Iranian Space program

[skyshadow]

ah famidi, doosti uses same SLV as payam or different?


yeah maybe 1405 we see sarir if we are lucky, ghaem i don't know if i will live that long

1405? no ohh god no god when do we see rohani gone i can not wait.

50kg what a joke! we did 30kg years ago with crazy mahmoud and now after all this time we are hoping for 50kg? 20 kg in 10 years, in 100 years we can have 200kg satellite!

fanny you said that doosti was from that time it was completed in 1394 and in 1395 they completed 100 kg payam and if rohani did not cut the budget, and if we continued go up that way 100 km every year we should have 400 or 500 kilogram satellite by now.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

fanny you said that doosti was from that time it was completed in 1394 and in 1395 they completed 100 kg payam and if rohani did not cut the budget, and if we continued go up that way 100 km every year we should have 400 or 500 kilogram satellite by now.

we have to accept space is not a priority when we are trying to survive under sanctions unfortunately, but at least they should do more missile tests instead of stopping everything and lying down to die

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

fanny you said that doosti was from that time it was completed in 1394 and in 1395 they completed 100 kg payam and if rohani did not cut the budget, and if we continued go up that way 100 km every year we should have 400 or 500 kilogram satellite by now.

i have question, what's the point of doosti? we already sent 50kg satelitte to ELO with safir (fajr), does doosti have much better resolution/SAR or something?

 

[TheImmortal]

they said that IRGC have ghaem slv its 4 stages with 20 miter 1st stage with a diameter of 3.5 Solid fuel for GEO launches.

This is a kids drawing. This rocket makes zero sense. 4 stages? Thats one pathetic rocket.

Solid fuel space launch vehicles do not make sense. They are inefficient in some areas and difficult to assemble and scale. Let alone transfer.

Solid fuel boosters (SRB) is one thing, but not actual SLVs using entirely solid fuel.

Lastly 4 stages, plus 4 SRBs to launch one satellite into Geo? Ghaem is highly inefficient.

By comparison Space X Falcon 9 rocket uses only 2 stages. 1st stage is a cluster of 9 engines. 2nd stage is one engine. ZERO boosters. Depending on the version of Falcon 9, it Can send a 4800-8300kg payload to GEO and 10,000-23,000kg payload to LEO.

So now you see how inefficient Ghaem is and thus cannot be right. Only reason IRGC would use Ghaem in SLV is to advance ICBM program under space program disguise. Taking Ghaem and making it an ICBM would not be difficult.

Lastly Iran is working on 90+ton solid fuel rocket engines with a curating pit that could build a 5.5 diameter rocket. So 3.5 diameter Ghaem is still below IRGC capability and again doesn’t make sense.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

This is a kids drawing. This rocket makes zero sense. 4 stages? Thats one pathetic rocket.

Solid fuel space launch vehicles do not make sense. They are inefficient in some areas and difficult to assemble and scale. Let alone transfer.

Not really. India's latest SLV (slated for first launch later this year) is 4 stage and first 3 stages are solid fuel and it carries 500kg payload to LEO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle

 

[TheImmortal]

Not really. India's latest SLV (slated for first launch later this year) is 4 stage and first 3 stages are solid fuel and it carries 500kg payload to LEO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle

Thanks for demonstrating my point, 4 stages and first 3 solid fuel and it can only carry 500kg to LEO. (Besides the point this is supposed to be a cheap satellite carrier for budget launches.) Even Simorgh can carry 375kg to LEO and it is only 2 stages and uses old Soviet engines.

Nonetheless, even India’s Polar SLV looks a lot like Gahem. Nonetheless, that isn’t something to be proud of as it just demonstrates that India also uses inefficient SLVs.

In BM’s the more stages the less advanced the missile as it means your engines are considerably weaker and your adding another stage to make up for it. Adding another stage is pretty easy. Compare Tapedong-2 4 stage missile (north’s initial ICBM design) to the H-15 which is only 2 stages. But it increases potential problems.

Lastly India added 4-6 Boosters to its 4 stage Polar SLV and even then it could launch less than 1700kg payload beyond LEO.

Falcon 9 which uses zero boosters still demolishes Polar SLV and if you want a booster equipped SLV comparison look at Falcon Heavy which is a monster.

If Iran cares about ICBM development then stick to solid fuel. But if it wants to advance fast then it can quickly build a competent SLV.

Use 8 Shahab-3 engines in first stage, then for second stage use a Simorgh 1st stage.

Switching from liquid to solid fuel at this stage is going to cause all sorts of headaches. Not to mention transporting such a missile to semnan is incredibly dangerous given the terrain and quality of Iran’s highways.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

Thanks for demonstrating my point, 4 stages and first 3 solid fuel and it can only carry 500kg to LEO. (Besides the point this is supposed to be a cheap satellite carrier for budget launches.) Even Simorgh can carry 375kg to LEO and it is only 2 stages and uses old Soviet engines.

You're talking nonsense, India used a FIVE stage solid fuel SLV to send a 100kg to LEO in 1994 (which is where we are at currently). If you don't like India, Israel's Shavit SLV is 3 stages and solid fuel also and in 2010 (the 8th launch of Shavit since 1988 - this was the first launch of simorgh with a payload and third overall) it sent a 300kg satellite into LEO (Simorgh can carry 350kg also).

So, 3-stage solid-fuel Simorgh is comparable to both India and Israel's SLVs and not some crazy and uniquely inefficient design!

Now compare budgets of India/Israel space program with Iran - $7 million... Iran's space agency started in 2004, India and Israel started many decades earlier.

 

[TheImmortal]

You're talking nonsense, India used a FIVE stage solid fuel SLV to send a 100kg to LEO in 1994 (which is where we are at currently). If you don't like India, Israel's Shavit SLV is 3 stages and solid fuel also and in 2010 (the 8th launch of Shavit since 1988 - this was the first launch of simorgh with a payload and third overall) it sent a 300kg satellite into LEO (Simorgh can carry 350kg also).

So, 3-stage solid-fuel Simorgh is comparable to both India and Israel's SLVs and not some crazy and uniquely inefficient design!

Now compare budgets of India/Israel space program with Iran - $7 million... Iran's space agency started in 2004, India and Israel started many decades earlier.

You seem confused and talking in circles so let me dumb this down for you.

First I Said Iran’s Simorgh is actually comparable to what India is deploying today for budget satellite launches. 375kg vs 500kg and Iran’s Simorgh has one less stage! So yes that’s good. Apples to oranges comparison.

Nonetheless India’s SLVs you described are NOT efficient.
Simorgh is not efficient it’s soviet era scud engines using an inefficient burning fuel. This has been stated by others as well.
BTW Simorgh is 2 stages not 3 stages (you don’t count the orbital insertion stage as a rocket burning stage FYI).

Simorgh was merely 4 Shahab-3 engines with a possible safir 2nd stage developed back in 2010. Next logical step would have been 8 Shahab-3 engines with a Simorgh 2nd stage sometime in last 2-3 years. With such a SLV Iran could have sent up all its crappy 50kg Sputnik satellites in one attempt rather than this absurd once a year launch propaganda tactics.

Lastly all stage solid fuel SLVs are indeed rarer than liquid fuel ones and there is reasons for this. Educate yourself, I’m not going to spoon feed you. Just because India and israel used solid fuel slvs doesn’t mean anything. Solid fuel stages have their place as well, but liquid for space is preferred for a variety of reasons.

Lastly Semnan is not a Missile construction site, if you transport solid fuel stages you best be careful or else you could have another Tehrani Moghdam scenario.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Hi. Unfortunately, no information was provided on the missile's engine

Hi @skyshadow , @SOHEIL
What is Iran's competency in designing semi cryogenic or fully cryogenic engine? What are the areas do you feel, Iran should work on to improve their space program. And finally what is the max payload delivered by any Iranian rocket to lets say LEO and GEO?
It amuses me as to how Iran has superior space program vis-a-vis Pakistan, when Pakistan supposedly had/still has a lot of Chinese support in strategic missiles and their arsenal is much diverse compared to Iran for instance Ra'ad and navalized babur to name a few.

Not really. India's latest SLV (slated for first launch later this year) is 4 stage and first 3 stages are solid fuel and it carries 500kg payload to LEO.

Hi @Persian Gulf 1906
The above rocket that you've quoted is a small rocket intended to deploy small satellites of 500kgs to LEO. The primary reason to have solids was to reduce cost and complexity. There is nothing that stops Iran from using solids, however solids as such are very inefficient vis-a-vis liquids. The only advantage they have got is that they can generate enormous thrust very quickly--good for boosting. However their mass fraction is pathetic! For big rockets(if Iran is aiming for one), Iran would have to inevitably go for either semi cryogenic or cryogenic--assuming Iran has already mastered hypergolic engines.

 

[TheImmortal]

Hi @skyshadow , @SOHEIL
What is Iran's competency in designing semi cryogenic or fully cryogenic engine? What are the areas do you feel, Iran should work on to improve their space program. And finally what is the max payload delivered by any Iranian rocket to lets say LEO and GEO?
It amuses me as to how Iran has superior space program vis-a-vis Pakistan, when Pakistan supposedly had/still has a lot of Chinese support in strategic missiles and their arsenal is much diverse compared to Iran for instance Ra'ad and navalized babur to name a few.

Iran doesn’t have any SLV capable of GEO insertion. Iran has launched less than 100KG payload to LEO. Theoretical max weight is 375kg to LEO with current SLV (Simorgh).

Iran is not close to cryogenic engines. Iran’s capability lies in using liquid fuel ballistic engines (Scud) for their SLVs. Eventually they may transition to solid fuel engines which would give dual use in advancing their BM program.

I don’t expect Iran to take space program seriously, rather in the future it will be IRGC testing out various solid fuel engines under the disguise of “space program” while advancing their own ICBM capability. After all IRGC scientists have likely seen or worked on North Korean ICBM engines that are powering current H-14 and H-15 ICBMs.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Lastly India added 4-6 Boosters to its 4 stage Polar SLV and even then it could launch less than 1700kg payload beyond LEO.

Also this is factually incorrect as PSLV can place a 2.5t to LEO.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

Hi @Persian Gulf 1906
The above rocket that you've quoted is a small rocket intended to deploy small satellites of 500kgs to LEO. The primary reason to have solids was to reduce cost and complexity. There is nothing that stops Iran from using solids, however solids as such are very inefficient vis-a-vis liquids. The only advantage they have got is that they can generate enormous thrust very quickly--good for boosting. However their mass fraction is pathetic! For big rockets(if Iran is aiming for one), Iran would have to inevitably go for either semi cryogenic or cryogenic--assuming Iran has already mastered hypergolic engines.

Yes, that is the stage Iran is at now.

My point is that Iran using 3 stage solid-fuel SLVs to deliver 100-500kg satellites into LEO is in line with many other countries at the same stage, and suits Iran's current budget (i.e. very low). Japan Israel India all use 3+ stage solid fuel SLVs and have far higher budgets than Iran does.

 

[TheImmortal]

Also this is factually incorrect as PSLV can place a 2.5t to LEO.

Actually it is correct since I said BEYOND Leo (ie. SSO/GTO). It’s LEO capability is above 3,500kg.

 

[Hack-Hook]

So, 3-stage solid-fuel Simorgh is comparable to both India and Israel's SLVs and not some crazy and uniquely inefficient design!

An stage 3 solid fuel engine is something building an entire SLV on solid fuel is something else .
An SLV gain no benefit from Solid fuel and Israel shavit SLV is a modified Jericho 2 that's why it solid fuel.

 

[amardeep mishra]

I don’t expect Iran to take space program seriously, rather in the future it will be IRGC testing out various solid fuel engines under the disguise of “space program” while advancing their own ICBM capability. After all IRGC scientists have likely seen or worked on North Korean ICBM engines that are powering current H-14 and H-15 ICBMs.

Hi @TheImmortal
I see, for a serious space program, Iran would have to get serious about cryo/semi cryo engines. And most importantly the budget. I like Iran's efforts in space research. I am amazed by the fact that they started off from old soviet engines and reached where they are now. However even for BMs, they would have to organize their efforts in compacting the footprint of the missile--miniaturization. That would require higher ISP solid propellants like ester based NEPE- something India has recently designed for K-5 SLBM.