Talk:Hopper (spacecraft)

Live or dead "discussion"
This article is entirely wrong. Hoppper has been dead for a long time now.(true)Hektor 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you sources? It seems at least not to be officialy dead if one looks at the EADS homepage. 193.171.121.30 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right, Hopper is a study and e.g. the german "Spiegel" reports from time to time about it. I changed the error. 84.56.52.51 09:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's dead. No budget. No study under way.Hektor 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to ESA's homepage, the project is still under development. If you want to say otherwise, give a source and we'll rechange to your version of the article.84.56.47.82 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) There are sources like that on the ESA-homepage. Again, if you think the project's terminated, source it and it can be said so in the article.84.56.10.25 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Ok, my fault. But still you'd have to find a source for the claim that project hopper is abandoned. On a quick search on google and ask.com i didn't find any.84.56.10.25 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the page of ESA about future launchers. I don't see any mention of Hopper. Hektor 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not ESA, this is EADS. And it's 30 months old. Hektor 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that you can find any source talking about Hopper at the present tense past the mid of 2005 (the time when the last remaining activities were dropped down). EADS has stopped their reusable launcher activities and transferred them to NGL Prime SpA. Hektor 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But if a project of this size is abandoned, there has to be at least one source somewhere... the internet isn't perfect, but it doesn't forget that quickly.

While a claim isn't sourced properly, WP can't make such a statement, except it would be apparently correct. These are the rules, i'm sure you'll agree.84.56.59.118 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * a project of this size  !? you're kidding, this was probably never larger than two German guys in an office somewhere in Bremen, that never went farther than that. Do you think that EADS cares to notify to the press the run-down of all the two-guys advanced studies they start somewhere in Bremen or Les Mureaux ?Hektor 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um a prototype was built and launched at speeds above the speed of sound. That still two guys in an office? Check out this...... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7894&posts=5&start=1  Its part of the ESA's future launcher program apparently. 02hurnella


 * We are in 2008 and it is still dead. Hektor (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the evidence. I updated the article to reflect that. Too bad, the concept of initial acceleration using a magnetic rail is very elegant. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I have suggested a merger of Hopper (spacecraft) and EADS Phoenix because the latter is a prototype of the former, and I see no particular reason why they should be separate articles. Please leave any comments and opinions here. Thanks, Vsst 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see both merged into the article covering the ESA Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP), or its Next Generation Launcher (NGL). See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Home/SEMNCI1PGQD_0.html. FLPP and NGL are, afaik, ongoing efforts, and articles about them are likely to need "Origins" or "History" sections that include information on Hopper and Phoenix. (sdsds - talk) 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do MERGE this very inactive and largely unsourced article. The alternative would be to delete it entirely via an AFD.  I'm not sure which process is preferred for an article of this type with no inline citations but a couple of external links, which may or may not support the assertions in this short article. N2e (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the merge with EADS Phoenix as this launcher was clearly a part of it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Info on Phoenix: There were three (3) test flights and not only one as currently stated
"a single test flight of the Phoenix was conducted" is currently stated in the article. This is not true.

There were three test flights:

Flight #1: Saturday, May 8th 2004
 * nominal flight test scenario
 * optimal weather conditions (almost clear sky, weak tailwind, low turbulence level)
 * almost flawless first flight

Flight #2: Thursday, May 13th 2004
 * nominal flight test scenario ("reflight" of test #1)
 * good weather conditions (clear sky, weak/moderate head wind, low turbulence level)
 * flawless reproduction of flight #1

Flight #3: Sunday, May 16th 2004
 * expanded flight envelope (100 (planned) / 126 (realized with 4.8° outbound flight azimuth) meters lateral offset)
 * acceptable weather conditions (initially clear sky - widespread cumulus forming, moderate head wind, moderate turbulence level)

All three test flights were performed at the Swedisch test range.

References for the above facts should be found in the following academic papers:


 * IAC Vancouver, October 2004: "Reusable RLV Demonstrator Vehicles Phoenix Flight Test Results and Perspectives", W. Gockel et al.
 * AAAF Arcachon, March 2005: "Synthesis Phoenix Flight Test Performance and Analysis", W. Gockel et al.
 * AAIA Capua, May 2005: "Phoenix Project and Program Continuation Plan", P. Kyr and W. Gockel
 * IAC Fukuoka October 2005: "Phoenix Demonstrator Logic", P. Kyr and J. Sommer

Notaris (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've revised the article based on that. but we need more to say why the test program wasn't continued and completed. - Rod57 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)