Talk:Long March 5

White Paper

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)

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)

• http://www.astronautix.com/engines/yf120t.htm
• http://www.astronautix.com/engines/yf50t.htm

Moon mission

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)

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)

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)

CZ5

Should the Long March 5 article be built yet? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifications Section

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)

I believe someone made a mistake. Values for GTO and LEO payloads are switched. LEO should be 23t and GTO should be 13t... --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Corrected crandles (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Refs disagree

Refs 1 and 2 suggest 25ton to LEO and 14t to GTO dating to 2009 and 2012. Ref 9 [1] 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)

Real GTO payload?

Any objective person knows most data on China is false (exaggerated) and planted by their friends in the USA. As of now China has no functional aircraft carrier and no nuclear submarines. The genuine launch capability of this series of rockets shall be close to 5 tons in GTO orbit Later the Chinese hope to upgrade this series of rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.66 (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The lift capacity of this rocket is much less than what is being planted. Most false data on China is carefully planted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual fake data on this rocket are being planted. It is crude and no way in the class of the Ariane-5 rocket. Few experts now accept data on China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.111.90 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the Long March-5 may have 4000 kilogram GTO capability as of now. After another 5 years new upgrades with higher launch capability could occur thus this is being used for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.179 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

To whomever claimed that CZ-5 has 4000kg GTO capacity:

China's original CZ-3B, an over 20-year-old rocket, had 5100kg GTO capacity. The more recent CZ-3B/E (5500kg GTO capacity) has been in service for ten years. Sorry for disappointing you --- China's newest CZ-5 has more than doubled the recent CZ-3B/E's GTO capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.25.64.154 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

All planted don China. The Shijian-18 3.46 tons failed to reach the orbit. In reality this rocket has less capability than Ariane-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.143 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Messed up entries in the table

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)

For what it is worth we have this publication putting the booster dry mass at 14.3 metric tons.  Ohsin  10:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparable Rockets

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)

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)

I've removed Falcon Heavy and New Glenn again. There's no imaginable criteria for including them. I've also added Falcon 9. "Heavy Lift" is an arbitrary term and LM5 being slightly within it and F9 being slightly without means nothing unless it was a definitive list of heavy lift rockets, which it is not. FH and NG are both super heavy and so would still not be included if it were. Torriende (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Number of stage problem

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)

Can we say how/if the boosters differ from the first stage of the Long March 6

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)

Is LM5 intended to launch humans ?

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

GTO vs GEO payload in cited source

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)