Talk:Vega program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mission Images[edit]

It would be great to see transmitted images from these missions included in the page. Are they available for use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.70.192 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name[edit]

"the craft was designated Vega, a contraction of Venera and Gallei (from Halley, as the Russian language does not have the letter "H")"

The Russian language does not have the letter "H"?!? It certaily does have the letter (and the sound) "H", and it's written as "X", in the Russian alphabet. OK, maybe the name "Halley" is "Gallei" in Russian, but not because of the lack of the letter "H".

Any Russian speakers can clear this up, please? :)

It's not quite the same H sound. In any case, Russian commonly changes H's in foreign words to G's: Hitler → "Gitler", etc. Perhaps we could just say Gallei is Russian for Halley and leave it at that. -- Curps 15:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
English "H" sound doesn't exist in Russian. The "X" Cyrillic letter is commonly transliterated back as "kh". It's a much more closed sound, pronounced further towards your mouth, as opposed to the English "h". See also Kha for further info in more correct phonetic terms. BACbKA 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely that the name Vega was in fact chosen to commemorate the Vega Expedition of Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld. -- Petri Krohn 21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the vega stamps[edit]

I remember the colorful Soviet stamps commemorating the Vega mission --- does any collector have them around for a scan? BACbKA 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNES role[edit]

Wasn't the French space agency involved one way or another in this mission ? Provider of the balloons ? 137.82.201.190 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Vega 1 and Vega 2 into this page?[edit]

This is one of three pages that are for the most part redundant, the others being Vega 1 and Vega 2. The three pages should be merged into one page; I'm guessing the resulting single page would be about half the size of the three current pages. --Dan Griscom (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it is common practice to have seperate articles for individual missions, I can't see much of a reason to change this now. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That something is "common practice" does not mean that there are no circumstances that justify other approaches; nor does using another approach in a special circumstance force "common practice" to change. The two Vega space missions were unusually similar, in construction, mission and results. If you look at the two individual Vega pages you'll see that they consist of mostly identical information (excepting for various dates, times, distances, etc.). The Vega program page repeats much of the information a third time. My main objection is that this is extremely unwieldy; any information bought to Wikipedia about the spacecraft has to be added to three separate pages, which are slowly drifting apart in content and construction. Merging them would reduce the effort needed to improve the information, as well as improve the clarity for readers. --Dan Griscom (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about lifting gas in Vega mission balloons[edit]

I have a question: The balloons in the Vega mission used helium as lifting gas. As explained in 'Lifting gas', this is not necessary in this quite dense atmosphere. Helium has the disadvantages of diffusing easily through a balloon's wall, the need to be transported in a compressed cilinder, and having to be inflated into the balloon at the right moment. That raises the question why they didn't simply bring some water in this balloon? During the journey in interplanetary space it would stay compactly frozen; as soon at it will enter the hot venus atmosphere (during a parachute descent) it will be heated to steam, automatically inflating the balloon. No pressure vessel needed, no special valves to let the gas into the balloon: fewer things that can fail. The lifting power of steam on Venus will certainly be sufficient to float a balloon in Venus' atmosphere and it will not easy diffuse through the balloon wall. Who can explain why they have chosen for helium? If you have a good explanation, please add it to the text of this article. Erik Wannee (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vega program → Vega programme – I'm not quite sure what the preferred WP:ENGVAR is for Russian/Soviet subjects, but I do know that the vast majority, if not all, of the other Russan/Soviet space programme articles are at the "programme" spelling, so it's likely that these (Vega program and Zond program) should be moved to that spelling, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Per MOS:RETAIN. As Russia is not an English speaking country, there is no "strong national ties" to any variety of English.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But is there not also an argument for consistency within a country's articles? As the other articles use "Programme". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, seeing as at the time the USA and the USSR were the only countries that really had a space program, (yeah yeah others had small space programs, but nothing at the level of Nasa, and the Soviet space program) that would lean me towards American English as having strong national ties to the subject. (I'm not copying this to your other discussion) --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm absolutely sympathetic to your desire for consistency, but I think you're approaching it the wrong way. Given that the overarching parent article is at Soviet space program, a spelling also reflected in the navbox title (Luna programme's prominence there is noted, however). I don't see the issue as having strong national ties, but UQ makes a good case for American English as the tiebreaker. Thus, I would support moving all instances of "programme" in article and category titles relating to the Soviet space program to "program." How does that sound? --BDD (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with either spelling, as long as all the articles within the same country's program/me use the same spelling. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Soviet space program is part of the Cold War space race, which did not involve Britain. Indeed, space should preferentially use US English, since it has a major space program, for non-English topics, unlike other English-speaking nations, per WP:TIES ; the only ones that should not use US English are the programs of English speaking nations (and ESA, which would use British) -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure the Russian space program/me would call bias on the US program being primary... - The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it is the primary English-speaking program. And the Soviet-US space race makes the Soviet program highly politically tied to the American program, so should use American English. Indeed, using British English for the Soviet program seems biased. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:RETAIN to keep original spelling. Regarding consistency there are numerous examples of articles using different engvar and the consensus is usually to retain the existing variety, I think trying to change articles for the sake of consistency will inevitably lead to dispute. Zarcadia (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vega program naming?[edit]

Does anybody know if the Vega program was named to commemorate the Vega Expedition, the first to navigate the Northeast Passage and the first circumnavigation of Eurasia? It seems quite probable, however we need a reliable ext ref. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Paywalled paper on balloon data[edit]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103589901681

©Geni (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vega_program&oldid=1216511498"