Talk:Venera

claim about 'first to record sound'

There was a claim that Venera 13 was the first probe to record sound from another world, and huygens was the second. this appears to be false, so i removed it. there were devices that recorded signals that may have been converted into sound, but they were probably only earlier Venera probes as well.. either way, it seems false. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems false? Sorry, but if you don't know, then why did you edit this article. Venera-13 and 14 were the first Soviet Venus probes to have a microphone, and audio levels were sent back, primarily to estimate wind speed. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow people were mad about Russia 15 years ago 2806:2F0:90C1:D46D:C1F3:B3FE:48B7:8B07 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

merging venera 13 and 14 articles

also, i've suggested a merge of the Venera 13 and Venera 14 articles in Venera 13 and 14 (similar to Mariner 6 and 7). comments would be welcome. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be advantages to describing Venera probes that were sent in identical pairs (5&6, 9&10, 11&12, 13&14, 15&16, Vega 1&2). DonPMitchell (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have names for the spacecraft "series", like NASA does. The Venera 9-12 would all be of the type Venera 4V-1 (see this NASA page), Venera 13-14 would be Venera 4V-1M, and Venera 15,16 would be Venera 4V-2. These "series" could have their own articles, or simply be detailed in the Venera article. Or maybe it's best to describe the spacecraft details are differences in an article titled Venera 4V. Mlm42 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

scope of "venera program"

it isn't clear to me whether probes like Sputnik 19 should be included in this article. It flew to venus, and was a soviet probe similar to the venera probes.. does that mean it should be hear? right now it is included in the table, but not in the "venera probes" section. i suggest that it shouldn't be here, and only the probes with "venera" in there names should be in the table at the end, but i don't know much about it. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not uncommon in the Soviet space program to not officially name spacecraft that did not make it. Spunik 19 was a Venera-type spacecraft even though it did not carry the name "Venera." I believe it should stay. Andy120290 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

all kinds of veneras where realead 13 of 16 missions reached the planet safely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.141.245 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sputnik-19 was a Venus probe, but it failed to leave Earth orbit. It and others like it should be mentioned in connection with their would-be sister spacecrafts. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Vega

The two Vega missions should be added to this list. Vega is an abbreviation of "Venera-Gallei" (Venus-Halley). It dropped a landing probe and a balloon aerostat on venus and later passed by Halley's comet. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Many scientific findings"?

The entry states to program made "many scientific findings", but only lists one. How about expanding on this? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venera. 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/20100909085012/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/venra1va.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/venra1va.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Translated text

It appears that a lot of the text was generated by translation, probably from Russian sources - can someone go through and make sense of it? Many of the English sentences are at best awkwardly phrased - like the "venera station liqud-based engine" caption, which I can only guess means "Liquid fuel engine used on the Venera space probe" or something. This may also may have next to nothing to do with the Venera program, maybe a booster of the same name, because that engine if far too large to use in-mission. I would fix it myself but some of it is impossible to decipher. Also "internal switchboard failure" which seems to be a mis-tranlation of "telemetry multiplexer failure".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.36 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't read Russian. I've tagged the article, which hopefully will get more eyes on it. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Rationale

Is there any information one why the Russians chose to do such an intensive programme with Venus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.49.187 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@95.151.49.187 International prestige by doing something others can or do not 84.215.194.30 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Venera 1962 diagramm.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Where are the transmitted photos?

The amazing transmitted photos is the first thing I was hoping to see as a reader. Does anyone have images transmitted these missions that can be included in the article? (for example http://mentallandscape.com/C_Venera_Perspective.jpg )

I had the same question after seeing the photos here: https://twitter.com/universal_sci/status/1220064895842037762/photo/1 The Seventh Taylor (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Those photos were once on Commons, but were deleted many years ago on some copyright argument I did not agree with. More recently I succeeded in arguing Soviet Luna 3 were copyright free because they were shot by an "automatic camera" which does not get copyright in the Russian Federation (which had restored expired copyrights), see: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image invisible hemisphere of the Moon from Luna-3.gif and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luna 3 moon.jpg. I cannot remember the arguments over the Venera photos but I suspect my Luna 3 argument would also apply, if someone wanted to try uploading one. Rwendland (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

NB FYI one of the deleted photos was commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venera 9 - Venera 10 - venera9-10.jpg. It was saved from deletion in 2011, but was somehow deleted later seemingly without another full discussion. Rwendland (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible Ref. error: No. 6 refers to Fictional Story

Reference issue + started inline paragraph date vs neighbouring dates is out of alignment See Raw text near bottom of page.

1. Questionable Reference The paragraph is factual but the reference link is to a fictional genre book of collected stories. I cannot see the correlation of the reference to the statement, nor how such a reference is valid. It should be to resource that has more verifiability such as a journalistic or biographical article.

2. Stated date doesn't match Around that time it... ...considered the possibility of a water landing as late as 1964. Reading this after reading the preceding text isn't sequential but it indicates that it would be. The previous paragraph is writing within the context of a later date then suddenly we go backwards in time.

Around that time it became increasingly known that Venus was unlikely to have liquid bodies of water, however the designs for the Soviet Venera probes still considered the possibility of a water landing as late as 1964.

Comment: Not one to edit or suggest changes before, hence I leave this talk topic for future reference if it may help. SebastianJM.94 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)