posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
Well, since you asked, on the previous page, I wrote exactly why you haven't seen more pics of this:
Basically what this boils down to is the difference between photography and measurement - the difference, essentially, between art and science.
NASA doesn't want beautiful, high-resolution false-colour images of ISON. They serve it and the people who share the data with them no purpose
whatsoever, except perhaps as a nice PR achievement.
As has been stated numerous times, the various orbital instruments that have been pointed at this thing - Hubble included - were not designed for, and
never intended to act in the capacity of, comet photography. We're talking about trying to take good photographs in non-visible spectra like X-Rays.
So, to start with, we're taking photographs with tools that aren't cameras in the traditional sense, and even then we're limited in the available
resolution because of bandwidth limitations presented by the fact that space is noisy.
Why are the photographs from the ground better? Because their composites of multiple photographs taken in the visual spectrum with tools designed for
the job, whose technical specifications are far better suited to the task, operating in a much less hostile environment for electronics, and the
people who compose the images burn literally tens if not dozens of man-hours in their production, and were intended to take these images right from
Hubble, the much-vaunted tool that everyone thinks should be able to read the lettering on the sides of the buildings on Nibiru-that-is-ISON or
whatever everyone thinks this NEO actually is, was never designed to image anything nearly so close. It's like trying to take a macro photo of a nice
thistle-flower with a telephoto lens and expecting it to register anything other than a purple blob on top of a green blob.