4 ms·

Anyone find the full res version of this ? Nasa images page is useless. Government work.

matteason 7mo ago
They're here: https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/ https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/ Direct link to this image: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e000192.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...
- mbauman 7mo ago
  That version is ~~brightened significantly~~ (edit) a longer exposure; I like the darker one better. https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/
  - Sharlin 7mo ago
    They're two separate photos, just taken at different exposure settings.
    - mbauman 7mo ago
      Sure enough, thanks for the correction!
- damnitbuilds 6mo ago
  Jpeg.
Jordan-117 7mo ago
"I cannot immediately find a photo on a website, therefore I will denigrate the agency that sent people into OUTER SPACE to make these incredible images possible."
- damnitbuilds 6mo ago
  NASA spends $4 billion PER ARTEMIS FLIGHT to throw reusable engines into the sea so people with influential representatives get jobs. It is pork barrel politics at its very worse. NASA has a lot to be proud of. but not Artemis. And not their Artemis website.
sgt 7mo ago
I don't understand why media, such as BBC, keep uploading heavily compressed versions of photos that could be beautiful. The original has grain, sure but that's not a problem. The BBC version is horrific. Are they trying to save on bandwidth in 2026?
- pndy 7mo ago
  If the content loads fast, more views are given and more data is collected. My uBo caught 6 elements, Privacy Possum got referer headers blocked from 28 sources
- BHSPitMonkey 7mo ago
  It's highly reasonable for them to limit image size/quality to whatever looks fine to 98% of their readers. They store and serve an absolute ton of ever-changing content to browsers/apps; The very small (and likely revenue-negative) contingent of highly motivated people can find the originals if the images are especially noteworthy like these.

They're here: https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/ https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/ Direct link to this image: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e000192.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019...

mbauman 7mo ago
That version is ~~brightened significantly~~ (edit) a longer exposure; I like the darker one better. https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/
- Sharlin 7mo ago
  They're two separate photos, just taken at different exposure settings.
  - mbauman 7mo ago
    Sure enough, thanks for the correction!
damnitbuilds 6mo ago
Jpeg.

Jordan-117 7mo ago

"I cannot immediately find a photo on a website, therefore I will denigrate the agency that sent people into OUTER SPACE to make these incredible images possible."

damnitbuilds 6mo ago
NASA spends $4 billion PER ARTEMIS FLIGHT to throw reusable engines into the sea so people with influential representatives get jobs. It is pork barrel politics at its very worse. NASA has a lot to be proud of. but not Artemis. And not their Artemis website.

sgt 7mo ago

I don't understand why media, such as BBC, keep uploading heavily compressed versions of photos that could be beautiful. The original has grain, sure but that's not a problem. The BBC version is horrific. Are they trying to save on bandwidth in 2026?

pndy 7mo ago
If the content loads fast, more views are given and more data is collected. My uBo caught 6 elements, Privacy Possum got referer headers blocked from 28 sources
BHSPitMonkey 7mo ago
It's highly reasonable for them to limit image size/quality to whatever looks fine to 98% of their readers. They store and serve an absolute ton of ever-changing content to browsers/apps; The very small (and likely revenue-negative) contingent of highly motivated people can find the originals if the images are especially noteworthy like these.