Jump to content

Talk:Omid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Launch

[edit]

This page has been updated - and reverted - twice today. The BBC is saying that Iranian media have altered their initial statements on the launch of the satellite. Until we get some definitive sources for the launch we should not update this page. Rmhermen (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

[edit]

Why is this on the main page, or at the very least, why is it listed as a success? It looks pretty clear that the attempt was a failure and the claims of success are blatant propaganda. No footage of the launch itself? Come on.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source please, its obvious you are an islamophobic racist westerner who tries to downplay the success's of nations you don't like...
its obvious that if footage was released, youd claim it was digitally altered...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.143.35
I've recorded telemetry from it going overhead. The orbit matched that calculated from NASA's own Keplerian elements, the frequencies matched those registered with the ITU. I think that proves that *something* is there. If it sounds like a duck and it's where you'd expect a duck to be... Gordonjcp (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters good enough for you? http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1927773920080819 this was a reference on the page at the time I first looked at the article. Forgive me for taking the word of this respected news agency over Ahmedinejad's. And I'm glad you're an amateur astronomer, but your WP:OR isn't really relevant, nor your WP:NPA about my supposed attitude towards muslims. There are now reliable sources that indicate the launch was a success, and this should therefore be recognized for the notable event that it is - a very concerning development in the middle eastern balance of military power. PS - there is footage of the launch now http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090203/ts_nm/us_iran_satellite --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you should blame yourself for removing saddam from power, who was the counterbalance to iran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.133.8 (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I am sure User:Yeti Hunter is not GWB. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion above - did not realise the amateur astronomer and the flamer were separate posters. I have amended the discussion to make this apparent. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... You do realise the Reuters story is from August 2008 right? You reall should check out the dates on references before using them to justify a statement. The launch in 2008 may have been a failure, it doesn't mean that this one was. Personally I would trust Ahmedinejad more then I would trust a Reuters report about a different event, but perhaps that's just me... Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've only succeeded in making yourself look foolish, reactionary, and probably xenophobic, Yeti Hunter. 155.188.183.7 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith please, all! We are called to be a community of friends, forced to live together on this small planet, groping towards (verifiable!) truth. If the launch was a success, then we should congratulate Iran on a great accomplishment. If it turns out to have been a failure, we should remember that all countries traveling this difficult path have had failures, and the Iranians will succeed eventually. Having lived for decades with M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), I must say I hope we do not have to return to that, but if we do, then all take a deep breath and hope we can get through it again. The nuclear cat is out of the bag in any case, IMHO. Let us hope it teaches us good manners. Wwheaton (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Peat's excellent Heaven's Above web site now reports complete orbit data, including standard 2-line orbital elements here. Some news reports give a common perigee altitude, but different apogees for two objects, probably the payload and upper stage of the booster, which would then seem to have separated near perigee. I think this confirms that the launch, at least, was a success. Wwheaton (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second object seems to be getting further behind the first, so that's probably the upper booster. There's a good chance it will deorbit and burn up soon. The first object looks pretty stable up there, and I'll continue to track its signals. Hopefully it's stopped tumbling, which would get rid of the deep fades. Gordonjcp (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are both objects transmitting? If the payload was at the front of the rocket, and the nose was pointed forward at the moment of separation, then it seems likely the payload would be ejected moving faster than the upper stage rocket body. In that case the payload would slowly fall behind (paradoxical but true) after a few minutes, because it would be placed in a slightly higher orbit, with a longer period. Better wait for more orbital info, I guess, for both objects. Wwheaton (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard anything from the second object, but then I'm pretty much just guessing at the frequencies. According to a post on amsat-bb the ITU have 464.9875MHz to 465.0125MHz listed for the satellite, which pretty much covers the Doppler shift from AOS to LOS. Searching around those frequencies when the second object is up hasn't been very successful. So far the ISA haven't replied to an email I sent asking them about frequencies. Either I'll get some technical info or Mossad will come round, time will tell ;-) Gordonjcp (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of Orbit 30, it was very loud - I could hear it inside with just the little bendy rubber aerial on my HT - but it was just transmitting a continuous tone with no modulation. Gordonjcp (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sound that you listened to was only part of the recording, and not the full. Bear in mind this as the the satellite noise changes as the omid reaches a higher altitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeMiStIeRs (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest: the US DoD commented, the US DoD is aware of every missile launch on the planet: 'nuff said. •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear phrasing

[edit]

Officials denied initial reports by the state media that the satellite itself had been launched but that a dummy satellite was launched into orbit instead. US officials claimed that the rocket failed to reach orbit.

I interpret this to mean: Iranian state media reported that the satellite had been launched in August 2008. Because of this Iranian officials (or is it some other officials) "denied" the launch of the satellite. The Iranian (or other) officials corrected them by stating that a dummy satellite was launched.

Lastly, the second statement I believe refers to the test launch because it is in the paragraph about the test launch. – moogle

Did Iranian officials even claim that the dummy satellite launched in August 2008 had reached orbit? Only Reuters claims this, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.66.116 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear enough now, and I apologize for mistakenly reverting the sentence restored by McKay. I thought the Aug 2008 launch was another, unconnected satellite attempt, not a part of the Omid program. Whether a serious attempt to reach orbit was made in 2008 may be difficult to acertain, but matters little now that success has clearly been achieved. Wwheaton (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for the claim that the August 2008 launch actually placed an object in orbit? There should be an entry for it in the international satellite registry system if so, but I do not know where to find that offhand. If it cannot be confirmed as having been in orbit, we should demote it to a successful rocket test, or some such. There are really two technical issues. One is rocket performance--velocity and payload carrying capacity. The other is guidance and control: you have to get the payload above the atmosphere moving over ~8 km/s, but also going accurately horizontal, so it does not hit the top of the atmosphere during the first orbit. Achieving the necessary velocity with a useful payload could reasonably be called a successful rocket test, in my opinion, even if the guidance was not quite good enough to stay in orbit. Wwheaton (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a catalog of satellites here, from an established Belgian group of satellite trackers, that shows:
COSPAR NORAD SATELLITE    DATE     LAUNCHER LAUNCH SITE PERIGEE APOGEE INC COUNTRY RE-ENTRY OBS? COMMENT
NOA        0 Safir-e Omid 08/16/08 SAFIR    SEMNAN            0      0     IRAN    08/16/08 .F.  Failure or sub orbital launch
for the August 2008 test launch. I believe this shows (perigee 0, apogee 0, empty inclination data "INC", re-entry same date as launch) that orbit was not achieved. Note that this same catalog contains many entries for orbiting debris and rocket parts, so I think it is probable that nothing reached orbit. Based on this information, or the lack of reliable information that a satellite was launched, nor any specific source for the "NASA" claim in the article "Test launch" section, I propose to change the article text so that it just calls it a test of the launch rocket. I will do this soon but not immediately, to give time for other editors, who may have better source info, to come forth. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, in a following line in the same file the comment, "Second stage failure at 152km". Wwheaton (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the last sentence of the "Test launch" section, claiming a satellite was launched in Aug 2008, and confirmed by NASA. There appears to be no evidence to support this, and contrary evidence as reported above. Counting the 2005 launch of a satellite built and launched by Russia for Iran, Omid is then the second Iranian satellite.

Independent confirmation?

[edit]

Any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.36.12 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so, see the discussion above. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I've seen nothing from the US gov't about it. Strange given the implications. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here we go. [1] •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This only available image of the satellite was sent to Reuters by Fars News Agency."

[edit]

If a wikipedian wants to accuse Iran of propaganda and lies and that this satellite doesn't even exist, better do it clearly. Posting such weasel wording on the Front Page of Wikipedia helps nobody. AaThinker (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're assuming that that was the motive. Don't jump to contusions. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second or third satellite?

[edit]

Which is it? This article says both.

The Iranian news site here explicitly claims this is "the third Iranian-made satellite", but the lead sentence of the same article calls it "Iran's first domestically-built research satellite". Thus the article is not quite self-consistent, and so is confusing. The USA Today site here, from almost a year ago (2/17/2008) and attributed to the Associate Press (AP), refers to "Iranian TV", quoting one Mehran Mirshams, an "Iranian space official" as first saying a satellite had reached "an orbit of 200-250 kilometers" above the Earth, but then goes on to quote the same person as saying "Iran will launch its first satellite into a 400-mile orbit in June". Thus this report is also confusing and appears self-contradictory. There is also the BBC report here about the launch of a satellite, Russian-built for Iran, launched on a Russian rocket in October 2005. It seems that the confusion in our article is traceable to inconsistencies within and among the sources themselves. Wwheaton (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the doubtful paragraph in the "Orbit" section. If the facts can be established, it probably should go elsewhere, in any case. Wwheaton (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omid&oldid=1220860836"