Last week, Iran conducted a failed space launch. Iran is now getting ready to try again. @DaveSchmerler and I worked it all out with open sources, then @ZcohenCNN got the Pentagon to confirm it. A short OSINT thread. 1/10
Last week, @DaveSchmerler noticed that a June 6 image of the Imam Khomeini Spaceport from @Maxar showed indicators that are normally associated with space launches in Iran. These are the same signatures that we used to predict previous space launches. 2/10
One of those signatures is a lot of vehicles showing up at the horizontal checkout building. On June 6, there were more than a dozen vehicles there -- something that only happens before space launches. 3/10
Another signature was specialized equipment at the mobile launch gantry including two specific vehicles and a mobile work platform. We never see this equipment except before space launches. 4/10
We then took another look at an image from @planet on June 1 and saw fuel containers, as well as a possible oxidizer container. Again, there is only one reason to bring so much fuel to the site. 5/10
This large gantry has been used only for the Simorgh SLV. Iran had already announced as many as three Simorgh SLV launches this year, which we knew because ... did I mention we're writing a book on Iran's space program? 6/10
mehrnews.com/news/5137592/.
And then ... nothing. Iran did not announce a launch. @18SPCS didn't add an Iranian satellite to the catalogue of space objects. And when we got a new images from @planet and @maxar there was much less activity at the launch site. We were pretty sure the launch failed. 7/10
At about the same time, @jcm4589 contacted me and asked if I had heard any rumors about a failed space launch somewhere in the world. My jaw about hit the floor. There is a reason we all read Jonathan's Space Report. 8/10
planet4589.org/space/jsr/late…
Dave and I then worked with the amazing @ZcohenCNN, who got the Pentagon to confirm "the Iranian rocket launch failure which occurred early June 12th." Boy, that felt good to confirm what we thought we saw in the satellite images. 9/10
cnn.com/2021/06/22/pol…
But the story isn't over. Because on June 20, @planet imaged the site again. A support vehicle and the mobile work platform are back at the gantry and there is another load of fuel (and possibly oxidizer) on site. The Iranians are going to try again! OSINT is wild. 10/10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Jeffrey Lewis

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ArmsControlWonk

10 Jun
Going through Nexis, the term "lab leak" appears occasionally in news about past events (Winnipeg 1999, China 2004 and the UK 2007) but it is largely confined to headlines where space is tight.
Scholar articles are more revealing. There are very few uses of "lab leak" or "laboratory leak" in scholarly journals *except* in reference to the current pandemic.
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22L…
Read 5 tweets
23 Apr
It wasn't an explosion -- it was a test of a solid rocket motor. A thread. (1/12)
Here is the video that caused all the fuss. There is no explosion, just an intense fire that seems to go out by itself. (2/12)
Compare what you see in that video with images of a test of a large solid propellant rocket motor in the US, especially at the 3:11 mark. (3/12)
Read 13 tweets
12 Apr
I basically agree with this back-and-forth about why Israel would want to prevent a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program even though the sabotage campaign cannot reasonably be expected to prevent Iran from ultimately building nuclear weapons if it chooses.
As one colleague admitted pre-JCPOA: He was against a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem because fear of Iran's nuclear weapons program was the most effective issue around which to organize a campaign to isolate the Islamic Republic.
He wanted sanctions because he loathed the regime and wanted it removed. He was frank about his goal and clear-eyed about his strategy: Other countries would not support sanctions for Iran's other malign behaviors, only for the nuclear issue. So, you go with your best argument.
Read 5 tweets
15 Mar
The place to start is by noting that Biden's people have started repeating a Trump-era formulation: "The denuclearization of North Korea." I've seen in the #Quad statement, as well as the bilat with Japan. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to strengthen AmeWe reaffirm our commitment to the complete denuclearization
Here is the problem with this phrase. What Kim said was "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." Same phrase used since Kim Il Sung and what it means is that the US needs to stop threatening North Korea with nuclear weapons, not that he will disarm.
nytimes.com/2018/04/04/opi…
Read 16 tweets
2 Mar
Gen. McKenzie's tale about waiting for the Iranians to download a satellite image is bullshit. And David Martin is just lapping it up, asking for seconds. A thread.
Problem 1: The story could not have occurred on the timeline that McKenzie describes. There is a big time gap between when a picture is taken ("collection time") and when the image is available to customers ("delivery time").
The image has to go from the satellite, to a ground station, then to the company, and finally to the customer. In reality, only a very small number of commercial satellite imagery providers like @planet offer images on anything like the timeline implied by McKenzie.
Read 14 tweets
4 Feb
This is a fairly tepid "rebuttal" to the @UCSUSA study on hypersonic gliders. What I find most notable is that it largely concedes the technical objections in the paper. Allow me to translate the summary bullet points.
breakingdefense.com/2021/02/pentag…
"Ok, all the gliders we've actually made sucked but, and trust me on this, we are right now imagining gliders that do not suck." UCS. based their model on decade-old flight tests of an expe
"Ok, ok. The gliders we are imagining are slower and less reliable than ICBMs but have you considered the possibility that our glider could bank gently away from an interceptor with a burnout speed in excess of 3 kilometers per second?" UCS graded the model on two key metrics, flight time and det
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(