If the initial work were not peer reviewed, you would not be holding it up as an example of something successful.

Therefore, it's NASA's sponsorship of the peer review which is a necessary and direct cause of you calling it successful here.

So my initial assessment of what you said stands. You're saying the physics community is receptive because NASA sponsored an attempts to verify it. That proves nothing about the receptivity of the physics community nor of even NASA. But I don't expect this to be something you can easily agree with. After all, you're proving my point.