Talk:Kosmos 482

Clarifying the split between 1972-023A and 1972-023E

I've attempted to make the distinction between the main-bus (1972-023A) and descent module (1972-023E) more clear, alongside updating the descent date data for both sections.

This links to the topic above raised by Assambrew, in that no part* of Kosmos-482 remains in orbit.

Additionally, the distinction between the intended designation of Venera # and the resultant designation of Kosmos # is not clear. I've made an attempt but would appreciate someone more knowledgeable giving it a check. I've also tried to offset the non-neutral language used about the potential descent which strayed into theory-crafting in my opinion.

Finally, the descent time is still unknown as is the impact site(s). This page is attracting a lot of attention, including news articles so an update on these as soon as possible would be excellent.

*disregarding untrackable, miniscule ablated material. Sharkhouse (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

"...calculated velocity of 65-70 meter per second (~242 km/h)..."

"...calculated velocity of 65-70 meter per second (~242 km/h) likely reduced survivability..."

The reference was referring to possible ground impact speed, so the quoted speed has no direct influence on the craft's survivability during reentry. 156.34.164.202 (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Sharkhouse (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Naming

Article states its name was retroactively changed to "Kosmos".

From what? Presumably Venera 9? It's not at all clear. 2A06:5902:3418:D300:143B:BC07:C4ED:F5FB (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct, it is in fact not clear.

Likely it was a Venera #, presumably Venera9 but we don't have that information.

What is known is that typically a craft would have a planned designation e.g. Venera 9, based on the mission plan towards Venus. This would be scrubbed and replaced with an actual designation based on the circumstances of the craft e.g. the craft remains in Earth orbit = kosmos designation.

Imagine an extreme case where Venera 8 somehow ended up in Mars orbit by mistake, it would then be called 'Mars #'.

There's as many practical reasons for this as there are cynical face-saving reasons.

Ultimately these are only the public names so to the people that really matter, it had little impact. Sharkhouse (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We can only guess, as it was supposed to be Venera 9, but it got stuck in orbit, so we should atleast have a mention of it in the opening paragraph 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:414B:940B:9475:8185 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Undue weight + propaganda

One user made various edits to the effect that the location given by Roscosmos "may not be accurate". Those edits ultimately boil down to quoting, once directly and once indirectly, a dude that has this to say:

> Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency, on Telegram states reentry at 6:24 UTC over the Indian Ocean. That is not too far (15 minutes) from our latest TUDAT model results. Two remarks: (1) this is not a reentry detection but likely another model result, based on an earlier groundbased detection during a pass over southern Russia. (2) it remains a question how serious one should take Russian State statements these days.

Two things to note: first, he makes it clear he's speculating ("but likely another model result", keyword "likely") and secondly he throws a complete non sequitur ("it remains a question how serious one should take Russian State statements these days").

Cue then the totally unnecessary inclusion of a Sky "News" article (which apparently is a totally credible source, according to Wikipedia 🤣) to take this article firmly into pop culture territory.

By the way, the Dutch dude has updated his blog since it was first quoted here (also a reliable source, apparently). 37.188.160.157 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nave espacial Venera 8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)