Talk:Lithobraking

What about that Kerbal Space Program reference? Not that I would feel called out or anything, I agree with it (at least now), but does it really belong there? --Steinm07 (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this article "original research"?

The first version of this article in 2004 used a comic as reference. I think this article may be in conflict with Wikipedia:No original research. I give more details here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Lithobraking. --Kallichore (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The origins of the term, comic or not, does not matter - what matters is the meaning and usage it has now. It has been found in formal scientific papers since at least 1999 - see Deep Space 2: The Mars Microprobe Mission. Jonathan McDowell in his "Astronautical Glossary says "Originally a whimsical euphemism, but increasingly a standard term", and gives an example. One place might be OR is the connections between linear accelerators and lithobreaking. The connection is correct, but I don't know if it's called out in a reliable source. But overall, I think we should keep the article. LouScheffer (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the paper from 1999 proves that the word "lithobraking" is older than Wikipedia. The full discussion can be found here. --Kallichore (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Needs rewrite

I disagree with this article. As used in the space industry, "lithobraking" is a whimsical synonym for "crash", similar to "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" as a euphemism for "exploded". It is not a synonym for "airbag landing" (which I've heard referred to as "bouncedown", but never "lithobraking". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I did a rewrite, making it more clear in the lede that "lithobraking" means "crash", and switching the order of the following sections so that "intact lithobraking" is at the end.

Somebody needs to go through the "intact lithobraking" section and verify that each of the examples given has a citation using the word "lithobraking," and removing the ones that don't. I removed some of the most egregious uncited examples: Venera was clearly atmospheric braking, and the citations for Pathfinder and MER did not use the word "lithobraking", so I removed these pending the existence of a reliable source calling a parachute/retro-rocket/airbag landing "lithobraking" (and I will point out that I was a team member on both missions, and never at any time heard anybody refer to the vehicles "lithobraking"). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the "intact lithobraking section." I added citations on those claims on an earlier version of the article to support the factual statements it made, but looking at it again, the whole section is just musing about what might be considered lithobraking without any sources that define the term or even us it to describe anything. Gnupratchett (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Added two paragraphs back, with references that explicitly include the word "lithobraking" to describe non-fatal deceleration by the surface. LouScheffer (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)