Talk:Long March 5

message: In the new white paper released 2006-10-12 there is some information on the engines related to long march 5:
"Important breakthroughs have been made in key technologies of the new-generation launching vehicles. Research and development of the 120-ton thrust liquid-oxygen/kerosene engine and the 50-ton thrust hydrogen-oxygen engine are proceeding smoothly." (I believe these are the engines that are going to be used)
Also one of the goals for the coming five years are: 
"To develop nontoxic, pollution-free, high-performance, low-cost and powerful thrust carrier rockets of the new generation, eventually increasing the carrying capacity of near-Earth orbiters to 25 tons, and that of geostationary orbiters to 14 tons"
So the Long March 5 project seem to progress, something to add to this article? 
The white paper can be found here: 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/12/content_5193446_2.htm
Malu5531 10:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the 2 engines are known some time ago and has been listed in astronautix.com for years. it seem likely that the liquid-oxygen/kerosene engine may use parts similiar to those use on the russian zenit and the US Atlas V rockets. so it would be interesting to see the 3 major spacefarers using samiliar technology, welcome to free market >:) Akinkhoo (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Paper

message: If this is the rocket that is supposed to put the first Chinese on the Moon, at 25t to LEO it will not succeed (compared to 130t to LEO of the Ares V). So the Chinese will have to design a much more powerful launch vehicle.--Arado 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the plan might be to use a multi-launch strategy. For instance two launches for the spacecraft that dock in LEO and then go to LLO and two launches for the lunar lander and its propulsion stage for a TLI burn. Themanwithoutapast 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is enough since the moon mission is NOT a manned mission. the US media has been misleading the public to help NASA secure funding for a space race that doesn't exist. just for comparison, Russian claims it is possible with 2 launches to send a manned capsule around the moon, but it means no landing. china will focus on building it's own space station instead of the moon which the rocket can do. Akinkhoo 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon mission 

message: Should the  article be built yet? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CZ5 

message: May well need update. Best done as two tables like in the datasheet http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/cz5.html ? crandles (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected crandles (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications Section 

message: Refs 1 and 2 suggest 25ton to LEO and 14t to GTO dating to 2009 and 2012. Ref 9  has 23000Kg and 13000Kg but not sure if it is more recent? Has thrust as 10565KN for 5 and 5B.
:IAF-14 appears to be 2014 therefore appears more up-to-date so corrected figures per this ref. crandles (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs disagree 

message: It appears that the "Gross Mass" in the booster and first stage sections of the infobox should be "Propellant Mass" instead, based on the two reasons below. 
 1. It makes no sense for Empty Mass to be greater than Gross Mass since Gross Mass includes Empty Mass and Propellant Mass. 
 2. Even if the switch takes place, it still makes no sense since then the rocket would be hugely inefficient because of the amount of dead mass relative to propellant mass. 
Nashesvobodnoye (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up entries in the table 

message: The comparable rockets includes the Falcon Heavy and New Glenn and does not include the Falcon 9. According to whoever reverted my edit, this is because FH and NG are considered heavy-lift and F9 is not. However, the New Glenn's payload to LEO is 80% greater than the Long March 5's, and the Falcon Heavy's is 150% greater. Meanwhile, the Falcon 9 Full Thrust is merely 9% lower than the Long March 5's. I'm not going to insist that F9 FT be added, as it is technically not a heavy-lift rocket, but claiming that New Glenn and Falcon Heavy are comparable to the Long March 5 seems ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Zsenits (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Falcon 9 FT is just as much a heavy lift rocket as Long March 5. Both rockets are advertised as being able to lift the requisite 20,000 kg to LEO. Neither have yet done so. Shijian-17 is 4 metric tons. IntelSat 35e is 6.7 metric tons and went to approximately the same orbit (GTO). Arguably, Falcon 9 has demonstrated greater lift performance than Long March 5 to date. I'm sure LM5 will continue to lift heavier payloads, but today I would agree with you that LM5 is in the same category as F9FT. MatthewWilcox (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Rockets 

message: CZ-5B is two-stage rocket launch vehicle. "Boosters" are first stage, central core is second. Another side: "stage" is "booster" if he boosting the vehicle. Or "boosters" is changeable part of rocket project, so as not to rewrite the number of stage often.
You give a bad example of terminology for articles in other languages. Эрнест мл. (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of stage problem 

message: Long March 6 says one was developed from the other - or maybe LM-6 is a test for the LM-5 boosters ? Which was first ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we say how/if the boosters differ from the first stage of  the Long March 6  

message: Is it designed (eg. bigger stress margins) with intention to launch crew ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is LM5 intended to launch humans ? 

message: The cited source says, LM-5 can "launch a 14-ton payload into geostationary orbit." That's dubious, and the article currently translates it to being "to geostationary transfer orbit" which is likely closer to fact. Marking it with Template:Failed verification and pointing discussion here. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 09:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTO vs GEO payload in cited source