Hank Green has a video walking through how to use the timeline here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyZE9VWJjDA. For me, the best experience was to click "Crew Photos Only" and then step through the photos chronologically with the arrow buttons.
Cool! Honestly though, just hitting the "right arrow" button on my keyboard it was a blast. Such a great mix of photos and short vids, several clearly impromptu and unvarnished, felt real.
I REALLY liked the interface. One nitpick: When the image description is ON, the left and right buttons keep moving up and down after every image, so I cannot keep my mouse in one location and keep clicking NEXT.
Some of these images from the lunar observations gives me a weird perspective where the moon is really small and the features are like rain drops in really soft sand. Not sure if it's because my brain "knows" the size of the earth, and is seeing the moon as super close and forcing the perspective??? This one in particular: https://artemistimeline.com/#a-setting-earth
Unrelated but happened today and found funny, my dad was telling me how my brother somewhere got this miniature 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola. It was like a couple inches in size. It was sold as a joke product to put beside fish you caught to make them appear bigger in photos.
There's also no distance haze effect; there's a single point source of light and no atmospheric scattering illuminating the shadows. Plus it's basically a single uniform gray texture with no variation other than the height.
It's like a video game with ALL the advanced techniques we use to make things look 'real' turned off, because most of those things are atmospheric effects, and this landscape lacks one.
It's really interesting to see see a Hank Green link on HN posted by Geerling, feels like the old internet again.
Oh, and if that wasn't cool enough, apparently the creative director of NASA even posted about it, saying they're using it internally!
...Though, the link appears down, and archive.org doesn't have a copy.
And... archive.ph serves this instead?
Уважаемый Абонент!
Доступ к Интернет-ресурсу
заблокирован
по решению органов государственной власти
Посмотреть причину блокировки можно в едином реестре
1. This is Hank Green's site. That's amazing! If you don't follow him on YouTube, you need to.
2. He used Claude Code! What an incredible enabler of fun little side projects it's turning into.
3. This is exactly what the internet felt like in 2000-2006. This is amazing. Creators are making little things all over and sharing them on the indie web. Yesssss!!!
> He used Claude Code! What an incredible enabler of fun little side projects it's turning into.
I kinda thought so since it has that look to it. Blue'ish theme, rather dense, small fonts and things with borders.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind AI being used here, quite the opposite, I'm sure without it this would never have existed in the first place. Just find it interesting that there is a certain pattern to AI-generated websites.
That was pretty much the point on the mission. Because all of the Apollo missions that went to the moon had a much closer orbit than what Artemis did. That restricted their view of the moon to a much more narrow slice. Artemis was able to see the full disc to provide more coverage.
It is remarkable what a low percentage of photographs of the Moon there are. Plenty of the astronauts, ground crew, the Earth and the craft. I know that probes have photographed the surface before but it is the main interest for me anyway.
Hank Green has a video walking through how to use the timeline here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyZE9VWJjDA. For me, the best experience was to click "Crew Photos Only" and then step through the photos chronologically with the arrow buttons.
Cool! Honestly though, just hitting the "right arrow" button on my keyboard it was a blast. Such a great mix of photos and short vids, several clearly impromptu and unvarnished, felt real.
I REALLY liked the interface. One nitpick: When the image description is ON, the left and right buttons keep moving up and down after every image, so I cannot keep my mouse in one location and keep clicking NEXT.
You can browse the pictures with the cursor keys, though.
Nice to see that multi-national space-faring co-operation can transcend current differing national political stances.
Some of these images from the lunar observations gives me a weird perspective where the moon is really small and the features are like rain drops in really soft sand. Not sure if it's because my brain "knows" the size of the earth, and is seeing the moon as super close and forcing the perspective??? This one in particular: https://artemistimeline.com/#a-setting-earth
I don't there's anything we interact with that has a texture much like the moon's surface.
That would be a cool science museum exhibit: a recreation of regolith and perhaps visitors can interact with it in a glovebox or drive an RC car.
It's partly because everything's in focus. We're not used to seeing images with such enormous distances.
Unrelated but happened today and found funny, my dad was telling me how my brother somewhere got this miniature 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola. It was like a couple inches in size. It was sold as a joke product to put beside fish you caught to make them appear bigger in photos.
This sounds amazing so I had to look it up and found this as an example. (not associated in any way, just a link I found)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1638660676/miniature-2-liter-so...
There's also no distance haze effect; there's a single point source of light and no atmospheric scattering illuminating the shadows. Plus it's basically a single uniform gray texture with no variation other than the height.
It's like a video game with ALL the advanced techniques we use to make things look 'real' turned off, because most of those things are atmospheric effects, and this landscape lacks one.
It's really interesting to see see a Hank Green link on HN posted by Geerling, feels like the old internet again.
Oh, and if that wasn't cool enough, apparently the creative director of NASA even posted about it, saying they're using it internally!
...Though, the link appears down, and archive.org doesn't have a copy.
And... archive.ph serves this instead?
Уважаемый Абонент! Доступ к Интернет-ресурсу заблокирован по решению органов государственной власти Посмотреть причину блокировки можно в едином реестре
Подключай Интерактивное ТВ и сам контролируй, что блокировать! Подключить © Компания TTK, 2024 г.
Translated:
Dear Subscriber! Access to the Internet resource is blocked by decision of state authorities. You can view the reason for the blocking in the unified register (Note: referring to Roskomnadzor, Russia's censorship agency). Connect Interactive TV and control what to block yourself! (A darkly ironic advertisement) Connect © Company TTK, 2024
... which is weird when Russia is technically nowhere in the chain.
This is a amazing exactly how I want to explore the mission.
1. This is Hank Green's site. That's amazing! If you don't follow him on YouTube, you need to.
2. He used Claude Code! What an incredible enabler of fun little side projects it's turning into.
3. This is exactly what the internet felt like in 2000-2006. This is amazing. Creators are making little things all over and sharing them on the indie web. Yesssss!!!
Love your point about how AI tools are boosting fun side projects and how it reminds of early creator internet. Spot on.
> He used Claude Code! What an incredible enabler of fun little side projects it's turning into.
I kinda thought so since it has that look to it. Blue'ish theme, rather dense, small fonts and things with borders.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind AI being used here, quite the opposite, I'm sure without it this would never have existed in the first place. Just find it interesting that there is a certain pattern to AI-generated websites.
And in Hanks vid he mentioned it might become expensive to host on Vercel as I recall.
The far side of the Moon has really lived.
I don’t think I’ve seen photos before that showed both sides in such stark contrast.
That was pretty much the point on the mission. Because all of the Apollo missions that went to the moon had a much closer orbit than what Artemis did. That restricted their view of the moon to a much more narrow slice. Artemis was able to see the full disc to provide more coverage.
Anyone know how similar timeline at top can be created with the drag feature like the site?
Nice shots of Australia on Apr 02, 6:41:23 PM (left = north) and 6:42:35 PM (down = north), including Tropical Cyclone Maila (I think).
Even just seeing it all in photos is humbling. We really should take better care of our home.
It is remarkable what a low percentage of photographs of the Moon there are. Plenty of the astronauts, ground crew, the Earth and the craft. I know that probes have photographed the surface before but it is the main interest for me anyway.
April 6th is probably the best advertisement Nutella could ever make.
And to demonstrate the awesomeness of the crew unity, from the post landing press conference:
Reporter: Whose Nutella was that, that was floating by you in space?
Crew: That was ours. Yes, we do everything as a four-person crew.
It feels like companies, especially camera manufacturers, haven't realized the potential space exploration has for advertising their products
Hasselblad still uses it in their advertisement to this day
$244,094,488.19 per picture?