Yep lol, the one time they specifically acknowledge one astronaut is when the rover is static, not moving, parked.
Changing horses. You questioned whether any design work had been done for the vehicle under different loadout conditions. It had been -- the evidence for it is in a document you imply, by citing it, that you've read. Other evidence is in documents you were previously unaware of, yet you insisted on drawing a conclusion without that evidence, all the while insinuating that your cursory survey of the available information and your knowledge of the attendant sciences were adequate. You don't get to rationally move on to the next handwaving conspiracy claim without conceding that you were wrong about the first.
Consider that point the next time you insinuate that just because you haven't come across something yet, it must therefore not exist.
No they don't, not fully anyhow, they evaluated it for fully loaded only.
This rejoinder fails on three points. First, it is an argument from silence. You may not infer from the absence of some specific, arbitrary result from this particular document that the information was not known. Second, it is a begged question -- and one you consistently beg despite all requests to the contrary. You may not decide based on your layman's belief and supposition that certain information is of utmost importance and then hold professionals responsible for providing it. Third, describe how you would draw a graph consistent with those in this document, that would relate all the relevant variables.
A tripped rollover is the most common cause of rollovers...
In what environment?
And, yes, it is unbalanced with a 400lb astronaut sitting on one side of a 460lb vehicle...
Asked and answered.
...and, yes, this does take it outside the designated envelope.
You don't know what is meant by "envelope" and you keep changing your wording to dance around the fact of your ignorance.
Why don't they pay attention to the additional rollover possibilities that occur with one astronaut?
Argument from silence, along with question-begging.
If you want to see what low gravity would really looks like, then have a look at the most valid test they did on the rovers (starts at 2.04):
Dodges the question. Are you able to explain the Grand Prix video or not, in the context of your hoax hypothesis?
Look at it bouncing around even at very low speeds and a relatively smooth test bed...
What is your evidence that this is unacceptable or out-of-tolerance behavior?
...look at what a farce the test is...
I do not accept you as an authority on engineering test methods or automotive engineering, so I do not accept your judgment about the fidelity or validity of the test. Please make a more rigorous and/or documented argument.
...and how they have to take a run up to even get over the test bed...
Why does this matter?
look at how once they lose a bit of steering they can't regain control.
"Cannot regain control" over what time interval, and for what definition of "control?"
But hey, on the moon, with bumpier terrain, at higher speeds, and even in an unbalanced vehicle with only one astronaut on board they had no problems.
You have not quantified or discussed "bumpier terrain," nor dealt with the rebuttal to your assumption.
You have not addressed the rebuttal to your "higher speeds" claim.
You have not described "unbalanced" qualitatively, nor provided a correct quantitative assessment for your "unbalanced" claim, nor dealt with the fact that you were provided all long with stability factors based on displacement of the nominal c.g.
Since you're just repeating the same unsubstantiated claims over and over, I have little else but to believe you have absolutely no interest in learning about this subject or responding to the criticism of your hypothesis.
