BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and False Dilemma, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 248 hits. Analysis detected 1,142 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,007 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.9% and a BS Rank of 30% (21,444 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

Jonathan Cirtain is drawn to big challenges. 
He was first pulled toward the sun, developing instruments that studied its complexities and earning a presidential award in 2011. 
He then led a team that used nuclear medicine to image and treat diseases. 
Now, Cirtain is leading Houston-based Axiom Space through two particularly big tasks: Deliver a spacesuit that can help NASA’s astronauts walk on the moon before China’s taikonauts and develop a successor to the International Space Station that will win NASA’s business. 
“I’ve always been drawn to complex problems and their solutions,” Cirtain said in a statement. 
“I’ve wanted to work on very difficult problems that, if solved, could significantly expand what we know and push humanity forward.” 
Cirtain is an astrophysicist turned technology executive. 
With a doctorate in physics, he joined Axiom Space as its president in June 2025 and became its chief executive that October. 
He’s had a busy first year. 
The company announced it is opening overseas offices and moving its legal domicile to Texas from Delaware. 
It has begun building test versions of its spacesuits, partnering with sunglass company Oakley on the visor and luxury retailer Prada on some of the materials. 
It’s also preparing to receive the first two major structures of its space station in 2027. 
But there have been doubts, too. 
NASA’s Office of Inspector General suggested Axiom’s spacesuit might not be ready for the agency’s Artemis IV mission that seeks to land on the moon in 2028. 
And NASA has questioned the financial viability of commercial space stations. 
Cirtain said he can't imagine not finishing the space station. 
“We have been preparing for game day for 10 years,” Cirtain said during an interview with the Houston Chronicle. 
“We've been building this company for this purpose.” 
Axiom Station 
Axiom Space was founded in 2016 to build Axiom Station, an outpost that could replace the International Space Station when it retires in 2030. 
The company would own and operate the station; NASA would be one of many customers. 
Axiom Space plans to launch the first component of its space station into orbit in 2028. 
The company has raised more than $1 billion, and NASA awarded it a $140 million contract for early development. 
But NASA hasn’t committed to putting its astronauts on Axiom Station. 
Other companies, including Starlab Space and Vast Space, are competing for the contract to get NASA astronauts and research onto their commercial platforms. 
NASA is expected to select at least two companies in 2027 to support as they continue advancing their designs. 
But it may ultimately back just one station after the International Space Station retires. 
“We cannot fund a path of two stations,” NASA Associate Administrator Amit Kshatriya said in March. 
“It’s a challenge even to fund one.” 
Future markets 
The company that wins the NASA contract is likely to attract other nations that want access to a space station, Cirtain said. 
This would bring additional revenue and expertise. 
Axiom Space has already flown astronauts from Saudi Arabia, Italy, Turkey, Sweden, India, Poland and Hungary to the International Space Station. 
It is also opening offices in Japan and Switzerland. 
But earlier this year, NASA questioned if there is enough demand to make commercial space stations profitable. 
The International Space Station, where humans have lived and worked for 25 years, has not seen any “breakthrough products, capabilities or services that generate significant demand,” NASA’s International Space Station Program Manager Dana Weigel said in March. 
NASA softened its position after hearing from commercial space station developers that argued there can be a marketplace in low-Earth orbit. 
“We’re focused on supporting those efforts,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a statement. 
Cirtain said a commercial space station would unlock new business opportunities  especially around manufacturing. 
There hasn’t been mass production of products or medicines on the International Space Station partly because it would raise questions about who would own the intellectual property or pay taxes on these goods, he said. 
Those types of concerns wouldn’t exist in a commercial space station. 
“Until somebody tries to come after it from a commercial point of view,” Cirtain said, “there will be no opportunity.” 
Spacesuits 
The company has a more urgent deadline for finishing NASA's spacesuits. 
NASA will be its first customer. 
But the suits could also be used for spacewalks on Axiom Station and eventually be worn by non-government explorers on the moon. 
The suit’s design will help astronauts squat, lunge and scoop rocks from the lunar surface. 
The company made the suit lighter, safer with more redundancies and better at repelling dust, said Michelle Stein, a senior program manager for NASA contractor KBR who is assisting Axiom Space with its suits. 
Prada found a material that should prevent the garment astronauts wear under their suits from developing an odor, she added. 
“We wouldn't have had the material scientists and the time to do it,” Stein said. 
“And Prada's like, ‘Give me five minutes.’” 
Axiom Space is set to finish its spacesuit design review with NASA this year. 
One of its test suits, which Axiom Space began building in April, will be sent to the International Space Station next year to be tested in microgravity. 
The company is under immense pressure to complete the suits before China is able to put taikonauts on the moon, which Chinese officials have said could happen by 2030. 
But NASA’s Office of Inspector General said historical delays on such projects suggest the suits might not be ready in time. 
Cirtain said the concerns raised by the Inspector General were based on old data. 
Axiom Space initially underestimated how much development would be required, he said. 
But that work is now largely complete, and the company is focused on building. 
“It's a lot further along than what the OIG report, which came out a couple of months ago, actually indicated,” he said. 
“The light's still pretty far away, but we can see the end of the tunnel.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 2.4%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 1.9%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 2.1%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 2.1%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Andrea Leinfelder: 3.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.5%Framing Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.6%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.6%This article: 1.9%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.9%This article: 24.6%Andrea Leinfelder: 9.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Optimism Bias24.6%This article: 4.2%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 14.8%Andrea Leinfelder: 4.6%Houston Chronicle: 4.9%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 1.2%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 3.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Halo Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.3%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.9%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 7.1%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 2.9%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.7%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 2.7%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.7%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.7%This article: 2.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 3.5%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.9%Houston Chronicle: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 1.1%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman1.1%This article: 3.7%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.4%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading1.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.5%Andrea Leinfelder: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice2.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Leinfelder: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Andrea Leinfelder: 2.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

1007 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers47%attributed speech538writer words
Selected voice

Dana Weigel

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words7.9% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Dana Weigel: 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.