Quote from: Spendulus on December 31, 2019, 02:54:53 AM

Quote from: ðºÞæ on December 30, 2019, 04:05:11 PM

...
The other thing, weight is a major issue why were no wheels with spokes used? ....

All I can guess at on that would be to absolutely minimize pounds per square inch loading where the tire meets the dirt. That would be contrary to power efficiency. Yes it would seem to be like driving with half flat tires.

They were paranoid about some places having soft fluffy dust that could bury people and machines. By Apollo 15 they had a lot of knowledge about the surface, but remember, each LEM touched down in a geologically different area. Although the surface dust turned out pretty much the same in hindsight.

There may have been other reasons.

But the real question is about landing on the moon. "Land" generally refers to ground or dirt on the earth. Where is the definition that moon-ground moon-dirt is land? If there is no such definition, then maybe we didn't land on the moon after all, even though we went there.

It's not that we can't individually make up our own definitions of words. When we do, our definition stands... even when others don't accept it. So, we could have landed on the moon. But where is the definition of "land" or "landed" that says it in a defined way?

Cool