CBC Radio49%

After the success of Artemis II, a long road lies ahead to a moon landing 51%

By Bob McDonald0%

4/16/2026, 12:46:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.1% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,501 faulty-reasoning hits from 782 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.7% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,796 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.70% of the article peer group.

The remarkably successful flight of Artemis II carrying Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen and his fellow crewmates around the moon and back proved that the technology of the Space Launch System and Orion capsule are capable of deep space exploration. 
But the next step, to land humans on the moon, requires a giant leap in technology. 
The Orion capsule is a shuttle that can fly between Earth and the moon, but it cannot touch down on the lunar surface. 
The flight Hansen took with NASA’s Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Christina Koch was akin to visiting another country but never getting off the tour bus. 
To actually land on the moon, a second vehicle is needed, one that travels with Orion and can detach while the capsule is in lunar orbit before delivering astronauts to the moon’s surface. 
Oh, and the key criteria: it has to bring them back to Orion so they can go home. 
NASA's Orion spacecraft being towed toward the well deck of USS John P. 
Murtha in the Pacific Ocean after landing. 
(Joel Kowsky/NASA/AP) 
There are two contenders for a moon lander, and neither of them has demonstrated they can perform the task safely. 
The largest is SpaceX Starship, which along with its giant booster rocket, is the biggest, most powerful rocket ever built. 
Starship is designed to reach both the moon and Mars, but it has yet to make one complete orbit of the Earth. 
It has flown 11 times, but rarely without issue. 
It has exploded more than once, including in the skies over the Bahamas, has had pieces burn off during re-entry  and made only one completely successful flight with a water landing in the Indian Ocean. 
Starship is so large it would require refuelling in space by a second Starship rocket in order to reach the moon  something that has never been done. 
WATCH | NASA's lunar mission plans: 
The second contender is Blue Origin’s Blue Moon, which is a smaller lander that comes in two versions, a cargo ship and a human-rated version. 
Neither have flown in space. 
The Artemis III mission is slated to launch next year, a rehearsal for orbiting Earth, where one or both of these technologies will be tested out. 
That means a rendezvous with an Orion capsule in space, crew transfer to the lander, free flight and joining back up again. 
After that mission, the moon landers will need to make unmanned touchdowns on the moon before people are sent there on Artemis IV, which is optimistically planned for 2028. 
That is a lot to accomplish in a short time. 
Still, it is similar to the sequence of events that led to the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969; Apollo 8 flew around the moon and back in 1968  similar to what Artemis II just accomplished. 
Then, Apollo 9 acted as a rehearsal in Earth orbit, Apollo 10 went to the moon and did everything except land on the surface. 
All of those missions made up the early steps leading to touchdown by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. 
In this July 24, 1969, file photo, then-president Richard Nixon, back to camera, greets the Apollo 11 astronauts in the quarantine van on board the USS. 
Hornet after splashdown and recovery. 
The Apollo 11 crew from left: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin. 
(The Associated Press) 
Landing on the moon, especially near the south pole is no easy task. 
The Apollo missions all chose relatively flat areas near the lunar equator for safer landings. 
The south pole is much more rugged, with a heavily cratered, uneven surface that make it challenging for large vehicles to stand upright. 
Two previous unmanned missions to the south pole by the private company Intuitive Machines both fell onto their sides during landing because of the rough terrain  something that does not bode well for Blue Moon or Starship, since both are very tall. 
The reason this is so problematic is that a fallen rocket cannot take off, leaving the crew stranded on the moon. 
All of these issues need to be resolved before the next human will step foot on surface of the moon. 
And this will have to be repeated on a regular basis if a colony is to be built there, a colony that needs to be resupplied and have the capacity for an emergency return to Earth if something goes wrong. 
So stay tuned. 
Artemis II was an amazing mission, but it was only the first phase of what promises to be a long and complicated journey back to the moon. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.6%Bob McDonald: 1.8%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.6%This article: 11.3%Bob McDonald: 3.7%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 12.1%Bob McDonald: 2.8%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.1%This article: 2.3%Bob McDonald: 0.9%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias2.3%This article: 5.0%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 13.2%Bob McDonald: 4.6%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 5.0%Bob McDonald: 1.1%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 2.2%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Bob McDonald: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 10.5%Bob McDonald: 4.5%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 15.5%Bob McDonald: 5.8%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias15.5%This article: 24.4%Bob McDonald: 9.8%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias24.4%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.5%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Bob McDonald: 1.0%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 4.3%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.6%Bob McDonald: 1.8%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 5.1%Bob McDonald: 1.3%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Bob McDonald: 6.1%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%Bob McDonald: 3.7%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.7%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof8.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.8%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.3%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Bob McDonald: 2.0%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Bob McDonald: 0.1%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote1.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.5%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.1%Bob McDonald: 9.4%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice26.1%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 4.9%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Bob McDonald: 0.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

782 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers2.0%attributed speech766writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageNASA • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageThe Associated Press • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

NASA

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words81% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%NASA: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.6 ptsWriter: 26.6%NASA: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%NASA: 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.