Since we've culturally decided that "man" no longer serves as a contemporary synonym for "humanity," the term "unmanned" almost certainly needs to be retired — but apparently that's kind of complicated.
The best, most accurate alternative I see from this article is "uncrewed," which is precise, non-gendered, and similar enough to "unmanned" to sound correct. The problem is that NASA won't use it because it "isn't in the dictionary."
Which is an odd restriction for an agency dedicated to exploring the unknown, if you think about it.
Hey, NASA, to paraphrase another aspirational source, "If you use it, the dictionaries will come." Words don't get put into the dictionary through a permission process. They get put in because they are being used. Use "uncrewed" and the dictionaries will pick it up quickly. Problem solved.
(I do fully agree with +J. Steven York that we should avoid "unstaffed".)
Finding new language for space missions that fly without humans
Historically, human spaceflight was described using the words
Uncrewed looks like unscrewed. Do not like.
"Computer-operated", or "automatic" would work here, though I agree whole-heartedly with adding "uncrewed" to dictionaries. It is precise, and if Asimov were writing at this juncture of history, he'd likely be dropping "unmanned" for the nongendered alternative.
+Dave Walker Hmmm. While I can see it, it doesn't stand out that way for me.
(I suppose I could also argue that "unmanned" also means "scared," but that's a different discussion.)
+Gaffer Venar I suspect you are right about Asimov. Or else he'd have an even better alternative than the ones proposed.
(Or would he? He might still be litigating whether "man" isn't a perfectly appropriate term for "humanity" and to remove it from the equation forces all sorts of awkward and inefficient rewordings of stuff.)
The article does get into discussions about using labels based on how the vehicle is being controlled. Unfortunately, '"Autonomous", "drone", or "robotic" vehicles could all contain humans, and indeed many modern vehicles are at least partially autonomous, from self-driving cars to passenger planes to human-carrying spaceflight capsules.' The same would seem to apply to "computer-operated" or "automatic."
The impetus in drawing a distinction, it seems, is for news media to quickly be able to convey if there are people aboard a particular space vehicle. "… which carried [no] humans aboard
is apparently considered too wordy. 🙂
And to that end, apparently it is the NYT that is caviling at "uncrewed" as not being in the dictionary, not NASA, though NASA is apparently the major holdout in still using the terms "manned' and "unmanned".
Drone, although that is also sexist.
Unhumaned, unpeopled, unpersoned, robotic, chick fulla wimmins?
Who gives a damn? With all the problems in the world today, this bs is completely unimportant and irrelevant.
Political correctness run amok. This is a new low in the world of not offending some shit-for-brains word nazi. Grow up. Unmanned is a term for " no people in it". It is an acceptable term. Changing it it "unstaffed" is ludicrous.
+Ben Mccarty Well, so is whether to put sugar in my coffee or not, but it's a decision I still find myself making.
Is this terminology change going to solve world hunger? Probably not. But it might be slightly more encouraging to women entering space science, which improves the resources going to an important endeavor, which just might lead to something world-problem-solving.
+Tim W I agree that "unstaffed" sounds funny, and carries implications (at least in the US — India might be another matter) that don't quite fit.
On the other hand, nobody's suggesting mass extermination of people who use the wrong term, so calling them "word nazis" is more than a bit hyperbolic. Not is it "political correctness run amok" unless by "political corrrectness" you mean "recognition that some people find the use of male terms to be exclusionary" and by "run amok" you mean "someone noticed that astronauts come in both genders."
I regret that we can't use "man" in a verb or noun for to represent "people" or "humans" without some people taking it to exclude women, but that's not just a matter of some feminists getting their knickers in a twist; if you can't hear some guy saying, "Hey, there's a reason they call it a manned shot, sweetie," I certainly can.
Word meanings and their implications change over time. "Manned" and "unmanned" are no exception. While it is not (as noted) the most important problem facing the world today, it seems a problem that is solvable, so why not do so?
Pc bullshit. That's all it is.
+Ben Mccarty So … you don't think that some folk do (or should) consider "manned" to imply a single (or majority or default or preferred) gender involved in space travel and exploration? Or you don't think that's important in any way?
+Dave Hill I think that this pc bullshit has gone way to far if something like this gets your panties in a wad then go sit in a corner and cry for a while. If this offends anyone that's just too damn bad. You have the right to be offended just like everyone else in this country.
Calm down man, it's not going to take away football on Sundays.
Not in "the dictionary"? What dictionaries have they checked? Searching online for "def uncrewed" turns the word up in the Free Dictionary, Collins, Dictionary.com, and a mention of it as a synonym for "unmanned" at Macmillan.
Not in "the dictionary," my foot.
+Ben Mccarty So do you think your being offended at the prospect of a word change is more important than someone being offended by those words and wanting them changed? Whose offense gets to prevail, and who just has to sit in a corner and cry, and why?
If saying something causes offense, and not saying (or saying something different) something does no harm, then why not try to avoid offense? That seems to be basic politeness.
You seem awfully worked up over this. I mean, this isn't looking to abolish NASA, or ban bacon, or restore the Matriarchy or something.
+Scott Randel Presumably whatever dictionary the NYT uses under its official style guidelines. But good point.
+Dave Hill don't really care either way. To anyone who is offended, your welcome, bless your heart and have a nice day.
The future is equal. Else, it won't work. Uhura's miniskirt aside, if we don't start now, inequalities will follow us to our extraplanetary colonies and explorations.
This isn't "pc", this is about the very BASIC struggle for all humans to be considered equal. Merit and skill are the important things. No male has a right to determine whether "manned" is a nongendered term, or offensive to other genders (plural). I'm a male, saying that.
Cope, +Ben Mccarty; if it makes a difference to non-male genders (plural), then our future as a species will be much happier for everyone.
+Ben McCarty Poor fragile men. Threaten their status quo and they cry “pc gone wild” and get angry. Well man up bucko, if Men don’t admit the basic privileges we have going into every day, and work to make things equal, equality won’t happen.
Now if equality for women isn’t your bag, and you prefer your bitches barefoot and pregnant just say so and this conversation is over.
I don’t think that the majority of women are offended by the use of words like unmanned. The issue is that words influence us. Gender Bias is often a subtle thing. Did you know that if you ask students their gender at the beginning of a math test, it will decrease the average score for girls? Changing to a gender neutral word will very likely increase the number of girl/women who aspire to be an astronaut,
Another good one (depending on the context) is unpiloted. This is from NASA’s own Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors.
As a workaround, I recommended a client to say “explorer with no crew.” Every time I typed in “uncrewed” it got autocorrected to “unscrewed.” Needless to say, people will autocorrect it to that on their own.