CathInfo.com

There's not much to do between sub lunar orbit and the moon. It's not like voyages across the atlantic. You have fishing boats go out 100 miles and come back a bunch of times. Then you have some intrepid explorer go out and land in North America. If there's nothing to do in between, there's nothing to do. There were no intermediate flights across the Altantic - just short flights over water and back, and then Lindberg.

But in your example, the navigational technology, explorations/techniques which allowed the leap of sailing across the Atlantic were followed up on, built upon, and improved upon. There wasn't a 50 year lull while everything went back to the pre-1492 status quo.

King Ferdinand and Isabella didn't say 50 years later they "lost all the navigational data, maps, charts, and logs" and everything that Columbus explored and accomplished, admitting they can't reach the New World today, and adding for good measure that they look forward to reaching out more than 100 miles from the coast of Spain in the near future.

That is basically what NASA has said, however!

A) they lost all the reels of flight telemetry data (how convenient!)
B) They claim to have destroyed/lost the $175 billion in technology developed during the Apollo missions (Dubya-Tee-Eff?)
C) They speak of the Van Allen belts as being an insurmountable obstacle at present.
D) In the late 2010's NASA has gone on camera stating they look forward to exploring "beyond Low Earth Orbit for the first time."
E) A film reel shows the "astronauts" allegedly between the moon and earth, using camera tricks (a small hole in a screen over a window) to make the earth look tiny. They were just in Low Earth Orbit. If they truly went to the Moon, why resort to such deception?

If that doesn't make you question the "Moon Landing" story, then nothing will.

To believe in the moon landings, you have to believe that NASA had some kind of magical battery from the 24th century that could store ridiculous amounts of energy.

The Lunar landing module computers, A/C in the spacesuits, the rover(s), a broadcasting station (to broadcast live VIDEO back to earth) all had to be powered by a few 1970-era batteries. I'm sorry, but batteries are not magic.

A single 61 pound golf cart battery in 2019 might have 215 AH or amp-hours. That's at 6V. If you had TWO of those strung together to make 12V, 215 AH that might run a 5000 watt A/C unit, or enough to keep an average RV 20 degrees cooler than the outdoor temp for about 8 hours. And we're talking some large batteries here, nothing portable -- even in 2019. 
https://www.batteriesplus.com/productdetails/sligc110

The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.

Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.

I know enough about batteries. I've put together some small-scale solar power systems and have done a lot of research on different types of batteries. People are used to electronics "sipping" electricity today, due to integrated circuits and microprocessors. But back in 1970, circuits would dissipate a LOT more heat -- measured in watts -- which comes RIGHT out of the battery capacity. So even the "cheap" users like computers would be total pigs back then. Nevermind expensive operations like cooling or powering a vehicle.

The moon is 250 degrees on the sunlit side. Whatever technology they use to cool humans in a vacuum environment like that, you're going to be fighting a lot of heat. Think of all the solar energy constantly hitting the Moon. The whole spectrum would be hitting -- the Moon has no atmosphere to filter any of it out. Countering THAT kind of constant influence is going to be electrically very expensive.

Unless you believe a battery could be the equivalent of a small nuclear power plant, you can't believe they had enough energy to do what they claimed.

Have you looked up any of the batteries or other technologies used in the Apollo landers?