Debate: Did the moon landing really take 3 days or is the timeline fishy?

I was looking up how long Apollo 11 actually took to get to the moon, and I ran into this debate that took me way longer than I thought. One side says it was about 3 days, which is what NASA says. But the other side claims the math doesn't add up with the radiation belts and speeds they had back then. Some folks online say it should have taken way longer or been impossible. Which timeline do you buy into, and why? Has anyone else dug into this and come to a solid conclusion?

2 comments

2 Comments

andrew85415d ago

Oh man I went down this rabbit hole a while back and honestly the 3 day timeline checks out if you look at it the right way. What helped me was focusing on the translunar injection speed and how they weren't just flying straight there like a car on a highway. They did a free return trajectory which actually uses the moon's gravity to slingshot around so the travel time is shorter than you'd expect. Plus the radiation belt thing gets blown out of proportion because Apollo 11 went through the thinnest part really fast and the spacecraft had shielding. So yeah I buy the 3 days, the math works when you dig into the actual orbital mechanics instead of just guessing speeds and distances.

victor_carr2515d ago

Wait, they went THROUGH the radiation belt? I thought that was just a myth...