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?
I don't know. That was Dr. Zheng's statement... Not mine.
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?
Again, these were not my statements. I was simply quoting Dr. Zheng. You'll have to ask him if you have any questions regarding
his stance.
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.
As soon as I'm done replying to all of these questions. I've been EXTREMELY busy these past few days and Shenzhou hadn't even crossed my mind until tonight really.
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.
The analysis was Dr. Zheng's not mine. You can email him if you'd like. His email is public domain through a JPL address. If you don't believe he truly sent me the email I claim he did, feel free to ask him. I will PM his email address to you if you want. I will ask him before I do so.
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...
Orbital Mechanics aren't
that complicated. If there was anything wrong with his analysis, we'd all notice. I have seen no analysis from him and I cannot provide one as those were his statements. If you wish to see one, feel free to ask him.
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.
Dr. Zheng's email is readily available to anyone. Ask
him any questions you have about his analysis. I simply quoted the statement he left me.
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one.
There are plenty of people who doubt the Russian space achievements of the early sixties. If you mean experts, I haven't done much research into
that and couldn't tell you.[/quote]
What do you think about that Vincent?
I think I feel totally indifferent. What's your point?
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.
Every single point and question here is a good question for Dr. Zheng himself. All I did was quote the statement he gave me to show what he thought about the spacewalk. If you have any questions about his analysis, since I am not Dr. Zheng, I cannot answer those questions. You will have to run those by him yourself.
Please answer them all in full, addressing each point and show your calculations whenever appropriate.
Please don't start handwaving, evading the questions etc
I'll gladly address the claims
I made. But I simply can't answer for Dr. Zheng, as I am not Dr. Zheng.
