Talk:Venera 13

message: "to take advantage of the 1981 Venus launch opportunity" — This article could benefit from a section on the path taken by the probe, explaining why late-1981 was a propitious moment to do the mission. I'm assuming the relative orbits between Earth and Venus were just right. ~ Rollo44 14:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Efficient transfer orbits between Earth and Venus occur every 18 months.  That is when Earth and Venus are in a position that can be intersected by an elliptical orbit.  The orbit intersects the Earth at its perihelion and Venus at its aphelion.  In addition, some of these opportunities are much more energy efficient than others, because of the fairly large releative angle between the planes of the two planets' orbits.  That is, different amounts of energy are needed for the component of the velocity vector perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. DonPMitchell 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probe path 

message: I can't manage to find any trace of the supposed "loud thunder" recorded on Venus by the Venera 13 probe. Are we sure this information is true?--Sid-Vicious 20:09, 26 Oct 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sound recording.  The data returned was just samples of the loudness level.  The lightening result was not sound, that was a radio detector that saw the static radio bursts of lighting.  DonPMitchell (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus sound record

message: The photograph labelled "Venera 13" appears identical to the one labelled "Venera 14" in the Venera 14 page.  Is one of them incorrectly, if innocently, mislabelled (albeit the crafts were twins)?
KPOK (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: These two pages appear to contain a great deal of identical information, which seems better curated (has links) on the Venera 13 page.  As far as I can see, they are very good candidates for an article merge, being identical, having been constructed together, and having been launched within five days of each other.  At this stage in the article development, even the discussion of landing results occurs in a parallel fashion.  If someone sees this comment after a few months and there hasn't been any significant dissent, I would encourage them to go ahead and merge the articles.  I'm only refraining out of deference to wikipedias for whom this is a primary area of interest (I arrived by surfing, and may not return, and don't want to step on anyone's toes).  0x69494411 11:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge Venera 13, Venera 14 pages. 

message: I'm editing the last couple paragraphs of this section of the article.  First the claim about the lens cap of the camera is wrong, Ksanfomality never refered to that as an artifact.  There are three references to the same space.com aricle about Jonathan Hill, but Hill doesn't appear to really know much about the Venera-13 images, and space.com interviewed other guys who obviously hadn't even seen Ksanfomality's paper.  It is a big exaggeration for them to say NASA proved the claim false.  I'm replacing this with a short reference to a journal paper in _Solar System Research_ that really does refutes Ksanfomality hypothesis. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ksanfomality and the Venera-13,14 Images 

message: It seems to me that this section is giving indue weight to a fringe theory, and should be deleted.
I'm also particularly concerned that previous edits to it where the claims are criticized, have been deleted.
Personally, I'd like to delete this whole section2001:620:600:3800:E977:A6FB:5BB8:C567 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Evidence of Life on Venus 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion