[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

So you propose a mobile lunar lander which lands in one spot, moves around, then takes off from a different spot, and which isn't airtight?  How do you make it mobile, but also able to take off?

No. For the love of god have you ever read any of my posts?

Am I obliged to? I'm responding to what you said here, now.
 

Cut out all the unnecessary propaganda rubbish, all it needs to be is a frame with a couple of rockets and seats. That's it. i could carry that around on Earth, in the reduced gravity there's meant to be on the moon it's pretty trivial.

But would that meet the requirements that were expressed and recorded before the mission? Have you studied these requirements?

[JRowe]

So you propose a mobile lunar lander which lands in one spot, moves around, then takes off from a different spot, and which isn't airtight?  How do you make it mobile, but also able to take off?

No. For the love of god have you ever read any of my posts?

Am I obliged to? I'm responding to what you said here, now.
 

Cut out all the unnecessary propaganda rubbish, all it needs to be is a frame with a couple of rockets and seats. That's it. i could carry that around on Earth, in the reduced gravity there's meant to be on the moon it's pretty trivial.

But would that meet the requirements that were expressed and recorded before the mission? Have you studied these requirements?

You are very much obliged to read the actual thread and posts you are responding to, yes.
if you think it doesn't work then put your money where your mouth is and say why rather than evading the point. You've been given an alternative lunar lander, one that's lighter and safer, why does it not get the job done? instead of your empty implication that it must just not be good enough because the moon landings just have to be real, say something that it is actually worth discussing.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

You've been given an alternative lunar lander, one that's lighter and safer, why does it not get the job done?

...because a couple of chairs and a frame would appear to provide little in the way of storage for tools, supplies, return of lunar samples, navigation equipment, etc etc.

You appear to be proposing, assuming the retention of a command and service module, that two astronauts would don suits, exit the CSM, get into their "2 seats and a frame" by unspecifed means in order to descend to the surface, and would then use this frame to return to the CSM, where they would enter the CSM by unspecified means. Would you have an airlock on the CSM? Wouldn't this increase its weight? Have you considered how this would impact other aspects, such as fuel requirements, re-entry, etc.?

You're providing a vague, sketchy description, and proposing that everyone accept it at face value because you think the one that was used "doesn't make sense", but in order for us to accept you as competent to rule on this, we need to see what your skills and experience are.

Once again - what was done is a matter of public record. It's not a matter of merely someone "saying so" - there's an unbroken narrative with supporting evidence in multiple forms, along with numerous third-party confirmations, during and after the missions. 

Here's a broad overview of requirements, from a press briefing of the time;

"The NASA/Grumman Apollo Lunar Module (LM) after descending to the lunar surface from lunar orbit, provides a base from which the astronauts explore the landing site and enables the astronauts to take off from the lunar surface to rendezvous and dock with the orbiting Command and Service Modules (CSM).

The ascent stage is designed to:

Provide a controlled environment for the two
astronauts while separated from the CSM.

Provide required visibility for lunar landing,
stay, and ascent; and for rendezvous and docking
with the CM.

Provide for astronaut and equipment transfer
between the LM and CM and between the LM
and the lunar surface.

Protect the astronauts and the equipment from
micrometeoroid penetration.


The descent stage is the unmanned portion of the LM; it represents approximately two-thirds of the weight of the LM at the earth-launch phase. This is because the descent engine is larger than the ascent engine and it requires a much larger propellant
load. Additionally, its larger proportion weight results from necessity of the descent stage to:

(1) Support the entire ascent stage.
(2) Provide for attachment of the landing gear.
(3) Support the complete LM in the SLA.
(4) Provide structure to support the scientific and communications equipment to be used on the lunar surface.
(5) Act as the launching platform of the ascent stage.

= =

How does your design spec cope with, for instance, micrometeoroid penetration, or providing sufficient power for a descent engine, as well as allowing later takeoff for rendezvous?

[AATW]

Because i want no part of your appeal to authority bs. if you cannot justify the logic behind it, it doesn't matter how many people claim it or what their qualifications are if it fundamentally does not make sense.

OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end so they pressurised the capsule so they didn't have to. To quite a low pressure but with pure oxygen. Enough so they could survive outside their spacesuits and low enough pressure that the lunar module was able to withstand it.
Was that the only possible way of solving the problem? I'd say probably not, but it was the way they chose and it makes sense in a much as it worked.
It's not "they said it, so it's true". It's "they said it and with my knowledge of science I can see how that would have worked". And it did work.
Your argument is "They said it but it doesn't make sense to me so therefore it's false".
OK, that's fine. But you have to have some knowledge of things yourself and you're showing with comments like not seeming to understand why an airplane travelling at 500mph in an atmosphere is subject to more force than an object at low pressure in a vacuum is not showing you have much understanding of these things.
I could just as well say "Every time I go up in an airplane they say the outside temperature is very cold. That doesn't make sense, we are closer to the sun, it should be hotter". If you showed me some scientific article explaining why that is so I can't just say "appeal to authority!"
The reason people are authorities is because they have expertise in a certain field. That doesn't make them right but if someone has more expertise in a subject than you then it does lead some credence to their opinions about it.
You keep on showing here that you don't understand what you are talking about here. The one thing I agree with is yes, maybe they could have solved problems in a different way. That could be said about many challenges in science or engineering. But just saying "This doesn't make sense to me" isn't an argument unless you can demonstrate a good level of understanding of a subject and show why the solution they came up with couldn't have worked.

[JRowe]

You're providing a vague, sketchy description, and proposing that everyone accept it at face value because you think the one that was used "doesn't make sense", but in order for us to accept you as competent to rule on this, we need to see what your skills and experience are.

No, you're just ignoring the repeated times i have explained the whole thing and i am sick of it, screw you. Why should i bother when you just ignore my posts?

...because a couple of chairs and a frame would appear to provide little in the way of storage for tools, supplies, return of lunar samples, navigation equipment, etc etc.

So they can go to the moon and not invent the bag?

You appear to be proposing, assuming the retention of a command and service module, that two astronauts would don suits, exit the CSM, get into their "2 seats and a frame" by unspecifed means in order to descend to the surface, and would then use this frame to return to the CSM, where they would enter the CSM by unspecified means. Would you have an airlock on the CSM? Wouldn't this increase its weight? Have you considered how this would impact other aspects, such as fuel requirements, re-entry, etc.?

Just read the damn thread. Just a command module, with an airlock that serves as living space/storage room while sealed. No increased weight, if anything decreased because you don't have to mess around with a docking tube. if you are too lazy to read a thread why do you demand people repeat themselves for you benefit?
it's only 'unspecified' to you because you are apparently illiterate.

OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end

You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.

But you have to have some knowledge of things yourself and you're showing with comments like not seeming to understand why an airplane travelling at 500mph in an atmosphere is subject to more force than an object at low pressure in a vacuum is not showing you have much understanding of these things.

What are you on about?!

You keep on showing here that you don't understand what you are talking about here.

No, you lot are just consistently misrepresenting me even when i explicitly and repeatedly say the exact opposite of what you whinge about. How many times do i have to say something for you to acknowledge it?!

[markjo]

OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end

You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.

Your unpressurized LM might have worked for Apollo 11 where they were on the moon for just under a day, but each successive mission called for longer and longer stays.  What do you suppose the Apollo 15-17 astronauts should have done for their planned 2-3 day stays on the moon?

[JRowe]

OK, firstly I already did explain the logic to you. It is problematic astronauts staying in their space suits for days on end

You are the ONLY people that are saying they should stay in their spacesuits for days on end and i'm sick of correcting you.

Your unpressurized LM might have worked for Apollo 11 where they were on the moon for just under a day, but each successive mission called for longer and longer stays.  What do you suppose the Apollo 15-17 astronauts should have done for their planned 2-3 day stays on the moon?

Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?

[markjo]

Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?

Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument.  You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to.  Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home.  Does that sound about right?

The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin.  Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.  Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.

[JRowe]

Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?

Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument.  You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to.  Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home.  Does that sound about right?

More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.
Are you seriously going to compare a soda can in atmosphere to an object in vacuum where lives are on the line?

The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin.  Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.  Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.

No, my argument is based on pointing out that their whole plan is thoroughly impractical. My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters. ANd your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.
You are being absurdly cavalier, in a wya that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.

[markjo]

Are you going to pay attention to the lengthy responses I have already given to that exact question or can I expect all of you to just keep ignoring me?

Let me see if I have the basic gist of your argument.  You feel that the thin skin on some parts of the LM would not be able to handle the strain of depressurization and repressurization despite the fact that aluminum soda cans have thinner skins and can handle 10x the pressure that the LM skin would be subjected to.  Your solution to this perceived unnecessary risk is to not even bother pressurizing the LM and just seal the astronauts in their space suits, have them land in their minimalist LM, explore for a few hours and then return to the command module to go back home.  Does that sound about right?

More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.

How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?

Are you seriously going to compare a soda can in atmosphere to an object in vacuum where lives are on the line?

Are you seriously going to suggest that the LM pressurized to 4.8 psi in a vacuum experiences more strain than a soda can pressurized to 50 psi in the atmosphere?

The problem with your premise is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that strain of depressurizing and repressurizing the LM causes any significant strain on the "tin foil" parts of the skin.  Your whole premise is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.  Saying "OMG, tin foil could never handle the strain" isn't a valid argument unless you show how much strain the 4.8 psi change in pressure imparts and how much strain the "tin foil" can handle.

No, my argument is based on pointing out that their whole plan is thoroughly impractical.

Practicality wasn't the goal.  Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function.  Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along.  It was essentially a brute force effort.

My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.

So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one?  What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up?  Where is the fail safe redundancy?  Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.

ANd your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.
You are being absurdly cavalier, in a wya that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.

You do understand that we're talking about the early days of manned space flight where pretty much every flight was a test flight, don't you?  The astronauts chosen were veteran military pilots and test pilots who knew the dangers of flying unproven aircraft.  Yes, safety is a concern and I believe that a pressurized LM is inherently safer than an unpressurized one, especially if you want to spend more than a few hours on the lunar surface (and they did).

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.

How does your pitch "improve safety"?

And your response is, what? No, it must be real, they said it was.

No, the RE response is that it's real because all the evidence says so, much of which is provided by those not involved in the missions.

You are being absurdly cavalier, in a way that you only could be if peoples' lives weren't at stake.

How does your proposal reduce those stakes?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.

Oh, so now we've added a 'second air tank'?

So the astronauts are going to switch to this secondary air supply, either within their open-frame craft with chairs, or outwith it, all the while in a vacuum of space as opposed to a controlled, pressurised environment .... and this is safer than the NASA LM design?

[JRowe]

How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?

Let's say eight hours, they're not exactly going to be working up a sweat in zero g. At any point are you going to actually address the question I asked earlier as to why they need days given all they're really doing is collecting rocks?

Practicality wasn't the goal.  Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function.  Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along.  It was essentially a brute force effort.

Practicality and functionality are the same thing. Unnecessary strain, unnecessary weight, unnecessary limitations...
A brute force effort isn't an excuse to miss the obvious.

So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one?  What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up?  Where is the fail safe redundancy?  Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.

What happens if the space suit fails on the moon? You think you can get back in and repressurize in time? Safety checks before heading down, that's all that's possible either way.
An unpressurized LM is a hundred times safer than one that has to pressurize and depressurize repeatedly with the safety of tinfoil.

My pitch not only helps with the ridiculous lunar lander, but also significantly improves safety and weight restraints just for starters.

How does your pitch "improve safety"?

Why do you EVER post here when you are just plain not reading what I've said? I'm sick to death of repeating myself and you just want to waltz in and explain it all again?
If you are too lazy to read, I am not going to put any effort into engaging with you.

More than a few hours, the concept of a second air tank should not be so bizarre.

Oh, so now we've added a 'second air tank'?

So the astronauts are going to switch to this secondary air supply, either within their open-frame craft with chairs, or outwith it, all the while in a vacuum of space as opposed to a controlled, pressurised environment .... and this is safer than the NASA LM design?

'Now'?! I've said it before. For god's sake what is the point in talking to you?! Read the damn thread.
And, uh, yeah, it's pretty bloody simple. Two tanks on the suit, a small seal, switch from one to the other, remove and drop off the first, insert the second. Ta-da. Small, testable, and if it goes wrong it doesn't kill everyone; worst case it kills one person, most likely case it'd be spotted and there's still a whole tank of air before they have to worry about the broken seal.

[markjo]

How long do you suppose that that an astronaut could function effectively with the amount of food and water that a space suit can carry?

Let's say eight hours, they're not exactly going to be working up a sweat in zero g.

First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g.  Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in? 

At any point are you going to actually address the question I asked earlier as to why they need days given all they're really doing is collecting rocks?

If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/

Practicality wasn't the goal.  Functionality was the goal and the LM is a case study in form following function.  Remember that this was the 1960s and much of the technology that got us to the moon was being invented as they went along.  It was essentially a brute force effort.

Practicality and functionality are the same thing.

No, they aren't.  Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.

Unnecessary strain, unnecessary weight, unnecessary limitations...

Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).

A brute force effort isn't an excuse to miss the obvious.

What's obvious is that you don't understand the mission requirements or the engineering involved.

So you're saying that an unpressurized LM would be safer than a pressurized one?  What happens if one of the space suits fails on the way down or up?  Where is the fail safe redundancy?  Yes, NASA believes in safety through redundancy, even if it does weigh more.

What happens if the space suit fails on the moon? You think you can get back in and repressurize in time? Safety checks before heading down, that's all that's possible either way.

What would be possible depends on the nature of the failure.  BTW, those safety checks eat into the time that the astronauts are sealed in their space suits and not being on the moon.

An unpressurized LM is a hundred times safer than one that has to pressurize and depressurize repeatedly with the safety of tinfoil.

Again, where is your evidence for that claim?  I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle.  Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.

[JRowe]

First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g.  Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in? 

No, they aren't.  Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.

So, you're going to rely on pedantry? None of that has any effect on the points I am making.

If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/

And I stand by what I said before, and the question you keep refusing to answer: why is it they actually needed to spend so long down there? Great, they did a few things, wow. None of them really require any time, they can be done as they walk.

Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).

No, you are just ignoring it every time I do, and then refusing to respond to any question I ask you in turn.

What would be possible depends on the nature of the failure.  BTW, those safety checks eat into the time that the astronauts are sealed in their space suits and not being on the moon.

It always depends on the nature of the failure, that's the whole point. And yes, it does, except the only checks that'd need to be performed while actually in the suit might eat up a whole minute. How terrible.

Again, where is your evidence for that claim?  I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle.  Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.

Anjd I've responded to that what feels like a hundred times over at this point, and you're still whining about it. I am trying to have a discuission. If you have a problem with what I have said, do me the courtesy of actually replying, not just repeatedly asserting and ignoring my repeated explanations.

Look at how much of your post is "You just don't understand!" "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.

[markjo]

First of all, the lunar surface is 1/6 g, not zero g.  Secondly, are you forgetting that the space suits are pressurized and very stiff to move in? 

No, they aren't.  Gold is a very functional as an electrical conductor, but it isn't practical to wire your house with it.

So, you're going to rely on pedantry? None of that has any effect on the points I am making.

You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words.  Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.

If you think that all they did was collect moon rocks, then you need to go back and study up on the Apollo missions before you go around designing their lunar module and telling them how long they need to stay on the moon.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/

And I stand by what I said before, and the question you keep refusing to answer: why is it they actually needed to spend so long down there? Great, they did a few things, wow. None of them really require any time, they can be done as they walk.

You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you?  Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?

Again, you haven't shown that the strain or weight were unnecessary, especially given the additional functionality afforded (longer stays, additional science experiments, etc.).

No, you are just ignoring it every time I do, and then refusing to respond to any question I ask you in turn.

Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something?  All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything.  Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.

Again, where is your evidence for that claim?  I've already shown you that a soda with a thinner skin can easily handle 10x the pressure that the LM needed to handle.  Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but your ignorance.

Anjd I've responded to that what feels like a hundred times over at this point, and you're still whining about it. I am trying to have a discuission. If you have a problem with what I have said, do me the courtesy of actually replying, not just repeatedly asserting and ignoring my repeated explanations.

Maybe if you to respond with something other than just your uninformed opinion, then maybe I would stop asking for evidence and we could move the discussion along.

Look at how much of your post is "You just don't understand!" "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.

Look how much of your justification is "because I said so".  That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Look at how much of your post is ... "But they did it differently!" with an utter lack of the slightest hint of justification, and you'll see my problem. That is the definition of brainwashing.

Why should anyone have to justify the way that it was done, when the way it was done is already a matter of public record, along with numerous documents detailing what the agreed requirements were, and how the design satisfied those requirements?

The records of the missions included verbal and textual reports from participants, film and photos recording them, experimental data, telemetry from the craft, and a host of independent confirmations, both during and after the events. There's also, available online, the design specs, experience reports, press briefings, and a whole host of others detailing how it was done. 


You, on the other hand, propose that it should have been done another way, a way that is totally untried and untested, either for real, or in the laboratory. You're the one that should be providing the justification, surely?

[JRowe]

You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words.  Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.

Use a little common sense and context too. That's how language works.

You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you?  Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?

Are you ever going to say anything of substance?

Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something?  All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything.  Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.

Uh, yes i have, repeatedly, hence this whole discussion on how it coudl easily be avoided. And now you're just asserting that it was real to back up your claim that it's real, of course that's what it comes back to, typical roundie circular arguing.

Look how much of your justification is "because I said so".  That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.

Except no, that has never been my justification, are you just going to persist in completely ignoring me?!

Why should anyone have to justify the way that it was done, when the way it was done is already a matter of public record, along with numerous documents detailing what the agreed requirements were, and how the design satisfied those requirements?

The records of the missions included verbal and textual reports from participants, film and photos recording them, experimental data, telemetry from the craft, and a host of independent confirmations, both during and after the events. There's also, available online, the design specs, experience reports, press briefings, and a whole host of others detailing how it was done. 


You, on the other hand, propose that it should have been done another way, a way that is totally untried and untested, either for real, or in the laboratory. You're the one that should be providing the justification, surely?

And if the missions were faked, do you think they wouldn't have provided false documentation? What are you talking about?!

Their way was completely untested. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to this thread despite my repeated pleas for you to actually READ?!

[markjo]

Their way was completely untested.

But their way was tested.  It was tested in vacuum chambers on earth.  It was tested with an unmanned flight in earth orbit.  It was tested with a manned flight in earth orbit.  It was tested with a manned flight that came to within 10 miles of landing on the moon.  It was tested with 6 manned landings on the moon.  It was pushed beyond its design limits with the aborted Apollo 13 mission where lives were on the line.

How much testing have you done on your unpressurized LM idea?

[markjo]

You can't properly make your points if you don't use the right words.  Words have meanings and it's important that we agree on the meanings of those words.

Use a little common sense and context too. That's how language works.

But that isn't how science and engineering work.  Science and engineering have very specific meaning for words so that there is as little confusion as possible.

You seriously don't have any idea of what those experiments were or what it took to set them up, do you?  Also, what's wrong with getting more samples from a wider area?

Are you ever going to say anything of substance?

Are you ever going to provide any evidence that 4.8 psi is too much strain for the LM to handle?

Is it being pedantic to point out the difference between claiming something and showing something?  All you've done is claim that the strain or weight were unnecessary, you have't shown anything.  Also, since the LM suffered exactly zero failures, it's hard to substantiate your claim that your unpressurized LM would 100x safer.

Uh, yes i have, repeatedly, hence this whole discussion on how it coudl easily be avoided. And now you're just asserting that it was real to back up your claim that it's real, of course that's what it comes back to, typical roundie circular arguing.

By arguing that your LM would be better than NASA's LM implies that you accept the moon landings were real, otherwise we might just as well be arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in an arm wrestling match.

Look how much of your justification is "because I said so".  That is a sign of Dunning-Kruger.

Except no, that has never been my justification...

Well, you sure haven't used facts and figures as justification.

... are you just going to persist in completely ignoring me?!

I can't ignore things that you haven't said.