Jump to content

Talk:Long March (rocket family)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caption

[edit]

the photo in the article goes without a description. can anybody add one to it? Roswell Crash Survivor 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)I'm so new to Wiki I couldn't even get a caption right.[reply]

Dates

[edit]

I'm editing the Freja (satellite) article, and this article claims that it was launched on October 5. However it was lunched on October 6 UTC (see that article and references). I'm not sure what timezone the other dates are in this article. Should we change? Kricke 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the web in Chinese, some sources (11 results) claim it was October 5, while others (223 results) claim October 6. Yao Ziyuan 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More web searches reveal the launch time might be 14:20 Beijing time on October 6, I'm not sure if the time was Daylight saving, it could be 06:20 UTC (no daylight saving) or 05:20 UTC (daylight saving), can't be 07:20 as claimed by the article Freja (satellite). Yao Ziyuan 12:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a daylight saving time, the launch time was 06:20 UTC on October 6. Yao Ziyuan 12:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got 07:20 UTC from the NSSDC Master Catlalog. Kricke 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mailed NSSDC, and they've corrected the problem. Yao Ziyuan 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
God job! I found more errors in the MSSDC master catalog, but I never got a reply when I e-mailed them. See launch date for the Hubble Space Telescope and its launch vehicle STS 31. One would imagine they should have the same launch date? :) E-mail them if you want to, I won't do it again. If you do, you can confirm that they NSSDC are the maintainers of the International Designator Catalog and not COSPAR. Se discussion on Talk:International_Designator. Kricke 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications table

[edit]

Good work adding the specs table showing details for for each version. It would be even better if it included columns like "Date of first launch", "Date of most recent launch", "Number of launches" and "Active/inactive".

[edit]

The internal links in the table all just direct straight back to the main Long March page.

Is there any point in keeping them? Lethe naiad (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long March 5

[edit]

I am concerned about the Long March 5 entry in the table of variants. Firstly, an anonymous user keeps changing it to "Long March 6", without providing any evidence. If anybody corrects his edit, then he changes it back and accuses them of vandalism. Secondly, some of the sources provided for this entry seem irrelevant, particularly this, which I cannot read, but it appears to be a book cover, and I find it unlikely that it could provide much information on the status of the programme. This source appears to contain some information on a Chinese programme, but it is unclear if it is CZ-5. The main text of that article contains little or no useful information. Finally, this source appears to be completely irrelevant. Please can we try to address these issues. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those items have anything to do with LM-5 and the change to 6 confuses me. The second photo is of a small rocket, certainly not LM-5. The only thing I can think is that this individual is trying to imply that there is another rocket on the roster which has not been included in official chinese lists. Though I suppose there's a potential coverup issue or something of that order, this isn't an appropriate way of expressing that, especially since it isn't at all effective. Even if there was another rocket, it is unlikely China would simplye redesignate 5 as 6 and drop this one in the middle. My guess is the second link (Which doesn't have the Hanzi for 5 or 6 though with only rudimentary knowledge of Hanzi I don't know much else), is a picture of another one of the chinese rockets we are already aware of. The editor in question should be reported if he continues. aremisasling (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further looking there does appear to be a hanzi for LM-6 in the third source. It has the same initial characters as the writing in the article with the hanzi for 6 after it. (长征六) I can't verify that the article containing it says anything about Long March 5 being reclassified as Long March 6. I can say it seems rather unlikely that a reclassification would go unnoticed in the international space community. If it has, I'm sure there is an article out there somewhere. aremisasling (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of google news turns up absolutely nothing on Long March 6 at any point. This article [1] mentions long march 6 as their moon rocket, but doesn't cut out long march 5. Either way, long march 5 is a real rocket that is all over the place in the news as long march 5. Long march 6 is a proposed rocket that, if it ever gets built which it probably will, would follow LM-5. The edits make no sense and the accusations are rather obnoxious. If the editor has info on LM6, it would be useful to add it to the article. Reclassifying LM-5 as LM-6 is, however, unjustified. aremisasling (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is clear that LM6 and LM7 are in development,according to Chinadaily, link: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-03/05/content_9540258.htm 20:00,19 January 2011

missing articles

[edit]

70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism?

[edit]

I don't get recentism out of the launch history at all. In fact, most of the section deals with demonstrated and claimed results of launches that happned over a decade ago and are well understood historically. The second paragraph could be fixed or removed on recentism, I guess, but I think it takes just removing 'flawless' claims to remedy it, not a complete scrapping of the section. aremisasling (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no one seems to object, I'm removing the recentism tag. aremisasling (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelsat 708 death toll figures not verifiable

[edit]

The Intelsat 708 accident where the Long March 3 missile landed on a rural village killed a large number of civilians was bad enough without people resorting to excessive levels of speculation. People died. This much we know and this is all.

That the Chinese officials changed their figures shortly after an Israeli tape was released does not prove that there was any intention to deceive. For example, shortly after the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia the death toll rose exponentially as the days went by and was expected to be around 300 but weeks later was confirmed at 173. As time goes on more information becomes available and a more accurate assessment can be made. Any suggestion that the Chinese changed their figures because of an Israeli tape is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument and not logical regardless of what Chinese intentions may have been. Furthermore, we have no idea whether this is the final figure or not.

To then include a totally unverifiable figure of "upwards of 500 killed" citing the Washington Post article - which makes no mention of that figure - is nothing more than hype. Even the Washington Post article does not say this. Plucking arbitrary figures out of the air like that is not appropriate. A quick check of Google Maps at 102.0371E, 28.233N and satellite view shows that the area is sparsely populated and the local concentrations are quite small so that the figure of 200 would probably be the upper limit.Flanker235 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Flanker235 (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanker235 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 November 2009[reply]

Changed "crashed in a city" to crashed into a village. There are no cities within 34 second's flight time of the Xichang Satellite Launch Center. Paste this satellite view into Google Maps and see for yourself: 102.0371E, 28.233N Flanker235 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long March 9

[edit]

This seems to be a vague, long-term proposal. I don't believe it is notable at this time, and it should be merged into this article until if and when its design is finalised and it is under development. --W. D. Graham 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more information regarding the Long March 9. At 11 million lbs of thrust it's a very exciting concept. An analyst described it as a "Super Saturn V rocket." Information could be included now or very soon as new information develops. http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881 98.203.242.147 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Nydoc[reply]
Now I wonder what to do with the Long March 11, an all-solid Minotaur I-class launcher that is definitely in active development, but with so little information out on the public side that I'm afraid not much can be said as of right now....... (see here for details)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info

[edit]

http://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-14/DVD/full/IAC-14/D2/1/manuscripts/IAC-14,D2,1,11,x20929.pdf --Craigboy (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long March 10

[edit]

Is there no Long March 10? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.243.248 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New timeline created

[edit]

Hello, I just created timeline for LM rocket, you can use it if you want:

--Lukazuko (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thanks Lukazuko! I would suggest two improvements:
  1. Group rockets by family, each with a different color
  2. Make a template with the <timeline> markup instead of a bitmap image, see for example Template:Timeline of Space Shuttle orbiters
In the meantime I'll add your image to the page. — JFG talk 18:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:Ariane evolution graphical timeline, closer to what we need here.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Long March (rocket family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Long March (rocket family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Long March (rocket family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Launch statistics

[edit]

I've counted the data from GCAT orbital launch log - JSR Launch Logs - Jonathan C. McDowell - Launch Log and I got these

  • 2021 - 49
  • 2020 - 34
  • 2019 - 26
  • 2018 - 37
  • 2017 - 16
  • 2016 - 22
  • 2015 - 19
  • 2014 - 15
  • 2013 - 14
  • 2012 - 19
  • 2011 - 19
  • 2010 - 15
  • 2009 - 6
  • 2008 - 11
  • 2007 - 10
  • 2006 - 6
  • 2005 - 5
  • 2004 - 8
  • 2003 - 6
  • 2002 - 4
  • 2001 - 1
  • 2000 - 5
  • 1999 - 4
  • 1998 - 6
  • 1997 - 6
  • 1996 - 4
  • 1995 - 3
  • 1994 - 5
  • 1993 - 1
  • 1992 - 4
  • 1991 - 1
  • 1990 - 5
  • 1988 - 4
  • 1987 - 2
  • 1986 - 2
  • 1985 - 1
  • 1984 - 3
  • 1983 - 1
  • 1982 - 1
  • 1978 - 1
  • 1976 - 1
  • 1975 - 1
  • 1974 - 1
  • 1971 - 1
  • 1970 - 1

Total: 795 launches. I posted the script here - User talk:Barecode/Space Statistics#Voskhod - Replace "Voskhod" with "Chang Zheng". Barecode (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long_March_(rocket_family)&oldid=1208571021"