I’ve tried to gather up all the misconceptions and wrong information and address them individually. Because these sorts of things can degenerate into name-calling and hand-waving I’m going to set a few ground rules.

1. No name calling, threats or belittling
2. I will use only facts supported by evidence (otherwise they aren’t really facts)
3. Any referenced websites will be mainstream and reputable

I encourage any and all to respond, no matter your position, and I’ll happily correct any other misconceptions you may have. I only request that you follow the same guidelines above. If we can’t play nice we won’t play at all.

Point 1: If we landed on the moon, why doesn’t NASA use one of its fancy telescopes, which are so powerful they can see other galaxies, to take pictures of the stuff we left?

NASA currently has 4 large observatories, Compton, Spitzer, Chandra, and Hubble. (You can see NASA’s webpage dedicated to them here.) They work together and each “sees” different parts of the light spectrum:

Compton= gamma rays
Spitzer = Infrared/thermal
Chandra = X-rays
Hubble = Visible/UV

So really, only one of the 4 four can actually see the landing site: The Hubble. However, the moon is so close that it can’t resolve the images very well: The Dawes Limit states that an image 380,000 kilometers away would need a 100 meter mirror to see an object several meters long accurately. Currently the Hubble can resolve to approximately 60 meters per pixel.

Additionally the moon is moving so quickly that a platform designed to be ultra-stable has trouble tracking it. The Hubble literally has to hold still and wait for the moon to pass in front of it and get of a well timed snapshot. Here is the best Hubble picture of the moon I could find.

Of course, a smaller satellite much closer to the moon would have no trouble seeing the landing sites right? Right! Luckily NASA decided to point the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) at the old Apollo sites and *GASP!* took pictures of them! For those wanting photographic proof check out NASA’s page of landing site pictures.

For those not wanting to chase the link, here’s a picture courtesy of discovermagazine showing one of the sites and analyzing the picture. For the full article, go here.

Point 2: The Van Allen radiation belts would kill any would be moon walkers that tried to pass through them.

This is a simple case of incomplete information.

The skinny of it is that the radiation levels fluxuate, but they really aren’t all that high. The average level is low enough to be mostly dissipated by a spacecrafts skin. What little that did reach the astronauts couldn’t do much since they were traveling through them so quickly (several kilometers per second.) In the end, the astronauts were exposed to about as much radiation as they would experience getting a full body x-ray. For a more detailed explanation (plus documentation) of why the Van Allen radiation belt killing any would be moon walkers is false, visit: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

Point 3: The Lunar Lander Couldn’t Even Fit in the Saturn V

The lunar lander was approx. 31 feet in diameter and 23 feet tall when deployed. When it was folded up for launch it was only 14 feet in diameter. (If you don’t believe me you can go to the National Air & Space museum and measure theirs)

The upper area of the third stage of the Saturn 5 rocket where it was stored was approx. 21 feet in diameter and 57 feet high. Seems like plenty of room to me! Better yet, here’s a picture of it inside the Saturn 5 payload stage!

And here’s a nice diagram from of the Air and Space Museum showing how the module fit into the Saturn 5:

Now… where was I? OH YES!

Point 4: The lunar lander was uncontrollable almost killing an astronaut during Earth-bound test flights.

This person has their facts just a little mixed up. The Lunar Lander was designed to operate in lunar gravity, and never flew here on earth. (There were plenty of tests done, but never any “free flights”). What the poster was thinking of was the LLRV, which nearly killed Neil Armstrong, who was able to eject in time. Click here to read more about this (in my opinion) fascinating machine.

Point 5: NASA searching for water on the moon now is evidence they never went in the first place.

This is another case of not quite knowing all the facts.

All of our moon landings were roughly equatorial: those areas were the smoothest landing spots they could find and were the simplest to get to. Polar locations, like what LCROSS was observing, are highly cratered and were deemed too dangerous for a landing. (Most of the landings were off by 5-15 miles FYI).

While these equatorial points did provide great spots to land, their constant exposure to the sun also meant they were barren of water. These polar craters, however, shield spots of the regolith from the sun and were thought (correctly) to possibly contain both surface and subsurface water ice.  That’s why we were exploring there. (For a high-res version of this image click here.)

In Conclusion:

I apologize that this was such a long post, but an accusation take only one sentence while proving that accusation false can take volumes. Feel free to throw any other theories trying to prove why we didn’t go, I’d love to refute them all.

*All images not credited were via NASA website

[Ed Note: Craig got so many follow up questions from this one, we decided to post a second entry where he answered some of the more popular questions about the moon landing.]

CONTINUE TO PART II