CNET46%

NASA’s Psyche Spacecraft Sent Back Some Awesome Photos of Mars 51%

By Joe Hindy58%

7/21/2026, 11:56:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Halo Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 21.3% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 536 faulty-reasoning hits from 578 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,376 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

A common road trip activity is stopping at a roadside attraction to see something really cool. 
It turns out that NASA spacecraft do this from time to time as well. 
The Psyche spacecraft, on its way to the asteroid belt to study its namesake asteroid, made a stop by Mars and, among other things, took some pretty epic pictures of the planet as it flew by. 
The flyby occurred on May 15, with the idea that Psyche would use Mars as a gravitational slingshot to change the spacecraft’s direction and send it on its merry way. 
However, NASA rarely lets opportunities like this slip through its fingers, so while Psyche was flying by Mars, NASA had the spacecraft measure the red planet with every tool that Psyche had onboard, capturing all sorts of data and several breathtaking images. 
The big winner is a series of time-lapse images taken daily by the spacecraft as it approached Mars, which were then stitched together. 
The final image forms an eye-like shape, making it unique thanks to the angle at which Pscyhe approached Mars. 
The spacecraft didn’t stop there and took a month-long time-lapse of the planet as it flew by. 
“Coming in at such a high phase crescent, only about 4% of Mars was illuminated, and with that, we could see the atmosphere around it glowing,” said Hannah Zigo of Psyche’s multispectral imager operations team at Arizona State University in a YouTube video. 
Psyche’s imaging team captured a time-lapse of Psyche passing by Mars, from May 2 to May 31, when the planet was no longer visible. 
They also released a time-lapse video that condenses this month-long flyby into 1 minute and 15 seconds of some of the best imagery you’ll ever see of our red neighbor from space. 
NASA’s spacecraft took as much data as it could during its brief flyby, and measured everything from Mars’ atmosphere reacting to solar winds to neutrons bombarding the red planet’s surface, thanks to its thin atmosphere. 
Psyche’s instruments weren’t necessarily tuned for measuring a planet, but Mars made for an excellent test bed for the spacecraft’s various tools. 
“The mission’s imager, magnetometer and gamma-ray and neutron spectrometer teams worked overtime to make full use of this planetary encounter, and all instruments delivered great results,” said Lindy Elkins-Tanton, principal investigator for Psyche at the University of California, Berkeley, in a statement. 
The team didn’t anticipate making any real discoveries, since the planet’s surface has been intensively studied for decades, but the data gathered certainly helps researchers study Mars more accurately. 
The instruments did their best, but the imager was definitely the MVP of the flyby. 
“The imager performed brilliantly, delivering some rarely seen views of the Red Planet,” said Jim Bell, Psyche’s imager instrument lead at Arizona State University. 
“Besides the obvious beauty of the photos, we were also able to fully test its calibration and sensitivity to scattered light, including picking out the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos from very far away as a part of a practice for the satellite search that we’ll use at the asteroid Psyche to look for any moonlets there.” 
For those of us here on Earth who aren’t a part of the Psyche team, our reward for everyone’s hard work is some truly excellent desktop background candidates and yet another excellent glimpse of our red neighbor. 
Psyche is expected to reach the Psyche meteor in August 2029. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Joe Hindy: 1.8%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 2.4%Joe Hindy: 0.8%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 5.0%Joe Hindy: 1.7%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 2.1%CNET: 4.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Joe Hindy: 7.0%CNET: 3.6%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Joe Hindy: 14.2%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias21.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Joe Hindy: 2.1%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Joe Hindy: 7.1%CNET: 4.4%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Joe Hindy: 1.8%CNET: 4.8%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 2.4%CNET: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 6.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Joe Hindy: 0.9%CNET: 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Joe Hindy: 2.5%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.8%Joe Hindy: 21.9%CNET: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice17.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Hindy: 0.0%CNET: 13.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

578 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers29%attributed speech412writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageHannah Zigo • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Elkins-Tanton • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJim Bell • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJim Bell • 57 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jim Bell

100%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words49% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Jim Bell: 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.