Previews discussions about Human spaceflight

Discussion

Hopefully "human spaceflight" strikes a balance between
being gender-neutral and still sounding elegant enough.
Rlandmann 23:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As an article name it is fine, but the bad thing is that it don't fit into a sentence,
like e.g. Soyuz TM-2 was a humaned spaceflight, so it always needs a redirect.
andy 08:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To make it even more gender-aware, I'd like to see the "first human in space" supplemented with the first woman, and first black. We minimize the struggles they had to go through to get there if we do not mention them. I know we're being "PC" to call Yuri Gagarin the first "human" in space, but the bald fact is that he was a man and women couldn't go to space then, and we should unfortunately acknowledge that. I don't know the actual names
and dates myself, or I'd've been bold. --
zandperl 03:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First Woman, Valentina Tereshkova (Vostok 5, june 16, 1963), the four others selected for the Female Cosmonaut Corps did not fly;
the second one was also a USSR citizen, Svetlana Savitskaya (flew the Soyuz T-7 in 1982,
was part of the crew of Salyut 7 in 1984, where she became the first woman in EVA)
--
How about "inhabited spacecraft" for those that contain people, and "uninhabited spacecraft" for those that don't? This looks forward to the (distant?) future when today's puny space station might be replaced by sizable permanent residences in space.
--
I changed the list of countries that has performed spacetravel to: soviet, usa, instead of usa, soviet, of the following reasons:

The order should be either historical or alphabetical - in both cases soviet comes before usa. The old ordering (usa, soviet, etc) is biased IMO.

sorry, but "human spaceflight" is an absolute nonsense term. The flight isn't human, the passengers are. The term is "manned spaceflight", and no, that's already gender-neutral, see mannaz. what's wrong with you people? go find some actual discrimination instead of butchering the English language.
213.3.64.145 18:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may be equally rude for a moment, go find something productive to do rather than butchering the article on some anti-PC crusade. The English language is an living, evolving language. Deal with it. --
Robert Merkel 00:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The world used in aerospace industry is human spaceflight, so title of the article seems ok for me.
Hektor 18:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved discussion of the term

If you look up the article Human spaceflight, it seems likely that you are more interested in the concept of human spaceflight and its history than the term itself. I have thus moved the discussion of the term to the end of the article.
Bergsten 14:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Confused Sentence.

"The only destination of human spaceflight missions beyond Earth orbit has been the Moon, which is itself in Earth orbit." It's the only place humans have gone outside our orbit but it's in our oribt. Yes that makes a ton of sense.
Zazaban 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point, which the article wording now finesses. It isn't fully correct to say the spaceflights to the Moon went beyond Earth orbit, because the spacecraft hadn't left the Earth's Hill sphere. But the Moon missions did enter the Hill sphere of -- and take up orbit around -- the Moon. From an orbital mechanics perspecitve, the question of leaving Earth orbit is one of escape velocity. If you can work this into the Human spaceflight article, great!
Sdsds 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

source: wikipedia