Its tiring to hear criticisms about minor contradictions. Its reasonable to criticize if there are so many that sidetracks the focus of the movie. Lost in Space, I read spent an average of $120,000 on each episode. In dollars of the 1960s, that equates to about $200,000 of todays money with inflation. So Irwin Allan deserves much credit for his ingenuity, for good solid science fiction without the bells and wistles. Just because there is an occasional contradiction of oversight from the producers, hasn't caused me to lose interest. Everyone knows movies are make-believe, so even if there were no mistakes, only the nieve or ignorant would think its real. Irwin Allen put a lot of heart and hard work into Lost in Space and its obvious from all the presentations, backgrounds, and props. Without naming other competitive sci-fi programs, they utterly drown the stage with exaggerated, colorful, psychodolic effects, causing me to think its not maybe the rocky horror picture or poltergeist. A good example of traditional believable and reasonably set science fiction is an episode from the first season called "invaders from the fifth dimension", and even this episode "targe earth", and an unrelated movie called "the day the earth stood still", and as an extreme but not sci-fi: "the day after" a movie, but sadly possible and devastating. Secondly, what makes sci-fi good in my opinion, is when it sticks to serious mood and tenor thru and thru to the end. That is they leave out the slapstick humor mixed in with the seriousness--like anything else you can't have both categories sci-fi and comedy in one, it just doesn't work.