Smithsonian Starstruck VR exhibit lets you stroll through the stars 24%

By Rob Pegoraro0%

7/3/2026, 11:15:35 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 274 hits. Analysis detected 1,374 faulty-reasoning hits from 923 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,736 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.50% of the article peer group.

Having a computer strapped to my face for 40 minutes was one reason to feel a little sweaty. 
But the tour of the Universe I had just received in virtual reality—including visits to the near vicinity of the Sun, the giant black hole at the center of our galaxy, and a hellscape of an exoplanet 41 light-years distant—provided another excuse for sensing some heat. 
Smithsonian Starstruck: An Immersive Experience is a 40-minute astronomy walk-through. 
It debuted in Washington, DC, in May with solo adult tickets now ranging from $29 to $35 and group tickets for four or more starting at $18 each (all now discounted by 15 percent); it will also open in Denver, Orlando, Florida, and San Antonio, Texas, later this year. 
I stopped by on a Monday in June to take it in. 
After some onboarding that included setting such preferences as closed captioning and signing a waiver, I had enough time to sit on a bench next to the exhibit space (which has hosted other VR experiences) to enjoy watching another attendee with a VR headset blurt out, “Oh my God!” 
After putting on an HTC Vive Focus 3 headset and receiving introductory coaching about how to move through the exhibit space, the tour began. 
My virtual self was standing below a glittering night sky at the Multiple Mirror Telescope at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Whipple Observatory. 
The stars in my VR night were big and bright, but they blurred noticeably when I moved my head. 
I had to wonder how a headset more recent than this 2021-vintage model would have performed; in other cities, Starstruck patrons will don a newer HTC product, the Vive Focus Vision, and the DC exhibit will move to that model at some point. 
From there, we walked from one viewing spot to another in Starstruck’s room, occasionally bumping into each other as we followed the lead of a virtual tour guide wearing what looked like an approximation of SpaceX’s spacesuits and voiced by narrator James Seawood. 
We strolled to watch a re-creation of the Universe’s self-birth via the Big Bang, then ambled over for a close-up look at a stellar nursery that the Hubble Space Telescope made famous as the Pillars of Creation. 
Seawood described the scene of star formation floating before our perch as “a cosmic pressure cooker” and “beautiful chaos.” 
VR vistas 
As we stood on a virtual set of glowing hexagonal blocks, the VR vistas zoomed as far out as a view of thousands of galaxies and as close as a dangerous proximity to the Sun—with NASA’s Parker Solar Probe keeping us company. 
Starstruck features three other of NASA’s farthest-seeing observatories: Hubble, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the James Webb Space Telescope. 
Each spacecraft’s close-up in the tour comes with a chance to press a “Take a picture” button that didn’t seem to do anything, plus an opportunity to play with a small model of it. 
I could not resist a chance to inspect JWST’s intimidatingly complex design, so I picked up a gossamer version of the observatory 1.5 million kilometers away from my real-world spot and gently turned it in my virtual hand. 
Much of Starstruck focuses on the life cycles of stars and their planets, and a particularly evocative segment transported us to the hellish surface of Janssen, an exoplanet also known as 55 Cancri Ae that’s in an orbit so close to its star Copernicus that its year lasts about 17 hours. 
The experience’s depiction of that planet’s surface as rugged rock outcrops with lava flowing around them (and stashes of diamonds crushed into being by the intense heat) may understate Janssen’s brutal environment—some analyses suggest that its entire surface is molten rock. 
Many exoplanets are stuck in inhospitable orbits that make life or just the presence of liquid water impossible, and this stop on the tour brings home Earth’s good fortune. 
As Seawood put it: “We hit the stellar jackpot.” 
Two other stops provided an up-close look at the death throes of stars. 
A visit to Betelgeuse showed that the late-stage red supergiant in the constellation Orion was looking distinctly lumpy as it had begun to fuse higher elements. 
The visit then took us into the future with the star going supernova, putting on a show that no one on Earth has seen for centuries. 
The last stop in space took us to just outside the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, the unimaginably enormous black hole at the center of the Milky Way. 
Starstruck made its most effective use of VR’s potential here; I raised my virtual hand to direct a beam of light toward the black hole, then saw it bend into that inescapable gravity well and shift into the red. 
The tour ended by taking us back to a particularly remote corner of Earth and another sky full of stars: Chile’s Atacama Desert, the future site of the Giant Magellan Telescope (SAO is among its founding partners). 
It depicts that still-under-construction observatory as finished, with its enclosure open and its seven primary mirrors angled up to see a little farther into the Universe. 
For a VR connoisseur with an Apple Vision Pro at home, the experience here might not deliver enough technical wow. 
But if you’re a space nerd or astronomy enthusiast—especially if you can assemble three like-minded friends as an away team to qualify for the group discount and make it less awkward when you walk into each other mid-tour—it provides an engaging escape. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.5%Ars Technica: 2.8%Confirmation Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 1.2%Ars Technica: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Rob Pegoraro: 2.6%Ars Technica: 2.4%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Rob Pegoraro: 1.1%Ars Technica: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 12.1%Rob Pegoraro: 4.7%Ars Technica: 3.4%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 4.6%Rob Pegoraro: 1.1%Ars Technica: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.6%This article: 2.2%Rob Pegoraro: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Rob Pegoraro: 3.7%Ars Technica: 4.2%Optimism Bias10.7%This article: 2.8%Rob Pegoraro: 0.7%Ars Technica: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 9.0%Rob Pegoraro: 2.2%Ars Technica: 6.2%Negativity Bias9.0%This article: 4.1%Rob Pegoraro: 1.0%Ars Technica: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Rob Pegoraro: 2.3%Ars Technica: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Rob Pegoraro: 2.6%Ars Technica: 2.0%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Rob Pegoraro: 1.2%Ars Technica: 1.0%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.5%Rob Pegoraro: 1.6%Ars Technica: 4.1%Appeal to Authority6.5%This article: 2.2%Rob Pegoraro: 0.5%Ars Technica: 1.1%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Rob Pegoraro: 1.9%Ars Technica: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Rob Pegoraro: 1.9%Ars Technica: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.0%Rob Pegoraro: 5.1%Ars Technica: 1.5%Anecdotal10.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.2%Ars Technica: 1.5%Unattributed Quote1.0%This article: 3.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.8%Ars Technica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 29.7%Rob Pegoraro: 10.2%Ars Technica: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice29.7%This article: 4.6%Rob Pegoraro: 1.1%Ars Technica: 1.0%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Pegoraro: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Rob Pegoraro: 9.0%Ars Technica: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.9%

923 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.0%attributed speech895writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageJames Seawood • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJames Seawood • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Seawood

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Seawood: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+32.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Seawood: 32.1%32.1%Biased Writer Voice-30.6 ptsWriter: 30.6%James Seawood: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%James Seawood: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%James Seawood: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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