"It marks the first time astronomers have observed more than a single planet orbiting a star similar to the sun. Only two similar systems have ever been previously observed — both with stars uniquely different to ours."

It's still fairly different, but this system is (probably) the closest to Sol system in terms of general design that we've directly observed.

With real science lurking someplace.

It's similar in that there's the first actual picture of a planetary system that's fully formed. Unlike, say, Beta Pictoris with a protoplanetary disk and dark rings showing planetary formation. It shows approximate age at which fully formed planets exist.

On the other hand, it's unlike the Sol system in most other ways. Super-Jupiters at far greater distances. It all begs the question as to how they got there--what was the protoplanetary disk for that system like, if planets formed an order of magnitude larger and more than 100 AU away from the star than the Kuiper Belt is from the Sun? Conversely, how much mass did they need to hurl around and harvest kinetic energy from to get pushed out to those orbits? (And just what is the eccentricity of those orbits?)

Or perhaps it's an entirely different formation mechanism, where the molecular cloud didn't collapse to a single place forming a protoplanetary disk but instead had competing gravitational centers, one of which became the star and the others became small brown dwarfs illuminated or new enough to be visible.

That the camera on the satellite that had left our solar system was pointing back at it/us. "Oops," said NASA in an official statement. "Our bad."

TlalocW