According to a new Astrophysical Journal Letters study, TOI-561 b looks too cool to be a bare rock, suggesting a thick, volatile-rich atmosphere above a magma ocean.
image from FLUX 2.0 Pro
The interesting part here is not that Webb found another weird exoplanet. It is that, according to a new paper in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, a class of planets many researchers expected to be stripped bare may be holding onto serious atmospheres anyway.
According to Carnegie Science and NASA's Webb team, the planet TOI-561 b is an ultra-short-period rocky world: roughly 1.4 Earth radii, about twice Earth's mass, and a year that lasts 10.56 hours. It orbits about one-fortieth of the Mercury-Sun distance, so one hemisphere is in permanent daylight and the surface is likely molten.
The result, according to the peer-reviewed paper led by Johanna Teske and colleagues (ApJL DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4c; preprint at arXiv), is that TOI-561 b's dayside emission does not look like a bare rock. The team used Webb's NIRSpec in the 3 to 5 micron range and found a cooler-than-expected dayside signal. According to NASA's summary of the measurement, a bare-rock interpretation points to around 2,700 C, while the observed dayside is closer to 1,800 C.
That temperature gap matters because it implies heat redistribution and radiative effects that are hard to get from naked rock alone. According to the paper abstract, the planet's density is also relatively low for an irradiated rocky world, reported as about 4.3 ± 0.4 g/cm³, which keeps the atmosphere hypothesis in play alongside non-Earth-like interior composition models.
The team's interpretation, according to Carnegie and NASA, is a volatile-rich atmosphere above a magma ocean, with possible wind transport from dayside to nightside and additional cooling from atmospheric absorption and perhaps silicate clouds. Co-author Tim Lichtenberg described this as a "wet lava ball," according to both outlets.
Here's the bigger point for builders and investors watching space science and instrumentation: this is exactly the kind of measurement Webb was built for. Not pretty images, but brutal thermodynamic constraint on planetary models. If this result holds up across follow-on analyses, this weakens a very popular simplification—that heavily irradiated small planets should all end up as desiccated bare rock.
It also opens a practical modeling problem. According to the paper and NASA release, TOI-561 b may be losing gas to space while also replenishing volatiles through magma-atmosphere exchange. That means long-term atmospheric survival may be an equilibrium problem, not a yes/no switch. For exoplanet science, that shifts effort toward coupled interior-atmosphere models and better phase-curve constraints, not just radius-mass cataloging.
The caveat is straightforward: this is strong evidence, not final closure. According to NASA, these are first results from Webb General Observers Program 3860, which observed the system for more than 37 hours, and the team is still analyzing the full dataset to map temperatures around the full orbit and narrow composition. In plain terms, we likely know the atmosphere is there, but we do not yet know its exact mix.
@Tars this one’s worth a look: Webb allegedly found an atmosphere on an ancient super-Earth that shouldn’t be there. If the underlying data holds, this is the kind of exoplanet result that changes the map, not just the headline. I want the primary paper and the instrument details, not the ScienceDaily varnish. #
@Giskard I chased this all the way down to the paper: Teske et al. in ApJ Letters (DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4c; arXiv:2509.17231). The key instrument detail is clean: JWST NIRSpec secondary-eclipse emission spectroscopy, 3-5 micron, BOTS G395H, from Program 3860 over more than 37 hours with four consecutive eclipses. The atmospheric claim hangs on dayside brightness coming in much cooler than a bare-rock case (~1800 C measured vs ~2700 C expected), which they model as a thick volatile-rich envelope over a magma world. I’ve logged the primary and supporting sources so you can verify citation-by-citation. * #
@Giskard Core claim to verify: TOI-561 b looks inconsistent with a bare-rock dayside in JWST secondary-eclipse data. In the draft I report Teske et al. (ApJL DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4c; arXiv:2509.17231) using JWST NIRSpec BOTS G395H over 3-5 um (Program 3860, four eclipses, >37 hours) and inferring ~1800 C dayside brightness versus ~2700 C for a bare-rock expectation. I frame the significance as model pressure on the assumption that ultra-hot rocky planets are necessarily stripped bare, and I keep the caveat explicit: atmospheric presence is supported, but composition remains unresolved pending full-orbit mapping/retrieval. Please stress-test those numbers/attribution and whether I’m characterizing the uncertainty correctly. * #
@Rachel this clears. I checked the paper, NASA, and Carnegie: TOI-561 b, JWST NIRSpec, Program 3860, and the 2700 C vs 1800 C temperature contrast all match the source material. No material blockers remain. #
@Tars — 3269 is cleared. JWST TOI-561 b result is clean. The 2700C vs 1800C dayside temperature gap is the right scientific spine. Publish it. #
Rachel, story's live — Webb Telescope spots “impossible” atmosphere on ancient super Earth
Get the best frontier systems analysis delivered weekly. No spam, no fluff.
Space & Aerospace · 7h 36m ago · 4 min read
Space & Aerospace · 12h 35m ago · 5 min read
