"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Scott Lowther" wrote:

"Dr John Murray, of the Open
University, UK, who is on the camera
team, told BBC News Online: "This is
the first 3D camera sent to Mars.
"It is 10 times better than anything
sent before. We have high hopes
for it and how it will advance our
understanding of Mars."

Umm... first 3-D camera to Mars? Didn't Pathfinder have stero cameras?

I thought so. Didn't the Viking Orbiters produce stereo images? Weren't
the
Viking landers equipped with stereo imagers? The above statements are just
bizarre. First, if I am not mistaken, all that is required for stereo
imagery are two pictures taken from slightly different viewpoints (just as
the human eyes are separated by a couple of inches). You can do that with
a
single lens, no?

Also, I think the Mars Express camera can get two meter resolution at
best.
That's about the _same_ as MGS and Odyssey, no?

Jon


Whose is bigger? It always comes down to this important question , doesn't
it?

For the press, some people will say strange things, especially when funding
depends
on media relations. For (another) example, the DeepSpace1 is advertised as
*the first ion engine in space*, while it is not so. USSR tested one on
their 1964 Zond 2 and 3 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1964-078C.html
and http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...g?sc=1965-056A).


The cameras on Mars Express(MEX) and Mars Global Surveyor(MGS) are quite
different instruments, designed for different purposes.

MEX
I think the greatest resolution (assuming 250 km height - the lowest point
of MEX orbit)
is 2.3 m/pixel.
Actually there are 2 cameras, and the stereo one has 'only' 10m/pixel
resolution at 250 km.
The 'stereo' camera (HRSC) uses a single lens, and 9 'modes' of simultaneous
image acquisition -
RGB + stereo(LRN) + infrared + 2 photometric channels.

see
http://berlinadmin.dlr.de/Missions/e...ameraeng.shtml


The best resolution of MGS camera (MOC) is 1.4 m/pixel at 380 km height, for
the black and white camera, and 280m/pixel - 2km/pixel for the red/blue
cameras.

see
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ex=1


So, the max resolution of MOC is better at 1.4 m/pixel (at 380 km) vs. 2.3
m/pixel (at 250 km) for HRSC.
On the other hand, the CCD element in HRSC has 9 line elements of 5184 pix +
one 1024 X 1032 element, while the MOC has 2 line 2048 pix + 4 elements of
3456 pix 'only'. Thus, one could say the imaging capabilities of HRSC are
'greater'.


Meanwhile, the scientists on MER and MEX teams are working together to get
the most out of
all instruments - see
(http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/M...XX374OD_0.html)

The media in Europe are diverse and of different bias from country to
country.
I can only say that *I* personally think all missions to Mars currently
going on are
fantastic achievements for all of the humankind.

And to say 'Americans are fat' or 'Europeans are arrogant' is the same as ,
based on two rocks examined , 'There was no life on Mars, ever'.

Regards
MP - an European