China in space.

[Harley W. Daugherty]

China launched its first manned mission today, how about that!?

Harley


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
ddd > wrote:

> There are only two countries capable of manned space flights ...
> Russia and China.

The U.S. *could* launch...but they won't for a while longer.

Choice, not inability.

[John C. Baker]

In article et>,
"Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote:

> China launched its first manned mission today, how about that!?

While manned space flight is an impressive technical accomplishment, and
space exploration is important to mankind's understanding of himself, I
have one thing to say to Beijing: "Welcome to 1961."

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:54:13 +0300, ddd > wrote:

>There are only two countries capable of manned space flights ...
>Russia and China.

Bet you been waitin' a long time to say that huh troll?

[robert arndt]

ddd > wrote in message >...
> There are only two countries capable of manned space flights ...
> Russia and China.


Even so, many other 'nauts from other nations have been to space
courtesy of the US and Russia. Germany, for example, has had 10 men in
space (6 as astronauts, 3 as cosmonauts, and 1 as both)in 12 missions.

Rob

p.s. Isn't it strange that every nation that ventures into space is
dubbed a 'naut? US= Astronaut. Russia= Cosmonaut. China= Taikonaut.
Although this generally means "space navigator" the Germans if they
ever launch their own manned flight would call theirs a Raumjaeger-
literally, "Space Hunter"- a more miltaristic term based on their
other military Jaegers: Feldjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, Fallschirmjaeger.

[Gene Storey]

Looks like a complete copy of the Soviet space program, down to the
pressure suit, and the name "cosmonaut." How can they go wrong?

"Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote
> China launched its first manned mission today, how about that!?
>
> Harley

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

> p.s. Isn't it strange that every nation that ventures into space is
> dubbed a 'naut? US= Astronaut. Russia= Cosmonaut. China= Taikonaut.
> Although this generally means "space navigator" the Germans if they
> ever launch their own manned flight would call theirs a Raumjaeger-
> literally, "Space Hunter"- a more miltaristic term based on their
> other military Jaegers: Feldjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, Fallschirmjaeger.


Nonsense. In Germany, astronauts are called either "Astronauten" or
"Raumfahrer" and that wouldn't change if they were launched by a
German rocket.

Andreas

[Daryl Hunt]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
...
> "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote
> > China launched its first manned mission today, how about that!?
> >
> > Harley
> Looks like a complete copy of the Soviet space program, down to the
> pressure suit, and the name "cosmonaut." How can they go wrong?
>

If the money had been spent on the X-15 program, the US would be further
along. But that's another story.

That makes 4 nations. US, Russia, China and the Muppets "Pigs in 'Space'"

[Chad Irby]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote:

> That makes 4 nations. US, Russia, China and the Muppets "Pigs in 'Space'"

You left out the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Majden]

"Gene Storey" <> wrote in message

> Looks like a complete copy of the Soviet space program, down to the
> pressure suit, and the name "cosmonaut." How can they go wrong?
>
The American space efforts were not necessarily done on their own
either. I think Mr. Newton should be given some credit along with Mr. Von
Braun and his crew. Canadian born Jim Chamberlin chief designer of the
CF-105 AVRO Arrow was basically the guy that designed the Gemini space
craft. He was one of a number of AVRO Canada engineers that headed south to
work for NASA after the sad cancellation of the Arrow project. See:
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/07/06/64.asp Scientific efforts are build of
the shoulders of scientists of many nations, not just one. I think the
Chinese should be congratulated! I only hope their efforts are peaceful
ones and not cold war one-up-man-ship as was the case in the past.

[Simon Robbins]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> p.s. Isn't it strange that every nation that ventures into space is
> dubbed a 'naut? US= Astronaut. Russia= Cosmonaut. China= Taikonaut.
> Although this generally means "space navigator" the Germans if they
> ever launch their own manned flight would call theirs a Raumjaeger-
> literally, "Space Hunter"- a more miltaristic term based on their
> other military Jaegers: Feldjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, Fallschirmjaeger.

Naut means "the way". Astronaut, as in "the way of the stars".
(I'm getting my explanation from Egyptian Uponaut, meaning "Opener of The
Way.")

Si

[Cub Driver]

>Nonsense. In Germany, astronauts are called either "Astronauten" or
>"Raumfahrer" and that wouldn't change if they were launched by a
>German rocket.

That's a relief! Based on my devoted study of the language, traveling
from gasthaus to gasthaus in 1958, I would have rendered it
Fernfahrter.

(By the way, I thought Germans were rather rude to American tourists,
too. Especially in the post office.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Grantland]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:48:01 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Minyard"
>>> The moon flights were certainly propaganda. There is nothing left to
>>> learn from manned lunar shots. I certainly hope that the Chinese will
>>> not waste the human lives and tremendous resources that such a mission
>>> would entail.
>>>
>> You don't know very much about science if you think there is nothing
>>more to learn about going back to the Moon. Leaving Lunar Science aside,
>>the far side of the Moon is an ideal place for a radio telescope as all the
>>man made noise created on earth would be blocked. Also an ideal place for
>>an optical telescope either manned or robotic. NASA is talking of a trip to
>>Mars. Hell, they had better get going back to the Moon safely before they
>>attempt going out further. They don't have the booster capability to even
>>do this today.
>>Ed
>>
>
>A radio telescope on the moon? You can't be serious. Do you have any
>idea how many flights would be required? Al for an optical telescope,
>earth orbit is far, far more practical. Moon missions are a waste of
>time and money.
>
>Al Minyard

Yea, and France is the enemy. What a prick you are, Minyard. The
Chinese will build that station while their economy blooms; and they
will sneer in superior contempt at your obese, unwashed barbarian
whining. Filthy gaijin.

Grantland

[Daryl Hunt]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote:
>
> > That makes 4 nations. US, Russia, China and the Muppets "Pigs in
'Space'"
>
> You left out the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

And the Mayor of Washington D.C.

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Cub Driver > schrieb:

>>Nonsense. In Germany, astronauts are called either "Astronauten" or
>>"Raumfahrer" and that wouldn't change if they were launched by a
>>German rocket.
>
>That's a relief! Based on my devoted study of the language, traveling
>from gasthaus to gasthaus in 1958, I would have rendered it
>Fernfahrter.

<g> No, "fahren" applies to vehicles, ships, airships, but not to
planes and rockets.

>(By the way, I thought Germans were rather rude to American tourists,
>too.

Can´t comment on this (since I try to be rude to no one)... but..

> Especially in the post office.)

.... that used to be normal in post offices - today they tend to ignore
the customer or pretend to be braindead. Well, some are.

>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

Gruss, Roman

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Ed Majden" > writes:

> The American space efforts were not necessarily done on their own
> either. I think Mr. Newton should be given some credit along with Mr. Von
> Braun and his crew. Canadian born Jim Chamberlin chief designer of the
> CF-105 AVRO Arrow was basically the guy that designed the Gemini space
> craft. He was one of a number of AVRO Canada engineers that headed south to
> work for NASA after the sad cancellation of the Arrow project. See:
> http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/07/06/64.asp Scientific efforts are build of
> the shoulders of scientists of many nations, not just one. I think the
> Chinese should be congratulated! I only hope their efforts are peaceful
> ones and not cold war one-up-man-ship as was the case in the past.

Bravo for a good post amongst the rubbish! In Japan there is great
effort to continue to improve their launch rockets, but at present
there is not enough confidence to go to manned launches on their
own. The Chinese are indeed to be congratulated, vey impressive
indeed, no matter what help they had - that, after all, is the point
of scientific progress.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[tscottme]

John C. Baker > wrote in message
...

>
> While manned space flight is an impressive technical accomplishment,
and
> space exploration is important to mankind's understanding of himself,
I
> have one thing to say to Beijing: "Welcome to 1961."

Standby for garish polyester clothing and bitter, ugly women without
bras.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Ed Majden > wrote in message
news:Lfgjb.103719$6C4.38239@pd7tw1no...
<snip>
> I only hope their efforts are peaceful
> ones and not cold war one-up-man-ship as was the case in the past.
>
>
>

Competition improves the herd, about 40 years ahead of schedule it would
seem..

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > p.s. Isn't it strange that every nation that ventures into space is
> > dubbed a 'naut? US= Astronaut. Russia= Cosmonaut. China= Taikonaut.
> > Although this generally means "space navigator" the Germans if they
> > ever launch their own manned flight would call theirs a Raumjaeger-
> > literally, "Space Hunter"- a more miltaristic term based on their
> > other military Jaegers: Feldjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, Fallschirmjaeger.
>
>
> Nonsense. In Germany, astronauts are called either "Astronauten" or
> "Raumfahrer" and that wouldn't change if they were launched by a
> German rocket.
>
> Andreas

Andreas,

"Raumjaeger" originated with Von Braun's space ideas in the '40s even
as work was being concentrated on the A-4 rocket. You are familiar
with the entire A-series up to the A-12, the proposed German space
station, the metallic-sodium space mirror death ray, and the piloted
V-2 (EMW A6)... not to mention Sanger's Silverbird?
Although none of the space projects were accomplished, design studies
on advanced pressure suits were done with Von Braun sketching out the
first real concepts of a functional spacesuit.
The fact that German astronauts and cosmonauts adopted those foreign
names means little as they were passengers aboard foreign spacecraft.
The renewed Sanger 2-stage vehicle project was something different.
International depictions of the craft along with the models presented
were for an unmanned vehicle. However, in Germany, where a large scale
mockup of the vehicle was built as well as German models made- there
are clearly viewports incorporated into the design suggesting that the
craft was to be manned. An article on the Sanger back in the early
'90s stated that if built the Sanger would have been flown by
Luftwaffe pilots which at that time were to be called "Jaegernaut"- a
name originating with the foreign publication. The article (which
could have been AW&ST IIRC) further stated that the Sanger was being
considered for dual-purpose usage as a launcher of LEO weapons.
So, don't assume that any future German manned launch would be an ESA
peace mission. If Sanger is ever built the very first payload might
very well be a spy sat or other military package. Even if not built
and a German rocket is launched instead, German nationalism will
guarantee a different name.
Raumfahrer? Never. Raumjaeger or Jaegernaut, probably.

Rob

[Ed Majden]

>Scott wrote:
> Competition improves the herd, about 40 years ahead of schedule it would
> seem..
>
Fear and funding improves the herd. Trucking up instrumentation or
supplies to a space station does not excite the public. They have short
attention spans and soon loose interest. Politicians are also reluctant to
allocate funds if they aren't in the limelight and getting votes cast their
way. Maybe this China success will put a sparc back into space exploration!

[David Bromage]

tscottme wrote:
> John C. Baker > wrote in message
> ...
>>While manned space flight is an impressive technical accomplishment, and
>>space exploration is important to mankind's understanding of himself, I
>>have one thing to say to Beijing: "Welcome to 1961."
>
> Standby for garish polyester clothing and bitter, ugly women without
> bras.

ROFL! On the other hand, I might make a visit to The Cavern.

Cheers
David

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

> Andreas,
>
> [...]
> So, don't assume that any future German manned launch would be an ESA
> peace mission. If Sanger is ever built the very first payload might
> very well be a spy sat or other military package.


There is no "German" space program, it's all European (i.e. ESA). And
remember that Germany has been bashed recently for its _lack_ of
military enthusiasm.

> Even if not built
> and a German rocket is launched instead, German nationalism will
> guarantee a different name.
> Raumfahrer? Never. Raumjaeger or Jaegernaut, probably.


"German nationalism"?? Where (or when!) the **** are you living?!?
It's not 1945 anymore! For the record, I'm a German with a more than
average interest in space flight, and I have _never_ seen terms like
"Raumjäger" or "Jägernaut" (ridiculous!! - whoever thought of this
can't possibly be a native speaker of German!) in a German publication
(since the late '70s at least).

Andreas

[Kevin Brooks]

Gernot Hassenpflug > wrote in message >...
> "Ed Majden" > writes:
>
> > The American space efforts were not necessarily done on their own
> > either. I think Mr. Newton should be given some credit along with Mr. Von
> > Braun and his crew. Canadian born Jim Chamberlin chief designer of the
> > CF-105 AVRO Arrow was basically the guy that designed the Gemini space
> > craft. He was one of a number of AVRO Canada engineers that headed south to
> > work for NASA after the sad cancellation of the Arrow project. See:
> > http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/07/06/64.asp Scientific efforts are build of
> > the shoulders of scientists of many nations, not just one. I think the
> > Chinese should be congratulated! I only hope their efforts are peaceful
> > ones and not cold war one-up-man-ship as was the case in the past.
>
> Bravo for a good post amongst the rubbish! In Japan there is great
> effort to continue to improve their launch rockets, but at present
> there is not enough confidence to go to manned launches on their
> own. The Chinese are indeed to be congratulated, vey impressive
> indeed, no matter what help they had - that, after all, is the point
> of scientific progress.

Not to dump on the PRC's endeavor here, but "impressive" seems a bit
much. What is so impressive about them today matching US/Russian
technology of the 1960's, while conducting a "feat" that has little or
no real value, scientific or otherwise? Nor have they, with this
event, demonstrated much in the line of "scientific progress"--the
whole man-going-around-the-earth-in-space-merely-because-he-can is
kind of passe (by at least three decades). Just what new item, or
theoretical development, or experament, was accomplished here? None.
If they were truly interested in "scientific progress" they would have
been clamoring to join the ISS effort, or develop efficient and useful
unmanned payloads--but this particular mission is little more than an
internal propoganda feat designed for their own domestic consumption.
If you are really looking for a PRC space feat, it would be their
emerging capability to compete in the commercial launch business
(albeit no doubt largely due to their still-significant ability to
control domestic costs).

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<Lfgjb.103719$6C4.38239@pd7tw1no>...
> "Gene Storey" <> wrote in message
>
> > Looks like a complete copy of the Soviet space program, down to the
> > pressure suit, and the name "cosmonaut." How can they go wrong?
> >
> The American space efforts were not necessarily done on their own
> either.

True, but nobody has said it was. We took advantage of the talents of
a lot of folks who came over here--which in and of itself is a pretty
good talent of the US.

I think Mr. Newton should be given some credit along with Mr. Von
> Braun and his crew. Canadian born Jim Chamberlin chief designer of the
> CF-105 AVRO Arrow was basically the guy that designed the Gemini space
> craft.

Canadian born, yes--but a US citizen from the early sixties, as were
Von Braun and crew. Which makes them Americans in the truest sense of
the word. And to be completely honest, Chamberlin was the Gemini
project manager, not "the designer", and moved from that post in 1963
because of budgeting problems within his purview, and possibly some
personal conflicts (he reportedly was not a "people person", to say
the least). That does not take away from his substantial contributions
to Mercury, Gemini, and even the Apollo programs (he also did some
early work on the shuttle).

> He was one of a number of AVRO Canada engineers that headed south to
> work for NASA after the sad cancellation of the Arrow project. See:
> http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/07/06/64.asp Scientific efforts are build of
> the shoulders of scientists of many nations, not just one. I think the
> Chinese should be congratulated! I only hope their efforts are peaceful
> ones and not cold war one-up-man-ship as was the case in the past.

I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
commercial launch business than I am in this
reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
feats of others forty years after the fact.

Brooks

[Gordon]

>If they were really
>interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
>launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
>feats of others forty years after the fact.

Absolutely agree. Kicking in to the ISS, offering their services in heavy
lifting, etc., would gain them far more than this Gagarin-esque flight and a
near duplicate of early Soviet space plans. I think this flight was a
monumental achievement for the PRC, but the postflight interview with the
Taikonaut seemed a blast from the past, with party slogans and embedded phrases
that show their program is under the Communist banner, intended to spread their
message into the reaches of space. That is sad, and I think it detracts from
the accomplishment of the Chinese people.

v/r
Gordon

[Ed Majden]

"Kevin Brooks"
> I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
> commercial launch business than I am in this
> reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
> interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
> launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
> feats of others forty years after the fact.

I somehow doubt that they were asked or invited to join the ISS effort.
As for progress, you must learn to crawl before you can walk. ESA in Europe
did this with their launch facilities. Indeed, they have not put a man in
space but they don't have the deep pockets that the USA has. If news
stories are correct China plans on building their own space station and
perhaps sending a man to the Moon. The USA program to do this was a
propaganda stunt at the time. Beat the Soviets at all costs. There were of
course scientific spin-offs but if science was the primary goal, why did
they only send one planetary geologist to the Moon?

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
>commercial launch business than I am in this
>reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
>interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
>launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
>feats of others forty years after the fact.

Eh? You mentioned "scientific advances" and "ISS" in the same sentence.
I'm not entirely sure I see any relationship between scientific advances
and Fredovitch.

OTOH, China is launching Double Star as a joint mission with ESA
in the fairly near future as an add-on/follow-on to Cluster II, and
that is a mission which should provide significant scientific gain.

OTOH#2, Long March looks to be shaping up to being one of the more
useful launchers, possibly trailing only Vostok and Proton.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN > wrote:
>OTOH#2, Long March looks to be shaping up to being one of the more
>useful launchers, possibly trailing only Vostok and Proton.

oops.

s/Soyuz/Vostok.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<A%Wjb.114508$9l5.38880@pd7tw2no>...
> "Kevin Brooks"
> > I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
> > commercial launch business than I am in this
> > reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
> > interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
> > launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
> > feats of others forty years after the fact.
>
> I somehow doubt that they were asked or invited to join the ISS effort.

I imagine that had they wanted in, it would have been
acceptable--Russia is part of it, so why would the PRC have been
excluded?

> As for progress, you must learn to crawl before you can walk.

By that reasoning, every nation wishing to enter into the commercial
aviation field has to first experament with gliders, etc.? I
disagree--there was never any need for them to follow the same path as
what the rest of us did forty years ago. What would have been more
noteworthy was had they skipped this stage entirely, based upon the
vast pool of knowledge already available from previous space
operations. Just what exactly did this flight *really* accomplish?
They launched some four or five unmanned capsules before this manned
flight--add up the cost incurred in all of that and determine if the
net value of being able to say "we sent a guy around the earth, just
like the US and Russia did forty years ago!" was worth it.

ESA in Europe
> did this with their launch facilities. Indeed, they have not put a man in
> space but they don't have the deep pockets that the USA has.

Excuse me, but China is not exactly known as having unlimited
resources, either. Look at their average standard of living, and then
tell me this was really a great idea.

If news
> stories are correct China plans on building their own space station and
> perhaps sending a man to the Moon. The USA program to do this was a
> propaganda stunt at the time. Beat the Soviets at all costs. There were of
> course scientific spin-offs but if science was the primary goal, why did
> they only send one planetary geologist to the Moon?

Because the geology could better be done here on earth? Hard to do the
old "taste test" (trust me, such a critter does exist in the field of
"seat of the pants" geotech engineering) in the vacuum of space :).

I note that the PRC is not really being very forthcoming with their
future plans (if any), unlike the US was (which makes it much easier
for them to deny failure, since they don't commit to anything in the
first place). And based on what we have seen this week, if it does
develop the way you see it, we'll see maybe a Salyut/Skylab class PLA
space station in place around 2020 (again maintaining that all
important 40-year lag in their "scientific progress").

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >If they were really
> >interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
> >launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
> >feats of others forty years after the fact.
>
> Absolutely agree. Kicking in to the ISS, offering their services in heavy
> lifting, etc., would gain them far more than this Gagarin-esque flight and a
> near duplicate of early Soviet space plans. I think this flight was a
> monumental achievement for the PRC, but the postflight interview with the
> Taikonaut seemed a blast from the past, with party slogans and embedded phrases
> that show their program is under the Communist banner, intended to spread their
> message into the reaches of space. That is sad, and I think it detracts from
> the accomplishment of the Chinese people.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

Yep. I can't help but believe that despite all the hype we continually
see about the "new" China, it remains a bit too firmly embedded in the
old Maoist past. Their progress in their launch capabilities has been
very impressive--but this little sideshow did nothing to impress
anyone with any degree of understanding of the field, and instead was
obviously focused solely at their own teeming masses--domestic
propoganda writ large. They sent a man into space, but at what cost?
For gosh sakes, we (the rest of the world) still look to them as the
breeding place for the various influenza strains, courtesy of their
still living in too close a proximity to their danged ducks and
pigs--better if they had spent part of this latest investment on their
nascent commercial launch business, and the rest on keeping things
like SAR's from erupting in the first place.

Brooks

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:00:48 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks"
>> I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
>> commercial launch business than I am in this
>> reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
>> interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
>> launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
>> feats of others forty years after the fact.
>
> I somehow doubt that they were asked or invited to join the ISS effort.
>As for progress, you must learn to crawl before you can walk. ESA in Europe
>did this with their launch facilities. Indeed, they have not put a man in
>space but they don't have the deep pockets that the USA has. If news
>stories are correct China plans on building their own space station and
>perhaps sending a man to the Moon. The USA program to do this was a
>propaganda stunt at the time. Beat the Soviets at all costs. There were of
>course scientific spin-offs but if science was the primary goal, why did
>they only send one planetary geologist to the Moon?
>
The moon flights were certainly propaganda. There is nothing left to
learn from manned lunar shots. I certainly hope that the Chinese will
not waste the human lives and tremendous resources that such a mission
would entail.

Al Minyard

[Ed Majden]

"Kevin Brooks"
> I imagine that had they wanted in, it would have been
> acceptable--Russia is part of it, so why would the PRC have been
> excluded?
>
Many in the U.S.A. were strongly against Russian participation in ISS.
Some still hold this view today but fortunately cooler heads prevailed. The
long duration flight expertise of the Russian program is a valuable asset
along with their booster capabilities. Very much needed today with the
Shuttle grounded.

> Because the geology could better be done here on earth? Hard to do the
> old "taste test" (trust me, such a critter does exist in the field of
> "seat of the pants" geotech engineering) in the vacuum of space :).

The late and famous American planetary geologist, Eugene Shoemaker was
an ideal candidate for a geologist in space. Unfortunately a medical
problem prevented him from being an astronaught. He fought strongly to get
a qualified planetary scientist on one of the flights. Picking up samples
on the Moon could be more selective by a trained professional in the field.
They in fact trained the astronaughts that flew to the Moon in geology. But
cramming doesn't make up for years of experience in the field. I'm sure
they would admit that themselves. Eugene finally got his trip, but sadly in
a burial capsule, after his tragic car accident in Australia.

Ed

[Ed Majden]

"Alan Minyard"
> The moon flights were certainly propaganda. There is nothing left to
> learn from manned lunar shots. I certainly hope that the Chinese will
> not waste the human lives and tremendous resources that such a mission
> would entail.
>
You don't know very much about science if you think there is nothing
more to learn about going back to the Moon. Leaving Lunar Science aside,
the far side of the Moon is an ideal place for a radio telescope as all the
man made noise created on earth would be blocked. Also an ideal place for
an optical telescope either manned or robotic. NASA is talking of a trip to
Mars. Hell, they had better get going back to the Moon safely before they
attempt going out further. They don't have the booster capability to even
do this today.
Ed

[Charles Zow]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<A%Wjb.114508$9l5.38880@pd7tw2no>...
> "Kevin Brooks"
> > I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
> > commercial launch business than I am in this
> > reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
> > interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
> > launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
> > feats of others forty years after the fact.
>
> I somehow doubt that they were asked or invited to join the ISS effort.
> As for progress, you must learn to crawl before you can walk. ESA in Europe
> did this with their launch facilities. Indeed, they have not put a man in
> space but they don't have the deep pockets that the USA has. If news
> stories are correct China plans on building their own space station and
> perhaps sending a man to the Moon. The USA program to do this was a
> propaganda stunt at the time. Beat the Soviets at all costs. There were of
> course scientific spin-offs but if science was the primary goal, why did
> they only send one planetary geologist to the Moon?


Can't blame the Chinese for this one. They've asked repeatedly to
join the ISS but they were rejected with a prompt "No Chinese allowed"
dismissal, mainly from the US.

The Europeans are sidestepping American disapproval of any
cooperation with the Chinese by engaging them in the European-led
Gallileo project instead of ISS. It's a shame really.

http://msnbc.com/news/979759.asp?0sl=-43

"China charts
its next steps
in outer space
Beijing lays groundwork for
spacewalks, experiments
and its own space station
COMMENTARY
By James Oberg
NBC NEWS SPACE ANALYST"

[Kevin Brooks]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >I am much more impressed by the Chinese effort to compete in the
> >commercial launch business than I am in this
> >reminiscent-of-the-early-sixties propoganda ploy.If they were really
> >interested in scientific advances, they would continue with their
> >launch business and join the ISS effort, instead of repeating the
> >feats of others forty years after the fact.
>
> Eh? You mentioned "scientific advances" and "ISS" in the same sentence.
> I'm not entirely sure I see any relationship between scientific advances
> and Fredovitch.

Check for myopia, then. ISS is already providing scientific data; see
spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/ for info on current and past research
conducted on the station. It is a whale of a lot more likely to
provide scientific advances than the PRC's spam-in-a-can propoganda
ploy.

>
> OTOH, China is launching Double Star as a joint mission with ESA
> in the fairly near future as an add-on/follow-on to Cluster II, and
> that is a mission which should provide significant scientific gain.

Wonderful. Maybe had they invested some of the resources dedicated to
this little pointless jaunt into this and similar programs, they might
be getting better results.

>
> OTOH#2, Long March looks to be shaping up to being one of the more
> useful launchers, possibly trailing only Vostok and Proton.

You must have missed the "I am much more impressed by the Chinese
effort to compete in the commercial launch business..." bit I
mentioned earlier. And BTW, Vostok is not a launcher.

Brooks

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > Andreas,
> >
> > [...]
> > So, don't assume that any future German manned launch would be an ESA
> > peace mission. If Sanger is ever built the very first payload might
> > very well be a spy sat or other military package.
>
>
> There is no "German" space program, it's all European (i.e. ESA). And
> remember that Germany has been bashed recently for its _lack_ of
> military enthusiasm.

Wrong again Andreas. Any transatmospheric bomber concept (which have
been studied by DASA before it was EADS) would be Luftwaffe piloted.
Second, in case you're not up on the news, Germany has close to 11,000
troops deployed with a pledge of another 2,200 for ISAF and 5,000
ultimately for the newly created NATO NRF (initial contribution of
1,100 with build-up to 5,000 by 2006). These figures do not count any
German/NATO/UN contribution of troops to Iraq in the event an
agreement is reached. You are full of it with the "lack" nonsense
since even the Heer complained about rearmament AGAIN in 2003. The
first time was in 1999 over the Balkans. And FYI, German IDZ
supersoldiers are operating in the Balkans since July 2002. I guess
you don't bother reading the military journals back home or Germany
doesn't want that attention in its press. I guess you are unfamiliar
with the "German Army 2020" Program your govt. "forgot" to announce-
but thanks to a leak to the Pentegon, we've got it. It states that the
Germany Army will be completely restructured for ultra-rapid, global
warfare and that the Heer will be dividing into supersoldier "Jaeger"
groups that will fight in real time with the aid of ACRs, entire
families of wheeled AFVs, UCAVs, and ultra-sophisticated electronic
gear.
>
> > Even if not built
> > and a German rocket is launched instead, German nationalism will
> > guarantee a different name.
> > Raumfahrer? Never. Raumjaeger or Jaegernaut, probably.
>
>
> "German nationalism"?? Where (or when!) the **** are you living?!?
> It's not 1945 anymore! For the record, I'm a German with a more than
> average interest in space flight, and I have _never_ seen terms like
> "Raumjäger" or "Jägernaut" (ridiculous!! - whoever thought of this
> can't possibly be a native speaker of German!) in a German publication
> (since the late '70s at least).
>
> Andreas

Thanks again Andreas for omitting the origins of both those terms in
my previous post. And yes, I clearly stated that the publication that
came up with the term "Jaegernaut" was foreign. Certainly, the Germans
will call their own manned space personnel what they want. But on that
day is won't be a variation of astronaut or cosmonaut (as in previous
passenger missions).

Rob

[Simon Robbins]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> I think this flight was a
> monumental achievement for the PRC, but the postflight interview with the
> Taikonaut seemed a blast from the past, with party slogans and embedded
phrases
> that show their program is under the Communist banner, intended to spread
their
> message into the reaches of space. That is sad, and I think it detracts
from
> the accomplishment of the Chinese people.

That's a rather cynical view. Why should a Chinese Communist not be proud
of his country and wish to say so? He's also aware that his future
participation is probably dependent on pleasing those in government who hold
the purse strings. Funny how when an actress with fake tears cries "God
bless America" we assume she's being heartfelt, but when someone from an
opposing political idea issues a similar sentiment we automatically assume
they're being coached.

Si

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

>> There is no "German" space program, it's all European (i.e. ESA). And
>> remember that Germany has been bashed recently for its _lack_ of
>> military enthusiasm.
>
> Wrong again Andreas. Any transatmospheric bomber concept (which have
> been studied by DASA before it was EADS) would be Luftwaffe piloted.

We talked about _space launch vehciles_ and not _bombers_. DASA can
study as much as it wants, but there never was - nor will there be in
the foreseeable future - a German military requirement for a
transatmospheric bomber.

> Second, in case you're not up on the news, Germany has close to 11,000
> troops deployed with a pledge of another 2,200 for ISAF and 5,000
> ultimately for the newly created NATO NRF (initial contribution of
> 1,100 with build-up to 5,000 by 2006).

Yes, I know. And so what? This has nothing to do with a space program.

> These figures do not count any
> German/NATO/UN contribution of troops to Iraq in the event an
> agreement is reached.

The current German goverment has repeatedly and firmly stated that
there will be no German troops in Iraq. The support for this in the
general public is >70%, so even the opposition doesn't dare to suggest
otherwise.

> You are full of it with the "lack" nonsense
> since even the Heer complained about rearmament AGAIN in 2003. The
> first time was in 1999 over the Balkans. And FYI, German IDZ
> supersoldiers are operating in the Balkans since July 2002.

Again, this has _nothing_ to do with space program. And by the way,
they're not "supersoldiers" ... the usual term would be "Special
Operation Forces".

> I guess
> you don't bother reading the military journals back home or Germany
> doesn't want that attention in its press. I guess you are unfamiliar
> with the "German Army 2020" Program your govt. "forgot" to announce-
> but thanks to a leak to the Pentegon, we've got it. It states that the
> Germany Army will be completely restructured for ultra-rapid, global
> warfare and that the Heer will be dividing into supersoldier "Jaeger"
> groups that will fight in real time with the aid of ACRs, entire
> families of wheeled AFVs, UCAVs, and ultra-sophisticated electronic
> gear.

This concept is well known here. It's no secret that the German
military wants to transform into a "special force" with fewer soldiers
and more advanced equipment. No "leak" of any sort was needed for the
Pentagon to know this too.

>>
>> > Even if not built
>> > and a German rocket is launched instead, German nationalism will
>> > guarantee a different name.
>> > Raumfahrer? Never. Raumjaeger or Jaegernaut, probably.
>>
>>
>> "German nationalism"?? Where (or when!) the **** are you living?!?
>> It's not 1945 anymore! For the record, I'm a German with a more than
>> average interest in space flight, and I have _never_ seen terms like
>> "Raumjäger" or "Jägernaut" (ridiculous!! - whoever thought of this
>> can't possibly be a native speaker of German!) in a German
>> publication
>> (since the late '70s at least).
>>
>
> Thanks again Andreas for omitting the origins of both those terms in
> my previous post. And yes, I clearly stated that the publication that
> came up with the term "Jaegernaut" was foreign.

You did, and what _I_ said was that whoever published it didn't bother
to ask someone who speaks German as their first language.

And BTW, your digression was noted ;-)

> Certainly, the Germans
> will call their own manned space personnel what they want.

Germany _has_ (civilian) space personnel, and they're called
"Astronauten". And there is no German manned military space program in
sight - I really wish to know where you got to think otherwise!

> But on that
> day is won't be a variation of astronaut or cosmonaut (as in previous
> passenger missions).

Whatever you say ... I guess being a native German is simply not enough
for me to have any competence :-/.


Andreas

[Homer Atkins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> John C. Baker > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > While manned space flight is an impressive technical
> > accomplishment, and space exploration is important
> > to mankind's understanding of himself, I have one
> > thing to say to Beijing: "Welcome to 1961."
>
> Standby for garish polyester clothing and bitter, ugly
> women without bras.

How will they tell the difference?

Homer

(My email address has an "anti spam" name)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<Q1%jb.115923$6C4.19242@pd7tw1no>...
> "Kevin Brooks"
> > I imagine that had they wanted in, it would have been
> > acceptable--Russia is part of it, so why would the PRC have been
> > excluded?
> >
> Many in the U.S.A. were strongly against Russian participation in ISS.
> Some still hold this view today but fortunately cooler heads prevailed. The
> long duration flight expertise of the Russian program is a valuable asset
> along with their booster capabilities. Very much needed today with the
> Shuttle grounded.

I have yet to see anything that indicates that had China wanted in it
would have not been allowed; heck, it made it into the WTO!

>
> > Because the geology could better be done here on earth? Hard to do the
> > old "taste test" (trust me, such a critter does exist in the field of
> > "seat of the pants" geotech engineering) in the vacuum of space :).
>
> The late and famous American planetary geologist, Eugene Shoemaker was
> an ideal candidate for a geologist in space. Unfortunately a medical
> problem prevented him from being an astronaught. He fought strongly to get
> a qualified planetary scientist on one of the flights. Picking up samples
> on the Moon could be more selective by a trained professional in the field.
> They in fact trained the astronaughts that flew to the Moon in geology. But
> cramming doesn't make up for years of experience in the field. I'm sure
> they would admit that themselves. Eugene finally got his trip, but sadly in
> a burial capsule, after his tragic car accident in Australia.

Nice, and about as useful as the "teacher in space" crap. Picking up
rocks is hardly something that the astronauts were unqualified for,
and there was no outstanding need for a planetary geologist to
accompany each flight--one was plenty.

Brooks
>
> Ed

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:48:01 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard"
>> The moon flights were certainly propaganda. There is nothing left to
>> learn from manned lunar shots. I certainly hope that the Chinese will
>> not waste the human lives and tremendous resources that such a mission
>> would entail.
>>
> You don't know very much about science if you think there is nothing
>more to learn about going back to the Moon. Leaving Lunar Science aside,
>the far side of the Moon is an ideal place for a radio telescope as all the
>man made noise created on earth would be blocked. Also an ideal place for
>an optical telescope either manned or robotic. NASA is talking of a trip to
>Mars. Hell, they had better get going back to the Moon safely before they
>attempt going out further. They don't have the booster capability to even
>do this today.
>Ed
>

A radio telescope on the moon? You can't be serious. Do you have any
idea how many flights would be required? Al for an optical telescope,
earth orbit is far, far more practical. Moon missions are a waste of
time and money.

Al Minyard

[Ed Majden]

"Alan Minyard"
> A radio telescope on the moon? You can't be serious. Do you have any
> idea how many flights would be required? Al for an optical telescope,
> earth orbit is far, far more practical. Moon missions are a waste of
> time and money.
>
I didn't say it would be easy. Earth based radio telescopes are getting
more restricted all the time because of the encroachment of man made noise
across the electromagnetic spectrum. The only place to block this "noise"
is by placing a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon.
As for Moon missions being a waste of time, there is still much to be
learned about the geology and origins of the Moon. Hell, we live on Earth
and still understand very little about it.
Ed

[Kevin Brooks]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message >...
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think this flight was a
> > monumental achievement for the PRC, but the postflight interview with the
> > Taikonaut seemed a blast from the past, with party slogans and embedded
> phrases
> > that show their program is under the Communist banner, intended to spread
> their
> > message into the reaches of space. That is sad, and I think it detracts
> from
> > the accomplishment of the Chinese people.
>
> That's a rather cynical view. Why should a Chinese Communist not be proud
> of his country and wish to say so? He's also aware that his future
> participation is probably dependent on pleasing those in government who hold
> the purse strings. Funny how when an actress with fake tears cries "God
> bless America" we assume she's being heartfelt, but when someone from an
> opposing political idea issues a similar sentiment we automatically assume
> they're being coached.

No, that is a realistic view. Granted that your example of the dewey
eyed actress is just about as accurate, but the PRC still seems a bit
tied to the old propoganda methods--reminds one a bit of the old "New
Soviet Man" crap bandied about in the old USSR. What Gordon was
decrying was the attachment of the propoganda byline to what could
have been taken domestically (in the PRC) as a proud accomplishment
without the hyperbole, which detracts a bit.

Brooks

>
> Si

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> >> There is no "German" space program, it's all European (i.e. ESA). And
> >> remember that Germany has been bashed recently for its _lack_ of
> >> military enthusiasm.
> >
> > Wrong again Andreas. Any transatmospheric bomber concept (which have
> > been studied by DASA before it was EADS) would be Luftwaffe piloted.
>
> We talked about _space launch vehciles_ and not _bombers_. DASA can
> study as much as it wants, but there never was - nor will there be in
> the foreseeable future - a German military requirement for a
> transatmospheric bomber.

The Sanger II was considered "dual usage" in the early '90s for
launching German military payloads (spy sats/LEO weapons/asats) as
well as being the basis for a TAB back in the DASA era. And how do you
know what Germany will do in the future? As space becomes more
militarized and Europe unites who is to say that Germany won't
participate in a much greater role and field hypersonic
aircraft/spacecraft with the intent to use as a military deterrent?
The Luftwaffe is current lacking in every type of military aircraft
category... but is slowly filling the void with the Eurofighter,
Airbus tanker conversions, future A400M transport, and design studies
for future UCAVs, bombers (updated Airbus proposals), recon aircraft,
etc... EADS is currently working on anti-stealth missile technology
and is suspected of possessing stealth technology with what is being
called the NATO Firefly II black budget aircraft.
>
> > Second, in case you're not up on the news, Germany has close to 11,000
> > troops deployed with a pledge of another 2,200 for ISAF and 5,000
> > ultimately for the newly created NATO NRF (initial contribution of
> > 1,100 with build-up to 5,000 by 2006).
>
> Yes, I know. And so what? This has nothing to do with a space program.

Your previous post claims Germany was being bashed for lack of
military committment yet since 1999 Germany is escalating its troop
deployments worldwide.... despite claiming in your own newspapers
about downsizing, lack of funding and being stretched too thin.
>
> > These figures do not count any
> > German/NATO/UN contribution of troops to Iraq in the event an
> > agreement is reached.
>
> The current German goverment has repeatedly and firmly stated that
> there will be no German troops in Iraq. The support for this in the
> general public is >70%, so even the opposition doesn't dare to suggest
> otherwise.

The opposition? Schroeder was the person who gave his unwavering
"support" to the US in the fight against terrorism but broke his word
during OIF. Then after the war was over Germany has been negotiating
with Washington to possibly reconsider the troop question "if" the US
were to cede authority in Iraq over to the UN and allow German
business contracts to be reestablished. FYI, German GSG-9 and KSK are
already in Iraq, protecting German businessmen, diplomats, etc...with
GSG-9 participating in a firefight a few months ago (no casualties)
when their convoy was attacked.
>
> > You are full of it with the "lack" nonsense
> > since even the Heer complained about rearmament AGAIN in 2003. The
> > first time was in 1999 over the Balkans. And FYI, German IDZ
> > supersoldiers are operating in the Balkans since July 2002.
>
> Again, this has _nothing_ to do with space program. And by the way,
> they're not "supersoldiers" ... the usual term would be "Special
> Operation Forces".
>
You obviously don't know about the Infanterist Der Zukunft (IDZ)
supersoldier program. It is a 3 phase program to fully integrate the
German soldier with the future electronic battlefield and involves
many revolutionary technologies. The first phase is under way with the
first IDZ soldiers operating in the Balkans since July 2002. Phase 2
will be operational by 2005-6, followed by phase 3 to be operation by
2008. By Phase 3 the German soldier will bear almost no resemblence to
a conventional soldier. Utilizing EADS technology the Phase 3 German
soldier will be an aerospace/electronic soldier fully linked to every
German weapons platform operating on air, land, and sea. This concept
is way beyond the US Land Warrior Program which is still not fielded,
even in Iraq.

> > I guess
> > you don't bother reading the military journals back home or Germany
> > doesn't want that attention in its press. I guess you are unfamiliar
> > with the "German Army 2020" Program your govt. "forgot" to announce-
> > but thanks to a leak to the Pentegon, we've got it. It states that the
> > Germany Army will be completely restructured for ultra-rapid, global
> > warfare and that the Heer will be dividing into supersoldier "Jaeger"
> > groups that will fight in real time with the aid of ACRs, entire
> > families of wheeled AFVs, UCAVs, and ultra-sophisticated electronic
> > gear.
>
> This concept is well known here. It's no secret that the German
> military wants to transform into a "special force" with fewer soldiers
> and more advanced equipment. No "leak" of any sort was needed for the
> Pentagon to know this too.
>
Your Govt. likes to claim publically that the Heer is in sad shape and
will take lots of time and money to bring it up to a proper, modern
army capable of deploying anywhere in the world with the best
equipment. Yet Germany has been steadily updating the Heer ever since
reunification and the "German Army 2020" documents suggests that
Germany is moving forward with an ambitious plan to change modern
warfare taking the old "blitzkrieg" model and speeding it up
considerably. US officials that have seen the documents are amazed by
it and what it proposes.
> >>
> >> > Even if not built
> >> > and a German rocket is launched instead, German nationalism will
> >> > guarantee a different name.
> >> > Raumfahrer? Never. Raumjaeger or Jaegernaut, probably.
> >>
> >>
> >> "German nationalism"?? Where (or when!) the **** are you living?!?
> >> It's not 1945 anymore! For the record, I'm a German with a more than
> >> average interest in space flight, and I have _never_ seen terms like
> >> "Raumjäger" or "Jägernaut" (ridiculous!! - whoever thought of this
> >> can't possibly be a native speaker of German!) in a German
> >> publication
> >> (since the late '70s at least).
> >>
> >
> > Thanks again Andreas for omitting the origins of both those terms in
> > my previous post. And yes, I clearly stated that the publication that
> > came up with the term "Jaegernaut" was foreign.
>
> You did, and what _I_ said was that whoever published it didn't bother
> to ask someone who speaks German as their first language.
>
> And BTW, your digression was noted ;-)

No digression as you alone do not speak for the entire German nation,
nor those responsible for the German contributions to ESA. I do not
like Jaegernaut either, but Raumjaeger preceded it when Von Braun was
developing his space rocketry and dreams (before they became
militarized into the A-4). And for the record, HAD the piloted V-2
(EMW A6) been actually built and flown by a Luftwaffe pilot in 1945 he
would have POSITIVELY been called a Raumjaeger.
>
> > Certainly, the Germans
> > will call their own manned space personnel what they want.
>
> Germany _has_ (civilian) space personnel, and they're called
> "Astronauten". And there is no German manned military space program in
> sight - I really wish to know where you got to think otherwise!

Adopting foreign names is perfectly acceptable during this time as
Germans have only been passengers on foreign space missions. What I am
talking about is the future- Germany fielding its own spacecraft.
>
> > But on that
> > day is won't be a variation of astronaut or cosmonaut (as in previous
> > passenger missions).
>
> Whatever you say ... I guess being a native German is simply not enough
> for me to have any competence :-/.
>
>
> Andreas

Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
you know what happened.

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:29:41 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard"
>> A radio telescope on the moon? You can't be serious. Do you have any
>> idea how many flights would be required? Al for an optical telescope,
>> earth orbit is far, far more practical. Moon missions are a waste of
>> time and money.
>>
> I didn't say it would be easy. Earth based radio telescopes are getting
>more restricted all the time because of the encroachment of man made noise
>across the electromagnetic spectrum. The only place to block this "noise"
>is by placing a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon.
> As for Moon missions being a waste of time, there is still much to be
>learned about the geology and origins of the Moon. Hell, we live on Earth
>and still understand very little about it.
>Ed
>
We would be better off spending the resources on deep ocean research,
something far more likely to "pay off" than mucking about on the moon.

Al MInyard

[Alan Minyard]

>Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
>that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
>you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
>will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
>People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
>you know what happened.
>
>Rob

The fact that the Nazi's lost really, really bothers you, doesn't it?

Al Minyard

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:
> [snip ..]
>
> Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
> that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
> you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
> will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
> People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
> you know what happened.

Ok, I see, you're just what most people here call neo-nazi or, if in a
less politically correct mood, scum.

According to some Usenet law, I lost the discussion by calling you a
Nazi. I don't care.

Andreas

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
> >that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
> >you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
> >will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
> >People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
> >you know what happened.
> >
> >Rob
>
> The fact that the Nazi's lost really, really bothers you, doesn't it?
>
> Al Minyard

No, the fact that history could repeat itself really bothers most of
humanity. When Germany reunited in 1990 alot of Germans and most of
Europe nervously watched the night celebrations and compared them to
the Nuremberg rallies of the '30s. It was quite chilling for those
that remembered history. For some the question of "Black Phoenix
Rising" is still troubling given Germany's future position in a United
Europe and the fears that the German character has not changed in 6
decades. Nazism still survives in Germany and to an extent in the
Bundeswehr. Many German journalists, especially for Der Spiegel, have
exposed continued interest in the Third Reich, Germany's xenophobia,
neo-nazi racism and the role Munich plays at its center, German
anti-semitism, etc, etc, etc...
Frank Capra warned everyone in his WW2 series "Why We Fight" that if
the German character does not change then a new generation of Germans
will find a new leader to follow and the world would suffer again
(from "Here is Germany", 1945).
It would do everyone well to heed his warning. But people like you
still think the US will remain the sole superpower forever. What utter
stupidity. Unity is what is making China stronger. And European unity
will make them stronger. Our nation OTOH is increasingly divided.
Think about that. And don't start with how powerful we are since we
are losing ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't caught Osama nor
Saddam, and haven't become any more secure with Homeland Security. We
are just as vunerable to attack today as the day after 9/11.

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> It would do everyone well to heed his warning. But people like you
> still think the US will remain the sole superpower forever. What utter
> stupidity. Unity is what is making China stronger. And European unity
> will make them stronger.

A lot of people miss the fact that China is *fragmenting* in most ways
(rural versus urban, money versus poor), and is well on the way to
becoming two or more independent entities. They have a decent shot at
full-scale civil war in the next couple of decades, especially if they
don't come up with some hard solutions for their gender imbalance
problems (and finish their transition to capitalism, *fast*).

European unity? Please. While the EU is turning into a bureaucratic
superentity, the overhead that's coming with it is making the member
countries less and less powerful as time goes on - and most of them are
cutting their military budgets first (Germany and England for recent
examples). Not to mention that most of them dislike each other...

At the same time, the immigration that is key to stabilizing Europe's
shrinking population is *wrecking* society in a lot of places. Look at
the nationalist trend in *Switzerland*, of all places. Something like
27% of their voters came out in favor of a party that's, at best,
anti-immigration (and at worst, fascist).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:

(snip)

While the EU is turning into a bureaucratic
> superentity, the overhead that's coming with it is making the member
> countries less and less powerful as time goes on - and most of them are
> cutting their military budgets first (Germany and England for recent
> examples).

England doesn't have a military budget.

(snip)

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> > >Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
> > >that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
> > >you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
> > >will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
> > >People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
> > >you know what happened.
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > The fact that the Nazi's lost really, really bothers you, doesn't it?
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> No, the fact that history could repeat itself really bothers most of
> humanity. When Germany reunited in 1990 alot of Germans and most of
> Europe nervously watched the night celebrations and compared them to
> the Nuremberg rallies of the '30s. It was quite chilling for those
> that remembered history. For some the question of "Black Phoenix
> Rising" is still troubling given Germany's future position in a United
> Europe and the fears that the German character has not changed in 6
> decades. Nazism still survives in Germany and to an extent in the
> Bundeswehr. Many German journalists, especially for Der Spiegel, have
> exposed continued interest in the Third Reich, Germany's xenophobia,
> neo-nazi racism and the role Munich plays at its center, German
> anti-semitism, etc, etc, etc...
> Frank Capra warned everyone in his WW2 series "Why We Fight" that if
> the German character does not change then a new generation of Germans
> will find a new leader to follow and the world would suffer again
> (from "Here is Germany", 1945).

You demonstrate a strange love/hate relationship with the very subject
you decry above...espousing being German by BLOOD, reveling in how the
world feared Hitler in 1939, proclaiming all things German superior by
nature, etc. Methinks maybe you are a bit confused as to your real
sentiments.

> It would do everyone well to heed his warning. But people like you
> still think the US will remain the sole superpower forever. What utter
> stupidity. Unity is what is making China stronger. And European unity
> will make them stronger.

LOL! Yeah, the EU is a real model of solidarity and efficiency. How
about that really impressive EU RRF?

> Our nation OTOH is increasingly divided.

Not really.

> Think about that. And don't start with how powerful we are since we
> are losing ground in Afghanistan

We are? News to me...

> and Iraq,

Yeah, right....Iraqi dissidents are not being herded into mass killing
fields by Saddam, more electric power is now available to the Iraqi
people than was before the war, the schools have all reopened, the
hospitals are all functioning, and despite the keenings of certain
media pundits, those troops returning are saying that the typical
Iraqi is not really hostile to our folks. But I guess you consider
this "losing ground", huh?

> haven't caught Osama nor
> Saddam,

You have your groups mixed up; it is the RCMP that "always get their
man". US military forces are not expected to be criminal posses who
swoop in and grab the bad guys at the outset (except again by certain
media elements, and maybe opposition politicians furtively looking for
topics with which to score sound bites on same-said media outlets).
You gotta have a bit of patience.

> and haven't become any more secure with Homeland Security.

How many successful attacks against CONUS targets since it stood up?

We
> are just as vunerable to attack today as the day after 9/11.

No we are not. As a free society we will always be somewhat vulnerable
to terrorist action, but to suggest that we are as vulnerable as we
were before 9-11 is ludicrous (but hey, that seems to be the norm for
most of your strange little posts, so I guess it is to be expected).

Brooks

>
> Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> > [snip ..]
> >
> > Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
> > that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
> > you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
> > will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
> > People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
> > you know what happened.
>
> Ok, I see, you're just what most people here call neo-nazi or, if in a
> less politically correct mood, scum.
>
> According to some Usenet law, I lost the discussion by calling you a
> Nazi. I don't care.
>
> Andreas

Gotta admire a guy who says what he believes. And you seem to be
rather close to the target in this case.

Brooks

[robert arndt]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> > robert arndt wrote:
> > > [snip ..]
> > >
> > > Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
> > > that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
> > > you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
> > > will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
> > > People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
> > > you know what happened.
> >
> > Ok, I see, you're just what most people here call neo-nazi or, if in a
> > less politically correct mood, scum.
> >
> > According to some Usenet law, I lost the discussion by calling you a
> > Nazi. I don't care.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Gotta admire a guy who says what he believes. And you seem to be
> rather close to the target in this case.
>
> Brooks

Andreas is free to say what he will. I do respect his right to voice
his opinions. However, being an "Historical Realist" doesn't make me a
Nazi anymore than being a conservative Republican. I seem to find it
almost impossible to say anything pro-German without someone degrading
all of German history down to the 12 years of the Third Reich- which
was close to 60 years ago. And even though the Holocaust is almost
unforgivable, the US directly benefitted from German/Nazi technology,
ESPECIALLY in the Aerospace field. I can't stand people who try to
revise history to discredit German achievements while praising their
own. Give credit where credit is due. The US sheltered and gave
citizenship to many German war criminals after the war simply to
advance their lead in the air and in space.
And Brooks, if it makes you feel any better please note that since the
1990 census German-Americans make up the single largest ethnic
majority in the US- fact. :)

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 19 Oct 2003 15:43:34 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >Its not about being a native German. It will be your govt. or military
>> >that decides the name when the time comes. BTW, I am German by BLOOD-
>> >you DO understand that, don't you. And IF you DO, then you know what
>> >will inevitably happen if Germany becomes the leader of United Europe.
>> >People weren't scared of Germany in 1935... but by 1939... uh well...
>> >you know what happened.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> The fact that the Nazi's lost really, really bothers you, doesn't it?
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>No, the fact that history could repeat itself really bothers most of
>humanity. When Germany reunited in 1990 alot of Germans and most of
>Europe nervously watched the night celebrations and compared them to
>the Nuremberg rallies of the '30s. It was quite chilling for those
>that remembered history. For some the question of "Black Phoenix
>Rising" is still troubling given Germany's future position in a United
>Europe and the fears that the German character has not changed in 6
>decades. Nazism still survives in Germany and to an extent in the
>Bundeswehr. Many German journalists, especially for Der Spiegel, have
>exposed continued interest in the Third Reich, Germany's xenophobia,
>neo-nazi racism and the role Munich plays at its center, German
>anti-semitism, etc, etc, etc...
>Frank Capra warned everyone in his WW2 series "Why We Fight" that if
>the German character does not change then a new generation of Germans
>will find a new leader to follow and the world would suffer again
>(from "Here is Germany", 1945).
>It would do everyone well to heed his warning. But people like you
>still think the US will remain the sole superpower forever. What utter
>stupidity. Unity is what is making China stronger. And European unity
>will make them stronger. Our nation OTOH is increasingly divided.
>Think about that. And don't start with how powerful we are since we
>are losing ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't caught Osama nor
>Saddam, and haven't become any more secure with Homeland Security. We
>are just as vunerable to attack today as the day after 9/11.
>
>Rob

You really do not have a clue. We are certainly NOT "losing ground in
Afghanistan and Iraq". Add that to the fact that Germany is a second
(or third) rate economy and your rant becomes ridiculous. There is no
way that the rest of Europe is going to let Germany dominate them, and
this time your "New Fuhrer" would not last. If worse came to worst, th
US would take him our.

I feel sorry for you, your "hero" died in 1945 and you have not found
another one.

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>

And even though the Holocaust is almost
>unforgivable,
>
The mass murder of innocent Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill,
handicapped, Jehova's Witnesses, political opponents, Soviet POWs etc. is
"almost" unforgivable? According to the Nuremburg Tribunals 12 million human
beings were slaughtered by the Nazis for the reasons given above.

Would it have been forgivable if it were only 11 million? What do you mean by
"almost unforgivable?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[phil hunt]

On 19 Oct 2003 01:14:23 -0700, robert arndt > wrote:
>
>You obviously don't know about the Infanterist Der Zukunft (IDZ)
>supersoldier program. It is a 3 phase program to fully integrate the
>German soldier with the future electronic battlefield and involves
>many revolutionary technologies. The first phase is under way with the
>first IDZ soldiers operating in the Balkans since July 2002. Phase 2
>will be operational by 2005-6, followed by phase 3 to be operation by
>2008. By Phase 3 the German soldier will bear almost no resemblence to
>a conventional soldier. Utilizing EADS technology the Phase 3 German
>soldier will be an aerospace/electronic soldier fully linked to every
>German weapons platform operating on air, land, and sea. This concept
>is way beyond the US Land Warrior Program which is still not fielded,
>even in Iraq.

In what way is it better?

>Yet Germany has been steadily updating the Heer ever since
>reunification and the "German Army 2020" documents suggests that
>Germany is moving forward with an ambitious plan to change modern
>warfare taking the old "blitzkrieg" model and speeding it up
>considerably. US officials that have seen the documents are amazed by
>it and what it proposes.

Which is?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Sierk Melzer]

"Alan Minyard" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> On 19 Oct 2003 15:43:34 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
[snip]
> You really do not have a clue. We are certainly NOT "losing ground in
> Afghanistan and Iraq". Add that to the fact that Germany is a second
> (or third) rate economy and your rant becomes ridiculous. There is no
> way that the rest of Europe is going to let Germany dominate them, and
> this time your "New Fuhrer" would not last. If worse came to worst, th
> US would take him our.
>
> I feel sorry for you, your "hero" died in 1945 and you have not found
> another one.
>
> Al Minyard


While I do not support Mr. Arndt's theories in any way, I have to mention
that since April/May 2003 this 'third rate economy' is the world's biggest
exporter again, pulling ahead of the US for the first time since 11 years.

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> <snip>
>
> And even though the Holocaust is almost
> >unforgivable,
> >
> The mass murder of innocent Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill,
> handicapped, Jehova's Witnesses, political opponents, Soviet POWs etc. is
> "almost" unforgivable? According to the Nuremburg Tribunals 12 million human
> beings were slaughtered by the Nazis for the reasons given above.
>
> Would it have been forgivable if it were only 11 million? What do you mean by
> "almost unforgivable?"
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The Germans in WW2 killed more Soviets (over 20 million) than Jews or
any other group combined. Do you remember them or read about them in
your history books? No. Just like you don't read about Stalin killing
over 30 million of his people (including a large number who died in an
"artificial" famine created in the '30s)or Mao killing over 50 million
in China.
You seem to have "forgiven"/forgotten about them, so why not the
Germans? Hell, China commits close to 20 million abortions per year-
that's the size of a big state in the US and bigger than alot of
nations in the world. I don't hear you lamenting that or the fact that
the US commits around 2 million abortions per year. And what of the
slave trade? How many negros died on the transatlantic journey and in
the 400 years of racial discrimination in the US? You don't seem to
have a problem with that, right? Or the Indians for that matter too.
Stop being a hypocrite.

Rob

[Denyav]

>even though the Holocaust is almost
>unforgivable, the US directly benefitted from German/Nazi technology,
>ESPECIALLY in the Aerospace

The value robbed German technology is 1300 Billion US dollars by current
prices,dare to imagine what would happened if US had to pay 1300 Billion
dollars to germans as patent loyalties.

[Denyav]

>are certainly NOT "losing ground in
>Afghanistan and Iraq". Add that to the fact that Germany is a second
>(or third) rate economy and your rant becomes ridiculous. There is no
>way that the rest of Europe is going to let Germany dominate them, and
>this time your "New Fuhrer" would not last. If worse came to worst, th

Historicaly,the advanced nations used to dominate the others,there is no way
that an advanced country country could dominate an advanced nation for long
time.
WWII was basically a domestic disturbance between two advanced nations and of
them needed US as material and soldier depot and thats it.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 10/21/2003 3:07 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> And even though the Holocaust is almost
>> >unforgivable,
>> >
>> The mass murder of innocent Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill,
>> handicapped, Jehova's Witnesses, political opponents, Soviet POWs etc. is
>> "almost" unforgivable? According to the Nuremburg Tribunals 12 million
>human
>> beings were slaughtered by the Nazis for the reasons given above.
>>
>> Would it have been forgivable if it were only 11 million? What do you mean
>by
>> "almost unforgivable?"
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>The Germans in WW2 killed more Soviets (over 20 million) than Jews or
>any other group combined. Do you remember them or read about them in
>your history books? No. Just like you don't read about Stalin killing
>over 30 million of his people (including a large number who died in an
>"artificial" famine created in the '30s)or Mao killing over 50 million
>in China.
>You seem to have "forgiven"/forgotten about them, so why not the
>Germans? Hell, China commits close to 20 million abortions per year-
>that's the size of a big state in the US and bigger than alot of
>nations in the world. I don't hear you lamenting that or the fact that
>the US commits around 2 million abortions per year. And what of the
>slave trade? How many negros died on the transatlantic journey and in
>the 400 years of racial discrimination in the US? You don't seem to
>have a problem with that, right? Or the Indians for that matter too.
>Stop being a hypocrite.
>
>Rob
>
Nothing hypocritical at all, I knew all of the satistics you gave. You said in
an earlier post that the Holoaust was "almost unforgivable" and I simply asked
why. It sure seems you are defending Nazi behaviour. So I ask again, what do
you mean by saying the Holocaust being "almost unforgivable?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Sierk Melzer" > wrote:

> While I do not support Mr. Arndt's theories in any way, I have to mention
> that since April/May 2003 this 'third rate economy' is the world's biggest
> exporter again, pulling ahead of the US for the first time since 11 years.

That's pretty good, since the per capita income there is so much lower
than what the average American makes - about $27,000 versus about
$38,000.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:06:13 +0200, "Sierk Melzer"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>> On 19 Oct 2003 15:43:34 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>[snip]
>> You really do not have a clue. We are certainly NOT "losing ground in
>> Afghanistan and Iraq". Add that to the fact that Germany is a second
>> (or third) rate economy and your rant becomes ridiculous. There is no
>> way that the rest of Europe is going to let Germany dominate them, and
>> this time your "New Fuhrer" would not last. If worse came to worst, th
>> US would take him our.
>>
>> I feel sorry for you, your "hero" died in 1945 and you have not found
>> another one.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>
>While I do not support Mr. Arndt's theories in any way, I have to mention
>that since April/May 2003 this 'third rate economy' is the world's biggest
>exporter again, pulling ahead of the US for the first time since 11 years.
>
An economy is measured by many things, primarily GDP. Exports is a
minor item.

Al Minyard

[Declan O'Reilly]

robert arndt wrote:

> It would do everyone well to heed his warning. But people like you
> still think the US will remain the sole superpower forever. What utter
> stupidity. Unity is what is making China stronger. And European unity
> will make them stronger. Our nation OTOH is increasingly divided.
> Think about that. And don't start with how powerful we are since we
> are losing ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't caught Osama nor
> Saddam, and haven't become any more secure with Homeland Security. We
> are just as vunerable to attack today as the day after 9/11.
>
> Rob

I am kind of curious , since you mention a third party quote regarding
germans, and that we should heed it. If to use an old internet deus a
machina , and that some charismatic type comes onto the german political
scene and captures imaginations , does the german population in your
opinion , think that this time they could win ?

Or does this have to be some pan european thing ?

Declan O'Reilly

[Denyav]

> are losing ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't caught Osama nor
>> Saddam, and haven't become any more secure with Homeland Security. We

Do we want to catch OBL or Saddam really at the first place?

[Ed Majden]

"Kevin Brooks>
> stories are correct China plans on building their own space station and
> > perhaps sending a man to the Moon. The USA program to do this was a
> > propaganda stunt at the time. Beat the Soviets at all costs. There
were of
> > course scientific spin-offs but if science was the primary goal, why did
> > they only send one planetary geologist to the Moon?
>
> Because the geology could better be done here on earth? Hard to do the
> old "taste test" (trust me, such a critter does exist in the field of
> "seat of the pants" geotech engineering) in the vacuum of space :).
>
According to the following web page Bush and NASA are considering going
back to the Moon. I wonder why???? Another space race in progress perhaps!
The Moon of course belongs to the USA, they planted a flag and played golf!
;-)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beyondleo-03a.html
Ed

[Bill Silvey]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:JNRnb.216481$pl3.109016@pd7tw3no

> According to the following web page Bush and NASA are considering
> going back to the Moon. I wonder why???? Another space race in
> progress perhaps! The Moon of course belongs to the USA, they planted
> a flag and played golf! ;-)
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beyondleo-03a.html
> Ed

It's still "iffy". We need to open a McDonalds and a 7-11 and *then* it'll
officially be ours.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Bill Silvey" > writes:

> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:JNRnb.216481$pl3.109016@pd7tw3no
>
>> According to the following web page Bush and NASA are considering
>> going back to the Moon. I wonder why???? Another space race in
>> progress perhaps! The Moon of course belongs to the USA, they planted
>> a flag and played golf! ;-)
>> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beyondleo-03a.html
>> Ed
>
> It's still "iffy". We need to open a McDonalds and a 7-11 and *then* it'll
> officially be ours.

Beware the Japanese `ji(do)hanbaiki', a fiendish device full of
drinks, junkfood, cigarettes, newspapers and porno-videos and without
the need for humans to man it :-)

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Ditch]

>It's still "iffy". We need to open a McDonalds and a 7-11 and *then* it'll
>officially be ours.

How about a Starbucks?


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Deep Avali]

> > It's still "iffy". We need to open a McDonalds and a 7-11 and *then* it'll
> > officially be ours.
>
> Beware the Japanese `ji(do)hanbaiki', a fiendish device full of
> drinks, junkfood, cigarettes, newspapers and porno-videos and without
> the need for humans to man it :-)

You do know, of course, that 7-11 is a Japanese corporation these
days? The Japanese subsidiary raised enough cash, and bought out the
parent company.

And for all the Japanese vending machines I've ever seen, I haven't
seen one that dispenses junk food yet. Ice cream, yes, but no candy
bars, chips, etc. Strange. Seen the porno ones, though...my advice
is to skip 'em, it's all censored...and avoid the condom machines,
too, they're too small for us Westerners...

[Yeff]

On 30 Oct 2003 07:24:08 -0800, Deep Avali wrote:

> And for all the Japanese vending machines I've ever seen, I haven't
> seen one that dispenses junk food yet. Ice cream, yes, but no candy
> bars, chips, etc. Strange. Seen the porno ones, though...my advice
> is to skip 'em, it's all censored...and avoid the condom machines,
> too, they're too small for us Westerners...

I remember getting the little barrels (we called 'em "combat jugs") of beer
in Misawa. We used to joke that you could have yourself quite a little
party based just on what you could get out of vending machines. <g>

And what the hell is Pokari Sweat?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Yeff > writes:

> On 30 Oct 2003 07:24:08 -0800, Deep Avali wrote:
>
>> And for all the Japanese vending machines I've ever seen, I haven't
>> seen one that dispenses junk food yet. Ice cream, yes, but no candy
>> bars, chips, etc. Strange. Seen the porno ones, though...my advice
>> is to skip 'em, it's all censored...and avoid the condom machines,
>> too, they're too small for us Westerners...

I take the advice.... but you're serious that you've never seen candy
bars and chips in Japanese vending machines? Instant ramen and so
forth too, depending where you go.

> I remember getting the little barrels (we called 'em "combat jugs") of beer
> in Misawa. We used to joke that you could have yourself quite a little
> party based just on what you could get out of vending machines. <g>
>
> And what the hell is Pokari Sweat?

Better not explained (Pokari sounds like a South American pig variety
to me)! Try the green tea with haiku written on the bottle, to make
you feel all `flowerfull' and `happylight' :-)


--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Marc Reeve]

Yeff > wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2003 07:24:08 -0800, Deep Avali wrote:
>
> > And for all the Japanese vending machines I've ever seen, I haven't
> > seen one that dispenses junk food yet. Ice cream, yes, but no candy
> > bars, chips, etc. Strange. Seen the porno ones, though...my advice
> > is to skip 'em, it's all censored...and avoid the condom machines,
> > too, they're too small for us Westerners...
>
> I remember getting the little barrels (we called 'em "combat jugs") of beer
> in Misawa. We used to joke that you could have yourself quite a little
> party based just on what you could get out of vending machines. <g>
>
> And what the hell is Pokari Sweat?
>
Pocari Sweat appears to be a Japanese equivalent of Gatorade.

Tastes about the same, anyway.

What I remember is my sister sending me a "care package" of several odd
things one could obtain from vending machines. Chief among them being
six-ounce cans of various fruit-flavored beers. Not lambics, but beers
with fruit flavoring in them. Apple was the best (for certain values of
"best") as it tasted somewhat like hard cider. Banana was indescribably
bad. Grape and lime were sort of toward the middle.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[George Z. Bush]

Did you ever taste strawberry beer? The Germans used to make it (and maybe
still do).....not too bad if you like the taste of strawberries, although I'm
not too sure that I'd say the same for beer lovers. (^-^)))

George Z.

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
...
> Yeff > wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2003 07:24:08 -0800, Deep Avali wrote:
> >
> > > And for all the Japanese vending machines I've ever seen, I haven't
> > > seen one that dispenses junk food yet. Ice cream, yes, but no candy
> > > bars, chips, etc. Strange. Seen the porno ones, though...my advice
> > > is to skip 'em, it's all censored...and avoid the condom machines,
> > > too, they're too small for us Westerners...
> >
> > I remember getting the little barrels (we called 'em "combat jugs") of beer
> > in Misawa. We used to joke that you could have yourself quite a little
> > party based just on what you could get out of vending machines. <g>
> >
> > And what the hell is Pokari Sweat?
> >
> Pocari Sweat appears to be a Japanese equivalent of Gatorade.
>
> Tastes about the same, anyway.
>
> What I remember is my sister sending me a "care package" of several odd
> things one could obtain from vending machines. Chief among them being
> six-ounce cans of various fruit-flavored beers. Not lambics, but beers
> with fruit flavoring in them. Apple was the best (for certain values of
> "best") as it tasted somewhat like hard cider. Banana was indescribably
> bad. Grape and lime were sort of toward the middle.
>
> -Marc
> --
> Marc Reeve
> actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
> c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[John Mullen]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Did you ever taste strawberry beer? The Germans used to make it (and
maybe
> still do).....not too bad if you like the taste of strawberries, although
I'm
> not too sure that I'd say the same for beer lovers. (^-^)))

You can get pretty good Belgian raspberry and cherry beers here... bit
unusual, but very refreshing for an occasional change

John