Talk:Chang'e 5

Untitled

Started a section on Chang'e 5-T1, it will merit it's own article once more reliable info is available. It will launch soon and it is an important mission. 4throck (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Before or after Chang'e 4?

Chang'e 4 will be before 2020 according to http://www.space.com/28809-china-rocket-family-moon-plans.html Will Chang'e 5 be after that or is it still expected circa 2017? crandles (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Still circa 2017 as recently as Aug 2014 so it is probably Chang'e 4 that is delayed to after Chang'e 5. crandles (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

From CNN (May 21, 2015): Quote: "Since Chang'e-3 successfully completed its mission, we have had more time to explore a more comprehensive mission for Chang'e-4," he said."That's why it's possible for Chang'e-5 to launch to the moon before Chang'e-4." - BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 5386897742-JwCDRjkmU.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of the verb "return"

The transitive verb "return" means to bring BACK to a place of previous location. This is not what happens with lunar samples or pieces of asteroids. They have never been on earth before. In this article & others, the use of this word in reference to the samples is a mistaken choice of astronomical proportions. To "return to the earth with samples" would be a more lexicosemantically correct way of presenting the facts. Denicho (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject which is way above my pay grade but isn't the currently accepted theory for the moon’s formation that most of its material came from the earth? I think for pieces go astroids your argument is solid, I’m just not sure lunar material isn't an exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Propaganda Coup" Not NPOV

This sentence about Soviet mission: "It crashed during its landing attempt, hence losing the opportunity for a "propaganda coup" is heidious since you never heard the same about US missions. In US missions, its about scientific and discovery/knowledge, but if it comes to other countries, somehow it's "For Show" or "Photo-Ops" and "Propaganda". Please consider deleting this "Propaganda Coup" part because it's not NPOVRwat128 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The neutral point of view standard applies to the article itself, not to direct quotes from a referenced source. In this case, "propaganda coup" is a direct quote from the source (Bob McDonald, a CBC science journalist.) Quoting a non-neutral opinion from a referenced isn't a NPOV issue, as long as the statement is relevant. Since this section of the article is about "international reactions", I think stating what science journalists wrote is relevant. If you think additional quotes from others, about the scientific value of the mission, would make this section more balanced, then I'd probably agree. Feel free to add them. Fcrary (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that talking about "propangada coup" is WP:NPOV and also cherry picking from the article. Is there any objection to remove? I think the first phrase about Luna 15, Luna 16, and Luna 24 should be sufficient coverage. Its about Chang'e 5, not some russian probe from over 40 years ago, which is WP:UNDUE. Albertaont (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed. Comparing Chang'e to Luna as well as talking about a new Moon race has the implication that these projects share similarities with the USSR's previous Moon race, of which one objective is propaganda. This is a view that is significant in itself whose weight is proportional to its treatment in reliable sources. Such as view is reflected in at least three RSes in this article, hence there is sufficient due weight. Normchou ^💬 01:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Currently it's unclear what of the text is McDonald's personal opinion and what is a historic fact that he repeated. I suggest removing that half sentence, because that's his opinion (which isn't that relevant to the article either), while the other parts are history. --mfb (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

but such opportunities will not be possible to all of them

anybody follow what that last phrase is trying to say? Gjxj (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The full quote from the references is:

"China plans a space station and moon base, so its kids already have a lot to look up to. Of course such opportunities will only be possible if their social credit score, measured using pervasive surveillance, marks them out as suitable for such honours."

I'm not entirely sure what that means either, or what that statement is based on. Fcrary (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fcrary: I saw your revision and it is now better. One question I have is "a misunderstanding" vs "his understanding". The former seems to indicate the editor has made a value judgment regarding the RS author's understanding, whereas the latter sounds more objective. Normchou ^💬 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That might be a better way to phrase it. I was just trying to remove what I thought was an inflammatory tone in the earlier text, without changing the content. If you or anyone else thinks the phrasing can be improved, I have no objections. Fcrary (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I went back through history and reverted the text of the reactions section to something closer to the original. There seems to be a lot of rampant censorship and rewriting of this sort going on on various articles related to the Chinese space program. I suggest everyone go back and look at the article at random points in history and compare to current and make sure nothing major has gotten deleted or censored similar to how this quote was censored. Ergzay (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of this in the article is strange. It's not about the mission and we already have articles about China's politics. We don't add political statements made by Chinese journalists in Perseverance either. --mfb (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying we should delete the reactions section? Or are you just saying negative reactions are for some reason not allowed? I'm personally fine with having no reactions at all if that's what people want, but I'm against trying to hide negative reactions simply because they're negative. Ergzay (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should remove comments that have nothing to do with the mission. Doesn't matter if positive or negative. The last paragraph of the cited article has nothing to do with Chang'e 5. Were do we end up if we include unrelated political comments from everyone in every article? --mfb (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but at the same time if the main reason a source is negative about some scientific event is for political reasons, removing all points of negativity from their opinion simply because they are political is not an accurate conveyance of the reaction of said person. A reaction to a scintific event does not have to be scientific in nature and can be political in nature. And it's well known that these missions are not primarily scientific, they are political shows for internal and external consumption to demonstrate China's ability with a side mission of science, the same as the American Apollo/Soviet Luna missions were. Ergzay (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chang'e 5 Orbiter mission patch.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More details on orbital design and management

How scientists designed the orbit of the Chang'E 5 mission (summary with diagram and ref) inc phasing moves and plane changes and a diagram of intermediate orbits and TCMs. - Rod57 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)