251–260 of 262 posts
I built a zoomable collection viewer for all NASA Artemis II + Apollo 8 gallery images at their full original resolutions—nearly 2 gigapixels across 104 images. Spanning 1968 Earthrise to 2026 Earthset: https://zoomhub.net/showcase/photography/nasa Try different layouts with L (grid, masonry, spiral, etc.), filter by gallery or camera, WASD/Q/E/Tab to navigate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the explanation is wrong: wikipedia offers a completely different explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking . Planets can become tidally locked to the sun- mercury is. Probably the timescale required for the other planets is just much longer EDIT: Apparently mercury isn't actually tidally locked to the sun, TIL
I don't see how my ELI5 disagrees with the wikipedia article.
It's a bit tricky to navigate between all the amazing photos NASA Artemis crew captured so I vibe coded (Codex) a simple site with full screen full res view and arrow navigation: https://nasa.puma.tech feedback welcome
That's awesome. Since you asked for feedback, can you vibecode up a thumbnail view? Also I see a bunch more images on the NASA site. How are you pulling them?
Gorgeous, awe-inspiring photos. Tangentially, did the NASA website move to WordPress? I thought it was Drupal, the Drupal official website even had a case study about nasa.gov. I see wp-content links on the site and there is no Drupal behaviors in JavaScript and I didn't notice any of the usual drupal classes in the source
NASA migrated thousands(!) of their sites to WordPress back in 2023. I think it had to do with user-friendliness of the Gutenberg editor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appreciate the detailed response. I think it would be a borderline miraculous photo if they are planets aligned in that way. Zooming they look more like artifacts or galaxies to me. I spend a good amount of time looking at planets from earth through binoculars and even with an atmosphere they resolve better than that.
I'm pretty sure I'm right about the planets. The planets are aligned that way. If you're experienced looking at them with binocs, you should be aware of that. The line the planets are on is known as the ecliptic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic Also, if you look at the famous family portrait, you'll see they're in a pretty straight line as well https://science.nasa.gov/resource/first-ever-solar-system-fa...
In retrospect it was pretty silly to think they could have been galaxies.
I shared some of these pictures with family members that hadn’t even heard of Artemis, and one asked if the blue thing was Mars. I am shook.
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but sounds to me like they actually tried to put themselves into space, made the assumption that anything visible past the moon must be further out and were left with "wait, I thought it was supposed to be red?" Uninformed, but not ignorant and perhaps even interested. I hope your response started with "No, actually, even cooler: ..." and you made a space fan that day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure I'm right about the planets. The planets are aligned that way. If you're experienced looking at them with binocs, you should be aware of that. The line the planets are on is known as the ecliptic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic Also, if you look at the famous family portrait, you'll see they're in a pretty straight line as well https://science.nasa.gov/resource/first-ever-solar-system-fa...
You are right. I do think it is miraculous that the trajectory happened to bring the capsule into a solar eclipse and Mercury, Mars and Saturn are positioned in this way. This site helped me understand the current/past positioning[0]. Even though there is no reason the photo has to be oriented with the planets to the right. I am still surprised at how blurry they look when zooming given what I see from Earth with bin…
That link is a nice visualizer. On the day of, the live cast announcer stated we were seeing Venus in the feed from the GoPro. But that seems incorrect, and it looks more likely to be Mercury.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of my favs: 1. The moon eclipsed, with the Orion capsule (outside POV, from GoPro) - https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e009567/art002e00... 2. The moon eclipsed, with the Orion capsule, and Earth crescent (outside POV, from GoPro) - https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e009567/art002e00... 3. Crescent Moon, Crescent Earth (my fav!!) "A New View of the Moon" - https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/a…
I think your first link should be to https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e009566/art002e00...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how my ELI5 disagrees with the wikipedia article.
wikipedia's explanation works for uniform bodies, yours doesn't. And since tidal bulges seem to be symmetric, there's no away to explain away the deformation as making one side heavier