Talk:Unmanned space mission

Is there a Russian equivalent? Have the Europeans conducted much space exploration?

The solar system probes launched my ESA need to be included. (Can be found in ESA home page, under "space exploration"

What about the Japanese?

Well, the Khrunichev Company has launched a few.

There are also some European-Russian partnerships that have launched:
- Starsem between France and Russia
- Eurockot between Astrium of Germany and Russia

These tend to be Earth observation missions, although I saw one from Canada was for science and observations of planets and stars.

A good reference source is Jonathan's History of Spaceflight at http://planet4589.org/space/book/index.html Wikibob 00:42, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Discuss gender wording

I'm tweaking the gender statement slightly to make it more logical.

The term "manned" and "unmanned" does not refer to gender. That is not unique to Wictionary but other dictionaries such as Miriam Webster also show this.

We select wording based on meaning, and the meaning is defined by the dictionaries for that language. The meaning is not defined by the misunderstanding of the word by some people.

While "unmanned" is used 99.8% of the time vs "uncrewed" (see Google), it's fine to use the words "crewed", etc. However if describing why those terms are used, it's misleading to state that "unmanned" is not intended as gender specific". Rather, it's NOT gender specific. Joema 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point isn't that the dictionary definition is wrong, but that some people think that the word for that meaning should be changed because the word itself is gender specific even if its usual meaning is not. (However, this has nothing to do with spaceflight and is not very interesting, so I'll stop there and leave things as they are!) The Singing Badger 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your feedback. I realize there are various movements to use different words. For example there's a movement to use "womyn" not "woman" to avoid the initials "man". However the dictionary defines "woman" as a female.

As encyclopedia writers our primary influence should be the dictionary definition, not the changing vageries of what various people believe about the word.Joema 22:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the animal sentence. While my edit summary said it was incorrect, it was technically correct. However it doesn't seem sufficiently relevant. The article is already too definitional in nature and (maybe because of that) not sufficiently informative of the topic. Joema 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I revised some recent additions to reduce wordiness and verbiage devoted to gender issues. For clarity in reference works it's vital to reduce wordiness and avoid passive voice. See Elements of Style, and Omit needless words. Regarding gender verbiage, the article is about unmanned space mission, not about the various gender wording controversies. Any such wording should be a tiny minority of the article, not outweigh the article itself in either prominence or amount. Any questions on this, please discuss here. Joema 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joema for doing that. I was needlessly wordy because I am a clueless noob. I saw your message on the

other page, and I'm going to send you an email. Rob 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it. Use the linguistic hegemony that perpetuates sexist language to prove the hegemony is neutral. That's specious logic if I've ever heard it. Language, like this knowledge project, changes to suit the values of the people who use it. Even The Chicago Mannual of Style, (I'll cite later,) mentions that as writers, we should avoid sexist language. The manual also states, in the same breath, that we should avoid awkward constructions simply for appeasement. (I agree with you there.) "Unpersonned", for example, would be a total abomination. Finally, CMS states that talented authors will find ways to avoid words with a sexist etymology and replace them with creative and meaningful substitutions. In the case of this article, I think the word "crewless" is apropos. I think it's a far better word, regardless of our political impetus for using it. "Un-" prefix words sound rather, heh, unsophisticated. Methylsoy 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the statement again. Unmanned is not gender-neutral language, which that article defines as "language that attempts to refer neither to males nor females...".

The opening to this article could be improved. It presently gives a weak definition for its title and delves into "non-gender-specific" language -- which seems more appropriate in a behind-the-scenes discussion of why a term was or was not retained for the article.

Here is a proposal for a different opening:

   Unmanned space missions are missions into space using spacecraft without a human crew or passengers. Space missions where animals but no humans are on-board are considered unmanned missions. Space missions with a mix of human and other animal crew are considered manned space missions.

   The first unmanned space mission was Sputnik I, launched October 4, 1957 to orbit the Earth. Since then, the overwhelming majority [percentage?] of all space missions have been unmanned.

   Many space missions are more suited to unmanned rather than manned missions due to lower cost and lower risk factors...[etc. unchanged until the end of the opening]

The issue of gender-specific language in this proposal is left out altogether. The two alternative terms proposed (unpiloted or uncrewed) each have weaknesses: A mission may be manned but lack a pilot (some of the early “spam in a can” designs for the American manned space program did not provide for human pilot control). Likewise, a mission may have passengers but not a crew. Thus, the terms “unpiloted” or “uncrewed" are not accurate synonyms for “unmanned", nor are they as appropriate. The great majority of English speakers, I believe, are habituated to reading about the "manned" and "unmanned" space programs.

gwlucca 00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Uncrewed Space Mission Please

Please move the article to Uncrewed space mission please.100110100 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncrewed is not the usual term in English. Rmhermen 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger or Deletion

The Space probe article is not bad. I don't see anything in this Unmanned space mission article worth saving or merging. DonPMitchell 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uuhhh... I see it the other way round! Space probe looks pretty devoid of information and mostly is a list. Better merge it into this article, if it has anything useful. Awolf002 11:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a space probe is a particular type of unmanned space mission so it should be merged into this article. Itokawa 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't reckon you should merge them. itll make that certain article harder to find a particular artical if you are looking for a ceretain thing. SO PLEASE DONT MERGE IT!!!!!!!!!!! rda Don't merge them sum peple just want space probes 4 homwrk an stuff so they need just space probes. So i agree with rda and donpmitchell

True, Space probe is mainly an index to other articles. Nothing wrong with that. This USM article doesn't even contain that information. It is pure fluff, general uniformative statements, no research. The politically-correct digression into gender-neutrality and animal crews is gratuitous, and the term "unmanned space mission" is not even frequently used to describe probes and satellites. Move any good "See Also" links to space probe and delete this article. DonPMitchell 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don is right. USM as a term is hardly used, and most google searches seem to come up with wikipedia links and answers.com links. It's not a frequently used term, and space probe is a much more common, and less "hot" topic (if you consider the discussion above over semantics). Radagast83 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Active space probes

Active space probes is pretty much a list - seems that we can move it in here - Thoughts??

I would agree. Rmhermen 06:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Also created redirect from Active space probes to here.