Talk:Human spaceflight

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human spaceflight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	hideThis article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
showSpaceflight Top‑importance showSoviet Union Mid‑importance showRussia: Technology & engineering High‑importance showUnited States Mid‑importance showChina Low‑importance showGuild of Copy Editors

Some of the new terminology being used seems to be a polarizing and somewhat controversial topic among space enthusiasts in this day and age. I also realize this is NASA's new, preferred expression more so than that of Wikipedians who happen to frequently write about NASA and space exploration. While I can appreciate the use of "crewed" (and also sometimes "piloted") as a more gender-inclusive version of "manned," it does also sound kind of excessive in a lot of respects. Even during the latter half of the 20th century, female pilots and workers/scientists at NASA still used "Manned," whether or not they regarded it as sexist. Should manned be permanently and almost entirely replaced by crewed? Maybe not.

While I'm more than in favor of bringing in more diverse groups of people to organizations like NASA and elsewhere, I really think this (gender identity/identity politics) issue should be left alone. Also, while NASA is largely doing the right thing to appeal to more (especially marginalized) groups of people, I personally think they are making a bit too big a deal about this, especially when NASA should still be focused on endeavors like cooperation with groups such as ESA, CSA and JSA, as well as competition with the Chinese Space Program and what's left of the Russian Space Program. Wiscipidier (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiscipidier: The place to discuss this would be at WT:MOS rather than at this article's talk page, seeing as MOS:GNL currently says

References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit.

This appears to be the result of a 2019 RfC (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight), which I would suggest that you read before deciding whether to raise the issue anew. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, thanks for the tip. I’ll move it there promptly Wiscipidier (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiotic resource flows, governed by conservation laws and thermodynamic efficiencies, target 94 % system closure by mission year 5, obviating Earth resupply and enabling economic autonomy via ISRU. SillyCowgirl08 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resource flows, governed by conservation laws and thermodynamic efficiencies, target 94 % system closure by mission year 5, obviating Earth resupply and enabling economic autonomy via ISRU. SillyCowgirl08 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]