On Nov 4, 3:41*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
wrote:
For more information about EPOXI visithttp://www.nasa.gov/epoxiand
http://epoxi.umd.edu/.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/epoxi/index.html

The images there make it look like a giant drumstick. *Does that mean
that the spacecraft's next task is to find the rest of the giant space
chicken, or will they be looking for the KFC?-)

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

The inert comet/asteroid Hartley 2

103P/Hartley 2 (albedo of 45% is roughly twice as physically dark as
that of our moon, and by many others experienced in such albedo
ratings have its visual reflectance at less than 3%, because those
highly charged surrounding particles don’t really count)
http://cometography.com/pcomets/103p.html
Notice all them pesky stars, as having been obtained entirely from
Earth and thus having the polluted atmosphere always in the way.

Of course those official EPOXI images are nearly starless:
http://epoxi.umd.edu/3gallery/20101104_CA.shtml
Perhaps because their own spendy cameras have such **** poor dynamic
range and no atmospheric interference, as well as their offering us no
colors/hues to speak of, thereby telling us nothing whatsoever about
whatever minerals/elements that this comet/asteroid has to offer.

Even the previously obtained spectrographic results from Keck and
Hubble are still being kept taboo/nondisclosure rated. Kinda like
scientific need-to-know extortion, in that we get to pay them more of
our hard earned loot before they fork anything over.

I think my free cell phone camera offers better dynamic range than
EPOXI, as well as colors/hues to boot.

How many all-inclusive millions to date has this EPOXI cost us?

~ BG