This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

- The text "On 24 March 2020, officials said the vehicle was designed to carry a crew of six. Its takeoff weight would be 21.6 tonnes, and it would be 8.8 metres (29 ft) long." refers to a completely different spacecraft. That was a capsule (rather than a spaceplane) type spacecraft and it was launched on a LM-5 (not LM-2) series rocket. It does not belong in this article at all. See the linked source for details.

- The text "For launching the reusable experimental spacecraft, the Long March 2F/G needs to add four 3,600 m² (39,000 sq ft) cusps on its fairing to accommodate the payload" seems to have improperly formatted numbers. The fairing can't have features with thousands of square meters in size. The entire fairing, being only 4.2 m wide, is orders of magnetude smaller than that. If anything, the cusps might be 3.6 m² but certainly not 3600 m². 92.208.119.174 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can we say about this ? Mass (limited by launch on LM 2F), dimensions (length ? wing span ?), wheels ?, thermal protection system ? Is it a copy of Boeing X37B, or how does it differ ? Any images at all ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current translation is wrong. Chinese: 试验; pinyin: shìyàn means 'test', where as Chinese: 实验; pinyin: shíyàn means 'experimental'. Besides 'Chinese' is also unnecessary in the name, so I suggest rename it as Reusable test spacecraft, similar to next-generation crewed spacecraft test vehicle (Chinese: 新一代载人飞船试验船). Fuyo21 (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with other translations of the name found in various sources. I am planning to merge this page with Shenlong (spacecraft), and I will note the more accurate naming translation there. 4thGalilean (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is redundant with Shenlong (spacecraft), albeit with updated mission information. If there are no objections, in the next few days I plan to be bold and merge the two, likely under the Shenlong (spacecraft) title as it is more clear and easily-searched, and uses the spacecraft’s official Chinese name instead of a direct translation of its full designation. 4thGalilean (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callisto. Regarding your suggestion to merge this page with the Shenlong Wiki, I have no general objections. I do note however, that when the space plane was first launched in 2020, the official Chinese news agency simply referred to it as the 'reusable experimental spacecraft' (Ke Chongfu Shiyong ... etc.) so it is a bit unclear if the craft that's currently in orbit is directly or indirectly the product of the Shenlong program; also the Shenlong Wiki seems to contain a lot of old info that may not be current or relevant. So perhaps it'd be better if the Shenlong (spacecraft) wiki should be merged into the current Chinese reusable experimental spacecraft Wiki (with its own section) and by including some cautionary language re the relationship between the Shenloong prgram and the current spacecraft. (Also note that the German Gunter's Space Page identifies the spacecraft using its name in pinyin.) Let the redirect pages created after the merge/move to take care of any search problems. You also may want to consider dropping Chinese from the current Wiki name per a prior suggestion in the current Talk page.

Cheers, and happy new year! Spotty's Friend (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick examination of available sources, I'm inclined to believe that you're right - it appears the "Shenlong" name has largely been applied by Western sources without any official Chinese sources using the name for the vehicle/program, at least within recent years. A "Shenlong program" section within the larger article makes sense.

Regarding the name (ignoring some inconsistencies such as Chinese crewed lunar lander) English Wikipedia tends towards not putting "Chinese" in article names for Chinese spacecraft, so I agree, the eventual final page should drop "Chinese" from the title.

As an aside, an above comment in the Talk page, as well as a number of English-language sources, translate the name as "Reusable test spacecraft", while others translate it as "Reusable experimental spacecraft"; I cannot read Chinese and therefore cannot weigh in on this issue myself. Given how commonly both seem to be used in English discussion of the spacecraft, it doesn't seem to be a detriment to name the article one way or another, the translation should just be accurate to what's listed on the page itself. The alternate translation, whichever ends up not used, can always end up as a redirect.

Thank you for your input, and a very happy new year to you too! 4thGalilean (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]