Biography.

Early years.

Malebranche was born in Paris in 1638, the youngest child of Nicolas Malebranche, secretary to King Louis XIII of France, and Catherine de Lauzon, sister of Jean de Lauson, a Governor of New France. Because of a malformed spine, Malebranche received his elementary education from a private tutor. He left home at the age of sixteen to pursue a course of philosophy at the Collège de la Marche, and subsequently to study theology at the Collège de Sorbonne, both colleges from the University of Paris. He eventually left the Sorbonne, having rejected scholasticism, and entered the Oratory in 1660. There, he devoted himself to ecclesiastical history, linguistics, the Bible, and the works of Saint Augustine. Malebranche was ordained a priest in 1664.  In 1664, Malebranche first read Descartes' "Treatise on Man", an account of the physiology of the human body. Malebranche’s biographer, Father Yves André reported that Malebranche was influenced by Descartes’ book because it allowed him to view the natural world without Aristotelian scholasticism. Malebranche spent the next decade studying the Cartesian system.

Philosophical career.

In 1674–75, Malebranche published the two volumes of his first and most extensive philosophical work. Entitled "Concerning the Search after Truth. In which is treated the nature of the human mind and the use that must be made of it to avoid error in the sciences" (), the book laid the foundation for Malebranche’s philosophical reputation and ideas. It dealt with the causes of human error and on how to avoid such mistakes. Most importantly, in the third book, which discussed pure understanding, he defended a claim that the ideas through which we perceive objects exist in God.  Malebranche's first critic was the Abbé Simon Foucher, who attacked the "Search" even before its second volume had been published. Malebranche replied in a short preface added to that second volume, and then, in the 1678 third edition, he added 50% to the already considerable size of the book with a sequence of (eventually) seventeen "Elucidations". These responded to further criticisms, but they also expanded on the original arguments, and developed them in new ways. In the Tenth "Elucidation", for instance, Malebranche introduced his theory of "intelligible extension", a single, archetypal idea of extension into which the ideas of all particular kinds of bodies could be jointly resolved. In others, Malebranche placed a greater emphasis than he had previously done on his occasionalist account of causation, and particularly on his contention that God acted for the most part through "general volitions" and only rarely, as in the case of miracles, through "particular volitions".  Malebranche expanded on this last point in 1680 when he published "Treatise on Nature and Grace". Here, he made it explicit that the generality of the laws whereby God regulated His behaviour extended not only to His activity in the natural world but also applied to His gift of grace to human beings. The book was attacked by fellow Cartesian philosopher Antoine Arnauld, and, although Arnauld's initial concerns were theological ones, the bitter dispute which ensued very quickly branched out into most other areas of their respective systems. Over the next few years, the two men wrote enough polemics against one another to fill four volumes of Malebranche's collected works and three of Arnauld's. Arnauld's supporters managed to persuade the Roman Catholic Church to place "Nature and Grace" on its Index of Prohibited Books in 1690, and it was followed there by the "Search" nineteen years later. (Ironically, the Index already contained several works by the Jansenist Arnauld himself.) Other critics with whom Malebranche entered into significant discussion include another fellow Cartesian, Pierre Sylvain Regis, as well as Dortous de Mairan. De Mairan was sympathetic to the views of Baruch Spinoza, and felt that he had found similar views in his reading of Malebranche: Malebranche assiduously resisted such an association.

Philosophy.

Vision in God.

Just as all human action (along with the action of any other creature) is entirely dependent on God, so too is all human cognition. Malebranche argued that human knowledge is dependent on divine understanding in a way analogous to that in which the motion of bodies is dependent on divine will. Like René Descartes, Malebranche held that humans attain knowledge through ideas – immaterial representations present to the mind. But whereas Descartes believed ideas are mental entities, Malebranche argued that all ideas exist only in God. These ideas, therefore, are uncreated and independent of finite minds. When we access them intellectually, we apprehend objective truth. Malebranche defined "truth" as a relation between ideas: since these ideas are in God, they are eternal and immutable, and consequently the only truths worthy of the name will themselves be eternal and immutable. Malebranche divided these relations between ideas into two categories: relations of magnitude and relations of quality or perfection. The former constitute "speculative" truths, such as those of geometry, while the latter constitute the "practical" truths of ethics. Ethical principles, for Malebranche, are therefore divine in their foundation, universal in their application, and to be discovered by intellectual contemplation, just as geometrical principles are.  With regard to this account of intellectual knowledge, Malebranche was more or less following Saint Augustine. His great innovation was to explain how these same divine ideas could also serve as the immediate objects of human minds in sensual perception. The problem there is that the divine ideas are universal, whereas all perception seems to be of particulars. Malebranche's solution was to suggest that, whereas the mind's intellectual conception of these ideas is pure and direct, its sensual perception of them will be modified by "sensations". These sensations, unlike the ideas, are indeed proper to individual created minds, and subsist as modes thereof. The idea will represent only the geometrical or mechanical properties of bodies (size, shape, motion), while the sensation will consist in colour or some other sensible quality. The latter will limit the mind's apprehension of the former in such a manner as to make it represent a particular individual to that mind. To a different mind, one with a different sensation, the same idea could represent a different individual of the same general kind. In the "Dialogues On Metaphysics And Religion" (dialogue 1), Malebranche added that the same basic structure can also account for (the mental as opposed to the physiological element in) imagination, in this case where the idea only "lightly touches" the mind.  Malebranche was strongly influenced by Descartes but did not accept his philosophy uncritically. He is noted particularly for his view that we see all things in God and for his adoption of psycho-physical parallelism and 'occasionalism' to deal with the problem of interaction between mind and body. However, his attribution of epistemological and explanatory primacy to God leads to difficulties.  (1) If we see all things in God in the sense that He puts the ideas into our minds we can have no direct knowledge of the external world. We can appeal to clear and distinct ideas as a criterion for the veridicality of judgements about physical things, but it is God who is ultimately responsible for our ideas.  (3) In so far as God is not to be identified with the archetypal eternal truths in his mind, Malebranche is not a pantheist. But, as in mediaeval philosophy, this gives rise to the problem of reconciling God's freedom with His supposed immutability.

Theodicy.

Malebranche's theodicy is his solution to the problem of evil. Although he conceded that God had the power to create a more perfect world, free from all defects, such a world would have necessitated a greater complexity in divine ways. Thus, God produces the natural evils that follow from simple laws not because he wills those particular effects, but because he wills a world that best reflects his wisdom by achieving the best possible balance between the intrinsic perfection of the work and the simplicity and generality of its laws.

Malebranche's dualism.

Whereas Malebranche followed Augustine in his description of intellectual knowledge, in his approach to mind–body problems he began as a follower of Descartes. But in contrast to Descartes, who considered it possible to form a clear and distinct idea of the mind, Malebranche argues in the "Dialogues on Metaphysics", a dialogue between Theodore and Aristes, that we do not have a complete conception of the powers of the mind, and thus no clear conception of the nature of the mind.  I am unable, when I turn to myself, to recognize any of my faculties or my capacities. The inner sensation which I have of myself informs me that I am, that I think, that I will, that I have sensory awareness, that I suffer, and so on; but it provides me with no knowledge whatever of "what" I am – of the nature of my thought, my sensations, my passions, or my pain – or of the mutual relations that obtain between all these things....I have no idea whatever of my soul.  This leads Theodore to declare that 'I am not my own light to myself'; the nature of our own minds is highly obscure. What is more, with regard to psycho-physical interaction, Malebranche argues that body could not act on mind, nor mind on body. The only active power (hence the only efficient cause of change in the world) is God. When I will that my arm should rise, my volition is the "occasion" or the "occasional cause" of the movement of my arm; the efficient cause of both my volition and the movement of my arm is God. Malebranche's doctrine, which could be found in contemporary commentaries on Aristotle, and which first appeared in certain Arab philosophers, is therefore called "occasionalism".

Occasionalism.

In general, occasionalism is the view that there are no efficient causes in the full sense other than God. Created things are at best "occasions" for divine activity. Bodies and minds act neither on themselves nor on each other; God alone brings about all the phenomena of nature and the mind. Changes occurring in created things will exhibit regularities (and will thus satisfy a Humean definition of causation) because God in creating the world observes what Malebranche calls "order": he binds himself to act according to laws of nature chosen in accordance with his general will that the world be as good as possible, and thus (for example) that the laws be simple and few in number.  In particular, there will be laws governing what we would customarily call the "interaction" of body and mind, so that similar movements in the body will "occasion" similar ideas in the mind. That relation has some features of the causal relation (it satisfies, for example, universal conditionals of the form "Whenever "C" occurs, "E" occurs"). But in reality both the idea in the mind and the movement in the body are caused by God.

Scientific contributions.

Although better known for his philosophical work, Malebranche made some notable contributions to physics, working within a broadly Cartesian framework but nevertheless prepared to depart from Descartes where necessary. In 1699, he delivered an address to the Académie Royale des Sciences on the nature of light and color, wherein he argued that different colors resulted out of different frequencies in the pressure vibrations of subtle matter, much as different musical tones derived from different frequencies in the vibrations of air. His theory was presented as a corrective to Descartes' view, rather than a refutation thereof, but it has important parallels with the rival optical theory of Isaac Newton. Newton had already developed his position some thirty years earlier, but Malebranche probably would not have been aware of it until it was finally published in the "Opticks" of 1704, or, more likely, in its Latin translation of 1706. When Malebranche revised his 1699 paper for inclusion as the Sixteenth "Elucidation" of the 1712 edition of "The Search After Truth", he inserted a number of references to "Newton's excellent work".  In addition, Malebranche wrote on the laws of motion, a topic he discussed extensively with Leibniz. He also wrote on mathematics and, although he made no major mathematical discoveries of his own, he was instrumental in introducing and disseminating the contributions of Descartes and Leibniz in France. Malebranche introduced l'Hôpital to Johann Bernoulli, with the ultimate result being the publication of the first textbook in infinitesimal calculus.  Malebranche also developed an original theory related to preformationism, postulating that each embryo probably contained even smaller embryos ad infinitum, like an idealized Matryoshka doll. According to Malebranche, "an infinite series of plants and animals were contained within the seed or the egg, but only naturalists with sufficient skill and experience could detect their presence" (Magner 158–9).

Legacy.

Aside, perhaps, from John Norris (who, in any case, drew at least as much from Malebranche's own sources, primarily Saint Augustine, as he did from Malebranche himself), there are few if any philosophers who can be considered faithful followers of Malebranche in all matters. He was, however, held in widespread high regard within his own lifetime and for some time afterwards, and the influence of certain of his ideas can be discerned in the works of several important figures.  Pierre Bayle regarded Malebranche as "one of the greatest philosophers of this age" (though, admittedly, not as "the" greatest, as is often reported). In note H to his "Zeno of Elea" article, Bayle discussed Malebranche's views on material substance with particular approval. Occasionalism and the vision in God seem to make the real existence of material substance redundant. Not only is it unable to be directly perceived, but it cannot actually affect us or anything else in any way at all. Descartes had also maintained that matter was not directly perceivable, but he had argued that the veracity of God could support a proof of its certain existence. Malebranche, however, weakened Descartes' argument, concluding that, from a philosophical point of view, its existence could only be shown to be probable. Bayle pushed even further down this same path, thereby laying much of the ground work for the immaterialism of George Berkeley. Berkeley, influenced both by Bayle and directly by Malebranche himself, simply took the final step to a full denial of the existence of material substance. (Arthur Collier, who was also influenced directly by Malebranche, and by Norris, made the same move at around the same time as Berkeley did, but, it would appear, entirely independently of him.) Berkeley, admittedly, did reject the theory of vision in God. "It is evident", he insisted, "that the things I perceive are my own ideas." But he was influenced by Malebranche's occasionalism, even though he excluded the activity of created minds from its domain. In addition, Berkeley agreed with Malebranche, against Descartes, that we could not achieve a clear idea of the mind itself. John Locke had also argued for this, but he had made no distinction between minds and bodies on this point, whereas both Berkeley and Malebranche maintained (each in his own way) that we could have ideas of bodies but not of minds.  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (who met Malebranche in Paris in about 1675 and corresponded with him thereafter) also rejected the vision in God, and his theory of pre-established harmony was designed as a new alternative to occasionalism as well as to the more traditional theory of efficient causal interaction. However, in his own theodicy, even if it was somewhat more elaborate than Malebranche's, he did at least agree with Malebranche's fundamental contention that the simplicity of God's ways had to be given as much regard as the world's perfection.  David Hume supported and drew upon Malebranche's negative arguments to show that no genuine causal connections could be conceived between distinct mundane entities. However, when it came to finding a positive replacement for such causal connections, he turned inwards to the workings of the human mind, instead of turning upwards to God. With regard to this second half of Malebranche's occasionalism, Hume wrote:  Hume's empiricist epistemology led him to distrust Malebranche's confidence in discovering abstruse metaphysical truths through an intellectual union with God. Likewise, Locke felt that Malebranche's metaphysical speculations lacked a proper foundation, and, though ingenious, were ultimately unintelligible. In a somewhat similar manner, Arthur Schopenhauer regarded the theory of vision in God as "explaining something unknown by something even more unknown."  Locke withheld his "An Examination of P[ère] Malebranche's Opinion Of Seeing All Things In God" from publication, "because he looked upon it to be an opinion that would not spread but was like to die of itself, or at least to do no great harm." Much as Locke predicted, Malebranche's reputation outside France (where he always enjoyed high esteem) did begin to diminish during the 18th century, and remained low thereafter. However, over the last three or four decades, Malebranche's work has drawn renewed and ever-increasing interest. Several of his works have been translated into English for the first time, as scholars have been reassessing his ideas. Many have begun to argue that the originality and unity of his philosophical system merits him a place alongside such figures as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

Bibliography.

The Thomas Taylor translation of the "Search" (1694; second edition 1700) includes material not contained in the Lennon and Olscamp edition (which is based on the 1712 version of the text). It is bound with Malebranche's "Defence against the Accusation of M. de la Ville", which has not been available in English at all since the seventeenth century. The "Treatise of Nature and Grace" is also included in the same volume. Rival translations of all three of these works were also published by Richard Sault in 1694–95. In addition, the "Conversations chrétiennes" were translated in 1695 as "Christian Conferences... to which is added, Meditations on Humility and Repentance": this work has also been unavailable in English since the seventeenth century.  The standard edition of Malebranche's works in French is the "Oeuvres Complètes", ed. André Robinet, twenty volumes (Paris: J. Vrin, 1958–78).

Nicolas Malebranche, Oratory of Jesus (; ; 6 August 1638 – 13 October 1715), was a French Oratorian priest and rationalist philosopher. In his works, he sought to synthesize the thought of St. Augustine and Descartes, in order to demonstrate the active role of God in every aspect of the world. Malebranche is best known for his doctrines of vision in God, occasionalism and ontologism.

Nicolas Malebranche [nikola malbránš] (6. srpna 1638, Paříž – 13. říjen 1715 tamtéž) byl francouzský kněz, oratorián, racionalistický filosof, teolog a vědec. Je hlavním představitelem okazionalismu.


Biography.

Born in Florence, Leopold II was the son of Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany and Princess Luisa Maria Amelia Teresa of the Two Sicilies, who were double first cousins. His maternal grandparents were Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies and Marie Caroline of Austria.  He succeeded his father on 18 June 1824. During the first twenty years of his reign he devoted himself to the internal development of the state. His was the mildest and least reactionary of all the Italian despotisms of the day, and although always subject to Austrian influence he refused to adopt the Austrian methods of government, allowed a fair measure of liberty to the press, and permitted many political exiles from other states to dwell in Tuscany undisturbed.  But when during the early 1840s unrest spread throughout Italy, even in Tuscany demands for a constitution and other political reforms were advanced; in 1845 and 1846 riots occurred in various parts of the country, and Leopold granted a number of administrative reforms. But Austrian influence prevented him from doing more, even had he wished to do so. The election of Pope Pius IX gave fresh encouragement to Liberalism, and on 4 September 1847 Leopold instituted the National Guard – a preparation for a constitution; soon afterward the marchese Cosimo Ridolfi was appointed prime minister. The granting of the Neapolitan and Piedmontese constitutions was followed (17 February 1848) by that of Tuscany, composed by Gino Capponi.  The uprisings in Milan and in Vienna aroused patriotic enthusiasm in Tuscany, where war against Austria was demanded; Leopold, yielding to popular pressure, sent a force of regulars and volunteers to co-operate with Piedmont in the Lombard campaign. His speech on their departure was uncompromisingly Italian and Liberal. "Soldiers," he said, "the holy cause of Italian freedom is being decided to-day on the fields of Lombardy. Already the citizens of Milan have purchased their liberty with their blood and with a heroism of which history offers few examples... Honour to the arms of Italy! Long live Italian independence!" The Tuscan contingent fought bravely, though unsuccessfully, at Curtatone and Montanara.  On 26 June, the first Tuscan parliament assembled but the disturbances consequent on the failure of the campaign in Lombardy resulted in the resignation of the Ridolfi ministry, which was succeeded by that of Gino Capponi. The riots continued, especially at Livorno, which was prey to actual civil war, and the democratic party of which Francesco Domenico Guerrazzi and Giuseppe Montanelli were organizers became every day more influential. Capponi resigned, and Leopold agreed reluctantly to a Montanelli-Guerrazzi ministry, which in its turn had to fight against the extreme republican party.  New elections in the autumn of 1848 returned a constitutional majority, but it ended by voting in favour of a constituent assembly. There was talk of instituting a central Italian kingdom with Leopold as king, to form part of a larger Italian federation, but in the meanwhile the grand-duke, alarmed at the revolutionary and republican agitations in Tuscany and encouraged by the success of the Austrian troops, was, according to Montanelli, negotiating with Field-Marshal Radetzky and with Pius IX, who had now abandoned his liberal tendencies, and fled to Gaeta. Leopold had left Florence for Siena, and eventually for Porto Santo Stefano, leaving a letter to Guerrazzi in which, on account of a protest from the pope, he declared that he could not agree to the proposed constituent assembly. The utmost confusion prevailed in Florence and other parts of Tuscany.  On 18 February 1849 a republic was proclaimed and on that same day Leopold sailed for Gaeta. A third parliament was elected and Guerrazzi appointed dictator. But there was great discontent, and the defeat of Charles Albert at Novara caused consternation among the Liberals. The majority, while fearing an Austrian invasion, desired the return of the grand-duke who had never been unpopular, and in April 1849 the municipal council usurped the powers of the assembly and invited him to return, "to save us by means of the restoration of the constitutional monarchy surrounded by popular institutions, from the shame and ruin of a foreign invasion." Leopold accepted, although he said nothing about the foreign invasion, and on 1 May sent Count Luigi Serristori to Tuscany with full powers.  But at the same time the Austrians occupied Lucca and Livorno, and although Leopold simulated surprise at their action it has since been proved, as the Austrian general d'Aspre declared at the time, that Austrian intervention was due to the request of the grand-duke. On 24 May the latter appointed G Baldasseroni prime minister, on the 25th the Austrians entered Florence and on 28 July Leopold himself returned. In April 1850 he concluded a treaty with Austria sanctioning the continuation for an indefinite period of the Austrian occupation with 10,000 men; in September he dismissed parliament, and the next year established a concordat with the Church of a very clerical character. He feebly asked Austria if he might maintain the constitution, and the Austrian premier, Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg, advised him to consult the pope, the king of Naples and the dukes of Parma and Modena.  On their advice he formally revoked the constitution (1852). Political trials were held, Guerrazzi and many others being condemned to long terms of imprisonment, and although in 1855 the Austrian troops left Tuscany, Leopold's popularity was gone. Some of the Liberals, however, still believed in the possibility of a constitutional grand-duke who could be induced for a second time to join Piedmont in a war against Austria, whereas the popular party headed by Ferdinando Bartolommei and Giuseppe Dolfi realised that only by the expulsion of Leopold could the national aspirations be realised. When in 1859 France and Piedmont made war on Austria, Leopold's government failed to prevent numbers of young Tuscan volunteers from joining the Franco-Piedmontese forces. Finally an agreement was arrived at between the aristocratic constitutionalists and the popular party, as a result of which the grand-duke's participation in the war was formally demanded.  Leopold at first gave way, and entrusted Don Neri Corsini with the formation of a ministry. The popular demands presented by Corsini were for the abdication of Leopold in favour of his son, an alliance with Piedmont and the reorganisation of Tuscany in accordance with the eventual and definite reorganisation of Italy. Leopold hesitated and finally rejected the proposals as derogatory to his dignity. On 27 April there was great excitement in Florence, Italian colours appeared everywhere, but order was maintained, and the grand-duke and his family departed for Bologna undisturbed. Thus the revolution was accomplished without blood being shed, and after a period of provisional government Tuscany was incorporated in the kingdom of Italy. On 21 July Leopold abdicated in favour of his son Ferdinand IV of Tuscany, who never reigned, but issued a protest from Dresden (26 March 1860).

Evaluation.

Leopold of Tuscany was a well-meaning, not unkindly man, and fonder of his subjects than were the other Italian despots, but he was weak, and too closely bound by family ties and Habsburg traditions ever to become a real Liberal. Had he not joined the conclave of autocrats at Gaeta, and, above all, had he not summoned Austrian assistance while denying that he had done so, in 1849, he might yet have preserved his throne, and even changed the course of Italian history. At the same time his rule, if not harsh, was demoralising.  Along with his wife he was the founding patron of L'Istituto Statale della Ss. Annunziata, the first female boarding school in Florence established to educate aristocratic and noble young ladies. Leopold ordered the construction of La Botte, a water tunnel under the Arno River, which allowed for the final drainage of the Lago di Bientina, which had previously been the largest lake in Tuscany. Completed in 1859, La Botte remains an integral part of the Tuscan water management system.  He spent his last years in Austria, and died in Rome.

Marriages and children.

In Dresden on 28 October 1817 by proxy and in Florence on 16 November 1817 in person, Leopold married Princess Maria Anna of Saxony, born in Dresden on 15 November 1799. She was a daughter of Maximilian, Prince of Saxony and Caroline of Bourbon-Parma. Her maternal grandparents were Ferdinand, Duke of Parma and Archduchess Maria Amalia of Austria. Leopold and his wife were second cousins as they were both great-grandchildren of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. They had three children:  Maria Anna died in Pisa on 24 April 1832. On 7 June 1833 in Naples, Leopold married secondly Maria Antonietta of the Two Sicilies (Palermo, 19 December 1814 – Orth, 7 November 1898). His new wife was the second daughter of Francis I of the Two Sicilies and Maria Isabella of Spain. Marie Antoinette was his first cousin. They had ten children:

Leopold II (,, English: "Leopold John Joseph Francis Ferdinand Charles"; 3 October 1797 – 29 January 1870) was Grand Duke of Tuscany (1824–1859).

Leopold II. Toskánský (3. října 1797, Florencie – 29. ledna 1870, Řím) byl rakouský arcivévoda a toskánský velkovévoda v letech 1824–1859, pocházející z vedlejší linie Habsbursko-Lotrinské dynastie.


History.

1955–1992: the Soviet era.

The Torpedo were founded by Nikolai Konyakhin in 1955. Konyakhin was a former ice hockey player and he had experience of playing for a youth team of the Moscow region. Father and son Konaykhin's have initiated the foundation of the amateur team at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant. Ice Hockey was a new kind of sport for the factory guys and they started to train and play on the ice of Ulba River in winter. By that time, the factory workers were playing football and bandy. Both teams were calling Torpedo. The new hockey team was named Torpedo, too.  In 1957, they participated at the Kazakh SSR Hockey Championship in Alma-Ata. Also, it was the first official tournament for Torpedo Ust-Kamenogorsk. They won silver medals at this championship. It was first and last silver medals at the National Championships, because they were unbeaten before 1964. In 1964, Torpedo debuted in the Soviet Hockey Championship's Class B. The team was coached by Olympic medalist and multiple champion of USSR Yuri Baulin. His management led to promotion to Soviet Hockey Championship's Class A2. In 1966–67, they were runners-up and lost only to Avtomobilist Sverdlovsk.  In 1977, Torpedo was relegated to the Soviet Hockey Championship's Class A3. However, three years later they returned to Class A2 Division. That team was coached by Valentin Grigoriev and formed only by its own hockey school graduates. In the early 1980th, the team was headed by local coach Viktor Semykin. The young manager gathered new powerful squad. The team included the most famous local graduate Boris Alexandrov, who returned from CSKA Moscow to his hometown. He became famous all over the world after playing in the Super Series '76 with the team CSKA Moscow and scoring against the New York Rangers, the Montreal Canadiens and the Boston Bruins. In 1986, a conflict between Semykin and the players saw Semykin sacked. Team management assigned Vladimir Goltze as a new head coach. He led the team to the Soviet Hockey Championship's Class A. It was the team's first time at that level. Boris Alexandrov was the best goalscorer at the first round of championships. However, the team was relegated after one season to Class A2 Division. One season later, they returned to the highest division. They stayed at the top division for three seasons until the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The post-Soviet era.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the team kept up much of its momentum, despite losing many of its players and coaches to Russian teams. From 1992 to 1996, Torpedo competed at the International Hockey League, which replaced the Soviet Hockey Championship. In 1993, Torpedo joined the newly created Kazakhstan Hockey Championship, where they would play in parallel to their participation in the International Hockey League. In 1992-93 season, they qualified to the play-offs, but lost to SKA Saint Petersburg in the preliminary round. The team had big financial problems and the Ulba Metallurgical Plant was unable to sponsor them. Vladimir Goltze was fired and Boris Alexandrov replaced him. Alexandrov combined his coaching duties with his playing role. He led the team to victory at the Rudi Hiti Summer League in 1994. In the 1994-95 season, Torpedo reached the play-offs, but lost to Krylya Sovetov Moscow in the preliminary round again. In 1996, the International Hockey League was disbanded.  In 1996, Torpedo was admitted into the Russian hockey system. Torpedo joined the Supreme League of the Russian Ice Hockey Championship, the second highest level after the Russian Superleague. In 1998, the Kazakhstan national team competed at the Winter Olympic Games in Nagano. The team was composed entirely of players from Kazzinc–Torpedo and coached by Boris Alexandrov. Journalists called them "The team of one locker room." It was an unexpected result for many people, when they ranked first at the groupe stage after defeating Italy and Slovakia.

Season-by-season record.

"This is a partial list of the last five seasons completed by Kazzinc-Torpedo. For the full season-by-season history, see List of Kazzinc-Torpedo seasons."  "Note: GP = Games played, W = Wins, L = Losses, OTW = Overtime/Shootout Wins, OTL = Overtime/Shootout Losses, Pts = Points, GF = Goals for, GA = Goals against"

Achievements.

Domestic.

Kazakhstan Hockey Championship:  Kazakhstan Hockey Cup:

International.

Supreme Hockey League:  Rudi Hiti Summer League:  IIHF Continental Cup:

Notable alumni.

List of Torpedo players selected in the NHL Entry Draft.

Note: Only counts if the players played for Torpedo before they were selected in the NHL Entry Draft. Some players played only for the Torpedo Junior Team."

Torpedo Hockey Club (, "«Torpedo» hokkeı klýby"; ), commonly referred to as Torpedo Ust-Kamenogorsk, formerly known as Kazzinc-Torpedo (1999–2015), is a professional ice hockey team based in Oskemen, Kazakhstan. Torpedo has typically been the most dominant developmental club in Kazakhstan and its senior level team also plays at the Supreme Hockey League (VHL), one step below the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL). Most Kazakh players who have reached the National Hockey League (NHL) trace their roots to Torpedo. Kazzinc-Torpedo is the most crowned Kazakhstan team, with 13 championship wins.

HK Kazcink-Torpedo Usť-Kamenogorsk je hokejový klub z Usť-Kamenogorsku, který hraje Ruskou vyšší ligu ledního hokeje. Klub byl založen roku 1955. Jejich domovským stadionem je Sports Palace s kapacitou 4500 lidí.


Franchise history.

1963–1973: Dynamo.

The team was founded in the summer of 1963 by the Deputy Chairman of Sports of Ukraine, Adrian Miziak, under the name of "Dynamo Kiev". 1963 may be the official birth date of the team, but it was a decade earlier that a Dynamo team from Kiev would play in the Soviet Cup, making it as far as the second round of the playoffs. The current incarnation, however, would begin its hockey operations in the second tier of Soviet ice hockey, holding its first game on 27 October 1963 against SKA Kuybyshev. The team's first head coach was Dmitri Boginov. Forward Viktor Martinov would score the first goal in club history two minutes into the match, and the team would go on to win the game at a score of 4:1. Martinov would go on to lead the team in goals that season with 16.  Though the team would finish 6th in its inaugural season, they would go on to have the best record in their division the following year; earning a promotion to the top level of competition in the Soviet leagues. To open the 1965–66 season, Kiev would boast the second largest arena in the Soviet Union. However, while competing at the top level, Dynamo struggled. During its five years of competition in the league, which included playoff qualification each year, the team would exhibit sub-par play. Sokil's Soviet Cup playoff run in 1968 would prove to be a highlight in otherwise disappointing campaigns. Their elimination by SKA Leningrad in the quarterfinals would be the furthest the team would finish in the tournament for nearly a decade. In the following season, Sokil would finish the first round of competition in 10th place of 12 teams, resulting in a temporary demotion to the second-tier of competition. This would last the remainder of the season. They would finish 6th in this group of 18, and 12th of 24 in the record books. This poor showing would not prove a motivator for the following year, though the departure of coach Boginov would not help either. He would be replaced by Igor Shichkov, the team would finish dead last in the 1969–70 season, and once again become subject to outright relegation. The final three years under the Dynamo name would show gradual, albeit slow improvements; each season finishing one place higher in the standings.

1973–1996: The Falcons.

For the club's 10th anniversary in 1973, the club would drop the Dynamo moniker, a move which would have a lasting legacy. The historical white and blue colors of the Dynamo sports society would be kept intact, but the team would adopt the name of the "Falcon", or "Sokil" in Ukrainian.  Though Sokil's play would remain inconstant throughout the 70s, the hiring of Anatoli Bogdanov as head coach in 1976 would have an immediate impact on the team's fortunes. By the 1978 season, the team would finish 2nd overall and re-ascend to the top of the Soviet league. In their first season back, great goaltending by Konstantin Gavrilov managed to overcome a poor offense, and ultimately allowed the team squeak into the playoffs, bypassing Avtomobilist Sverdlovsk by a mere point. This foray into Soviet Cup playoffs would prove to be one of the best runs in the team's history, making it as far as the semifinals where they would ultimately fall to the legendary CSKA Moscow team. Unfortunately for the team, the Cup playoffs would not be held again for another 8 years. During this period of emphasis on regular season performance, several stars would begin to emerge from the team's ranks. Between 1981 and 1990, six players would be named to the league's 34 man All Star selections, 5 of whom were multiple time recipients.  Sokil would remain competitive, but the addition of homegrown forward Dmitri Khristich and defenseman Alexander Godynyuk in 1985 and 1986, respectively, would elevate the team to new heights. Their 3rd-place finish in 1985 would remain a franchise best, Ramil Yuldashev would claim the league award for most hat-tricks this year with 2, and Nikolai Narimanov would lead the league in goals with 26. The following year in 1986, Sergei Davydov would follow up on Yuldashev's success and win the hat-trick award. Sokil would be invited to the Spengler Cup tournament where they would continue their success as finalists, succumbing only to Team Canada.  Winning the Tampere Cup in 1989 marked a turning point for the franchise, which would be a victim to the Soviet Union's collapse. The coming down of the Iron Curtain would allow the Los Angeles Kings of the National Hockey League to draft rising local talent and Kiev teammate Alexei Zhitnik 81st overall in the 1991 NHL draft. Zhitnik would remain the highest drafted professional Sokil player to this day. Not all talent was affected, however, as Yuldashev would lead the league in goals in 1990 along with points in 1991, and Valeri Shyriaiev would be named the league's top defensemen in both years as well. Following a 15th-place finish in 1992, the lowest in team history, the team and coach Bogdanov would part ways. This would also mark a change in the team's official name to accommodate a new sponsor; the club competed under the name Sokil Eskulap (, ) for only the 1992–93 International Hockey League (IHL) season. Bogdanov's dismissal did little to curtail the franchise's downward spiral, with the team reaching new record lows with head coach Alexander Fedeev at the helm. He would hold the position until 1996, which also marked the team's parting of ways with the newly formed Russian Hockey League.  A positive product of these troubled years is the continued development of local talent. Future Olympian and Stanley Cup champion, Ruslan Fedotenko would leave the team in 1996 to pursue his NHL dreams. Kievans Anton Babchuk and Nikolai Zherdev, products of the Sokil junior development program, would later be recruited by Elektrostal scouts in the Russian Major League. They would later be drafted into the NHL, both in the first round.

1996–2009: transitions.

With the dissolution of the IHL, orphaned teams from the Soviet Bloc found a home in the newly formed Eastern European Hockey League. Benefiting from a lower level of competition than that of the Russian league, and new head coach Oleksandr Seukand, the team would find renewed success. Sokil would finish 1st overall in 4 of the league's 8 seasons, and become league champions in both 1998 and 1999. Sokil players like Valentyn Oletsky (1997, 2000) and Dmitri Markovskiy (1998) would secure scoring titles, Konstantin Kasyanchuk was awarded league forward MVP in 2001, and Vadim Seliverstov was named top goaltender in 2003.  From 2004 through to the 2006–07 season, the team would also compete in the Open Championship of Belarus, the EEHL's spiritual successor. Here they would continue their success until hitting a metaphorical wall in 2006–07, allowing more than twice as many goals against than for, and ultimately not qualifying for the playoffs. It would be the first time they would not qualify for a league playoff in over a decade.  In spite of government cuts to hockey programs in the city, the team would realign its franchise with Russia, though this time with the more modest Russian Major League. Here, they received relative success. In their first season, Sokil would finish 5th in the division, 8th overall in wins. On top of these improvements, they would carry the 4th most potent offense in the league. The newly revived team was met with continued success in the Russian league, finishing with the best regular season record that year; 4th overall in points percentage. They would qualify for a bye in the first round, handily defeat Ryazan in the secondaries, but would ultimately fall to Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk in a 3–1 lopsided series.

Present.

Following the 2008–09 season in the Russian league, the club announced they would rejoining the Belarusian Extraleague for the following year. This was a move largely attributed to the financial burdens brought on by the Russian Ice Hockey Federation's (RHF) mandate that foreign teams pay for the travel, accommodations, and meals of visiting teams. The RHF also demanded that foreign teams pay an annual fee of p.1,500,000 (approx €35,000).  Going into the 2009–10 Extraleague season, Sokil elevated team expenditures and signed several Ukrainian players who had been in the Kontinental Hockey League, bolstering the roster with professional names such as Kostiantyn Simchuk, Sergei Varlamov, and Serhiy Klimentiev. They would face further financial difficulties, losing players along the way (including Varlamov), and finish 4th in the Belarusian league's standings, ultimately falling to Yunost Minsk in the semifinals. Sokil would continue their winning streak in the Ukrainian Championship, however, winning their 12th championship. The team's financial issues continued in the 2010–12 season, however, and apart from losing many key players, the team missed the Belarusian league's playoffs and their streak in the Ukrainian Championship was broken, when they lost to HC Donbass in the finals. For the 2012 season, Sokil withdrew from the Belarusian league and joined the newly formed Professional Hockey League of Ukraine.  During its first two years in the PHL, Sokil forfeited its streak of Ukrainian Championships, with rival HC Donbass-2 becoming the new national standard. To make matters worse, the team was mired in financial difficulties, with players alleging that they were not being paid by the team.  In December 2013, players on the team went on strike due to not being paid their salaries, which stemmed from sponsorship issues. The team was forced to forfeit games.

Team colours and mascot.

Logo.

The team's original colors as Dynamo were, hence the nickname that has held to this day ("white-blues"), white and blue. When the Sokil name was adopted, the team changed their colors to red and blue, the same colors of the Kiev coat of arms of the time. The team would eventually return to its white and blue roots, along with the addition of a darker accent of blue, as well as black. Sokil's primary logo has, since 1973, featured a horse-chestnut leaf, the symbol of the city. This element has remained constant on both the chest piece as well as the shoulder patches throughout the team's history since adopting the "Sokil" name. The adding of a profile image of a falcon was added later on, and the team would return to its white and blue roots. To mark their 45th anniversary, Sokil updated their classic team logo for the 2008–09 season. The re-branding saw a modernization of the team's crest; with a new and more aggressive falcon centerpiece, while retaining the classic, albeit broadened, chestnut leaf backdrop.

Jerseys.

The team's original jerseys were white with horizontal blue striping. In 1973, the primary color of red was added, and the body striping was eliminated for a more contemporary look. When the sponsor's name ("Eskulap") was added briefly in 1992, the team logo was changed to a tryzub. Also, the Coca-Cola logo was added to the front of the team's jerseys for a period of time. Aside from this, when the blue and white colors came into use, the jerseys went through a series of design changes, running a gamut of styles containing variations of arm and hem striping, shoulder yolks, and design coloring. The contemporary jersey features a body and arm design that has a graphic of feathers rather than traditional hockey striping. It is the same design used by Avangard Omsk of the Kontinental Hockey League. The jerseys are made by the Russian company Lutch.

Team awards.

Runners-up.

Soviet Championship "(1)": 1985

Players.

Honored members.

Honored numbers.

Sokil Kiev has officially honored five numbers in their history. All of the honorees were born in Ukraine.

Drafted players.

The following are players who have been drafted in the National Hockey League (NHL) Entry Draft and played the season prior to the draft for the Sokil ice hockey organization. There have been 11 players drafted in the NHL Entry Draft from the Sokil hockey club.  The most notable players drafted from Sokil are defenseman Alexei Zhitnik, who played more the 1000 regular season games in the NHL, and forward Dmitri Khristich, who scored over 250 goals and 500 points.

Junior program NHL alumni.

The following pupils of Sokil's hockey school have gone on to be drafted into the NHL.

Hockey Club Sokil Kiev (;, "HC Sokol Kiev"; ), commonly known as Sokil Kiev or HC Sokil, was a Ukrainian Professional Hockey League team based in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. While their home arena is located in the city, the team also plays out of Brovary, still within the Kiev region.

Sokol Kyjev (: / "Sokil Kyjiv") byl hokejový klub, založený v roce 1963, který po určitou dobu hrál běloruskou ligu ledního hokeje. Nyní působí v Kyjevě na Ukrajině a hraje pod názvem HK Sokil Kyiv v profesionální ukrajinské hokejové lize (Čempionat Ukrajiny z chokeju).


History.

A state-owned enterprise directly controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China and also a public company which is listed on the NYSE and the Hong Kong stock exchanges, China Mobile has dominated Chinese mobile services since its inception., China Mobile controls the vast majority of its domestic mobile services market with a 70% market share. China Unicom and China Telecom have 20% and 10% shares, respectively.  Incorporated in 1997 as China Telecom (Hong Kong) Limited, China Mobile was born from the 1999 break-up of China Telecommunications Corporation. (This company continues to provide mobile services, however.)

State control.

The company likely enjoys substantial protectionist benefits from China's government but also experiences frequent government intervention in its business affairs. Government control is maintained through a presumably government-owned holding company, China Mobile Communications Corporation (CMCC), that owns 100 percent ownership of China Mobile (HK) Group Limited, which in turn holds over seventy percent ownership of China Mobile–the remainder being controlled by public investors. Established in 2000, CMCC is China Mobile Ltd's current parent company.

Rural subscriber base.

China Mobile has historically held a greater share of the rural market than competitors. By 2006, its network had expanded to provide reception to 97% of the Chinese population, and the company has since seen a sustained stream of new, rural mobile customers.  It also offers services targeted at the rural market including an agricultural information service, which facilitates a variety of activities such as the sale and purchase of agricultural products, access to market prices for produce and crops, wire transfers, bank withdrawals, and payments, etc.

Overseas activities.

The company branched out in 2007 with the purchase of Paktel in Pakistan launching the Zong brand there a year later.  In 2013, China Mobile eyed expansion into Myanmar expressing interest in bidding for one of two licences on offer in a partnership with Vodafone although this plan ultimately fell through.

Domestic acquisitions.

In May 2008, the company took over China Tietong, a fixed-line telecom and the then third-largest broadband ISP in China adding Internet services to its core business of mobile services.

Network.

China Mobile operates a GSM network, which encompasses all 31 provinces, autonomous regions, and directly administered municipalities in Mainland China and includes Hong Kong, too. GPRS is utilized for data transmission.  Marketed as ""G3"", the company controls 70% of the Chinese mobile market but a far smaller percentage of the 3G market., its nearly 60 million 3G subscribers account for roughly 9% of its total subscriber base, which is an increase from 3% in 2010.  Its 3G network, still under construction in 2010, utilizes the TD-SCDMA standard, which China Mobile helped develop. 3G service is available in all of the 4 direct-controlled municipalities and most of the 283 prefecture-level cities in China.  Marketed as ""and和"", as of 2010, China Mobile has debuted small-scale 4G demonstration networks using a variant of 3GPP's Long Term Evolution, TD-LTE, and has plans for larger, citywide demonstration networks in the future., such networks are in operation.  While prior iPhone models couldn't use the China Mobile network due to the chipset relying on WCDMA-based networks, talks to carry the then unreleased 4G iPhone (iPhone 5) began in mid-2012. The iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s were sold through China Mobile starting in January 2014.  In 2003 and again in 2007, China Mobile provided mobile services on Mount Everest.  In May 2011, China Mobile announced its network now includes the controversial Spratly Islands.

Nokia deal.

In October 2014, Nokia and China Mobile signed a $970 million framework deal for delivery between 2014 and 2015.

Service brands.

China Mobile uses other names to differentiate its offerings.

Mainland China.

Mobile services are available in Mainland China under several brands as of 2007., the below brands are scheduled to be slowly phased out and replaced by an all-encompassing new brand name—And—whose logo combines an exclamation point, the Chinese character for "peace" (), as well as the English word "and".  ( Rough translation: "Travel across China" (lit. "travel the holy states")): a basic prepaid mobile phone service more heavily marketed in rural areas ( Rough translation: "Global Connect"): subscription flagship brand ( Rough translation: "Dynamic Area"): a premium prepaid service popular with youths A 3G service brand (likely introduced post-2007) A 4G/LTE service brand.

Hong Kong.

CMHK is a wholly owned subsidiary of China Mobile. It offers GSM, GPRS, EDGE, HSPA+ (MVNO), FD-LTE and TD-LTE technologies to customers in this the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

United Kingdom.

In December 2017, China Mobile launched a MVNO service in the UK called CMLink. CMLink is aimed at the Chinese population living in the UK and Chinese visitors and students. Plans include free calls to China Mobile phones in China.

Sponsorship.

The company was the main sponsor of China's national basketball team at the 2010 FIBA World Championship in Turkey.

China Mobile is the trade name of both China Mobile Limited () and its ultimate controlling shareholder, China Mobile Communications Group Co., Ltd. (, formerly known as China Mobile Communications Corporation, "CMCC"), a Chinese state-owned company. China Mobile Limited provides mobile voice and multimedia services through its nationwide mobile telecommunications network across mainland China and Hong Kong.

China mobile je mobilní operátor v Číně a je největším na světě. Byl založen v roce 1997. Má přes 849 milionů aktivních zákazníků.


Development history.

Initial concept.

Jupiter traces its history ultimately to the PGM-11 Redstone missile, the US's first nuclear ballistic missile. While it was entering service, Wernher von Braun's Army Ballistic Missile Agency team at Redstone Arsenal began to consider an upgraded version using the LR89 rocket engine being developed by Rocketdyne for the Air Force's Atlas missile project. Using the LR89 and adding a second stage would allow the new design to reach, a dramatic improvement over the Redstone's roughly.  As Rocketdyne continued working on the LR89, it appeared that it could be improved to increase thrust over the promised. In 1954, the Army asked Rocketdyne to provide a similar design with a thrust of. During this same period, the weight of nuclear warheads was rapidly falling, and by combining this engine with a warhead of they could build a single-stage missile able to reach while being significantly less complicated and easier to handle in the field than a two-stage model. This engine was continually upgraded, ultimately reaching. This last model, known to the Army as the NAA-150-200, became much better known by its Rocketdyne model number, S-3.

Navy SLBM interest.

Around the same time, the US Navy was looking for ways to join the nuclear club, and had been focusing mostly on cruise missiles and similar systems. Some consideration had been given to the use of ballistic missiles on ships, but Admiral Hyman Rickover, "father" of the nuclear submarine, was skeptical that this could be done, and was worried it would take up funding needed elsewhere. Another skeptic of missiles was the Chief of Naval Operations, Robert B. Carney.  Lower-ranking Navy officials became increasingly interested when the Army and Air Force began serious development of their long-range missiles. In an attempt to bypass high-ranking Navy officials, who remained uninterested in the concept, the Navy liaison to the Killian Committee championed the cause. The Committee took up the concept, and in September 1955 released a report calling for the development of a sea-based missile system.  The Navy's disinterest in missiles had been greatly reduced with the August 1955 appointment of Admiral Arleigh Burke to replace Carney. Burke was convinced the Navy had to get into the missile field as rapidly as possible, and was well aware that the Air Force would oppose any such endeavor. Instead, he approached the Army, and found that the proposed Jupiter fit the range goals needed by the Navy.

Development begins.

The issue of who would be given the go-ahead to build an IRBM by this time had reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who proved unable to reach a decision. This forced the Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson to move ahead without an official recommendation from the military. He saw the Navy interest as a reasonable argument to continue the Army project in any event, and on 8 November 1955 approved both programs. The Air Force would develop IRBM No. 1, or SM-75 (for "strategic missile"), the Army would develop their design as IRBM No. 2 or SM-78. The Navy would develop systems to launch the Army missile from ships and, later, submarines.  The requirement for shipboard storage and launching dictated the size and shape of the Jupiter. The original Army design was long and in diameter. The Navy stated they were not interested in anything longer than. The ABMA team responded by increasing the diameter to. This precluded it from being carried aboard contemporary cargo aircraft, limiting it to sea and road. Even with this change, they were unable to reduce its length enough to suit the Navy. They suggested that they begin with a long version and then scale it down as improvements in the engines were worked into the design. This was rejected, and after briefly considering a version, finally settled on the version.  On 2 December 1955, the secretaries of the Army and Navy publicly announced the dual Army–Navy program to create a land- and sea-based MRBM. In April 1956, as part of a widespread effort to assign names to various missile projects, the Army's effort was given the name "Jupiter" and the Air Force's became "Thor".

Accuracy and mission.

Redstone provided an accuracy of at its maximum range, which, when combined with its large warhead, allowed it to attack hard targets like protected airbases, bridges, command and control sites, as well as other strategic targets like railway marshaling yards and pre-attack concentration areas. This was in keeping with the Army's view of nuclear weapons, which was in effect more powerful artillery. They saw the weapons as part of a large-scale battle in Europe, in which both sides would use nuclear weapons during a limited war that did not include the use of strategic weapons on each other's cities. In that case, "if wars were to be kept limited, such weapons would have to be capable of hitting only tactical targets." This approach saw the support of a number of influential theorists, notably Henry Kissinger, and was seized on as a uniquely Army mission.  The original goal for the new longer-range design was to match Redstone's accuracy at the Jupiter's much-extended range. That is, if Redstone could reach 300 m at 60 miles, the new design would provide a circular error probable on the order of. As development continued, it became clear the ABMA team, under the direction of Fritz Mueller, could improve on that. This led to a period in which "The Army would lay down a particular accuracy, and wait for our arguments whether it was possible. We had to promise a lot, but were fortunate."  This process ultimately delivered a design intended to provide accuracy at the full range, an order of magnitude better than Redstone and four times better than the best INS designs being used by the Air Force. The system was so accurate that a number of observers expressed their skepticism about the Army's goals, with the WSEG suggesting they were hopelessly optimistic.  The Air Force was dead set against Jupiter. They argued that nuclear weapons were not simple new artillery, and that their employment would immediately trigger a response that might result in a strategic exchange. This would especially be true if the Army launched a long-range weapon like Jupiter, which could reach cities in the Soviet Union and could not immediately be distinguished as attacking a military or civilian target. They suggested that any such launch would trigger a strategic response, and as such, the Army should not be given any long-range weapons.  However, as von Braun's team went from success to success, and with Atlas still years from operational deployment, it was clear that Jupiter represented a threat to the Air Force's desired hegemony over strategic forces. This led to them starting their own MRBM program Thor, in spite of having repeatedly dismissed the medium-range role in the past. The fighting between the Army and Air Force grew through 1955 and 1956 until practically every missile system the Army was involved in was being attacked in the press.

Navy exit.

The Navy was concerned from the start about Jupiter's cryogenic propellants, but at the time there was no other option. Given the size and weight of contemporary nuclear weapons, only a large liquid-fuel rocket engine provided the energy needed to meet the Navy's range goal of launching from safe areas in the Atlantic Ocean. They justified the risk thus:  All of this changed radically in the summer of 1956, when Project Nobska brought together leading scientists to consider antisubmarine warfare. As part of this workshop, Edward Teller stated that by 1963 a 1 megaton warhead would be reduced to only. Rocketry experts at the same meeting suggested that an intermediate-range weapon carrying one of these weapons could be built using solid propellant. Even in this case, the missile would be much smaller than Jupiter; Jupiter was expected to weigh, while estimates of a solid-fuel missile with similar range were closer to, along with a similar reduction in size which was of paramount importance to a submarine design.  The Navy announced their desire to develop their own missile that summer, initially under the name Jupiter-S. After intensive follow-up studies, the Navy withdrew from the Jupiter program in December 1956. This was officially announced by the Army in January 1957. In its place, the Navy began development of what was then known as the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program, and the missile was later renamed Polaris, their first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Rickover, one of the few remaining skeptics, was won over by pointing out that a properly designed submarine was needed specifically for this role, and he would be called upon to produce it. Rickover was from that point on a staunch ally of the program.

Saved from cancellation.

On 4 October 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I from their R-7 Semyorka ICBM. The US was aware of these efforts and had already talked to the press about it, suggesting that if the Soviets launched a satellite first it would be no big deal. To their surprise, the press exploded in rage over the affair. Having spent over a decade working on similar missiles, like Atlas, the fact that the Soviets could beat them was a serious blow, and prompted a deep review of the ongoing programs.  One problem noted from the start was that the internecine fighting between the Army and Air Force was leading to significant duplication of effort, with little to show for it. The Department of Defense responded by creating the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), whose initial mission was to look over all of the ongoing projects and select ones based solely on their technical merits.  At the same time, the fighting had begun to have negative political effects. In a 26 November 1956 memorandum, recently appointed US Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson attempted to end the fighting. His solution was to limit the Army to weapons with range, and those involved in surface-to-air defense to only. The memo also placed limits on Army air operations, severely limiting the weight of the aircraft it was allowed to operate. To some degree this simply formalized what had largely already been the case in practice, but Jupiter fell outside the range limits and the Army was forced to hand them to the Air Force.  The Air Force, of course, had no interest in taking over a weapon system they had long argued was not needed. However, ARPA's studies clearly showed it was an excellent system, and as it was ready to enter production, any Air Force thoughts about canceling it were immediately quashed. New orders for 32 prototypes and 62 operational missiles were soon placed, bringing the total number of Jupiters to be built to 94. The first, hand-built at ABMA, would be delivered by the end of FY57, and the first production models from Chrysler's Michigan Ordnance Missile Plant near Warren, Michigan between FY58 and FY61.

Lingering complaints.

A primary complaint about Jupiter was that the design's shorter range placed it within relatively easy striking distance of Soviet weapons, both missiles and aircraft. Thor, based in the UK, would likely have more warning of an impending attack. This is precisely the reason that the Army spent considerable effort on making Jupiter mobile, in order to make surprise attacks difficult without prior aerial reconnaissance missions.  However, in November 1958, the Air Force decided Jupiter would be launched from fixed emplacements. Army General Maxwell Taylor argued this was done deliberately, noting that:  To offset the possibility of air attack, the systems were upgraded to allow a launch within 15 minutes of a launch order.

Testing history.

Rocketdyne tested the first S-3 engine at their Santa Susana, California facilities in November 1955. A mock-up was delivered to ABMA in January 1956, followed by the first prototype engines in July 1956. Testing of these engines began in September 1956 at ABMA's new Power Plant Test Stand. This demonstrated a number of problems with unstable combustion, leading to the failure of four engines by November. To continue testing, the engine was temporarily derated back to 135,000 lbf and was successfully tested at this level in January 1957. Continued work on the engine developed several sub-versions, finally reaching the design goal of 150,000 lbf in the S-3D model.  The 135,000 pound engine, also used in the first Thor and Atlas tests, had conical thrust chambers, but the 150,000 pound model switched to bell-shaped thrust chambers. Unlike Thor and Atlas, which had two small vernier engines for roll control, Jupiter gimbaled the turbine exhaust. The early test model Jupiters had two small gas jets powered off the turbine exhaust, the gimbaled exhaust pipe not being introduced until late 1958.

Static tests.

In 1954 Test Laboratory director Karl Heimburg began construction of the Static Test Stand for Redstone testing. This was still under construction when it was re-purposed for Jupiter, and finally completed in January 1957. A Jupiter was installed in the stand that month, and fired for the first time on 12 February 1957. This almost ended in disaster when a small explosion went off in the liquid oxygen (LOX) pump, and as the missile sat there the LOX boiled off and threatened to burst the tanks. The day was saved when the foreman, Paul Kennedy, ran to the missile and connected a pressure line to drain the oxygen buildup in the tank. The problem was later traced to the lubricant used in the pump, which tended to burst into flames in contact with LOX. A new lubricant was introduced, along with a series of changes to the test stand to help retain control in these situations.

Flight tests.

Kurt Debus had led the construction of launch pads for Redstone missiles at Cape Canaveral, Florida, building the twin LC-5 and LC-6 pads about apart with a common blockhouse located away between the two. Redstone testing moved to these pads from the smaller LC-4 on 20 April 1955, with the launch of the seventh Redstone from LC-6. Envisioning an extended test program, a second set of similar pads began construction in 1956, LC-26 A and B; the only major difference was the blockhouse was located slightly further away, about. In late 1957 a set of parallel railway tracks running just east of the pads was added, allowing an A-frame gantry to be rolled to any of the four pads.  Jupiters were delivered to the Cape strapped to wheeled trailers and flown to the Cape's "Skid Strip" on C-124s. They were then moved to Hangar R at the Cape Industrial Area where the nose cone was mated with the missile, and electrical checkout was performed. It was then moved on the trailer to the pads, about south, where they were lifted to vertical by a crane on the movable gantry. Just to the north of the launch area was the Air Force's LC-17 for Thor, and LC-18 used for Thor and the Navy's Vanguard. After the Army's head start, the Air Force had since caught up and attempted its first Thor launch on 26 January 1957, which ended with the missile exploding on the launch pad.  Jupiter test flights commenced with the launch of AM-1A (ABMA Missile 1A) on 1 March 1957 from LC-5. This missile was equipped with the lower-thrust interim engine. The vehicle performed well until past 50 seconds into launch when control started to fail, leading to breakup at T+73 seconds. It was deduced that turbopump exhaust was sucked up by the partial vacuum in the area behind the missile and began to burn in the tail section. The heat burned through the control wiring, so extra insulation was added there on future flights. An identical AM-1B was quickly readied and launched on 26 April. AM-1B's flight went entirely according to plan up to T+70 seconds when the missile started becoming unstable in flight and finally broke up at T+93 seconds. The failure was deduced to have been the result of propellant slosh due to bending modes induced by the steering maneuvers needed to perform the flight trajectory. The solution to this problem involved testing several types of baffles in a Jupiter center section until discovering a suitable type for both the LOX and fuel tanks.  The third Jupiter, also numbered AM-1, was quickly equipped with the baffles and launched on May 31, slightly over a month after AM-1B, traveling a full downrange. This version had a slightly improved S-3 engine with thrust. AM-2 flew from LC-26A on 28 August, and successfully tested the separation of the rocket body from the reentry vehicle section before splashing down at. AM-3 flew from LC-26B on 23 October, including the ablative heat shield and the new ST-90 INS. This test flew a planned distance of.  AM-3A launched on November 26 and all went according to plan until T+101 seconds when engine thrust abruptly terminated. The missile broke up at T+232 seconds. On December 18, AM-4 lost thrust T+117 seconds and fell into the ocean downrange. These failures were traced to an inadequate turbopump design that resulted in a string of failures in the Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas programs, all of which used a variant of the same Rocketdyne engine. Testing then paused for five months while Rocketdyne came up with a number of fixes and the Army retrofitted all its Jupiters with the redesigned pumps. In spite of these failures, Jupiter was declared operational on 15 January 1958.  Taking the time to also fully rate the engine to 150,000 lbf, the new engine was first flown on AM-5 on 18 May 1958 from LC-26B, reaching a planned. AM-5 also carried the real nose cone design, which separated from the rocket body, spun up the warhead, and separated to allow the warhead to continue on its own. The warhead section was equipped with a parachute and was recovered by the Navy some from its predicted splashdown point.  AM-6B included both the production nose cone and the ST-90 INS during its launch from LC-26B on 17 July 1958. This time the Navy recovered it only from its planned splash down point downrange. AM-7 flew on 27 August, testing a new solid fuel rocket for spinup, replacing the older hydrogen peroxide model. AM-9 was launched on 10 October, the first Jupiter to carry the fully functional turbine exhaust roll control system. The flight failed however; a pinhole leak in the thrust transducer area started a thrust section fire and loss of vehicle control. The Range Safety Officer destroyed the missile at T+49 seconds.  Afterwards, there was only one more failure in the Jupiter program, AM-23 on 15 September 1959, which developed a leak in a nitrogen bottle that led to depressurization of the RP-1 tank and almost immediate loss of control at liftoff. The missile wobbled from side to side and the RP-1 tank began to break apart starting at T+7 seconds. The Jupiter flipped upside down, dumping out the contents of the RP-1 tank, followed by total vehicle breakup at T+13 seconds, just before the Range Safety Officer could issue the flight termination command. Flying debris struck and damaged a Juno II on the adjacent LC-5. This particular launch was carrying a biological nose cone with mice and other specimens (which did not survive).  Through the early 1960s, a number of Jupiters were launched by the forces of other countries, as well as the Air Force, as part of ongoing combat training. The last launch of this sort was by the Italian Air Force, CM-106, which took place from LC-26B on 23 January 1963.

Biological flights.

Jupiter missiles were used in a series of suborbital biological test flights. On 13 December 1958, Jupiter AM-13 was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida with a Navy-trained South American squirrel monkey named Gordo on board. The nose cone recovery parachute failed to operate and Gordo did not survive the flight. Telemetry data sent back during the flight showed that the monkey survived the 10 "g" (100 m/s2) of launch, eight minutes of weightlessness and 40 "g" (390 m/s2) of reentry at 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s). The nose cone sank downrange from Cape Canaveral and was not recovered.  Another biological flight was launched on 28 May 1959. Aboard Jupiter AM-18 were a seven-pound (3.2 kg) American-born rhesus monkey, Able, and an 11-ounce (310 g) South American squirrel monkey, Baker. The monkeys rode in the nose cone of the missile to an altitude of and a distance of down the Atlantic Missile Range from Cape Canaveral. They withstood accelerations of 38 "g" and were weightless for about nine minutes. A top speed of 10,000 mph (4.5 km/s) was reached during their 16-minute flight.  After splashdown the Jupiter nosecone carrying Able and Baker was recovered by the seagoing tug USS "Kiowa" (ATF-72). The monkeys survived the flight in good condition. Able died four days after the flight from a reaction to anesthesia while undergoing surgery to remove an infected medical electrode. Baker lived for many years after the flight, finally succumbing to kidney failure on 29 November 1984 at the United States Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Operational deployment.

In April 1958, under the command of President Eisenhower, the U.S. Department of Defense notified the Air Force it had tentatively planned to deploy the first three Jupiter squadrons (45 missiles) in France. However, in June 1958 the new French President Charles de Gaulle refused to accept basing any Jupiter missiles in France. This prompted U.S. to explore the possibility of deploying the missiles in Italy and Turkey. The Air Force was already implementing plans to base four squadrons (60 missiles)—subsequently redefined as 20 Royal Air Force squadrons each with three missiles—of PGM-17 Thor IRBMs in Britain on airfields stretching from Yorkshire to East Anglia.  In 1958, the United States Air Force activated the 864th Strategic Missile Squadron at ABMA. Although the USAF briefly considered training its Jupiter crews at Vandenberg AFB, California, it later decided to conduct all of its training at Huntsville. In June and September of the same year the Air Force activated two more squadrons, the 865th and 866th.  In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued implementing instructions to USAF to deploy two Jupiter squadrons to Italy. The two squadrons, totaling 30 missiles, were deployed at 10 sites in Italy from 1961 to 1963. They were operated by Italian Air Force crews, but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads. The deployed missiles were under command of 36th Strategic Interdiction Air Brigade ("36a Aerobrigata Interdizione Strategica", Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air Base, Italy.  In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey. The U.S. and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter squadron on NATO's southern flank. One squadron totaling 15 missiles was deployed at five sites near İzmir, Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF personnel, with the first flight of three Jupiter missiles turned over to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control of nuclear warhead arming.  On four occasions between mid-October 1961 and August 1962, Jupiter mobile missiles carrying 1.4 megatons of TNT (5.9 PJ) nuclear warheads were struck by lightning at their bases in Italy. In each case, thermal batteries were activated, and on two occasions, tritium-deuterium "boost" gas was injected into the warhead pits, partially arming them. After the fourth lightning strike on a Jupiter MRBM, the USAF placed protective lightning strike-diversion tower arrays at all of the Italian and Turkish Jupiter MRBM missiles sites.  In 1962, a Bulgarian MiG-17 reconnaissance airplane was reported to have crashed into an olive grove near one of the U.S. Jupiter missile launch sites in Italy, after overflying the site.  By the time the Turkish Jupiters had been installed, the missiles were already largely obsolete and increasingly vulnerable to Soviet attacks. All Jupiter MRBMs were removed from service by April 1963, as a backdoor trade with the Soviets in exchange for their earlier removal of MRBMs from Cuba.

Description.

Jupiter squadrons consisted of 15 missiles and approximately 500 military personnel with five "flights" of three missiles each, manned by five officers and 10 NCOs. To reduce vulnerability, the flights were located approximately 30 miles apart, with the triple launcher emplacements separated by a distance of several hundred miles.  The ground equipment for each emplacement was housed in approximately 20 vehicles; including two generator trucks, a power distribution truck, short- and long-range theodolites, a hydraulic and pneumatic truck and a liquid oxygen truck. Another trailer carried 6000 gallons of fuel and three liquid oxygen trailers each carried.  The missiles arrived at the emplacement on large trailers; while still on the trailer, the crew attached the hinged launch pedestal to the base of the missile which was hauled to an upright position using a winch. Once the missile was vertical, fuel and oxidizer lines were connected and the bottom third of the missile was encased in a "flower petal shelter", consisting of wedge-shaped metal panels, allowing crew members to service the missiles in all weather conditions. Stored empty, on 15-minute combat status in an upright position on the launch pad, the firing sequence included filling the fuel and oxidizer tanks with of LOX and of RP-1, while the guidance system was aligned and targeting information loaded. Once the fuel and oxidizer tanks were full, the launch controlling officer and two crewmen in a mobile launch control trailer could launch the missiles.  Each squadron was supported by a receipt, inspection and maintenance (RIM) area to the rear of the emplacements. RIM teams inspected new missiles and provided maintenance and repair to missiles in the field. Each RIM area also housed 25 tons of liquid oxygen and nitrogen generating plants. Several times a week, tanker trucks carried the fuel from the plant to the individual emplacements.

Launch vehicle derivatives.

The Saturn I and Saturn IB rockets were manufactured by using a single Jupiter propellant tank, in combination with eight Redstone rocket propellant tanks clustered around it, to form a powerful first stage launch vehicle.  The Jupiter MRBM was also modified by adding upper stages, in the form of clustered Sergeant-derived rockets, to create a space launch vehicle called Juno II, not to be confused with the Juno I which was a Redstone-Jupiter-C missile development. There is also some confusion with another U.S. Army rocket called the Jupiter-C, which were Redstone missiles modified by lengthening the fuel tanks and adding small solid-fueled upper stages.

Specifications (Juno II launch vehicle).

The Juno II was a four-stage rocket derived from the Jupiter IRBM. It was used for 10 satellite launches, six of which failed. It launched Pioneer 3 (a partial success), Pioneer 4, Explorer 7, Explorer 8, and Explorer 11.

Jupiter MRBM and Juno II launches.

There were 46 test launches, all launched from Cape Canaveral Missile Annex, Florida.

Surviving examples.

The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama displays a Jupiter missile in its Rocket Garden.  The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama displays two Jupiters, including one in Juno II configuration, in its Rocket Park.  An SM-78/PMG-19 is on display at the Air Force Space & Missile Museum at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The missile had been present in the rocket garden for many years until 2009 when it was taken down and given a complete restoration. This pristine artifact is now in sequestered storage in Hangar R on Cape Canaveral AFS and cannot be viewed by the general public.  A Jupiter (in Juno II configuration) is displayed in the Rocket Garden at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It was damaged by Hurricane Frances in 2004, but was repaired and subsequently placed back on display.  A PGM-19 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The missile was obtained from the Chrysler Corporation in 1963. For decades it was displayed outside the museum, before being removed in 1998. The missile was restored by the museum's staff and was returned to display in the museum's new Missile Silo Gallery in 2007.  A PGM-19 is on display at the South Carolina State Fairgrounds in Columbia, South Carolina. The missile, named "Columbia", was presented to the city in the early 1960s by the US Air Force. It was installed at the fairgrounds in 1969 at a cost of $10,000.  Air Power Park in Hampton, Virginia displays an SM-78.  The Virginia Museum of Transportation in downtown Roanoke, Virginia displays a Jupiter PGM-19.  The Frontiers of Flight Museum at Dallas Love Field in Dallas, Texas, has a Jupiter missile on display outdoors.

The PGM-19 Jupiter was the first nuclear tipped, medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) of the United States Air Force (USAF). It was a liquid-propellant rocket using RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer, with a single Rocketdyne LR79-NA (model S-3D) rocket engine producing 667 kN of thrust. It was armed with the 1.44 megaton W49 nuclear warhead. The prime contractor was the Chrysler Corporation.

Jupiter byla balistická raketa středního doletu vyvinutá pro letectvo Spojených států. Byla to raketa na kapalné palivo (kapalný kyslík a RP-1) s jediným motorem vyvíjejícím tah 667 kN. Raketa Jupiter byla druhou americkou raketou středního doletu po raketě Thor. Na jejím základě byla postavená také nosná raketa Juno II.


History.

Though the word "prequel" is of recent origin, works fitting this concept existed long before. The "Cypria", presupposing hearers' acquaintance with the events of the Homeric epic, confined itself to what preceded the "Iliad", and thus formed a kind of introduction.  According to the "Oxford English Dictionary" the word "prequel" first appeared in print in 1958 in an article by Anthony Boucher in "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction", used to describe James Blish's 1956 story "They Shall Have Stars," which expanded on the story introduced in his earlier 1955 work, "Earthman Come Home". The term came into general usage in the 1970s and 1980s.  "" (1979) may have introduced the term "prequel" into the mainstream. The term has since been popularized by the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy (1999-2005).  "The Adventures of Ben Gunn", a 1956 novel by R. F. Delderfield was written as a prequel to the novel "Treasure Island".

Usage.

Rather than being a concept distinct from that of a "sequel", a "prequel" still adheres to the general principle of serialization, defined only by its internal chronology and publication order. For example, "" (1999) is a prequel to "Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi" (1983) but is only a "predecessor" prequel of "" (2002) because of the release order. Likewise, 1984's "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is a prequel to 1981's "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," in that it is set in 1935, one year before the first film.

Complications.

Sometimes "prequel" describes followups where it is not always possible to apply a label defined solely in terms of intertextuality. In the case of "The Godfather Part II", the narrative combines elements of a prequel with those of a more generalized sequel by having two intercut narrative strands, one continuing from the first film (the mafia family story under the leadership of Michael Corleone), and one, completely separate, detailing events that precede it (the story of his father Vito Corleone in his youth). In this sense the film can be regarded as both a "prequel and a sequel" (i.e., both a prior and a continuing story), and is often referred to in this manner.  In the original "Planet of the Apes" series, even though the latter three films depict world events chronologically prior to those of the first two films, the narrative itself is continuous for the main characters, as three apes from the first two films go back in time. The later installments "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" served as both a sequel and prequel to the first film. and "Battle for the Planet of the Apes") are sometimes called "prequels" in a broad sense of the word, but they are primarily sequels, as defined both broadly (as later installments) and narrowly (as continuation of the previously established storyline).  In recent times the term "prequel" has also been applied to origin-story reboots, such as "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", "Batman Begins", and "Casino Royale". The creators of both "Batman Begins" and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" also stated their intent to dispense with the continuity of the previous films so they would exist as separate pieces of work, with Christopher Nolan—director of "Batman Begins"—explicitly stating he does not consider it a prequel. Here, "prequel" denotes status as a "franchise-renewing original" that depicts events earlier in the (internally inconsistent) narrative cycle than those of a previous installment. Most reviewers require that a prequel must lead up to the beginning of its original work, which is inconsistent with works that dispense with the narrative of previous work and are not significantly within the same continuity. At times, the term has been used to refer to a work that was released, as well as chronologically set, before any other work. However, that usage conflicts with the fact that a prequel is a type of sequel.  The 2009 film "Star Trek" features characters from the 1960s TV series "", but earlier in their careers. However, the film is set in an alternate timeline caused by a Romulan captain from the universe of the original series going back in time and interfering with history. Thus, the film has been described as simultaneously a prequel, a sequel and a reboot.

A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose story precedes that of a previous work, by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative. A prequel is a work that forms part of a backstory to the preceding work.

Prequel ([ˈpriːkwəl]) je označení pro umělecké dílo, jehož děj předchází v dějové chronologii příběhu dříve uveřejněného díla. Dějově tak nenavazuje, ale často objasňuje či dovysvětluje předcházející dílo. Jde o anglický neologismus složený z předpony "pre-" („před“-) a části slova "sequel" („pokračování“). Tento postup vyprávění se používá ve filmech, televizních seriálech, literatuře, operách i počítačových hrách.


Teams.

In accordance to the cooperation contract between the DEL and the German Ice Hockey Federation, and after concluding that necessary reforms where not done in the 2. Bundesliga, a decision was made not to have playdowns and no teams were relegated. However, after ensuring compliance with the DEL regulations, the 2. Bundesliga Champions, the Kassel Huskies, were allowed to enter the league on July 4, 2008, expanding the league to 16 teams. This is also the first season where the Eisbären Berlin played in the brand new O2 World arena.  The number of regular seasons rounds was reduced to 52 from 56 in the previous season. The 6-best placed teams qualified for the playoffs, the teams in 7-10th position where to play a qualification round.  The average team budget was estimate at Euro € 5.24 million, raising the league total to Euro € 84.3 million from Euro € 78.7, mainly due to the addition of 1 team.

Regular season.

GP = Games Played, W = Wins, OTW = Overtime win, SOW = Shootout win, OTL = Overtime loss, SOL = Shootout loss, L = Loss Color code: = Direct Playoff qualification, = Playoff qualification round, = No playoff

Playoffs.

Playoff qualifications.

The playoff qualifications were played between March 5 and 11, 2009 in the Best-of-five mode. RS = Regular season; OT = Overtime

Quarterfinals.

The quarterfinals were played in the Best-of-seven mode starting March 13 until March 26. RS = Regular season; OT = Overtime

Semifinals.

The semifinals were played in the Best-of-five mode, from March 29 to April 7, 2010. RS = Regular season; OT = Overtime

Finale.

The finals were played in the Best-of-five mode, from April 9, 2010. RS = Regular season; OT = Overtime  The Eisbären Berlin won the title for the 4th time.

The 2008–09 Deutsche Eishockey Liga season was the 15th season since the founding of the Deutsche Eishockey Liga (). 16 Teams played after the 2. Bundesliga Champion, the Kassel Huskies received the license to play in the DEL. After 52 rounds and the play-off's, the Eisbären Berlin won its 4th German Championship in the last five years.

Sezóna 2008/2009 byla 61. sezónou Německé ligy ledního hokeje. Mistrem se stal celek Eisbären Berlín. Sestoupil z finančních důvodů tým EV Duisburg Die Füchse, i když před sezónou nebyly žádné sestupy plánovány.