Why is space so unpopular!!!

Agamemnon wrote:

Space is despair. Despair that Mankind is doomed to this one ball of earth, until the day the Sun finally flares into a red giant, sweeping into nothingness all we've ever accomplished, all that's ever been done, ever been said, ever been seen. And there will be nobody left to shed a tear. For me, space is the symbol that in the end, nothing matters, but that here and now, we are alive. Going there serves no purpose, however. You can outrun destiny or deny fate, but you cannot ignore the nature of the universe.

The sun will not flare into a red giant for another 6 billion years, brother.    I think there is an concept of order of magnitude that is eluding you.   The assumption that we know all the laws of physics and other sciences well enough to devine that nothing will likely happen in the next 6,000,000,000 years to liberate menkind from the confines of this planet is really the only assumption I can think of that is actually orders of magnitude more silly than the other assumption I tried to deflate earlier - that ability to achieve interstellar travel is right around the corner with just a few short decades of determined investment.

If humans, or our technical descendants, were to survive 6,000,000,000 years, then I think we can be as certain as we can be of anything that we will get off this planet. 

I am, indeed, a card-carrying Bleaker.

It is true that we are made of the stuff that's floating around in the wild black yonder. It doesn't necessarily mean we can go back there. Indeed, our current evolutionary state is such as it is precisely because we evolved upon a planet. A kind of creature at home in space would be a wildly different kind of beast indeed. If we were to run across such a creature on our voyager through the umbral gulf that separates the vast distances of existence, we might not even recognize it as a creature at all.

To get back to the matter at hand, I'd guess the reason space modelling has taken a dive hasn't got much to do with idealists like myself, and rather more to do with the nature of space exploration today. Almost everything NASA shoots up into the sky are unmanned robots. Not cool spaceships, not even rockets. Drones, probes, capsules.... equipment. To Joe Sixpack, modelling a Mars lander probably sounds as exciting as a 1:18 scale concrete mixer.

It is quite possible that we'll see some kind of resurgence of interest eventually, quite probably following the success of the private sector at launching their own orbital spacecraft. We might even see the much-talked-about advent of lunar mining. It won't be big and amazing, meaning-of-life stuff, just a bunch of drones scraping up rare materials and shipping them back home so we can make some new ceramic armor plates, fusion reactors, artificial whoopla thingamajigs and so on.

I don't think we can go back to the spirit of 1969 anytime soon, however. We know so much more about space than we did then, which has tempered those early feelings of optimism. I do expect my point of view will be proved wrong eventually, since almost everyone's beliefs about almost everything will eventually be thus nullified by the progress of time and understanding. But here and now, I am al--

Agamemnon wrote:

To get back to the matter at hand, I'd guess the reason space modelling has taken a dive hasn't got much to do with idealists like myself, and rather more to do with the nature of space exploration today. Almost everything NASA shoots up into the sky are unmanned robots. Not cool spaceships, not even rockets. Drones, probes, capsules.... equipment. To Joe Sixpack, modelling a Mars lander probably sounds as exciting as a 1:18 scale concrete mixer. It is quite possible that we'll see some kind of resurgence of interest eventually, quite probably following the success of the private sector at launching their own orbital spacecraft. We might even see the much-talked-about advent of lunar mining. It won't be big and amazing, meaning-of-life stuff, just a bunch of drones scraping up rare materials and shipping them back home so we can make some new ceramic armor plates, fusion reactors, artificial whoopla thingamajigs and so on.

Now here I have to say I agree with you.  The problem - if you will - about spaceflight is that it has become so commonplace, so ordinary (even though it really isn't) in the mind of the average American that it rarely even gets any news coverage these days.  If it had not been for Challenger and Columbia, we probably wouldn't even know when the Space Shuttle was being launched or in orbit.  Of course, those of us that work in the space field know these things but the average Joe on the street hasn't a clue and, for the most part, could care less these days.

Our dream might have been to get to the Moon, which we did in July of 1969.  What we either forgot or overlooked was what to do once we got there.  Unfortunately, the only real purpose to landing on the Moon back in 1969 was to say we beat the Russians there.  While there was a ton of scientific revolutions behind that trip, they were out of sight and out of mind as they were not the purpose of the journey.  In many senses, this has turned out to be a hollow victory.

Over the past nearly 30 years, I have worked many a public star party and given tours at the observatories I work at.  One thing that is extremely noticeable is the serious decline in interest in the sciences.  There is little other than the occasional "wow" factor that drives people to star parties today.  One of the more interesting changes I've seen is a serious shift of interest in space and science from the boys to the girls.  It used to be completely the opposite. Interesting.

But, in any case, I suspect there are only about two things that will recapture the public's attention on space flight - a trip to the nearest star or running into an intelligent alien lifeform.  A human landing on Mars might draw some attention for a while, but I doubt it'll hold the public's fascination for very long.  Again, how very unfortunate!

-Rowen

Persephones_Dream wrote:

Now here I have to say I agree with you.  The problem - if you will - about spaceflight is that it has become so commonplace, so ordinary (even though it really isn't) in the mind of the average American that it rarely even gets any news coverage these days.  If it had not been for Challenger and Columbia, we probably wouldn't even know when the Space Shuttle was being launched or in orbit.  Of course, those of us that work in the space field know these things but the average Joe on the street hasn't a clue and, for the most part, could care less these days. Our dream might have been to get to the Moon, which we did in July of 1969.  What we either forgot or overlooked was what to do once we got there.  Unfortunately, the only real purpose to landing on the Moon back in 1969 was to say we beat the Russians there.  While there was a ton of scientific revolutions behind that trip, they were out of sight and out of mind as they were not the purpose of the journey.  In many senses, this has turned out to be a hollow victory. Over the past nearly 30 years, I have worked many a public star party and given tours at the observatories I work at.  One thing that is extremely noticeable is the serious decline in interest in the sciences.  There is little other than the occasional "wow" factor that drives people to star parties today.  One of the more interesting changes I've seen is a serious shift of interest in space and science from the boys to the girls.  It used to be completely the opposite. Interesting. But, in any case, I suspect there are only about two things that will recapture the public's attention on space flight - a trip to the nearest star or running into an intelligent alien lifeform.  A human landing on Mars might draw some attention for a while, but I doubt it'll hold the public's fascination for very long.  Again, how very unfortunate! -Rowen

I surely agree on that one sir...

But I also have a theory on why this subject is unpopular for most people...

"Entertainment Value"

Well, its my observation that most of society is more "entertainment inclined", meaning they only get interested in such things or activities that will not bore them, but rather entertain them. Things like barhopping, gossiping about celebrities, concerts, parties (of all kinds). And things like studying and the like are what many (but not all) will say, not fun...

people will not care more about where their creature comforts came from as long as it provides fun for them. Take note of cellular phones for example. Each year - slash that - almost each month we see a new model of a certain cellphone brand, and people will cash out for this new model and dump their old one because its not popular anymore, even though its still very useful for many tasks they require to do...

Space is a sure victim of this. You guys surely remember Burt Rutan's Tier One Program when it succeeded in winning the X-Prize in 2004. People in the hundreds of thousands flocked to Mojave Air/Spaceport during its 3 spaceflights, and millions more watching on TV. But after a few weeks, not much talk of it has ever been presented anymore... Heck, I can't even find a copy of Discovery Channel's documentary about that program here... (that just sucks)

Space is only interesting when it is featured in movies...

And even a space-related film with a blockbuster cast and an action-packed story and VFX will be more popular that the other with a more human side for a story...

Take note of Deep Impact and Armageddon - Deep Impact has a much more realistic - and more human - storyline and concepts (apart for the nuclear powered Messiah, but still possible), plus the effects are in par to what we saw in Ron Howard's rendition of Apollo 13, and yet Armageddon - with its unrealistic plot, mushy scenes, explosions everywhere etc. etc. proved to be more popular than the latter...

Don't get me wrong, I liked both films because it introduced to the world that a cosmic threat like that does exist. But you can see in these two films which is more popular, which goes to Armageddon, because it has more entertaiment value that Deep Impact...

But unfortunately, for many of society's members, space is just a nice to know item, only talked about in some boring class lesson...

In our place, dreaming of being an astronaut is practically just plain stupid, and the stuff of laughs, and for many people it is only a dream for someone who wants fame and fortune (like, coutless TV ads, awards and recognitions, and political popularity, just like what happened to our boxing sensation - Manny Pacquiao)

And for me, its really sad...

Space travel can not be sustained by its novalty value.  The fact that space travel becomes common place is inevitable, and congradulate yourselves for it having taken so long.   But if a thing is really of more value than it costs, then its being common place would never stand in the way of it being done again, and again, and ever better.    Is car, train and airplane travel not common place?  Yet because it offers real value that exceeds its cost, it is done again and again, and ever better despite its banality.   Does public care if they fly  in a 757 or a 787?  On the whole, no.  But because  flying is a proposition that offers returns above its cost; what is more is it does this not just for the public as a whole, but for those who actually shoulder's direct cost; incentives abound for  continuous upgrade in capability, and in technology.

If discovering Martian life offers the realistic prospect of allows a new drug to be developed for people on earth, and that drug can realistically be expected to generate revenue to cover the flights to mars plus a necessary premium to cover the risks involved, rest assured the banality of space flight will in no way prevent a flood of finance from pouring into such a venture. 

The truth is with current technology, the cost of space flight does not make many possible returns from space flight seem worthwhile.   What is more is people who sits down and actually does the calculation and actually has to answer for the money do not, on the whole, believe that at this time, there is good enough prospect of revolutaionary new technology to facilitate space flight such that focused investment in that direction is worth it.

<joins the conversation a little late...>

While I don't build space-related models, I have a reasonably healthy interest in what lies beyond our little blue marble.  Why people don't take an interest in space, I don't know but most of the reasons have been mentioned previously in this thread.  But when I look up on a dark, starry night I can't help but wonder...  What is out there?  Who is out there?  Is there a sentient being looking back at me across the emptiness?

Dre wrote:

<joins the conversation a little late...> While I don't build space-related models, I have a reasonably healthy interest in what lies beyond our little blue marble.  Why people don't take an interest in space, I don't know but most of the reasons have been mentioned previously in this thread.  But when I look up on a dark, starry night I can't help but wonder...  What is out there?  Who is out there?  Is there a sentient being looking back at me across the emptiness?

I'd really wish more people are like you sir...

But the problem is, more people won't even bother asking that question, let alone try to answer it...

Don't worry, as soon as we have our first war in outer space it'll become sexy enough for kit manufacturers to take notice!

The Tiger tank is a far less interesting subject than a space shuttle yet it would seem like every individual Tiger that ever existed has been modelled, many of them thousands of times over....

Michael 

MJH wrote:

Don't worry, as soon as we have our first war in outer space it'll become sexy enough for kit manufacturers to take notice! The Tiger tank is a far less interesting subject than a space shuttle yet it would seem like every individual Tiger that ever existed has been modelled, many of them thousands of times over.... Michael

That is sadly true. 

Lufbery wrote:

MJH wrote: Don't worry, as soon as we have our first war in outer space it'll become sexy enough for kit manufacturers to take notice! The Tiger tank is a far less interesting subject than a space shuttle yet it would seem like every individual Tiger that ever existed has been modelled, many of them thousands of times over.... Michael    That is sadly true.

I don't know if that's "sad", although from the perspective of someone who enjoys space subjects I can certainly sympathize.

The realities are that most people are more interested in the Tiger, even though from your view points it's been done to death.  I have 3 in the stash, what can I say, I like them. 

When the kit manufacturers produce Tigers, people buy them.  They sell a lot of Tigers.  When they produce a Space Shuttle they sell only a handful compared to the Tiger. 

You can't change peoples interests.  They're interested in what they like.  It really is that simple.  The market just isn't there for space subjects as it is for tanks and aircraft.  People will complain just as much about the quantity of WWII subjects that there are out there compared to modern stuff.  Well, more people who build models are into WWII than other eras.  Kit manufacturers produce what sells, bottom line.   

ruddratt wrote:

I would think that much of the appeal of the Tiger (and armor in general) is the many different conditions it can be modeled and displayed in, whether it be different degrees of battle damage or weathering, off the assembly line, full or partial interiors, in their natural element (the battlefield) enhanced with accessories, undergoing different types of maintenance, etc. Those, coupled with the number of actual makes and variants, create almost endless possiblities and guarantee a much greater possiblility of uniqueness to each build (at least that's how I see it).

Well said Mike.  For me, I research the crap out of everything I build.  When I'm building a Tiger or a Bf109 for example, I'm modeling a particular moment in time, a snapshot from a big historic battle, or a plane flown by somebody famous (like Werner Molders).  Also, since I read a lot, mostly WWII subjects, the books I read also influence what I want to build. 

There were hundreds of tigers built (and over 36,000 Bf109s) and there is a wealth of information out there, pictures, stories, facts etc.  The participated in some of the key turning points in history.

If you look the Space Shuttle (very cool by the way) there were only a handful of them.  And they pretty much look the same each mission.  It's like once you've built a space shuttle kit, you've built them all.

Although again, I can certainly understand why some of you are bit disappointed.  I'd be bummed too if there were just a few kits out there of my favorite subjects. 

Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a Space Shuttle in the collection.  I have to admit I'm getting a bit interested in some Star Trek kits as one of the guys in our model club brought in a completed Romulan Bird of Prey or something like that which was really cool.  Makes me want to build one. 

espins1 wrote:

Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a Space Shuttle in the collection.  I have to admit I'm getting a bit interested in some Star Trek kits as one of the guys in our model club brought in a completed Romulan Bird of Prey or something like that which was really cool.  Makes me want to build one.

PM inbound........ 

espins1 wrote:

The realities are that most people are more interested in the Tiger, even though from your view points it's been done to death.  I have 3 in the stash, what can I say, I like them.  When the kit manufacturers produce Tigers, people buy them.  They sell a lot of Tigers.  When they produce a Space Shuttle they sell only a handful compared to the Tiger.  You can't change peoples interests.  They're interested in what they like.  It really is that simple.  The market just isn't there for space subjects as it is for tanks and aircraft.  People will complain just as much about the quantity of WWII subjects that there are out there compared to modern stuff.  Well, more people who build models are into WWII than other eras.  Kit manufacturers produce what sells, bottom line.

Call me a cynic but this is precisely my point, isn't it?

Why is the Tiger (or Me109, or any of the other loser's hardware) so popular it get's modelled in every concievable position, condition and environment?  Why are people interested in what were, after all, failures?  The Tiger had a negligible effect on the the course of the war and was plagued by problems; the 109, whose only equal in 1940 was the Spitfire, went downhill from there (cue indignant retorts from 109 fans) despite its numbers, yet both bathe in the warm glow of the 'mystique' of war.

Add to this 'mystique' the enormous range of scenarios offered by the war environment and it's plain why these subjects are so popular in the marketplace.

I bet you a missile-armed shuttle would outsell the standard model 10:1.

And yes, I think that's sad. 

Michael 

MJH wrote:

Why is the Tiger (or Me109, or any of the other loser's hardware) so popular it get's modelled in every concievable position, condition and environment?  Why are people interested in what were, after all, failures?

Very interesting and thought-provoking questions, Michael. I do not presently have the answers to all you posted (but I am going to give them a lot of thought), but to the above quote, yes, I can explain why I myself model what I do. It has a lot to do with aesthetic appeal. If the Tiger was as successful as the Sherman and built in the US it would not increase or lessen it's appeal in my eyes. If all 109's were painted olive drab and neutral grey, I would probably build one, maybe two if a NMF was an option. I'd like to add that a subject does not have to be military in nature for me to admire it to the extent that I'd want a scale reproduction of it sitting on my shelves. I've built race cars (not many...only the ones that really caught my eye), figures, boats, dollhouse furniture, whatever I find visually pleasing, and like Scott, I do much research, as it combines my love of reading with my thirst for knowledge and desire to produce as accurate a replica as my abilities permit me to do.

Like yourself Mike, I don't stick to a particular genre, cherry-picking what I like or what appeals to me from any or all of them.

I can understand your point about the aesthetics of the Tiger tank, it's appeal is interesting considering the designers were in no mood to make concessions to appearance.  I don't like it but I appreciate it's attraction.  Not so the '109, to my mind definitely among the uglier aircraft of WWII.  Like the Tiger it was built to a purpose yet the Spitfire, built to exactly the same purpose, is undeniably beautiful.  The necessities of streamlining and drag reduction give aircraft a head start because the sweeping lines appeal to the eye, but somehow the 109's square canopy and the inverted V engine contrive to ruin it in my eye.

I still think it's the association with the war that accounts for its attraction to the greater masses however.  Is there the most insignificant machine or weapon of the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe that has not yet been modelled?  One company, Tamiya I think, even model a German field kitchen, complete with waggon and horses!  Where is the model of a British or US field kitchen?  Non-existent as far as I know (I'll be happy to be corrected).

There is a following for the Nazi war machine that I find disturbing and unhealthy and as for the so-called "Luftwaffe 1946".....  If that goes any further we'll be seeing space shuttles with 30mm cannon and Swastikas on the tail!!!!!

Sorry, I haven't had a good rant in ages, I just think the human race has it's priorities wrong.

Michael 

Hi Michael,

It is interesting that there seems to be such a great interest in the German Military from WWII.  I think a lot of it has to do with the stunning successes they had in the beginning which revolutionized modern warfare.  It's not unhealthy to build German subjects, unless one is also spouting off Nazi ideology and all the disgusting horror that goes with it.  

If we were to use the political ideology as a rationale to deside which subjects to build then is building a series of T-34 tanks an endorsement of Stalin and his madness?  After all, Stalin had one of the most ruthless and brutal regimes in all of history.  Would modeling a British warship during the age of their empire be espousing imperialism?  I'm sure the subjugated people of that time view that issue much differently than say you or me.  What about a Spanish Galleon that was used during Spains conquest of the native people in the Americas?  Something to think about....  

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.    I personally think the Bf109 is gorgeous, and so is the Spitfire, but the Bf109 interests me far more than the Spitfire.  Not sure why really, I just am fascinated with the Bf109.  What interests each and everyone of us is totally subjective however.  We each like what we like, be it space, aircraft, WWI, WWII, German, British whatever. 

p.s. yes, there are a lot of messed up priorities in modern society by the way.... 

Michael, first I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this discussion immensely!

You bring up some interesting points. Without knowing the inner workings of each modeler, it would be impossible to say with no uncertainty if their subject choices are politically motivated. Believe me when I say that some of my luftwaffe subjects, when seen by friends who are not involved in the hobby per se, receive negative comments that question my motives behind the build. I tried to assure them to the best of my abilities that what I model is based solely on what I find attractive from a visual standpoint. Just the variety alone of work we see here from the members who build military models seems to me a good indicator that the builds are not politically driven. I would also like to say though that I do see builds that are 'nationality' motivated. I find these two types of motivation to be totally different, simply because not everyone from the same national background embraces the same political views, yet taking pride in one's nationality and honoring those who fought to defend their freedoms by immortalizing them in plastic seems to me an acceptable way of showing respect for what they did.

You say here "I still think it's the association with the war that accounts for its attraction to the greater masses however." I cannot dispute that. I myself find military subjects very interesting, but mainly from a human standpoint. What I mean is, for example when I build a P-38, I will specifically build Richard Bong's P-38. It's more about the individual who made the ultimate sacrifice for his/my country (I'm a transplanted NY'er living in Canada). One project I have planned is to build a Sopwith Camel with Canadian ace Barker's markings, again for the same reason. I honestly believe that there were Luftwaffe pilots did not embrace their country's political views and fought soley because their first duty was to their home. To go against the political flow of your country's leaders and at the same time be willing to die because of your governments mistakes says an awful lot to me about the character of an individual. I feel they should not be forgotten either.

No, what I'm trying to say is that I think there's some sort of mystique (and I'm sorry to keep harping back to that word but it's the only one I can find that comes close to describing it) attached to whole subject.  Perhaps it's awe at the speed and success of blitzkrieg, or some kind of misplaced respect for a nation and economy absolutely dedicated to war and conquest. Or is it (as I suspect) a sneaking, never-to-be-admitted fascination with the idea of totally throwing off the moral shackles of civilization and returning to the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest (or at least the strongest) - which was, after all, the basis of Nazi philosophy?  

This is getting a bit deep and psychological and I'm afraid I'm out of my depth but it seems to me, and once again I'm quite open to correction, that German WWII military models make up at least 50% of armour models one can find on the local hobby shop's shelves, far outnumbering those of any other nation.  The marketplace responds to demand - we all know that - therefore this obsession is driven by the consumers and what they want.  It can't all be aesthetics, it can't all be respect for individual courage.

Finally, I personally cannot respect any man whether he agreed or disagreed with the Nazi government in principle while carrying out its wishes on the battlefield, invading another country, attempting to enslave people and murdering civilians by indiscriminate bombing such as Rotterdam and London.  Max Aitkin, son of Lord Beaverbrook, who was an RAF fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain expressed no such chivalrous respect for his foes - he hated them and said so, and that would have been my attitude. 

For that reason, while I might build an aircraft, tank or ship to honour a particular warrior or group, they would never be from the aggressor's side, in that war or any other. 

Michael 

MJH wrote:

Finally, I personally cannot respect any man whether he agreed or disagreed with the Nazi government in principle while carrying out its wishes on the battlefield, invading another country, attempting to enslave people and murdering civilians by indiscriminate bombing such as Rotterdam and London.  Max Aitkin, son of Lord Beaverbrook, who was an RAF fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain expressed no such chivalrous respect for his foes - he hated them and said so, and that would have been my attitude.  For that reason, while I might build an aircraft, tank or ship to honour a particular warrior or group, they would never be from the aggressor's side, in that war or any other.  Michael

Everyone has their reasons for choosing or not choosing what they build.  Just out of curiosity, how to you feel about building a Russian T-34/85 or a JSIII?  Does building a T-34/85 indicate an affinity for Communism?  Does building such a thing mean that one is supporting the occupation and brutalization of Eastern Europe?  Or does it simply mean you like the tank, think it looks cool and want it to be a part of your armor collection?

What about a MiG15?  Chinese Markings?  North Korean?  What subjects interest you from say the Middle East, Israeli?  Egyptian?  None of the above?  If we use politics as a reason to choose the topics we build, then the list of available subjects becomes very small indeed.

I'm curious how building a Tiger Tank glorifies or in any way indicates support for the Nazis or what the Germans did as an agressor nation.  I'll be willing to bet that a large part of what people choose to build boils down to aesthetics.  Let's face it, Tiger tanks look great!    It was a tough, hard hitting tank.  A tankers tank.  Then take a look at British armor in WWII... mediocre at best, and about as attractive as a farm tractor.  LOL

By the way, I'm not attacking you or your beliefs.  Just curious as to your thought process and why.  There is no black and white, just many shades of gray. 

And just for the record, I have the following tanks proudly displayed in my display case:

Sherman M4A3
T-34/85
JagdPanther
Panther Ausf. A

Oh, and someday soon I'll have a Space Shuttle in the case.  A good friend on the forums is hooking me up with a 1/72 Space Shuttle kit, who knows, maybe I'll get the space bug and build some other space subjects. 

Well said, Scott!

espins1 wrote:

By the way, I'm not attacking you or your beliefs.  Just curious as to your thought process and why.

..and for the record, neither am I, Michael, although, based on the content of some projects I've completed, they have been questioned (rather harshly) by individuals outside of our modeling community. If I implied in any way that I was then you have my sincerest apologies, as it was not my intent to do so. 

 Again, just trying to get the facts straight in my own head.

Can anyone clarify this for me?  Wasn't the first time that London was bombed an accident by a wayward He 111 crew that had some "navigation" issues?  I remember reading that somewhere, or seeing it on the History/Military channel.  If I recall correcly, the Brits retaliated, and then Hitler ordered the bombing of London. 

Unfortunately, bombing of civilian targets became a harsh reality of warfare in WWII... terrible.   Hundreds of thousands of Germans civilians died from allied bombers.  The human catastrophe that was WWII is almost unimaginable today.

That's supposed to be the story. Germany remains at fault though, as the original German mission that went awry was still an act of extreme agression and war, with no guarantees that civilian life would be spared. There is ample evidence that the Nazis didn't frown on massive extermination of civilians.

Sadly, civilian deaths are a sad fact of life, and it's only been recently that there has been a supposed aversion to innocent casualties. I so note that the insurgents in Iraq don't shy away from killing civilians, or destroying holy artifacts. I also note that the bombing of Normandy in preparation of D Day resulted in 10,000 French civilian deaths, yet the invaders were still welcomed and hailed as liberators. It's an odd world.

Regardless, that shouldn't stop people from modeling Nazi subjects, if that is their want. It's disappointing to me that there is a preponderance of German armor compared to US or Allied, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying my chosen hobby. I admit that I have four armor kits in the stash and only one isn't German! There is just a single Sherman to try and stave off the dreaded Blitzkreig!

Equally, if you don't wish to model German armor, then no complaing that your choices are limited, just because a majority of people don't share your view.

All of which illustrates why there should be more kits about space. That way we could get 'above' all the politics. (Yeah, right!)

Sorry guys, ever since the word 'politics' was raised in this discussion (not by me) it's jumped on that horse and galloped away.  I've tried to rein it in and back to my point but I lack the skill with words to get my point across.  Never mind, it was all a bit vague anyway...

I have no objection to other people building models of German WWII subjects - I just want to know why they are so much more popular than anything else!

I don't take offense at anything said above, I think some very good points have been raised, but I admit it, I'm idealistic and I do tend to look at the world in terms of black and white.  I think fondly back to the 60's; peace, love and flowerpower etc (I'm an ageing hippy, man!!)

If there were a good model kit of a tractor you can be sure there'd be one in my stash, I can think of some great diorama possibilities.  Currently I have a number of sailing ships (plastic and wood), a Star Trek Enterprise, a drum kit(!), a guitar(!!), several cars, a wooden farm cart, a Forbidden Planet spaceship and a model of Neuschwannstein castle to name only a few, but not a single German, Israel, Chinese, Russian or even US tank.  There is, strangely enough, a U-Boat, but that's reserved for a special project.

What brought me into this discussion in the first instance, apart from my cynical view of the world, was the fact that I, too, have no (real) space related models in hand.  I did build a couple of shuttles way back but the interest seems to have waned.  A good kit of the Apollo LEM wouldn't go amiss and I'm on the lookout for the Airfix version which I built way back when and reckon was the best one.

It seems we might be testing the patience of other Space forum users (odd, considering the dearth of post herein), but while we've covered a fair bit of ground, I don't think we've lost the 'thread'.  Anyhow, I'm gonna drop out - have fun.

Michael 

So, seriously, while I agree there is a plethora of German armor/aircraft etc....let's take this thread slightly back to the Space arena....

How many of you have built a model of the V-1 Buzz Bomb and/or the V-2 (or A-4)?  Both very important weapons and predecessors of the modern space age.

Tamiya has a cool little V-1.  It's like 12 parts but is a fun build.  Revell had a decent version of V-2. Both are in my collection.

As a note of interesting trivia, Werner von Braun, the man behind these and other weapons - and also the man behind our Saturn V rocket that helped get us to the moon was a Nazi party member and supporter.  He has the dubious distinction of being the only known person in history to have worked directly with both Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney.

Go figure!

-Ro

Gosh, I remember building a V2 complete with rocket launcher back when I was a kid.  Are there any modern kits of the V1 or V2?  Or are e-bay and model clubs the only option.

Question for you space fans out there.  If you were just getting started building space subjects, what are good kits to build?  Star Trek?  Star Wars?  Any real things like a Saturn V available?