Specifically: any example of NEOWISE measurement of the size of a known size asteroid being wildly wrong? One example?
-
-
Replying to @FaizaFaria
1. Their own claim is error more than 10% half of the time,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
2. They calibrated fudge factors to known asteroid sizes, so they should be close, right? Would really like someone to explain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
3. I would say an albedo of 1.0 would likely be “wildly wrong.” But can’t check independently.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
3. Example of asteroid size measurement being wildly wrong, please. Or please admit that you do not have such an example. /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
If Dave Herald hadn’t posted, you wouldn’t have your example, either. I can’t report a story in reverse time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
The occultation data IS interesting and worth following up on. But one data point doesn’t refute everything by itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
Nathan could be entirely wrong. But that’s not what people told me when I talked to them.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
not a single source backs up that the NEOCAM teams may be fudging numbers to get more money. Sorry, not a good excuse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
I didn’t write NEOCam was fudging numbers to get $. Or Nathan was attacking NEOCam to help LSST, which the other side alleges
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Is Nathan credible enough to write about this? With my reporting, I felt yes. We’ll see how it plays out.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.