Talk:Hopper (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Low

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] 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)

  • This is the page of ESA about future launchers. I don't see any mention of Hopper. Hektor 21:05, 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)

  • This is not ESA, this is EADS. And it's 30 months old. Hektor 16:18, 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)

    • 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)

[edit] 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)