Artemis II crew hints it's returning with fantastic secrets and 'stories' from space 56%

By Natalie O'Neill0%

4/10/2026, 11:11:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.3% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 400 faulty-reasoning hits from 295 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.5% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,677 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.80% of the article peer group.

The sky’s the limit to their space secrets. 
The Artemis II crew says it is returning from humanity’s farthest galactic journey with cosmically cool “stories” and dazzling information that’s yet to be revealed. 
“There’s so much data that you’ve seen already, but all the good stuff is coming back with us,” pilot astronaut Victor Glover said from outer space this week. 
“There’s so many more pictures, so many more stories, and, gosh, I haven’t even begun to process what we’ve been through. 
“We have to get back,” he said, according to NPR. 
To return safely from its historic 10-day moon mission, the crew must re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere at a precise angle  while taking a daring plunge through ultra-hot temperatures at a mind-bending speed of nearly 25,000 mph. 
“Let’s not beat around the bush,” said Jeff Radigan, Artemis II’s lead flight director. 
“We have to hit that angle correctly. 
Otherwise, we’re not going to have a successful re-entry.” 
The space capsule will enter the atmosphere near Hawaii at 7:53 p.m. 
ET, then splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego if all goes to plan. 
The re-entry is thought to be the most dangerous part of the Artemis II’s mission as the 330-cubic-foot capsule is scorched by heat half as hot as the sun’s surface. 
The four astronauts on board launched from the Kennedy Space Center on April 1 in a test flight to orbit the moon  marking humankind’s first return to deep space since 1972. 
They later set the record for the greatest distance humans have ever traveled into space at roughly 252,756 miles, beating the previous one set by the Apollo 13 in 1970. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Natalie O'Neill: 6.6%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 3.2%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 24.6%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 35.3%Natalie O'Neill: 17.3%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias35.3%This article: 3.1%Natalie O'Neill: 1.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 22.7%Natalie O'Neill: 7.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 3.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.1%Natalie O'Neill: 1.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.2%Natalie O'Neill: 3.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization10.2%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.9%Natalie O'Neill: 12.9%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion12.9%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 38.3%Natalie O'Neill: 34.0%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice38.3%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natalie O'Neill: 0.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

295 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech206writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageVictor Glover • 28 words • 0.0% coverageVictor Glover • 21 words • 0.0% coverageVictor Glover • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageJeff Radigan • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Radigan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Radigan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeff Radigan

30%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words34% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-54.9 ptsWriter: 54.9%Jeff Radigan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.