Why Won't Artemis 2 Land On The Moon?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 05. 2024
- 🌎 Get Our Merch designed with ❤ / @insanecuriosity
💫Get 10% off Under Lucky Stars and enjoy our star maps completely custom-made 💫 www.underluckystars.com/INSAN...
Exclusive content here:► zarta.com/u/insane_curiosity
Commercial Purposes ► Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com
Our New Website ► insanecuriosity.com/
The Artemis 2 mission will be the first time NASA has sent astronauts to the Moon in more than 50 years, but... Why, with more technology than back then and better spacecraft than those of the Apollo program, will astronauts not land on the Moon?
Let's find out!
Previously we did a trilogy in which we explained in detail each of the Artemis Project stages. We invite you to see it.
However, since that series of videos suggested some questions, today we will focus on the details of the Artemis 2 mission that is planned to launch in 2024.
Why won't it land?
Perhaps the most critical question, and everyone asks, is why the Artemis 2 mission will not land on the Moon. If today the technology of spacecraft and telecommunications, as well as space suits, are much more advanced than in the days of the Apollo missions, why is this mission not going to land on the Moon? What's stopping we?
To understand this, it must be remembered that the Apollo program followed a very similar path.
Do you remember the number of the Apollo mission that put the first humans on the Moon? Exact! It was Apollo 11. This means that before Apollo 11, ten other missions did not land on the Moon. What happened to the other 10?
The Apollo 1 mission, AS-204, was planned as the first crewed mission of NASA's Apollo Program. However, the mission never got off the ground due to a fire in the craft's cabin during a ground test launch on January 27, 1967. Astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee were tragically killed in the incident.
"If You happen to see any content that is yours, and we didn't give credit in the right manner please let us know at Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com and we will correct it immediately"
"Some of our visual content is under an Attribution-ShareAlike license. (creativecommons.org/licenses/) in its different versions such as 1.0, 2.0, 3,0, and 4.0 - permitting commercial sharing with attribution given in each picture accordingly in the video."
Credits: Ron Miller, Mark A. Garlick / MarkGarlick.com
Credits: Nasa/Shutterstock/Storyblocks/Elon Musk/SpaceX/ESA/ESO/ Flickr
00:00 Intro
00:27 Zarta platform
3:00 Apollo Missions
5:20 What will Artemis 2 be like?
11:00 The new generation of astronauts
#insanecuriosity #artemis2 #tothemoon - Věda a technologie
My uncle James had nightmares about Apollo 1 for the rest of his life. He was friends with all 3 of the astronauts that died. I think it was Gus that said the capsule was a fire death trap for them. This was only days before the test launch.
I couldn't even imagine how the astronauts felt for Apollo 2 after that disaster. This is why I think all of the astronauts were heros in my eyes.
I was to young to really know how important my Uncle James was at the time. I didn't know at the time that he was the big wig of NASA. But thanks to my uncle, I got to watch almost all of the Space Shuttles take off from a mile away. My dad was in the control room in 1986 when the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded. I missed seeing this in person, I had to go to school and watch it on a 19inch TV. Back then the 19inch TV was huge but it looked small in the cafeteria that day.
I cried and ran to the principals office. I want to go home but my parents were in Flordia at the time and I was in Louisiana. It was a sad day.
Incredible story
Your uncle was James Webb?
@@GRosa250 seems like it 😂
There was no official apollo 2 and the next flight of an Apollo capsule wasnt manned
Small correction but I love your story, Columbia dissentagrated in 2003. *challenger* exploded in 1986
Apollo 11 was launched on the 16th of July, but the actual landing was on the 20th of July.
Artemis 2 is going to be more of an Apollo 8-style mission. This is just a crewed test of the Artemis spacecraft to and around the moon. From what I've read, Artemis 2 won't do a few orbits around the moon like Apollo 8 did before returning to Earth.
Walter Schirra was the only Astronaut to go up in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.
My god this channel is wonderful. Thank you for making this content. the delivery of information is universal, relaxing and down to earth. Story telling is on point.
With all that's space related nowadays it's certainly a most exciting time. 🚀
One thing I take from Artemis I was that I was mesmerized by seeing the earth from the perspective of the moon and knowing that everything that we know, all our history, and our faiths is all on our blue sphere and that someone can cover up our planet with their thumb, showing that we are minute compared to the cosmos and we need to take care of our planet for future generations.
Yeah no sht Sherlock
Great videos, keep it up!
I hope I get to see a moon landing in my life time
NASA plans to land Artemis 3 on the moon by September 2026 (even though some people believe it won't launch before 2027), so as long as they don't cancel it and you live about 3 more years you should be fine 🙂
I'm sure the same kinds of people were asking the same question back in 1968 and 1969 about the Apollo 8, 9 and 10 missions. Interestingly enough, the answer today is the same as it was then.
"we cannot leave Earth, there's no place to go" it is a closed system
Wait and see
Great information !
Tradition dictates that we circle it a few times because, well Tradition.
A couple errors: you mispronounced a couple of the Apollo astronauts' last names during that segment (Donn Eisele was one). Second error: Apollo 9 never left LEO, it was the test of the LEM and the PLSS backpack life support system in space. Only Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 went to the moon. 8, 10, and 13 did not land, for the reasons stated. Otherwise, very nice video. At least NASA isn't going to waste our tax money by flying a half dozen test flights this time - just one unmanned test, one manned test, then straight to landings.
adding to the list: Apollo 7 launched using the Saturn 1B, not the Saturn V…
it was Apollo 8 that first launched crew using the Saturn V…
Yeah... a lot of these errors make me question whether the owner or the channel or author of the video actually has any knowledge of (or enthusiasm for) the space program, or if they're just reading from a book.
Generally, I don't insist everyone who makes a video be intimately involved or interested in the subject matter, so long as they get their facts straight. But... unfortunately in this case, I'm sensing neither.
@@k1productions87 I agree...a lot of casual misinformation here, easily found in NASA's own documentaries. By the way, there was no Apollo 2 or Apollo 3, those numbers were skipped. Apollo 4 was a critical and successful test of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 5 was an uncrewed earth orbit test of the Lunar Module. Apollo 6 was *not* a failure as mentioned, although the Saturn V had several technical issues that made it less successful than Apollo 4. Those issues were corrected in time for the crewed Apollo 8 mission to the Moon. And so on. Just rely on NASA for official information.
@@jackeppington6488 Actually, there are officially an Apollo 2 and 3, but those numbers were given to previous test flights as a compromise to allow AS-204 to keep the "Apollo 1" name, even though it not only never reached space, but didn't even launch.
Just kinda sucks that they had to compromise over such a thing at all.
It will be exciting when they do finally land on the Moon again. Even better is when they set up a permanent Moon base. 🌚🚀🛰
A permanent moon base is great but when the Starship is fully fleshed out, in all its forms and space becomes easy, that is when things will get interesting.
They have to . We need more space for all our trash .
@@tshaffer9681 Where it will turn in to treasure.
They cant. Moon dust is abrasive and toxic.its all about dream. Same with a human mars landing. Toxic soil.
Again?🤨
Nice vid… thanks 👍👍👍
Apollo 11’s lunar module landed on the Moon on 20 July 1969, whereas the date stated at 6:21 is that on which the mission launched from Earth.
good video wit realistic views. That is rather hard to get these days with all the dreams going on :)
Because just like Apollo they gotta take it one step at a time of course!
Yea! He's back!!
6:49 just watch from here if you want the answer to the title
Before I watch the video, I already know the answer: Artemis 2 is just a test flight and Artemis 3 will be the mission that lands on the Moon
So after six successful moon landings, people are now going to investigate whether they can land on the moon? Why do I get the feeling it is/was all fake?
@@user-ki4sd5cf7m because you lack critical thinking skills or refuse to look at actual facts?
Correction: Apollo 9 did NOT go into lunar orbit. It was in Earth orbit testing the LM.
I'm just grateful most people have moved on from criticizing Artemis/SLS & are now excited about what's around the corner!
Years ago, everyone was whining about how it was wasteful or how much better Elon Musk's plans were with Starship.
Here we are now, and Starship is built & ready to go on its 2nd mission. Musk's original timeline had SoaceX landing men on Mars by 2024, but we're nowhere near that. Good thing we're fortunate enough to have both public & private sector space projects to look forward to now!
It's also great that Artemis has so much international support too. The more countries contributing, the more invested their people will be in future dpace exploration!
This stuff takes time
They should switch to starship when it is finished. For the price of one SLS you could launch 278 starships to the moon carrying around 700 times more cargo. Starship orbital launch test is in 2 days because it was scrubbed earlier today but give it around 1-2 years and it will be fully ready for regular flights to earth orbit, Moon and Mars. If NASA doesn't switch to starship it will be the most stupid decicion of the agencies history and the Artemis program will be scrapped due to it being too expensive. Same thing happened with Apollo.
@MrSpirus Oh I definitely agree, but the Starship timeline was always way too optimistic & not realistic. In the meantime, collaboration between NASA, SpaceX & other agencies is at an all time high, and SLS has quite a few years of service planned before Starship is able to take on full missions.
@@corey2232 True
I'm not nearly as much of a fan of Musk as I was at the beginning. On Twitter he has revealed himself to be a right wing extremist and a racist.
Still, the SLS is extremely wasteful. It's the wrong paradigm.
We should have been designing all these modules to go up on existing commercial rockets, instead of making this huge thing that's a huge waste of money.
All you have to do is get to LEO and assemble in orbit. Lunch your fuel module separately or as part of the Trans Lunar Injection Rocket, either way.
But it should all be modules assembled in space. You should have a separate assembly that stays in space and just goes back and forth from moon to LEO on demand. To come back from the moon, launch from the surface, dock with ISS, then go down from ISS in a capsule the way you normally would.
Now it's not entirely NASA's fault. We call it the Senate Launch System after all. But surely there is a way to make sure spending is done in key states and still have it cheap enough that we can repeat it again and again.
Okay a little disclaimer here, Apollo 7 was not on the Saturn 5 it was on the smaller Saturn 1b, he did not explain how Apollo 8 was planned to be a earth mission but was changed last minute to a lunar mission because of Soviet rumours, and Apollo 9 did not go to the moon it went back to low earth orbit only until Apollo 10
the Soviet rumors were not the primary reason for the swap. They were the reason for Apollo 8 to shoot to the moon, but the reason the missions were swapped was because Grumman was behind schedule in developing the Lunar Module. Without an operational LM to test, the choices were either delay Apollo until the following year, or switch things around and do what they could in the meantime. Pretty much exactly what Artemis 2 is doing, while no lander is ready to go. Though there are also contingency plans for Artemis 3 in case SpaceX still can't get Starship to work on time.
This European service module (ESM) that will receive astronauts before they land on the moon already orbiting the moon?
Or will it still be put into orbit?
Why won't Artemis 2 land on the moon? Same reason Apollo 10 didn't. You got to walk before you can run
I hope they make a video of, leaving the Earth from start, because I have never seen a real vedio of whole earth as we leave the earth, i think it b spectacular to see the whole earth from above
should name one of these missions ,
to the
Moon ,….. Alice
This will be as groundbreaking as casting Rebel Wilson in Cats 🥴
Isn’t HLS the one to land on the moon which is long before it’s ready?
For the most part, a good video. However, over half the time was spent telling us the history of NASA's trips to the moon. That's not what the name of your video states. So we had to wade through 7-ish minutes of history to get the answer? I suspect this was 'filler' because the answer was simple... this mission is for further testing. Otherwise, thanks.
Apollo 9 was an earth orbital mission. Test of the LEM.
the reason is because the ship doesnt have the delta v to land. They need to launch at least 15 more rockets to refuel the rocket to even attempt to land, and when they do there is no abort mode for the crew for 6 days.
Is it just me or is the X in the thumbnail the old Geocaching logo? Edit: Yep it sure is.
Hey, maybe they can collect those spacesuit boot overlays still on the moon.... how many are there....NASA was asked the question but they were not sure....
The first Canadian around the moon. Very progressive.
This means there will be free content no longer?
New flight plan to the moon requires a pathfinder flight
What is next after JWST?
Luvoir???
We never went to the moon that’s why we haven’t been back in 50+ years.
That's correct.
Evidence?
@@zedus4042 watch the documentary 'American Moon'. It presents both sides of the debate. It will broaden your perspective.
By my logical observation of the evidence and education, I am 99% certain that the moon landing was in fact not faked but I am willing to take a look at that documentary. Is the documentary literally just called "American Moon", who made it and is it on youtube? Cause I can't seem to find it when I just search "American Moon"@@travisn346
@@zedus4042 it can't be found on this platform. It is available on one that rhymes with fumble. Our comments are being deleted. American Moon was released in 2017 and was directed by Massimo Mazzucco.
Why not send robots to land? There is no need to send humans. Artemis one was unmanned and it flew the whole mission by computer so why send astronauts just to sit there for the ride? It doesn't make any sense at all, they wont be flying the mission or doing anything that automation can already do now. It's is a stunt more than anything else.
they not want to go " APOLLO LANDING SITE "
They have. There have been over 50 robots and probes sent to the moon after Apollo. Just cause you didn't bother to look doesn't mean they didn't happen.
apollo landing on the moon with " manual joystick " (no test for the first time in low gravity environment ) , how you live broadcast ( from moon to earth ) with 2 meter sattlelite disc how power use for live broadcast ( no solar panel on lunar module 🤔 ) where broadcast tower on the moon ?
No test? Why do you think the first landing was called Apollo ELEVEN? :-)
Look up USSR's car-size rovers landed on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, where both had TV cameras broadcasting live footage back to Earth, allowing the USSR to drive Lunokhod 2 around the moon for 4 months under remote control, covering a distance of 37 km (Lunokhod 1 had problems early in the mission and hence was driven very far).
So if it was possible to send back live TV broadcasts from rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973, then wouldn't it be possible to sent back live TV broadcasts from the moon during the Apollo missions?
Because they don't have the technology to do so. Not that hard.
agree
Yet they had the technology to achieve lunar landing and relaunching in the 1960s.
That's not how innovation our technological feats work. The brave Portuguese explorers didn't reach India only to never go again. They reached it and continued to do so until they knew how to do it very well and easily lowering each time its cost.@@atlanta1290
😎
There were no Apollos 2 and 3 and Apollo 9 did not go to the moon.
Thanks for explaining to the people still think we never went to the moon.
Yea Artemis 1 never flew and it was successful. And Artemis 2 is already taking humans around the moon and Artemis 3 is landing us there, while Apollo went through 10 times. Technology is better.
Artemis 1 never flew? Of course it did
I have a much simpler explanation: Artemis 2 won't land on the moon because STILL WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT. We NEVER went to the moon and I really doubt that the Artemis capsule would have enough cosmic and solar radiation protection to ensure the crew safety. I would bet anyone that there would be a lot of "delays" during 2024 and for a true moon landing we have to wait many years more...
"Artemis 2 won't land on the moon because STILL WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT".
What technology is necessary to land that we don't have?
" We NEVER went to the moon and I really doubt that the Artemis capsule would have enough cosmic and solar radiation protection to ensure the crew safety. "
No I don't understand what you believe and what not. Artemis 2 will go o the moon, through the Van Aallen Belts. It just will not land.
However, it is so ridiculous "I doubt..." LOL! Of course you know better than the thousands of scientists and engineers! So have you measured the raadiation by yourself? Or how do you know that there is radiation in the first place? So on the one hand you believe that people who say THAT there is radiation, but you don't believe when the same people say, that Orion can go through it. How does that make ANY sense?
Still waiting on the AstroRad Radiation Vest test results. It's been a year and still no data. They had that data in real time so that should be made available. They say women need the vest to go into and through the Van Allen Belts and to be safe from cosmic radiation throughout the journey. And why does the new Service Module need a special radiation protection compartment that the Astronauts need to go into when traveling in space?
You really an expert huh.. shut your mouth buddy.
Glad to see it’s politically correct 👍
So, if you take goal is to” push your efforts further “ you might want to start by pronouncing the astronauts names correctly and get the date of the moon landing right. Good grief.
In case they get clamped 😂
now im needn map quest camers on it need pics
they already know about radiation and charged particle since 60s' ? when all apollo none of radiation and charged particle shielding ? they go to the same moon , same solar system , same universe as artemis 2 ?
Nobody ever walked on the moon. The Apollo Missions were are a front for ICBM development and defense projects. It will be cool when humans actually go though.
Actually men landed on the moon during 6 Apollo missions.
The USSR had an advance space program that even launched and tracked a spacecraft to Venus in 1970, therefore it would have been impossible for the USA to trick the USSR with fake manned missions to the moon, much less trick the USSR 9 times!!! :-)
Also, it is impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, unless that studio is on the moon.
So if you allow conspiracy theorists to convince you that the Apollo missions were fake, then those same conspiracy theorists will be able to convince you that the manned Artemis missions are fake too :-|
@@yazzamx6380 America is fake to its core ...
Apollo mission update
Space shuttle took of with astronauts .
Goes away from earth
Stops somewhere far to convince people .
Passes time there in abyss
Fake everything on ground using media like ( reached moon , landed on moon etc etc )
Take a U turn back to earth .
And the astronauts never appear on LIVE TV and disappear like they never exsisted ..
Lol
Even a blind man can see now
It was Faked
@@user-sc9jn8im3w - So lets get this straight... You're also claiming the Space Shuttle was a hoax. Correct?
So before going any further, name the space mission that you accept as real and explain why you know it was real please.
No excuses :-)
@@yazzamx6380 you answer me first
Why didn't the astronauts didn't give any interview to the world after returning??
3 people landed on moon ,
Show me the interview of any one of them ??
No excuses
@@user-sc9jn8im3w - No kid, you don't just ignore my questions and then make demands of your own, especially when you're demanding something that shows you've done ZERO research!
So address my questions and THEN I'll answer yours.
It seems a lost cause waiting for this narrator to learn to correctly pronounce "data". Ah well. 🙄
Zx42ka
Guys, I can help you with this one. To begin with, we need to look at the objective behind the stratosphere nuke tests of 1959-62, why nuke the sky?
Turns out James van Allen suggested the radiation belts stopping space exploration, might be fixed by blasting the magnetosphere with EMPs.
It all went horribly wrong and we made a new van Allen belt instead of obliterating the old ones. Nobody was going to the moon.
Nasa seemed to have found a workaround, but they missed me out when explaining it, so I can't help there.
The other big problem they solved was 125°C of hot sunshine above the atmosphere. Normally a shade is used to protect the crew, as with the ISS and Skylab from 1972. Again, nasa went rouge for Apollo and just sent they guys off without any cover.
Their suits weren't used during flight time, and there was no a.c. for the crew, as we can see in the wiki pages that Nasa provide.
The easiest explanation is that the whole thing was a hoax, but maybe you know different.
Nothing you've said here is correct my friend, where not only have you put 2 and 2 together to make 5, but you've also jumped to numerous false conclusions :-)
Lets skip over your false radiation claims to your temperature claim of "The other big problem they solved was 125°C of hot sunshine above the atmosphere. Normally a shade is used to protect the crew, as with the ISS and Skylab from 1972. Again, nasa went rouge for Apollo and just sent they guys off without any cover."
The 'shade' you speak of is typically mylar foil, which is silver in appearance but when used with transparent yellow kapton film appears gold in color.
This material may be used on the outside of spacecraft, hence the gold and silver foil seen on the outside of satellites and rovers AND on the Apollo Lunar Module (LM), it can also be used as panels of mylar which are also seen around the outside of the Apollo LM (painted black) to reflect the radiated heat from the sun.
It can also be used within the hull of spacecraft and within spacesuit layers, and hence was used within the Apollo spacesuits and is used within the layers of modern spacesuits today.
Mylar was also the shiny silver layer seen on the outside of the Apollo Command Module.
Another way to manage temperature on a spacecraft is to rotate it slowly, and therefore during the journey to the moon and back, the Apollo Service Module with the Command Module attached slowly rotated along its axis, ensuring each part of the outer surface cycled from heating up in the sun to cooling down in the shade.
So the fact remains that the USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions :-)
Gus Grissom was murdered to silence him
One day in a few years we will ACTUALLY have put a man on the moon. Then NASA can admit they faked it 50 plus years ago 😂
Or you can look at all the photos of the Apollo landing bases in the moon, taken from the LRO or Chang'e probes, or the dozens of other probes.. and admit you're part of a denial cult.
Great a DEI lunar mission. Can we just dispense with the woke bullshit and send the best people for the most important work whoever those people might be?
It may end up like ocean gate
And why isn’t this video calling the moon by its proper name, Luna?
Well actually we are. Luna means moon in Spanish.
@@herdsire90210 I know that. But the video didn't use the proper name, not even in the title
@@ianfeuerhake1859 The English name is moon. The French even call it La Lune .. which also means moon. Just like Terra means earth.
So since the norm over here is English...
@@herdsire90210 the name is Luna. We use the proper name of all the other moons we know about, so we should be doing the same for our moon as well
To you all, Luna is Moon also in Italian. Much more so than Spanish.
And so is "Terra", for Earth.
What if man is unable to land on the moon and return safely in the next 20 years? Will that be a sign
go back ? are you sure ? ( APOLLO 11 PRESS CONFERENCE )
Yes, it will be the 7th manned mission to land on the moon.
Wondering if they going to share the alien bases on the moon 🤔🤔🤔
Funny that they are so worried about radiation whereas in Apollo program that issue was never a problem. Why? Because no man ever landed on the Moon yet.
Incorrect, you simply don't understand or appreciate the differences.
The electrons of the Van Allen belt radiation are a problem for modern electronics, such as those used on Orion, which packs a massive amount of incredibly tiny structures into its microprocessors.
This makes modern electronics *significantly more sensitive to Van Allen belt radiation* compared to the crude electronics of the 70s and older, which didn't have that problem.
So take an early 70s calculator into the Van Allen belts and it will work without any problems, but take your phone into the Van Allen belts and it would crash due to the electrons within VA belt radiation effecting the delicate electronics.
Therefore ALL modern electronics that needs to operate within the VA belts (such as many satellites) needs to be sufficiently shielded and/or radiation hardened to cope with the radiation.
Again, that wasn't a problem for older electronics with their comparatively large structures, but such old electronics is nowhere near good enough for today's requirements.
@@yazzamx6380 As a Ham radio operator I do not understand the differences. Correct, electronics of 50's, 60's, 70's were completely different. But the principles of a transistor whether it's big and crude and small in minature integrated circuits are the same. A coil in a radio can get the same amount of itereference from electromagnetic unwarranted noise as much as the minature one. The only difference between a resistor of 1950's and 2020 is its size and that makes it more delicate in physical sense but not in operational electronic sense. All of them are susceptible to radiation.
@@ericephemetherson3964 - With all due respect, why are you pretending that a microprocessor of the early 70s packing say several thousand transistors onto the chip would be effected in the same way by the ELECTRONS in VA radiation as a modern microprocessor packing several billion transistors onto the same size chip?
On what basis are you claiming the size of the transistors within the processor makes no difference to how it is effected by electron based radiation?
Gut feeling and assumptions isn't enough my friend :-)
And also look up the navigation computer of the Command Module for example, where the software was woven with wires into the core memory by hand! Hence clearly not effected by VA belt radiation.
Therefore to make your case you need to look into the Apollo electronics and computers and present your evidence that they should have been effected by the radiation.
And keep in mind that several unmanned spacecraft landed on the moon by both the USA and USSR during the 60s BEFORE APOLLO also had to pass through the same Van Allen belts on their way to the moon, and yet no-one seems to have any problems with the electronics working on those spacecraft :-)
@@ericephemetherson3964 Another "Appliance Ham" who learned the tests rather than general knowledge.
The conductive pathways in modern ICs are often only a few molecules wide, rendering them extremely vulnerable to stray electrical charges or atomic particles. The certainly was not the case with the Apollo electronics, which were of the "circuit board and wire" era.
@@ericephemetherson3964 - By all means be proud of your achievements, but that should not come with the arrogance of assuming you know it all about what you don't know without doing the work required :-|
Srch the net for "Space-grade CPUs: How do you send more computing power into space?" as one example, where there are many more that I've read over the years and hence many more that you can find yourself...
Quote "Generally for computing, pushing processor technology forward has always been done primarily by reducing feature sizes and increasing clock rates. We just made transistors smaller and smaller moving from 240nm, to 65nm, to 14nm, to as low as the 7nm designs we have in modern smartphones. The smaller the transistor, the lower the voltage necessary to turn it on and off. That’s why older processors with larger feature sizes were mostly unaffected by radiation-or, unaffected by so-called single event upsets (SEUs), to be specific. Voltage created by particle strikes was too low to really affect the operation of large enough computers. But when space-facing humans moved down with feature size to pack more transistors onto a chip, those particle-generated voltages became more than enough to cause trouble."
So care to explain why the above is wrong and yet you are right?
Don't you think it's a fair suggestion to say you should do a little direct research on a topic first before assuming you are right and everyone else are wrong? :-|
Artemis won't land on the moon because it's fake too!
Because we haven't got permission from the Moonies of course.
The Chinese already landed and are mining the moon right now. Why haven’t we!
Woke Marxism
Nasa is explaining space just like church explains god
???
@@yazzamx6380
Nasa=Church
space =god
chances of meeting god=0
chances of meeting space =0
icons of god="photos" of space
Bible=big bang
is that explained enough?
@@bledarmuskaj1967 - Yes, it explains just how pretentious you are :-)
So instead of that nonsense, try stating clearly what your beliefs are, because so far what you've said is what I would expect a flat Earth believer to say.
Therefore if you're a flat Earth believer then just say so.
If you're not a flat Earth believer, then please state which unmanned and manned space missions you accept as real and explain how you know they're real.
Do you think you can manage that? :-)
@@bledarmuskaj1967 You really wrote all that without feeling even a little bit of embarrassment? Fascinating!
@@ro887 the fact that you did put a smile on my face makes it legit....)
Artemis 2 won't land on the moon because Stanley Kubrick died 24 years ago
Where you fail to realize that it is impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, unless that studio is on the moon :-)
Why do you think in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" no attempt was made to recreate 1/6 gravity, instead the actors pretended to be on the moon by WALKING SLOWLY :-)
(( I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293 ))
Next time.
Because earthlings were told to stay away.
Because its all a lie
You are a lie
@@anshumanjaiswal5787 LIARS!!!
yes , its all fake and lie
HOW DARE YOU MAKE GREATEST SIN TO HUMANITY LIKE THIS... LIARS !
So,... You are going to do an Apollo 8 and 10 all in one but not an Apollo 11. Just get it done for God's sake. Your there. We've been there before. Land on the fricking Moon and show we can do this and stop wasting Billions of dollars we don't have. I watched the Apollo missions, every one of them. Why can't you just get this done?. This is fricking stupid. We know how to do this so just do it! Stop wasting time and show the world we know how this is done.
I agree, but they said they lost tech throughout the years, and during those decades, progress happened, things have changed, and they have to do the same thing, using different tech and means. Not unreasonable what they say. I suppose they do know the overall ways to achieve this, it's the details that are different. And if it involves people going there, they might have to take extra precautions I guess. As an example, in the EU through regulations have made vehicles slower or killed tech, that people no longer know how to work with that old tech in modern countries. And this is a sector that did not stagnate. Space exploration kinda did, seems like it was more of a competition back then and then it kinda relaxed if not stopped. Blame the politicians.
@@giannismentz3570 they’re not doing the same thing
@@tubecated_development who?
@@giannismentz3570NASA, the astronauts. They aren’t going to re-do Apollo. Artemis mission is not the same thing (apart from the fact it’s the moon)