Talk:Manned Venus flyby

Why didn't this happen?
It would be nice to have some info on why this plan didn't materialize. -- 85.182.123.225 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The most obvious explanations are that it would be expensive, the Saturn V was canceled, and improvements in unmanned spacecraft made the manned mission rather redundant: an unmanned orbiter could achieve more than a manned mission could in the few hours that it was near the planet. I guess we could add a paragraph on that, but I'm not aware of any cites for specific reasons. Mark Grant 02:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to have some reasons as to why it was cancelled - even if they're seemingly obvious, as it stands it sounds almost as though the project could be reinstated. --Dandelions (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked but can't find any reasons why it wasn't pursued. But don't forget that there were a lot of ideas floating around as part of the AAP, almost none of which saw the light of day. andy (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See also the TMK-1 Soviet project.--Afterthewar 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * TMK (version TMK-MAVR).--Afterthewar 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd never heard of that before! Mark Grant 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Likely bogus
I think this article is a hoax.

1., You simply cannot have enough food and water for three people for one year onboard without resupply. The much larger ISS (Mir) like 6 months / resupply ship visit, which is not possible for an interplanetary mission.

2., One full year without gravity would inevitably weaken the bones and muscles of astronauts so much that a second cosmic speed re-entry is not survivable. Simple medical fact of life, for which we still have no solution, despite decades of Salyut, Mir and ISS experience.

3., In less than one year, they would get killed by particle radiation so close to the Sun in a thin-skinned module. They have nowhere to go in case of a solar storm.

I think this article was created as an April's fools item. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's quite genuine (if weird). Read the references. andy (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was highly optimistic, if not borderline mad, but NASA seriously considered using Apollo technology for manned missions to Venus and Mars in the 70s/80s. I've found a few more NASA documents on the subject recently and added links to some. Mark Grant (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * NASA had several different plans being worked on at the same time. One of these is the plan discussed here. The other two major plans were either for a large nuclear propelled spacecraft that would have flown by Venus and released probes on its way to an encounter with Mars or a manned spacecraft that would have gone into orbit around Venus and used drop probes and radar imaging to study the surface. The documentation linked to in the extra resources comes from all three proposals. Graham1973 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

verbal tense
It needs to be expressed in terms of "would have". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's already the case, given that it didn't actaually happen. andy (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Venus flyby
This is missing the more generalized article on Venus flyby ; as well as companion articles Manned Mars flyby, Manned Lunar flyby -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manned Venus Flyby. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928091415/http://www.developspace.net/wiki/Human_Venus_Exploration_Architecture_Studies to http://www.developspace.net/wiki/Human_Venus_Exploration_Architecture_Studies

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I don’t think this page should have been renamed as the new name is historically inaccurate. The NASA project on which is is based was men-only and was actually called “manned Venus flyby” in the contemporary documentation. Likewise women were never envisaged as crew members for the Soviet flyby. Irregardless the original name of the NASA mission must be preserved.

Andyjsmith (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And again Andyjsmith (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The article says that "Manned Venus flyby" (or maybe "manned Venus flyby" was the term used to describe the mission under consideration, but it appears this was not actually a proper name of the mission, or else all three words would be capitalized? It's a bit unclear whether this article is about only this one period of planning, or would potentially cover any proposed human Venus flyby? (I'm not sure there have been any others?) Certainly we should explain the terminology in use at the time, though it's a bit unclear to me that we should prefer it when we're speaking in Wikipedia's voice if it's not a proper noun. For example, at the time, "Negro movement" would have been more common than today when we'd prefer something like "African-American civil rights movement". Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, the proper noun distinction seems to be what the NASA style guide makes, so I think NASA would now refer to this as consideration of a crewed Venus flyby? -- Beland (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a formal move discussion, but offhand I agree with Andyjsmith. I removed the "term used" languange from the lead - we are not a dictionary and generally write articles about subjects, not terms. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur with Andyjsmith, and with VQuakr, especially on "term used". A move discussion needs/ought to be held. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the NASA Style Guide, I'm asking where the documentation is that identifies this group of plans as "...any other historical program name or official title that included “manned”"? And they don't even comment on whether missions (or plans, for that matter), are capitolized. Merely that "...ships, aircraft, or spacecraft." are. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the inclusion of the Soviet mission on this page, which seems to indicate this page is about the idea of sending humans around Venus in general. I'm curious how we know that only men were being considered for the TMK mission? The first female cosmonaut flew in 1963, which was considerably earlier than this proposal. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are their any other possible titles? To be honest, "Manned Venus flyby"/"Human Venus flyby" as a title is somewhat misleading, as it implies something that actually happened. And "Human Venus flyby" makes me think of "Human Venus flytrap", which would be some wierd "The Fly"-type incident merging a human with a Venus flytrap! Are there any common terms used in the sources? - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was originally specifically about the AAP project which had a “three-man” crew and was called a “manned Venus flyby”. At that time and for many years afterwards astronauts and cosmonauts were male - Tereshkova’s flight was a political stunt and was not repeated. There’s stuff about this at Women in space. So the article title is correct because (a) it’s the name of the project that the article is primarily about, not a descriptive term, and (b) if it had ever got off the ground it would have had men on board, not humans. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, this article is not about sending humans to Venus; it’s about a bonkers idea from the 1960s to send three men there and probably kill them en route. There’s also a nod to an even more stupid Soviet plan to send three Russian men there too. Girls not allowed. Don’t forget that at that time the two superpowers were not planning to put a human on the moon - Kennedy wanted a man. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Men vs astronauts in lede
I note back and forth editing on this. I see no good reason not to use astronauts, even if, in the unlikely event, the three would indeed have probably been men. Astronauts is valid. Details of equipment and this likelihood can be discussed in the body. And “manned” does not mean ”men only” - though ”crewed” would be a more equitable way of putting it.SeoR (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the thread just above this one? The issue has already been discussed above. It is a matter of historical accuracy. The project plans were made in 1967 and 1968 (a fact not given in the article and possibly lost from consideration). The sources, if you read them, refer to plans to send men. The Apollo spacecraft, and the orbital workshop which became Skylab, had no coed accomodations for urine disposal, or even privacy in the case of Apollo. There were no women in the astronaut corps, nor plans to include them. No one at the time thought in terms of men and women flying to Venus, no matter how "equitable" we might consider it today. There are also no WP:reliable sources calling it "crewed". JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, I did read the above - and I concluded on a thought similar to the one expressed just above - to use "astronauts" in the lede, and then in the body to explain why this would probably have been men. I think many would agree...  There are many, many elements of historical activity where only men would have been accepted (and some for women too), but that does not stop us using open language in many cases to discuss at a high level (as in a lede or summary) and then to touch on the specifics with gendered terms, but also with context.  As this will not be a unique issue, the proposal for an RfC may be the best way forward.  I was only passing, so I will leave this debate to more involved editors, with best wishes.SeoR (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources specifically call out men, but that was the common writing style at the time. Take this quote for example, Grumman fully supports the Space Shuttle System as a program designed to give our Nation the ability to safely transport significant payloads of men and material, on the first page of a Space Shuttle proposal document. Although the Space Shuttle display and controls were ...designed for two men but operable by one, women still flew on the Space Shuttle. Therefore I think in the lede it should be 'astronauts' and not 'men', per our WP:GNL. Thoughts on that ?  Kees08  (Talk)   05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kees, "our GNL" is an WP:essay, not a guideline; therefore it is to be regarded as someone's opinion and does not carry the weight of a guideline. I already said what my thoughts are; here goes another attempt to make them crystal clear. What I don't think everyone appreciates (except Andyjsmith) is that this is an historical article, about a proposal (not well thought-out) made in 1967–1968, which was soon scrapped. It is not a still-standing proposal that might be considered in today's coed astronaut industry, in which the astronaut's gender is irrelevant. In 1967–1968, it most certainly was not. Subsequent programs e.g. Space Shuttle are totally irrelevant. It is historically dishonest to say "Manned Venus Flyby was a 1967–1968 NASA proposal to send three astronauts on a flyby mission to Venus in an Apollo-derived spacecraft". It is accurate and correct to say "a 1967–1968 NASA proposal to send three men on a flyby mission". The essay also says: "Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." But the insistence on using GNL when it is inappropriate is just that, insistence on a political agenda.
 * There is no also reason for the introduction to be inconsistent with the text body; it is supposed to summarize the article text body. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and understand your arguments, I just do not agree with them. Regarding There is no also reason for the introduction to be inconsistent with the text body; it is supposed to summarize the article text body., as of right now it is inconsistent because of the current article phrasing, I assume you would want to change The proposed mission would use a Saturn V to send three astronauts to fly... to perhaps The proposed mission would use a Saturn V to send three men to fly...? I think since we both understand each other's arguments and are still disagreeing on the outcome an RfC might be appropriate to decide the wording. Would you be able to put that together?  Kees08  (Talk)   14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've placed this article under full protection due to the ongoing edit war. I suggest opening an RfC on whether the gender of the prospective astronauts belongs in the lede. – bradv  🍁  00:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is surely, for goodness sake, that the name of the project is “Manned”, which is why it’s the name of the article, and it’s misleading to pretend that crew allocation was gender neutral. Back then “astronaut” meant “male astronaut” but it doesn’t now, so use of this word in an historical context is confusing. In the same way the early Von Braun plans for Mars were “manned” but current Mars plans are “crewed” or “human”. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are two separate points to be made: the first is if the program was called 'Manned Venus Flyby' and gets an exception to the RfC similar to Manned Spaceflight Center or Manned Maneuvering Unit, and the second point is for phrases like send three men on a flyby mission and NASA considered a manned flyby of Venus. This subsection is on the second point, which was covered by the RfC and should not need to be rehashed.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Intentionally separating out this point: while I disagree that the title of this program is 'Manned Venus Flyby', I can move the article to that location (the capital F) to match the article title. Then we can keep instances of Manned Venus Flyby capitalized as such in the article (currently only the first three words of the article are written like that). The separate point is if manned/unmanned should be used throughout the article, outside of Manned Venus Flyby usage. The point of this RfC was to avoid having that discussion on every page that uses manned/unmanned, so I would like to convert manned/unmanned to crewed/uncrewed, outside of Manned Venus Flyby, in this article. Just wanted to clarify on the talk page ahead of time.  Kees08  (Talk)   14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I point to Man in Space Soonest which refers to men throughout. Not a person or a human in sight, let alone any women. I fail to see why there should be any difference here - men were being sent to do a man’s job. The woman’s job was to wait at home. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you may want to clarify whether you are just providing a provocative caricature of gender roles during this era, or if you are really trying to edit the lede of this article to make a point about gender. If it's the latter, this is rather offensive. – bradv  🍁  17:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, you got me! No, seriously, did you stop to think before making that accusation? This talk page is not the place for a discussion of irony nor of virtue signalling but we can continue elsewhere if you wish Andyjsmith (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

FTR, WP:GNL is giving suggestions on how to implement MOS:GNL, which is a guideline, not an essay. -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNL is clear, and deals specifically with this issue. "References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit." This article is about a NASA program with the gendered name "Manned Venus Flyby" and the reference to "a three-man flyby" is a direct quotation. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, the article should be moved to Manned Venus Flyby, no? -- Beland (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it should - see below. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Title capitalisation
Not sure how to do this. The title should be fully capitalised because it's the name of the project, not a description (this is how it's done with Manned Maneuvering Unit, Manned Orbiting Laboratory and others). However Manned Venus Flyby already exists and redirects here - it should be the other way round. Maybe it's lockdown but I'm too stupid to think of a simple way of fixing this. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be the case. The actual report does not seem to have a proper-noun name for this mission. It uses various generic terms, and when the phrase "manned Venus flyby" is used (e.g. in Section 2.0) the "m" and "f" are not capitalized. Given NASA's current style guide says references to older missions should not use the word "manned" (as does MOS:GNL, explicitly), I think the correct title would be something like "Human Venus flyby" or "Crewed Venus flyby". -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you find any sources that use the term "Manned Venus Flyby" with a capital "M" and "F"? If so, I can move the article to that title. Otherwise, it seems based on the above-cited source a gender-neutral name would be required by the MOS. -- Beland (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)