Latest activity

In fairness to the media (I feel like I need a shower for saying that, a bit) the Integrity crew did see parts of the far side that nobody has seen by eye before -- being further from the surface, they saw areas that the lower-orbiting Apollo...

Jeebus, 5pm? Someone had it livestreamed on their phone in the pub last night, and by my recollection it was past 3am. (No need to recollect, one of my IRC windows says "03:09 < FatPhil> splashdown!".) Trust me, we euros enjoyed the event more...

Oh it's the wrong star you matched when zooming in. https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=17922/Qianfan/20260411_211315.js

No lecturing detected. All good. It's just nice to know that people from different backgrounds have similar bases. (That make sense.)

Oh sorry it was the zoom that matched, I thought it was the start ;) Ok, will there be an official TLE later ?

The stars don't align on that one.

The stars are fine. The satellite is just a bit off. It's because it's a manually created TLE, made from visual observations. Based on that, the angular difference is perfectly acceptable.

I recall there being a comment in the initial nuclear-association paper that the authors blindly chose the +/- 1 day date range to register their target ahead of running the numbers, presumably to avoid p-hacking -- picking data after the fact to...

The stars are fine. The satellite is just a bit off. It's because it's a manually created TLE, made from visual observations. Based on that, the angular difference is perfectly acceptable.

I still think it's the Qianfan train though, it just puzzles me why it's so unprecise. We're used to everything matches very well. ....is it because it's made in China? ;)

The stars don't align on that one.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=15857/Reddit%20QIANFAN%20Nottingham/20260411_195011.js

I tried that one, again off by 1½ minutes and 100 km :( https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=17922/Qianfan/20260411_194918.js

I recall there being a comment in the initial nuclear-association paper that the authors blindly chose the +/- 1 day date range to register their target ahead of running the numbers, presumably to avoid p-hacking -- picking data after the fact to...

I have a question concerning section 3.4., Temporal Correlation with Nuclear Tests (page 4 of paper and PDF), apologies in advance if it is naïve or a non-issue for you guys who have been following this subject: The baseline rate—days more than...