A_Suspicious_Fart
A_Suspicious_Fart t1_jdryqkv wrote
Reply to comment by astro_pettit in My camera setup on the International Space station. More details in comments. by astro_pettit
Did you ever play around with radio setup, and chat with bam operators on the ground?
A_Suspicious_Fart t1_jdryg02 wrote
Reply to comment by azivius in My camera setup on the International Space station. More details in comments. by astro_pettit
I mean we’re on Earth, and Earth is in space sooooo….. 🤷🏼♂️
A_Suspicious_Fart t1_j9whfd5 wrote
Starship, but I’m going to take the lazy route and say all of them. There is just so much to be excited for.
A_Suspicious_Fart t1_je1v3uq wrote
Reply to comment by spsheridan in Fast radio burst linked with gravitational waves for the first time by spsheridan
I think you are misunderstanding the process of peer review. Yes, it was peer reviewed during the publication process. However, that does not mean there are no flaws in the analysis, or the conclusions drawn from the analysis in the paper. There are a lot of published papers in reputable journals that have been peer reviewed, but still haven’t been tested well enough to confirm the claims of the authors. In some cases the claims are just wrong. This process is iterative, and can take many years. We should never take any claims, no matter how compelling as gospel. Instead they should be met with varying levels of skepticism.