We also calculated the thermal recoil force on the spacecraft using just the Doppler data, by computing the force needed to match the probes’ trajectories. When we compared this independent estimate with the one derived from the spacecraft model, we found that the two values matched within 20 percent. Once uncertainties are taken into account, there is no statistically significant difference. Three decades after its discovery, we can now say there is no exotic cause for the Pioneer anomaly: The puzzling deceleration was produced by the asymmetric radiation of waste heat created onboard the spacecraft.
But not to the extent that this team did.I'm extremely skeptical about this "explanation" since it was one of the first dismissed by the same authors in their original paper.
Among the many dozens of explanations refuted then, thermal recoil was one of the simplest and the effect has been checked by so many people.
That article proposes a second gravitational constant.According to the information contained in the following paper, asymmetric heat dissipation should only account for about half of the anomalous acceleration at most:
Where did they claim the data was wrong? All I see is that they didn't analyze the data for Pioneer 11 in as much detail as they did for 10, and that they believe a previous model is incorrect.In other words, since the data for Pioneer anomaly doesn’t fit their model, they claim that the data itself is wrong, not the model. Sounds a bit backwards, don’t you think?