Talk:Manned Venus flyby

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: TMK (version TMK-MAVR).--Afterthewar 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'd never heard of that before! Mark Grant 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why didn't this happen? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Likely bogus 

message: 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)
thread_title: verbal tense

message: 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)
thread_title: Venus flyby

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Title capitalisation