Talk:Hopper (spacecraft)

message: This article is entirely wrong. Hoppper has been dead for a long time now.(true)Hektor 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's dead. No budget. No study under way.Hektor 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Live or dead "discussion" 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Info on Phoenix: There were three (3) test flights and not only one as currently stated