
[[Image:Phoenix pose.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Picture from first free flight in Vidsel, May 8 2004]] Phoenix is the prototype of Hopper (spacecraft), a proposed unmanned European reusable launch vehicle. (Phoenix (mythology) was, besides Penelope and Ariadne, originally suggested for the name of Ariane). Hopper, for which Phoenix is a prototype, is designed to be more economical than today's space vehicles and even reliable for manned space operations. In the first few decades of the 21st century, it will be the first independent manned European non-military attempt at space operations and will be an important part of the International Space Station project. (Compare Vostok 1.) It is anticipated that the production craft will enter use between 2015 and 2020. Hopper is to be launched on a 4 km magnetic track which will accelerate it to launch speed, providing far cheaper access to space than the current Ariane 5 launcher. (Ariane 5 was built to be the booster for the European shuttle Hermes (shuttle).) Phoenix is part of the Germany national program ASTRA, a €40 million project founded by the German Federal Government, EADS SPACE Transportation and the Bremen (state) with one third each. Both EADS and the State of Bremen have already invested another €8.2 million respective €4.3 million out of own funds. Another contribution of 16 million euros comes from partner companies such as the Bremen-based OHB-System, German Aerospace Center and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. EADS is responsible for the project management and for the entire software equipment of the system. Other partner companies are also involved in the development. The Phoenix RLV prototype is 6.9 meters long (23 ft), has a weight of 1,200 kilograms (2,640 lb), and a wingspan of 3.9 meters (13 ft). The prototype, at one sixth the size of the planned vehicle, is still in the alpha stage of development at Bremen labs of EADS. On Saturday 8 May 2004 the prototype was dropped from 2.4 kilometers (8,000 ft) by a helicopter and landed precisely and without incident after a GPS-guided 90 second glide. The test was conducted at the North European Aerospace Test range in Kiruna, 1,240 km (770 miles) north of Stockholm, Sweden. Future tests will involve drops from higher altitude, possibly from a balloon. The primary aim of the test was to assess the glider potential of the craft. The final version of the vehicle must be able to glide from an altitude of 129 kilometers (80 miles). International experimental aircraft 2000-2009 Spaceplanes
I am sorry to say that this article is quite out of touch with the realities of the space business. Phoenix is a nice and successful descent and landing demonstrator, but it is very far from a RLV precursor. Furthermore, the Hopper concept is quite dead now in Europe, and it very unlikely that Europe will commit euros to the development of a RLV anytime soon, even during next decade, especially since it is extremely difficult to compete with the Russian launcher prices (Proton, Soyus). What is more likely is that the next European launcher from 2010 to far later is Soyus launched from French Guiana, and that Ariane 5 will be quietly retired from service around 2009. == Future ESA launchers == From what I understand about current policy, you are quite wrong. The EU Commission decided it is important for the EU to retain native launch capability, see the Green Paper, and Soyuz would not allow that. This sums up what I know about future ESA launchers (from several public papers): Ariane 5 will not last forever. By the 2010s the design will be around 20 years old, so it will need a replacement. Ariane 5 also had the problem of having a bad size. Too big for a single regular satellite, too small for having two regular satellites. The Ariane 4 launch category was much missed. Soyuz will fill the void Ariane 4 left. Ariane 5 will get bigger to cope (Ariane 5 ECA, etc). The Germans pushed a program called FESTIP in the 90s to investigate which new launcher architecture was most suitable for replacing Ariane 5. The results claimed that to obtain substancial launch cost reductions would require the use of advanced RLVs. Things like SSTO VTVL were dismissed allegedly because EU engine technology wasn't good enough, SSTO VTHL was dismissed because it was considered too risky to be possible, Shuttle like designs were dismissed because the non-reusable bits added to the cost and complexity of the vehicle to be economic. Two vehicle types were pushed as favourites: TSTO VTHL (like the early Shuttle proposals) and something which was basically Hopper. Basically a quasi SSTO HTHL vehicle which uses rail launch boost and a special kick stage to put the satellite into orbit. Now the French will have none of that without having their own funded study first (they and the Germans will be putting most of the money into it I bet). They think it will be impossible to have a new RLV launcher without new engines, so the focus will be on the new engines first, as was done for Ariane 5. Two RLV engines are being planned for an Ariane 4 payload class reusable launch vehicle: LOX/Methane Volga and LOX/LH2 Veda. The engines are being jointly designed with the Russians since they have more experience with high performance reusable hydrocarbon burning staged combustion designs of the type desired (experience they got from designing the Energia engines). These new engines may be used for a TSTO VTHL (both engines), a reusable first stage vehicle with expendable second stage (Volga), or basically Hopper (Veda). To better decide on which of the RLV designs are viable, testbeds for reentry, GNC, etc will be made. DLR pushed their Phoenix (which is shaped like a scaled down Hopper) as a demonstrator for automated horizontal landing GNC. The dark horse in the race is a new expendable based on Ariane 5 and some new, cheaper to manufacture, Vulcain 3 engine. What I think will likely happen: The TSTO will be dismissed as too expensive or risky. Something else will win. I doubt it will be Hopper. I all depends on how the engine development goes on. Volga is probably the riskier engine, but it also has the highest possible payoff, so I think they will try to push that engine through thick and thin. By 2020 we should know. Google this presentation for more info (it should be someplace in the EADS site): ''Future Propulsion Systems – The Key to Reach the Stars''
''Technologies for Next Generation Launcher Propulsion Systems''
''by Dieter Preclik'' User:Quasarstrider 01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the nice info ;-) --User:Bricktop 12:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC) == First manned flight? == ''it will be the first manned European attempt at space operations'' Vostok 1? User:Yggdræsil for a given value of Europe... is there any information on propulsion yet, or is that still up in the air (pun not intended) -- sourcejedi (unregistered user) Phoenix is more of a concept demonstrator vehicle than a prototype for Hopper. Like the DC-X was a demonstrator for DC-Y. From what I understand they are using this vehicle to develop the navigation and control systems. Read this: [http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1196314_1_A,00.html] -- anonymous@home == Launching == An article in Interavia Business & Technology claims that the Hopper is solely intended for unmanned launches and that the idea is to launch the Hopper on a 4 km magnetic track. Can anyone actually find any sources that claim the Hopper could be launched on the Ariane 5? == German spelling? == From the Page History: "A German project should use German spelling." I don't think that because it is a German project we should use German spelling. After all, the article is in English as far as I can see. In this case, should we then use nationalised versions of the SI units in all cases? I can't see why, but I would very much like to know the reason behind it. User:Maver1ck 09:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :It was an act of courtesy on my part. :User:Darrien 16:01, 2004 May 22 (UTC) ::Sorry, I can't see why that would be a reason to change the spelling of SI units to the German conventions, when the article is in English. I do believe that this is strange to say the least. What do they do over at the German Wikipedia in articles about American or British projects? Do they change spelling of the SI units to English conventions? Hopefully not. Should they? Hardly. I'm amazed that an English article shouldn't be in English. ::User:Maver1ck 17:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :::This issue is dealt with in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate various] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates,_numbers,_measurements wiki] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling references]. They are "only" guidelines, but I think should be adhered to. If the article is scientific, SI should be used. To me this article at least aspires to being scientific, so should be SI. The issue of the German-ness of the article is neither here nor there, except to describe things like official names, where the language the organisation uses to describe itself prevails. User:Magicmike 23 May 2004. :::Maverick, this user has been very active in going through Wikipedia and removing British spellings from many articles. See their contributions history.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with EADS_Phoenix:
EADS_Phoenix
EADS_Phoenix
EADS Phoenix
[[Image:Phoenix pose.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Picture from first free flight in Vidsel, May 8 2004]] Phoenix is the prototype of Hopper (spacecraft), a proposed unmanned European reusable launch vehicle. (Phoenix (mythology) was, besides Penelope and Ariadne, originally suggested for the name of Ariane). Hopper, for which Phoenix is a prototype, is designed to be more economical than today's space vehicles and even reliable for manned space operations. In the first few decades of the 21st century, it will be the first independent manned European non-military attempt at space operations and will be an important part of the International Space Station project. (Compare Vostok 1.) It is anticipated that the production craft will enter use between 2015 and 2020. Hopper is to be launched on a 4 km magnetic track which will accelerate it to launch speed, providing far cheaper access to space than the current Ariane 5 launcher. (Ariane 5 was built to be the booster for the European shuttle Hermes (shuttle).) Phoenix is part of the Germany national program ASTRA, a €40 million project founded by the German Federal Government, EADS SPACE Transportation and the Bremen (state) with one third each. Both EADS and the State of Bremen have already invested another €8.2 million respective €4.3 million out of own funds. Another contribution of 16 million euros comes from partner companies such as the Bremen-based OHB-System, German Aerospace Center and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. EADS is responsible for the project management and for the entire software equipment of the system. Other partner companies are also involved in the development. The Phoenix RLV prototype is 6.9 meters long (23 ft), has a weight of 1,200 kilograms (2,640 lb), and a wingspan of 3.9 meters (13 ft). The prototype, at one sixth the size of the planned vehicle, is still in the alpha stage of development at Bremen labs of EADS. On Saturday 8 May 2004 the prototype was dropped from 2.4 kilometers (8,000 ft) by a helicopter and landed precisely and without incident after a GPS-guided 90 second glide. The test was conducted at the North European Aerospace Test range in Kiruna, 1,240 km (770 miles) north of Stockholm, Sweden. Future tests will involve drops from higher altitude, possibly from a balloon. The primary aim of the test was to assess the glider potential of the craft. The final version of the vehicle must be able to glide from an altitude of 129 kilometers (80 miles). International experimental aircraft 2000-2009 Spaceplanes
EADS Phoenix
I am sorry to say that this article is quite out of touch with the realities of the space business. Phoenix is a nice and successful descent and landing demonstrator, but it is very far from a RLV precursor. Furthermore, the Hopper concept is quite dead now in Europe, and it very unlikely that Europe will commit euros to the development of a RLV anytime soon, even during next decade, especially since it is extremely difficult to compete with the Russian launcher prices (Proton, Soyus). What is more likely is that the next European launcher from 2010 to far later is Soyus launched from French Guiana, and that Ariane 5 will be quietly retired from service around 2009. == Future ESA launchers == From what I understand about current policy, you are quite wrong. The EU Commission decided it is important for the EU to retain native launch capability, see the Green Paper, and Soyuz would not allow that. This sums up what I know about future ESA launchers (from several public papers): Ariane 5 will not last forever. By the 2010s the design will be around 20 years old, so it will need a replacement. Ariane 5 also had the problem of having a bad size. Too big for a single regular satellite, too small for having two regular satellites. The Ariane 4 launch category was much missed. Soyuz will fill the void Ariane 4 left. Ariane 5 will get bigger to cope (Ariane 5 ECA, etc). The Germans pushed a program called FESTIP in the 90s to investigate which new launcher architecture was most suitable for replacing Ariane 5. The results claimed that to obtain substancial launch cost reductions would require the use of advanced RLVs. Things like SSTO VTVL were dismissed allegedly because EU engine technology wasn't good enough, SSTO VTHL was dismissed because it was considered too risky to be possible, Shuttle like designs were dismissed because the non-reusable bits added to the cost and complexity of the vehicle to be economic. Two vehicle types were pushed as favourites: TSTO VTHL (like the early Shuttle proposals) and something which was basically Hopper. Basically a quasi SSTO HTHL vehicle which uses rail launch boost and a special kick stage to put the satellite into orbit. Now the French will have none of that without having their own funded study first (they and the Germans will be putting most of the money into it I bet). They think it will be impossible to have a new RLV launcher without new engines, so the focus will be on the new engines first, as was done for Ariane 5. Two RLV engines are being planned for an Ariane 4 payload class reusable launch vehicle: LOX/Methane Volga and LOX/LH2 Veda. The engines are being jointly designed with the Russians since they have more experience with high performance reusable hydrocarbon burning staged combustion designs of the type desired (experience they got from designing the Energia engines). These new engines may be used for a TSTO VTHL (both engines), a reusable first stage vehicle with expendable second stage (Volga), or basically Hopper (Veda). To better decide on which of the RLV designs are viable, testbeds for reentry, GNC, etc will be made. DLR pushed their Phoenix (which is shaped like a scaled down Hopper) as a demonstrator for automated horizontal landing GNC. The dark horse in the race is a new expendable based on Ariane 5 and some new, cheaper to manufacture, Vulcain 3 engine. What I think will likely happen: The TSTO will be dismissed as too expensive or risky. Something else will win. I doubt it will be Hopper. I all depends on how the engine development goes on. Volga is probably the riskier engine, but it also has the highest possible payoff, so I think they will try to push that engine through thick and thin. By 2020 we should know. Google this presentation for more info (it should be someplace in the EADS site): ''Future Propulsion Systems – The Key to Reach the Stars''
''Technologies for Next Generation Launcher Propulsion Systems''
''by Dieter Preclik'' User:Quasarstrider 01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for the nice info ;-) --User:Bricktop 12:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC) == First manned flight? == ''it will be the first manned European attempt at space operations'' Vostok 1? User:Yggdræsil for a given value of Europe... is there any information on propulsion yet, or is that still up in the air (pun not intended) -- sourcejedi (unregistered user) Phoenix is more of a concept demonstrator vehicle than a prototype for Hopper. Like the DC-X was a demonstrator for DC-Y. From what I understand they are using this vehicle to develop the navigation and control systems. Read this: [http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1196314_1_A,00.html] -- anonymous@home == Launching == An article in Interavia Business & Technology claims that the Hopper is solely intended for unmanned launches and that the idea is to launch the Hopper on a 4 km magnetic track. Can anyone actually find any sources that claim the Hopper could be launched on the Ariane 5? == German spelling? == From the Page History: "A German project should use German spelling." I don't think that because it is a German project we should use German spelling. After all, the article is in English as far as I can see. In this case, should we then use nationalised versions of the SI units in all cases? I can't see why, but I would very much like to know the reason behind it. User:Maver1ck 09:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :It was an act of courtesy on my part. :User:Darrien 16:01, 2004 May 22 (UTC) ::Sorry, I can't see why that would be a reason to change the spelling of SI units to the German conventions, when the article is in English. I do believe that this is strange to say the least. What do they do over at the German Wikipedia in articles about American or British projects? Do they change spelling of the SI units to English conventions? Hopefully not. Should they? Hardly. I'm amazed that an English article shouldn't be in English. ::User:Maver1ck 17:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :::This issue is dealt with in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate various] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates,_numbers,_measurements wiki] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling references]. They are "only" guidelines, but I think should be adhered to. If the article is scientific, SI should be used. To me this article at least aspires to being scientific, so should be SI. The issue of the German-ness of the article is neither here nor there, except to describe things like official names, where the language the organisation uses to describe itself prevails. User:Magicmike 23 May 2004. :::Maverick, this user has been very active in going through Wikipedia and removing British spellings from many articles. See their contributions history.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
E
EA | EB | EC | ED | EF | EG | EH | EI | EJ | EK | EL | EM | EN | EO | EP | ER | ES | ET | EU | EW | EX | EY | EZ |Words begining with EADS_Phoenix:
EADS_Phoenix
EADS_Phoenix
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
Untitled Document
| Linki sponsorowane | Tani hosting | Pozycjonowanie |
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
