I am baffled by the article's frequent use of the word Kepler. The first mention is correct: "New planets are uncovered all the time, thanks to Kepler. In fact,

I am baffled by the article's frequent use of the word Kepler. The first mention is correct: "New planets are uncovered all the time, thanks to Kepler. In fact, the mission just unearthed a stash of more than 1,200 new exoplanets, bringing its total haul to over 3,200." This refers to the Kepler Mission[1] which points to a fixed spot in interstellar space and finds exoplanets. But that mission has NOTHING to do with our solar system. It isn't pointed anywhere near the solar ecliptic and couldn't see a local planet if it was. So when it says "That lack of reflective light made it hard for Kepler to even spot the planet" it is being ignorantly misleading, and when it says "although Kepler managed to catch brief glimpse in 2014" it is just wrong. "the Konkoly researchers hadn’t thought to pair NASA Kepler data with ESA Herschel data" -- for very good reason, Kepler data would be completely irrelevant. "information about the amount of light the planet was reflecting from Kepler..." again, completely impossible and wrong. The byline is Ria Misra, clearly a person who should not be allowed to write about astronomy anytime soon. [1] http://kepler.nasa.gov/ http://kepler.nasa.gov/