Practice 30 moon landings with a simulator.
Change the gravity setting and successfully do it on the 31st try.
When Neil Armstrong did it, the final approach and landing were done "by the seat of your pants" --- there was no computer used. The de-orbit burn did use a primitive computer. The final approach and landing did not use a computer.
The craft was not flying (no air), it was translating.
There was no aerodynamic stability. - The was no aerodynamics.
When you successfully do it, post a screenshot. :)
The lunar lander was not flying --- no dihedral stability, no terminal velocity limit
It was translating --- not flying.
Now, flying is translating. The measurement of forces against the craft and being in control of reactions to those forces make you a pilot flying a translating craft.
So in my books, if it has velocity and you can steer, it has no wheels, nor friction from dense physical matter then you are flying it.
I would argue that using your logic, we 'fly' submarines under the water.
Small aerodynamic models are often tested in moving water because of the Reynolds number. A vacuum doesn't work.
There is a submarine that "flies down" in the water instead of using ballast.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/06/eod.luxury.submarines/index.html
One has air resistance lift/drag/turbulence.
Will a parachute open in a vacuum?
Can you autorotate a lunar lander?
Your quote is so small you ignored the references to the very things you mention.
So again, is underwater movement also flying?
Translation involves moving your location, flying is just a term we associate to air movement but it does not require such forces, as I have already given all that is required to be determined flying.
In other words, if you are piloting a craft and you are in control of vectoring or velocity, you are flying if what you are traverse through is below water resistance. Regardless of what forces work against you.
https://youtu.be/cU6EhQRQGVw?t=10