Shenzhou 7?

[gillianren]

Just in case you still don't get it, Vincent, the fact that he 'works for JPL' does not make him an expert. I worked for Pfizer, but I know next to nothing about Viagra.

As it happens, one of my best friends works for JPL.  They're paying for her to get her MBA, in fact, and I know more about spaceflight than she does.  When I was a kid, JPL adopted my junior high.  (The Adopt-a-School program of the Pasadena Unified School District.)  I went caroling through their complex with my choir in seventh grade; I still have the Christmas tree ornament I got from that.  I've also done the open house several times.  (If you live in the area, it's worth going; I believe it's every May.)  There are a lot of people who work there who are not qualified to judge the validity of a video of a spacewalk.

[ka9q]

Lines like these totally destroy this guy's credibility:

Yes, but what I found was that the video was a faked ‘live cast’, there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.

The only meaningful words here are we don't know. I.e., he doesn't know, so he lets his imagination run wild. It's the usual conspiracist supposition based on nothing more than "well, I suppose this or that could have happened".

[ka9q]

I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.

Wait -- he's basing his entire conclusion on the the fact that the ground appearing in the video didn't match where he thought the spacecraft should be at the time?? I happen to know a fair bit about satellite tracking, having written software from scratch to do it, so I can authoritatively say that this is just plain silly.

Which of these possibilities seem more likely?

1. The orbital elements were off. Manned spacecraft in low earth orbit are notorious for the very short lifetimes of their published orbital element sets. Manned spacecraft frequently maneuver, and they're usually in such low orbits that atmospheric drag is both significant and unpredictable, as it depends on solar activity and the orientation of the spacecraft. A small amount of unmodeled drag will integrate quickly (often over less than a day) to significant along-track position errors.

So the NORAD elesets are often out of date by the time a civilian gets them from official sources. Sometimes they're out of date even when NORAD gets them, as it depends on their source: recent NORAD tracking or simply passed on from the spacecraft operator. (I have personally generated an element set for a satellite, given it to NORAD, and seen it appear later in their published elesets).

2. The spacewalk broadcast wasn't actually 'live' - the Chinese (or some news agency) recorded the EVA and played it later. Many recordings are made of broadcasts with the word LIVE on the screen, and obviously that word does not apply when the recordings are played back.

3. Zheng was confused about his geography and where the camera was actually pointing.

4. The Chinese faked the whole thing, doing such an outstanding job on the special effects that nearly every western space engineer (except for Zheng) is still completely fooled.

[Jason Thompson]

So, some questions, Vincent:

I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).

Which way was the camera pointing?

What portion of the Earth could you expect the camera to be able to see? Does it, for example, only see the land or ocean directly below the spacecraft?

What positional error would be required compared to the published parameters for the spacecraft to be over ocean instead of land?

Is such an error within the normal range when comparing published and actual positions of orbital spacecraft?

And finally:

When are you going to take those ten minutes you promised to point out the time reference in the original video you posted I asked you for some time ago? The one where we see the taikonaut's legs float up of their own accord.

[ChrLz]

Vincent, please consider this a formal request, if you wish to 'use' this alleged expert as an authority.

Qu Zheng stated, according to you:

I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies

Post that orbital analysis.  In full.

And to Qu Zheng, if you are watching this unfold, why don't *you* do that?  I'll happily admit I'm no orbital-mechanics whiz, but I do know what a decent analysis will look like and how to verify the approach that was taken.  And given we have a goodly number of folks here who DO know all about the topic, here's Qu Zheng's chance for an informal 'peer review' - if I had come up with a theory like this I would be most eager to bounce it off experts...

May I place a bet?  I bet that the excuses will come thick and fast, but no analysis will appear.

Even a cursory look at some of the posts on this thread should make an 'analytical pretender' realise what a complete mess he has made of this one...

Prove me wrong, Vincent/Qu.

[ka9q]

Yes. Please post that orbital analysis. I want to see:

1. Every available TLE (three line element) set for the SZ-7 spacecraft with epoch dates +/- 1 day of the spacewalk.

The numbers in an element set define an orbit and the position and velocity of the spacecraft within that orbit at the epoch time. A tracking program can then determine position and velocity at other times, but accuracy degrades the farther you go from the epoch in either direction. The predictions are also invalid if an orbital maneuver was made between the epoch and time of prediction.

I want to see how closely the predicted positions match for the different element sets. This will tell me how quickly the orbit was being perturbed by maneuvers and unmodeled drag, and from that I can estimate the accuracy of the predicted position using the 'best' element set, i.e., the one with the epoch closest to the time of the spacewalk.

If all the element sets +/-1 day give nearly identical positions during the EVA, then I can feel pretty confident about their accuracy. But if element sets with epochs just a few hours apart give radically different positions, then all of them are suspect.

I will also be able to detect any gross errors in the element sets, e.g., if one gives an entirely different orbit than the others.

2. The universal times of EVA start and finish. These are given in the Wikipedia article as follows; is there any dispute about them?

Zhai leaves airlock: 0843 UTC 27 Sept 2008
Zhai returns to orbital module: 0900 UTC

3. The video of the spacewalk with the earth geography below (if any) identified.

[frenat]

I've never been able to understand WHY they would have to fake it.  They can get to orbit right?  They can buy spacesuits right?  They know how to dress themselves right?  They are capable of opening doors right?  What is supposed to be so hard about a spacewalk then?

[Echnaton]

To summarize, Vincent, what we have here is a non-expert who has given a tentative opinion that he claims is based on an analysis that he hasn't provided.  Your other source is a unnamed person who has made no public statement and whose only qualification you have provided is the ability to use Google software to animate the landing of Apollo 11.  That you have asserted you claim of a hoax on something so flimsy puts you in the camp of the hoax believers.  In other words, you have a politically driven reason to want the spacewalk to be a hoax and just grasp at whatever is available that superficially appears to affirm your beliefs.  That simply doesn't cut it. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Add to the fact the Chinese are using space ship and space suit technology influenced by directly by Russian technology, which has a proven pedigree that spans decades.

Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.

What do you think about that Vincent?

[carpediem]

Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.

Not quite true, Hunchbacked thinks that Yuri Gagarin's flight was faked.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Not quite true, Hunchbacked thinks that Yuri Gagarin's flight was faked.

Goes without saying, really.

[twik]

Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for Vincent.

OT, but that is a rather unnerving gif. It's scarier than the rest of the video.

[Andromeda]

Vincent

These are my questions for you:

1. Did you or did you not go to the pool, after declaring you were "just off" there?

1a. If you did, what did you find?

2. Why do you choose to believe a single non-expert over many experts in this matter?

3. Why did you declare that your "expert" claimed the mission was fake, when the email you allegedly received from him does not say that?


Lastly and perhaps most importantly:

4. I note you make the same arguments in the same way as Turbonium in this thread: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=136948&st=195

Do you have a connection to Turbonium, and if so, what is it?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

My spider sense tells me Vincent won't participate any further in this thread, which is a shame.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Do you have a connection to Turbonium, and if so, what is it?[/b]

Great minds think alike?