; http://web.archive.org/web/20190109152605/https://www.muspacecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/OO-mission-spacesuit.jpg ;
1. Thailand's Mu Space conceptual spacesuit. 2019.

http://web.archive.org/web/20201203114051/https://muspacecorp.com/spaceship/
http://web.archive.org/web/20210228072023/https://muspacecorp.com/spaceship/
https://archive.vn/QNj4g#selection-437.5-439.303
http://web.archive.org/web/20201229120524/https://www.satellite-evolution.com/post/mu-space-to-push-thai-space-industry-planning-to-build-its-first-spaceship-in-2021


Conclusion, as said earlier, harsh competition ahead!



 

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
1,368
1
4,114
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
@Galactic Penguin SST .

I am well aware that all that is visible to us humans in the universe is only 5% of the total..the other 95% we do not know.... it does not interact with ordinary matter or light ( it is called Dark Matter and Dark Energy) .So this much is known to an average Cosmologist...and because of that I do not dismiss things you say that easily (I run it through my filter). But about your reply I say..WTF.!..can you put it to me in a more simple language.
 

Menschmaschine

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 24, 2020
14
1
24
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
@Galactic Penguin SST .

I am well aware that all that is visible to us humans in the universe is only 5% of the total..the other 95% we do not know.... it does not interact with ordinary matter or light ( it is called Dark Matter and Dark Energy) .So this much is known to an average Cosmologist...and because of that I do not dismiss things you say that easily (I run it through my filter). But about your reply I say..WTF.!..can you put it to me in a more simple language.
Actually, there is no evidence that any of this "dark matter" actually exists. It is simply an ad hoc fudge to explain the failure of General Relativity to correctly predict the movement of galaxies.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,413
-10
5,609
Country
United States
Location
United States
Actually, there is no evidence that any of this "dark matter" actually exists. It is simply an ad hoc fudge to explain the failure of General Relativity to correctly predict the movement of galaxies.
Misleading claim.

There is indirect evidence it exists based on how it reacts with stars and galaxies.

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen.


At least one detector has detected direct evidence and I think within next decade or so we shall have more substantial direct evidence as more sensitive detectors come online, this theory traces its roots to 1920’s. Even Higgs-Bonson particle was theoretical but finally proven in last decade due to the collider while theoretical physics predicted it decades ago (probably before you were even born).

So saying dark matter is just a failure of GR and no proof of existence is like saying Wind doesn’t exist because you can’t see it if it doesn’t interact with an object.
 

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
1,368
1
4,114
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Misleading claim.

There is indirect evidence it exists based on how it reacts with stars and galaxies.

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen.


At least one detector has detected direct evidence and I think within next decade or so we shall have more substantial direct evidence as more sensitive detectors come online, this theory traces its roots to 1920’s. Even Higgs-Bonson particle was theoretical but finally proven in last decade due to the collider while theoretical physics predicted it decades ago (probably before you were even born).

So saying dark matter is just a failure of GR and no proof of existence is like saying Wind doesn’t exist because you can’t see it if it doesn’t interact with an object.
My favourite subject.....Please update if new findings...just shows how little we know...
 

Menschmaschine

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 24, 2020
14
1
24
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Misleading claim.

There is indirect evidence it exists based on how it reacts with stars and galaxies.

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen.


At least one detector has detected direct evidence and I think within next decade or so we shall have more substantial direct evidence as more sensitive detectors come online, this theory traces its roots to 1920’s. Even Higgs-Bonson particle was theoretical but finally proven in last decade due to the collider while theoretical physics predicted it decades ago (probably before you were even born).

So saying dark matter is just a failure of GR and no proof of existence is like saying Wind doesn’t exist because you can’t see it if it doesn’t interact with an object.
But what you are quoting is exactly what I said- the predictions of General Relativity were different from the actual observations, so hypothethical "dark matter" was introduced as a fudge to explain the difference. I am quite sure if there really was "direct evidence" we would have heard about it and the Higgs Boson was predicted not by General Relativity but by Quantum Field Theory (a unification of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity).

Here a text regarding this topic I wrote on another website:

The continuing dominance of GR is a huge problem for physics, since the relativistic conceptual base of both special and general relativity is almost certainly a fundamentally wrong model of physical reality.
Let’s take a look at the development of relativity: The assumption in the 19th century was that light is a wave that is traveling through a hypothetical ether, analogous to sound waves through a medium like air or water. The famous Michelson-Morey experiment tested this assumption by comparing the time needed for light to propagate a certain distance both in the direction of the movement of the earth around the sun and that perpendicular to it. The expectation was that the times would be different, since in the direction of the movement the rate of the movement would be either added or subtracted to the speed of the light. In fact, however, the times were identical. The solution proposed by Lorentz was the assumption that the measurement apparatus did undergo a small compensating length contraction in the direction of the movement. Later experiments like that by Rayleigh and Brace made it clear that in addition also clocks would need to run slower.

In 1905 Einstein proposed his own alternative Theory of Special Relativity. He took the principle of relativity found by Lorentz (with some help by Poincare) and instead of deriving it as a result made it the point of departure for his own theory. Mathematically, both theories are identical and so can’t be distinguished experimentally. But the metaphysical picture is very different: The Lorentzian Ether Theory still assumes an absolute 3-dimensional space with an absolute time, which is filled with the ether.

In contrast, Special Relativity postulates that time and space (or spacetime as it is called in relativistic jargon) themselves are changing, I.e. that not objects, but space itself shrinks or expands and that time itself really runs faster or slower, not only physical processes. The principle of relativity leads to such headscratchers like the famous twin paradoxon, where the sibling that travels close to light speed is younger when returning than the one that stays at home, but no intuitive reason why this should be so - if everything is relative, why wouldn’t it be equally valid to consider the first twin as immobile? No such issues exist under Lorentzian Ether Theory, since there is an absolute frame of reference and so it is always clear which one of the two is changing his speed in relation to the ether.

A common criticism against the Lorentz Ether Theory was the assertion that it is quite a coincidence that the length shrinks by exactly the value required to make a movement through the ether undetectable. However, it is not difficult to understand why such effects as length contraction and time dilation should happen, but not be detectable locally, if one does not assume, like early ether theories, that matter is something separate from the ether but instead that it is a part of it - like defects in the lattice structure of a crystal. It is naturally difficult to detect something you and your measurement apparatus are part of. Lorentz was also able to show that at least for electromagnetism both effects could be derived from the Maxwell equations that had been found earlier.

But then Einstein came out in 1915 with the General Theory of Relativity, which sealed the triumph of relativity by providing a supposedly highly successful description of gravity. Whereas in Special Relativity spacetime had been considered as uniform, General Relativity now introduced gravity in the form of distortions in the spacetime fabric. However, this only works up to a certain scale - as soon as we go beyond galactic dimensions, General Relativity does not work anymore at all, the movement of galaxies is very different to that predicted by General Relativity. To correct for this, vast amounts of mysterious “Dark matter” have to be hypothesized. Despite much effort, any attempt to actually detect any of this hypothetical “Dark Matter” has failed.

Another issue is the expansion of the universe; it was discovered in 1998 that, contrary to General Relativity, the universe does not only expand, but that this expansion is accelerating. For this another Ad Hoc hypothesis, the even more mysterious “Dark Energy” had to be made up. It is of course always possible to immunize a theory with enough Ad Hoc crutches, but when this “Dark Energy” is supposed to be 68% and “Dark Matter” 27% of the universe with only 5% left for actually observable matter it gets rather implausible.

There are other highly problematic issues like the emergence of singularities as a consequence of the collapse of large stars, with all the seemingly intractable problems like information loss that this entails. Some scientists therefore see the appearance of singularities as a mathematical artefact and don’t think that it really happens in reality; interestingly this included Einstein himself, who thought that general relativity was an incomplete theory, which would be superseded by a singularity-free unified field theory. Of course, he never succeeded in delivering this theory. Furthermore, at least in principle, closed causal loops and time travel and therefore violations of causality are entirely valid solutions of General Relativity.

The possibility of time flowing backwards - and not the supposedly nondeterministic nature of Quantum Theory (“God doesn’t play dices”) - is the real reason why Einstein was so hostile to it. There is, as Einstein knew very well, no intrinsic reason that Quantum Theory needs to be nondeterministic if one accepts nonlocality, as demonstrated by the De Broglie/Bohm interpretation of Quantum Theory. However, nonlocality – i.e. influences faster than the speed of light – mean in the context of the relativistic framework nothing less than time travel into the past. That was the reason why Einstein was so scandalized by the “spooky action at a distance” of quantum entanglement and why it took so long to be accepted by the scientific community. Even if we currently cannot use quantum entanglement to actually transmit information, the simple fact that faster than light influences exist is highly problematic for relativity.

The most fundamental issue however is the fact, that it seems to be simply impossible to proceed further with the relativistic paradigm. In the late 1920s the two cutting edge theories to explain the basic fabric of our universe were General Relativity and Quantum Theory: General Relativity describes gravity, the force effective at long distances; Quantum Theory in contrast describes the forces effective at shorter ranges, e.g. electromagnetism and the weak and the strong interaction.

Now, nearly a century later, we are essentially still in the same position. All work that has been done since then has been filling out details, but there has been no fundamental progress. Despite much effort, all attempts to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Theory to create a unified theory have come to nothing. The great hope String Theory is now more or less admitted to be a failure and other approaches like Loop Quantum Gravity don’t look any better; fundamental physics has largely stagnated for many decades.

The key reason for the failure to unify General Relativity with Quantum Theory is precisely the revolutionary new relativistic model of time and space for which Einstein is hailed. All efforts to graft it onto Quantum Theory have been an abject failure: Quantum Theory simply needs a fixed spatial background and absolute time to work. Given this – and the fact that Quantum Theory, in sharp contrast to General Relativity, has an entirely unblemished record when it comes to experimental verification – it is quite clear that it is relativity and not Quantum Theory that has to go. Einstein shunted physics on a fundamentally wrong track back in 1905.

The description of the problem above indicates quite clearly the most promising direction to proceed: return to a preferred frame (i.e. ether) paradigm with absolute time and space and create a theory of gravity that is a counterpart to General Relativity in the same way as the Lorentzian Ether Theory relates to Special Relativity. This theory would then describe the general case of an ether with a varying “density” indicating gravitational distortions, whereas the Lorentzian Ether Theory, the analogon to Special Relativity, deals with the simplified border case of a homogenous ether. There is actually a bit of work going on along these lines, even though the frowned upon word “ether” is usually avoided - “condensed matter model/interpretation” is a dog whistle that is sometimes used instead (See, for instance https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9262-9)). However, due to the still unbroken blind faith in General Relativity such attempts have received hardly any attention.i

It remains to be seen for how much longer progress will be blocked - the lack of success in the long running quest to detect the elusive “Dark Matter” seems to be causing some disquietude at long last. Perhaps there will also be some new piece of empirical evidence that finally tilts the mood against General Relativity. There are indications that certain properties of gravity waves might be used to distinguish between General Relativity and alternative theories. But in any case, the sheer length of time that hero worship of Einstein was able to inoculate an obviously highly flawed theory against any criticism is nothing short of astounding.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,413
-10
5,609
Country
United States
Location
United States
But what you are quoting is exactly what I said- the predictions of General Relativity were different from the actual observations, so hypothethical "dark matter" was introduced as a fudge to explain the difference. I am quite sure if there really was "direct evidence" we would have heard about it and the Higgs Boson was predicted not by General Relativity but by Quantum Field Theory (a unification of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity).

Here a text regarding this topic I wrote on another website:

The continuing dominance of GR is a huge problem for physics, since the relativistic conceptual base of both special and general relativity is almost certainly a fundamentally wrong model of physical reality.
Let’s take a look at the development of relativity: The assumption in the 19th century was that light is a wave that is traveling through a hypothetical ether, analogous to sound waves through a medium like air or water. The famous Michelson-Morey experiment tested this assumption by comparing the time needed for light to propagate a certain distance both in the direction of the movement of the earth around the sun and that perpendicular to it. The expectation was that the times would be different, since in the direction of the movement the rate of the movement would be either added or subtracted to the speed of the light. In fact, however, the times were identical. The solution proposed by Lorentz was the assumption that the measurement apparatus did undergo a small compensating length contraction in the direction of the movement. Later experiments like that by Rayleigh and Brace made it clear that in addition also clocks would need to run slower.

In 1905 Einstein proposed his own alternative Theory of Special Relativity. He took the principle of relativity found by Lorentz (with some help by Poincare) and instead of deriving it as a result made it the point of departure for his own theory. Mathematically, both theories are identical and so can’t be distinguished experimentally. But the metaphysical picture is very different: The Lorentzian Ether Theory still assumes an absolute 3-dimensional space with an absolute time, which is filled with the ether.

In contrast, Special Relativity postulates that time and space (or spacetime as it is called in relativistic jargon) themselves are changing, I.e. that not objects, but space itself shrinks or expands and that time itself really runs faster or slower, not only physical processes. The principle of relativity leads to such headscratchers like the famous twin paradoxon, where the sibling that travels close to light speed is younger when returning than the one that stays at home, but no intuitive reason why this should be so - if everything is relative, why wouldn’t it be equally valid to consider the first twin as immobile? No such issues exist under Lorentzian Ether Theory, since there is an absolute frame of reference and so it is always clear which one of the two is changing his speed in relation to the ether.

A common criticism against the Lorentz Ether Theory was the assertion that it is quite a coincidence that the length shrinks by exactly the value required to make a movement through the ether undetectable. However, it is not difficult to understand why such effects as length contraction and time dilation should happen, but not be detectable locally, if one does not assume, like early ether theories, that matter is something separate from the ether but instead that it is a part of it - like defects in the lattice structure of a crystal. It is naturally difficult to detect something you and your measurement apparatus are part of. Lorentz was also able to show that at least for electromagnetism both effects could be derived from the Maxwell equations that had been found earlier.

But then Einstein came out in 1915 with the General Theory of Relativity, which sealed the triumph of relativity by providing a supposedly highly successful description of gravity. Whereas in Special Relativity spacetime had been considered as uniform, General Relativity now introduced gravity in the form of distortions in the spacetime fabric. However, this only works up to a certain scale - as soon as we go beyond galactic dimensions, General Relativity does not work anymore at all, the movement of galaxies is very different to that predicted by General Relativity. To correct for this, vast amounts of mysterious “Dark matter” have to be hypothesized. Despite much effort, any attempt to actually detect any of this hypothetical “Dark Matter” has failed.

Another issue is the expansion of the universe; it was discovered in 1998 that, contrary to General Relativity, the universe does not only expand, but that this expansion is accelerating. For this another Ad Hoc hypothesis, the even more mysterious “Dark Energy” had to be made up. It is of course always possible to immunize a theory with enough Ad Hoc crutches, but when this “Dark Energy” is supposed to be 68% and “Dark Matter” 27% of the universe with only 5% left for actually observable matter it gets rather implausible.

There are other highly problematic issues like the emergence of singularities as a consequence of the collapse of large stars, with all the seemingly intractable problems like information loss that this entails. Some scientists therefore see the appearance of singularities as a mathematical artefact and don’t think that it really happens in reality; interestingly this included Einstein himself, who thought that general relativity was an incomplete theory, which would be superseded by a singularity-free unified field theory. Of course, he never succeeded in delivering this theory. Furthermore, at least in principle, closed causal loops and time travel and therefore violations of causality are entirely valid solutions of General Relativity.

The possibility of time flowing backwards - and not the supposedly nondeterministic nature of Quantum Theory (“God doesn’t play dices”) - is the real reason why Einstein was so hostile to it. There is, as Einstein knew very well, no intrinsic reason that Quantum Theory needs to be nondeterministic if one accepts nonlocality, as demonstrated by the De Broglie/Bohm interpretation of Quantum Theory. However, nonlocality – i.e. influences faster than the speed of light – mean in the context of the relativistic framework nothing less than time travel into the past. That was the reason why Einstein was so scandalized by the “spooky action at a distance” of quantum entanglement and why it took so long to be accepted by the scientific community. Even if we currently cannot use quantum entanglement to actually transmit information, the simple fact that faster than light influences exist is highly problematic for relativity.

The most fundamental issue however is the fact, that it seems to be simply impossible to proceed further with the relativistic paradigm. In the late 1920s the two cutting edge theories to explain the basic fabric of our universe were General Relativity and Quantum Theory: General Relativity describes gravity, the force effective at long distances; Quantum Theory in contrast describes the forces effective at shorter ranges, e.g. electromagnetism and the weak and the strong interaction.

Now, nearly a century later, we are essentially still in the same position. All work that has been done since then has been filling out details, but there has been no fundamental progress. Despite much effort, all attempts to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Theory to create a unified theory have come to nothing. The great hope String Theory is now more or less admitted to be a failure and other approaches like Loop Quantum Gravity don’t look any better; fundamental physics has largely stagnated for many decades.

The key reason for the failure to unify General Relativity with Quantum Theory is precisely the revolutionary new relativistic model of time and space for which Einstein is hailed. All efforts to graft it onto Quantum Theory have been an abject failure: Quantum Theory simply needs a fixed spatial background and absolute time to work. Given this – and the fact that Quantum Theory, in sharp contrast to General Relativity, has an entirely unblemished record when it comes to experimental verification – it is quite clear that it is relativity and not Quantum Theory that has to go. Einstein shunted physics on a fundamentally wrong track back in 1905.

The description of the problem above indicates quite clearly the most promising direction to proceed: return to a preferred frame (i.e. ether) paradigm with absolute time and space and create a theory of gravity that is a counterpart to General Relativity in the same way as the Lorentzian Ether Theory relates to Special Relativity. This theory would then describe the general case of an ether with a varying “density” indicating gravitational distortions, whereas the Lorentzian Ether Theory, the analogon to Special Relativity, deals with the simplified border case of a homogenous ether. There is actually a bit of work going on along these lines, even though the frowned upon word “ether” is usually avoided - “condensed matter model/interpretation” is a dog whistle that is sometimes used instead (See, for instance https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9262-9)). However, due to the still unbroken blind faith in General Relativity such attempts have received hardly any attention.i

It remains to be seen for how much longer progress will be blocked - the lack of success in the long running quest to detect the elusive “Dark Matter” seems to be causing some disquietude at long last. Perhaps there will also be some new piece of empirical evidence that finally tilts the mood against General Relativity. There are indications that certain properties of gravity waves might be used to distinguish between General Relativity and alternative theories. But in any case, the sheer length of time that hero worship of Einstein was able to inoculate an obviously highly flawed theory against any criticism is nothing short of astounding.
You need to learn to be able to convey your thoughts without posting a lecture on the history of theoretical physics. But it was an interesting read.

First of all saying that GR failed to explain the missing mass thus “dark matter” was “created” to “fudge” the numbers to make it fit is an absurd declaration. Dark Matter already existed. It’s like saying Newton created gravity to explain the apple falling From the tree and who knows if gravity actually exists. (Well today we know it obviously does). Thus lack of GR to explain missing mass didn’t “create” dark matter, but merely led to its discovery. Dark matter has always existed.

Dark matter makes up to 85% of the matter. That’s not a number or theory that one can “fudge” in order to make GR “work”. If we were talking about a Margin of error of <1-2% you might have a point. Thus Dark matter is very real and more important than traditional matter (in my opinion) because like matter and Anita matter, without dark matter this universe would have likely been a dead (stale) universe.

One experiment has detected Dark Matter (DAMA experiment).


There are more experiments and detectors being lined up. Thus it’s a matter of time before this confirmed to exist. After all, at one time black holes were thought to exist only in theory because detection was near impossible with the tools available (at the time). Now we have actually photographed a black hole’s event horizon.

The missing mass issue proves that GR does work because without GR we would have not detected the issue of dark matter in this universe.

I think the more important question to ask is why does dark matter exist and how does it shape the creation of multi verses.
 

Shams313

FULL MEMBER
Mar 27, 2014
659
0
1,084
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Be it as it may, any of the giant “Sahrir” stages could be an excellent basis for a solid-propellant Iranian ICBM. As argued in the previously mentioned paper (“Iran’s Space Program”), Iran’s space program is in part a cover-up for long-range ballistic missiles that go beyond the self-imposed range of 2,000 km. The launching of the “Zuljanah,” and the ensuing revelation of Iran’s next satellite launcher, may have provided a limited yet significant preview of its road map towards the building of global-range missiles that can reach both Europe and the United States. Unlike their North Korean friends who brandish oversized ICBMs in garish nighttime parades, the more sophisticated leaders of Iran are astute in not yet showing their hand. They are just allowing the world a brief glimpse of what they can do, if and when they decide to become a global power.
 

GWXP

FULL MEMBER
Feb 9, 2019
499
-1
1,019
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Tajikistan
From information provided by Iran and analysis by Uzi Rubin:

Sarir SLV

3 stage Solid propellant SLV with a diameter of 2m
Weight: 160tons
Payload to 1000km orbit: 700kg
Date of first launch: unknown

Sourush-1
First stage propellant: unknown + (4 solid propellant boosters)
weight: 700tons,
Payload to GSO: 1ton
Date of first launch: unknown

Sourush-2
SLV with cryogenic rocket engines
weight: 1300tons
Payload to GEO: 2,5tons
Date of first launch: unknown

The question is what kind of propellant Sourush-1 uses in its first stage---is it solid or liquid propellant.....
5.jpg
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,413
-10
5,609
Country
United States
Location
United States
Soroush-2 could theoretically be used as the basis for a future Iranian mission to the Moon & Mars as alluded to by Uzi it almost rivals the Falcon Heavy in size.

However, it’s likely IRGC accomplishes this way before ISA because they are the ones holding the massive solid engines. Although the ISA has announced development of cryogenic engines which is what SpaceX uses.

Nonetheless wouldn’t expect such a project to be feasible for at least another 15-20 years at the current pace Iran’s space development is going. Which would put an Iranian mission to Mars post 2050 at current pace.
 

GWXP

FULL MEMBER
Feb 9, 2019
499
-1
1,019
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Tajikistan
SARIR 3-stage solid propellant SLV with weight of around 160tons is comparable to European Vega solid fuel SLV

Previously dates 2021 and 2024 were mentioned---though not sure whether this date is Sarir's first launch date
 
Last edited:

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,402
21
5,966
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Sarir and Soroush series are certainly human-rated, so almost certainly no solid fuel boosters.

The space shuttle was basically forced to use solid fuel booster because they had nothing else.

But the plan was to have a fully liquid fuel space shuttle, like the Soviet Buran
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom