Talk:RTV-G-4 Bumper

Merge suggestion
Is there a need for two short articles on essentially the same subject? Bumper (rocket) and Bumper Project cover pretty much the same material. Also, is there a reason to choose one over the other as the surviving article? (Sdsds - Talk) 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would concur that the two should be merged. It seems to me that the Project was named after the rocket so logically the project should be discussed under the rocket's article. Category links to rockets and space programs would allow people to cross over the two categories. JohnJardine 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bumper 1
This launch list describes Bumper-1 as a failed launch, however the source cited clearly states:

The first Bumper-WAC was fired on May 13, 1948. This was the first large, two-stage rocket to be launched in the Western Hemisphere. This first combination rocket had a short duration, solid propellant motor propelling the second stage and the WAC attained only slightly more speed and altitude than the V-2. The firing was considered successful in all details.

Other Army documentation supports this. http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/pdf/corporal/corp1.pdf states the following:

BUMPER Round 1, with a partially charged, solid propellant second stage (Dummy WAC), was successfully fired at WSPG. This was the first large, two-stage rocket to be launched in the Western Hemisphere. In flight separation was proved. The first U.S. spin rocket, first used on this first round (Dummy WAC), was developed especially for the BUMPER Program to provide aerodynamic stabilization for second-stage WAC after separation from V-2. This spin rocket demonstrated its own success during those firings which were themselves successful.

This is the same process followed by later multi-stage launch programs (eg. Viking, Vanguard, Mercury, etc.) The first launch(es) are used to validate the primary booster using no, dummy, or instrumented upper stages. Troymc (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct naming of rockets?
Just noticed that today's APOD refers to the first launch at Cape Canaveral being called Bumper 2. In this article it is called Bumper 8. But, the APOD article also refers to "Bumper 2 rockets", perhaps just confusion on the APOD editor's part? Fastsince85 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture
The bottom picture is described as the launch of Bumper 2, but on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 3 the same picture is described as the launch of Bumper 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BC6:13F0:2CD7:EFC:9B9:F6DF (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

While I've previously believed the aforementioned picture to be Bumper 2, I'm no longer as sure, as a compilation of ABMA work with Bumper 8 clearly shows the hut https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcCfcKhXv4w, I'm thus not as certain as the previous poster appears. Sundhaug92 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RTV-G-4 Bumper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107190509/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/rocket-history.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/rocket-history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The truth about Bumper 8 and 7
The fact that Bumper 8 and 7 failed to achieve their intended results was, and is, not reported in the popular press. NASA, which did not exist at the time, does not usually report what was not popularly reported at the time about programs it had nothing to do with. Digging up the truth is much harder than repeating the press release. Security of all missile research at the time was very strict which resulted in much misreporting in the press. In the case of Bumper the fact that the program itself was open did not change the security of information concerning portions which were classified. Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)