This “exotic weirdo” exoplanet has a rocky surface and an atmosphere 39%

By Lisa Grossman6%

7/16/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.9% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 668 faulty-reasoning hits from 540 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of 39% (12,905 of 21,167 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.00% of the article peer group.

For the first time, astronomers have detected an atmosphere around a rocky planet orbiting in the habitable zone of a nearby star. 
Such planets have long been considered the best places in the galaxy to look for signs of alien life. 
But so far, “the planets looked like bare rocks,” says astronomer Laura Kreid1berg of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany. 
It wasn’t clear if planets like this could even have atmospheres. 
This study shows that they can, astronomers report in Science July 16. 
The planet, LHS 1140b, is about 5.6 times as massive as Earth and 1.73 times Earth’s size. 
Those dimensions are consistent with an Earthlike composition shrouded in a gaseous atmosphere, or perhaps a global ocean of water. 
It also orbits far enough from its star that its surface temperature could support liquid water. 
But the host star is a cool, dim M dwarf, the most common type of star in the galaxy. 
These stars produce notoriously bad neighborhoods, emitting harsh radiation and brutal stellar flares that could strip their planets’ atmospheres away. 
“The open question is, can rocky exoplanets even keep their atmospheres around M dwarfs?” 
says planetary astronomer Collin Cherubim of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. 
Cherubim and colleagues used the Magellan Clay telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile’s Atacama Desert to observe LHS 1140b passing in front of the star and blocking a bit of its light. 
Just before this transit began and for a little while after, the researchers observed the molecular fingerprint of excess helium gas absorbing light from the star. 
That excess is a sign of helium streaming away from the planet’s atmosphere, Cherubim says  which means it has one. 
“Really, the most exciting thing here is that the planet has an atmosphere at all,” Cherubim says. 
Previous studies had found signs of helium escaping from larger planets than LHS 1140b, called mini-Neptunes. 
These may be in the process of losing their atmospheres, becoming bare rocks. 
LHS 1140b is losing helium, too. 
“It is slowly changing,” Cherubim says. 
“On astronomical timescales, billions of years from now, the atmosphere will be quite different.” 
But it probably won’t be lost forever. 
LHS 1140b is cooler than the mini-Neptunes and is losing atmospheric mass at a much lower rate. 
The planet has already held on to its atmosphere for more than 3 billion years and could be stable for a billion more, Cherubim calculates. 
Even then, the planet could maintain an atmosphere made of heavier gases like carbon dioxide or nitrogen. 
Follow-up observations with the James Webb Space Telescope will help determine other features of the atmosphere, like how much helium it contains and what other molecules are in there. 
Another detection would also confirm the atmosphere is really there, Kreidberg says. 
A rocky planet with a helium-rich atmosphere is a surprising finding, she adds. 
“This is a kind of planet that we’ve never seen before,” she says. 
Its atmosphere is thicker than expected for a rocky planet, but not thick enough to be a gas giant. 
“Because it’s such an exotic weirdo planet, it never occurred to me to go look for it.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Lisa Grossman: 2.1%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 7.2%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias7.2%This article: 5.9%Lisa Grossman: 2.2%Science News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 3.5%Lisa Grossman: 1.2%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.5%Science News: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias12.0%This article: 2.0%Lisa Grossman: 3.6%Science News: 4.3%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.9%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Lisa Grossman: 5.8%Science News: 4.2%Optimism Bias11.7%This article: 2.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias2.0%This article: 13.9%Lisa Grossman: 1.9%Science News: 4.0%Negativity Bias13.9%This article: 3.1%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.2%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.9%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 4.1%Lisa Grossman: 0.6%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Lisa Grossman: 3.5%Science News: 4.6%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 2.6%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 2.4%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope2.4%This article: 2.2%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.2%This article: 3.5%Lisa Grossman: 2.8%Science News: 4.0%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Lisa Grossman: 2.2%Science News: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 3.9%Lisa Grossman: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 3.1%Lisa Grossman: 0.5%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.6%Lisa Grossman: 0.5%Science News: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 8.9%Lisa Grossman: 1.6%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice8.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.4%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

540 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech331writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Kreid1berg • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCollin Cherubim • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Kreid1berg • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Kreid1berg • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Kreid1berg • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Kreid1berg • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Laura Kreid1berg

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words37% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+12.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Laura Kreid1berg: 21.8%21.8%Quote-first Misdirection-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Laura Kreid1berg: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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