There are plenty of images of the Sun taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and by several missions which had precisely the Sun as a primary target, covering the spectrum from infrared emissions to high energy X-rays and visual lightwaves as well.
No, Huibble was not designed to do that. SOHO can image the Sun ar wavelengths our eyes can not see, but has no conventional camera. I asked the boffins at a military R&D facility how we could see the true colour of the Sun from space, and they said by using a Neutral Density filter, as it reduces all wavelenght equally.
Lots of images of the Sun through ND filters taken from Earth, but I can find none from space. Images of the Sun taken from the ISS or Apollo missions when in Earth orbit do not use filters, and they took no solar filters on the Apollo missions and do not have them as standard equipment on the ISS. Don Pettit had to take his own filter to image the Venus transit of the Sun, but from the Cupola, the line of sight to the Sun was through Earths atmophere, and not looking away from Earth, which they can not do from the Cupola. There are no portholes facing away from Earth on the ISS, or none that are in use anyway.
I came by Space Engine while looking for video of the Cupola location when seen from outside of the ISS. Here is a screenshot from the SE video, and one from the ESA simulation.http://www3.telus.net/myworld/SE_cupola.pnghttp://www3.telus.net/myworld/cupola.png
You can see that the view is very restricted, and is limited to a line of sight which must pass through Earths atmosphere. Yes, the atmosphere is thinner up there, but the column of atmosphere the LOS passes through is much deeper than the LOS we see through when looking away from Earth, as illustrated in this graphic.http://www3.telus.net/myworld/los4.jpg
Techically, the atmosphere goes out much further, so even if a line of sight out to 90 degrees from the perpendicular (Earth facing) window, they would still be looking through a very deep column of atmosphere. It is a forward scatter process of UV/EUV light from the Sun that creates a beam of visible light that we see from Earth, so the atmosphere is acting as a kind of optical transformer.
They did take images of the Sun from the lunar surface, and the Moon supposedly has no atmosphere, but the LADEE mission showed that there is an atmosphere of nanometer sized dust grains, and it is known that these dust grains when subject to UV/EUV light will produce a white, full spectrum light, which is what illuminated the astronauts quite brightly when the centre of the beam was passing over their location. The low level light, Earthshine as we call it, is actually due to the UV/EUV from the top of Earths atmosphere interacting with that fine dust lunar atmosphere. There are no photos of the Sun itself from lunar orbit though.
The Sun from the lunar surface is much larger than it should be with the lens they were using, and that is put down to camera optics, but I think this is actually how the Sun appeared to their eyes. So if the Sun is visible in space, as NASA claims, why were no photos of it taken during 3 days each way in Cislunar space with nothing much else to do?
Sorry to ramble on, and I am in no way knocking SE, but rather believe it could be used to demonstrate the inconsistencies in NASAs photos and explanations. Of course space travel would be very boring if the only time you could see anything was when you were close enough to a planet with an atmosphere sufficient to create the light that illuminates the planet, or to be able to look through its atmosphere to see the stars, as they do from the ISS. In the original Star Trek series, the bridge had no windows, everything was displayed on large screens, and those images would be from instruments which can see what our eyes could not, and that is likely exactly how it would have to be. As Herschel said, the light in space is not suitable to human vision.
Thanks for listening to my theory, and congratulations on producing such a wonderful piece of software.