Near-Earth asteroid not an asteroid at all 23%

By Andrew Paul22%

7/17/2026, 11:49:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Recency Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 11.2% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 777 faulty-reasoning hits from 608 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,995 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.60% of the article peer group.

Anyone can mistake an identity, even astronomers . 
On August 28, 2025, researchers aimed their equipment towards an area of sky where they expected to find the asteroid 1998 SH2 . 
Based on gravitational data collected during its previous 4.5 year orbits around the sun, the hopeful observers focused NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) planetary radar system in the space rock’s assumed location about two million miles from Earth. 
However, things didn’t go as planned—1998 SH2 was a no-show. 
Astronomers knew some unexpected force was affecting its orbit, so they relied on optical telescopes to pinpoint the asteroid’s exact location. 
Once they actually found 1998 SH2, they quickly realized the mistake. 
“After we measured the nongravitational perturbations affecting the motion of 1998 SH2 and recognized they weren’t compatible with the object being an asteroid, we suspected the object could be an active comet,” Davide Farnocchia , a navigation engineer at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Center for Near-Earth Object Studies, explained in a statement . 
The differences between asteroids and comets may sound minimal, but they’re crucial. 
Asteroids are large rocky objects infused with metals orbiting the sun as ancient leftovers from the solar system’s earliest formative stages. 
By comparison, comets are birthed at the outer edges of the solar system whose mixture of dust and ice vaporizes into a tail. 
The last observations of 1998 SH2 took place in 2016, meaning the space rock had since completed two solar orbits. 
But after reviewing the available analyses once more, Farnocchia’s team determined the object could be generating minor amounts of thrust as it vented gas into space. 
These vents form when the sun’s radiation heats a comet’s dusty ice , creating a propulsive gas often visible as a bright tail and coma. 
But when a comet is much smaller, those telltale signs may become harder to find. 
Knowing their mystery object’s approach would be its closest in years, Farnocchia connected with astronomers at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope near Mauna Kea, Hawaii, as well as the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) Danish Telescope in La Silla, Chile. 
Meanwhile, researchers at the ESO’s Very Large Telescope on Chile’s Cerro Paranal mountain also gazed up at 1998 SH2. 
Their collective results, published in a recent study in the journal Nature Astronomy , proved their suspicions correct. 
“The images we collected from these observatories showed a weak but clear tail, thus confirming that 1998 SH2 is, in fact, a comet,” said ESO astronomer and study co-author Olivier Hainaut . 
Beyond rectifying the multidecade misclassification, the team’s findings are helping us better understand a subcategory of space objects called dark comets. 
These entities often have major irregularities in their orbits called pertubations, yet do not offer visible signs like outgassing, tails, or comas. 
Astronomers discovered the first dark comet in 2016, and have since located about a dozen more across the solar system. 
The study’s authors suggest that continuing to examine other faint, near-Earth objects with sufficiently powerful telescopes may even force further reclassifications of subjects that astronomers currently believe to be asteroids. 
Beyond respecting these space rock’s true identities, more accurate observations can also improve the safety of everyone living on this larger rock called Earth. 
“Detecting these perturbations can be an important diagnostic tool for planetary defense that will help understand which objects may be comets rather than asteroids, how their orbits evolve, and how that influences their Earth impact risks,” said Farnocchia. 
“That’s how science works—you form a hypothesis, and you set out to test it,” added Hainaut. 
“This data is exactly what was needed to confirm our hypothesis that 1998 SH2 was a comet.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 10.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias10.0%This article: 5.8%Andrew Paul: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 3.6%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 1.8%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 8.1%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias8.1%This article: 3.1%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 3.9%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.2%Andrew Paul: 6.7%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 1.2%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma1.2%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope4.9%This article: 2.6%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.6%This article: 1.3%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization1.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 9.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question9.0%This article: 3.5%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground2.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 8.9%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection8.9%This article: 1.2%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice1.2%This article: 1.3%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

608 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech449writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDavide Farnocchia • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageEuropean Southern Observatory • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageOlivier Hainaut • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavide Farnocchia • 38 words • 0.0% coverageOlivier Hainaut • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Olivier Hainaut

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words30% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+62.9 ptsWriter: 3.8%Olivier Hainaut: 66.7%66.7%Indoctrination-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Olivier Hainaut: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Olivier Hainaut: 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.