Month: March 2025

While a thing of the past, it saw humanity land on the Moon for the very first time while significantly advancing technology back here on Earth, from scientific understanding of space to advancements in the world of GPS and satellites.

There was also elements of tragedy. And while the tragic tale of the USSR’s space dog called Laika is enough to pull at the heartstrings, humans have also died while in service to their country’s space agency.

One of the worst incidents to result in the loss of human life was the fate of the Soyuz 11 crew which headed in to space back in June 1971. Three Russian cosmonauts ventured in to space and returned in the most tragic of circumstances.

Voyage of the ill-fated Soyuz 11

Blasting off from modern day Kazakhstan, Soyuz 11 had a crew of three cosmonauts with Georgi Dobrovolski, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev heading for the world’s first ever space station Salyut 1.

Arriving at Salyut 1 on 7 June, 1971, the trio of engineers spent a total of 23 days onboard the space station where they lived conducting a variety of experiments in the orbiting laboratory.

There was a particular focus on experiments to study humanity’s ability to undergo long-duration spaceflights, with experiments including exercising on the space station’s treadmill and monitoring their state of health.

To maximise their output, they worked in three shift patterns so that there was always one person working at any one time.

Time onboard the Salyut 1 space station

Dobrovolski, Volkov, and Patsayev became stars back home in Soviet Russia after treating citizens of the USSR to almost daily broadcasts of their activities in space while explaining what they were getting up to in their experiments.

“Soviet journalists dubbed the events Cosmovision,” NASA explained.

“They cast ballots from Salyut in Soviet elections, becoming the first people to vote from space.”

In journeying to the space station, they set a then-record for the time spent in space for one trip, breaking a previous record set by the Soyuz 9 crew in 1970.

Preparing for Earth and tragedy

29 June was the final day that the trio spent on the Salyut space station, with them packing up the Soyuz 11 spacecraft with their samples and scientific research that they had worked on for more than three weeks in the void of space.

Getting ready to leave the space station, a warning light had indicated to the cosmonauts that the hatch pressurising the return spacecraft was not sealed.

After seemingly addressing the issue, both crew and ground control agreed the problem was fixed. This was despite the light remaining active up in space.

Slowing down for re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere, tragedy occurred nine minutes after the end of the retrorocket’s backfire.

At around 80 miles high, explosive bolts separated the spacecraft in to its three components, with the crew inside the middle bell-shaped descent module. It was at this moment that tragedy struck, just 30 minutes from landing.

“The shock from the explosive bolts jarred open a pressure equalisation valve that normally opened only once the spacecraft was descending on its parachute, well inside the atmosphere. But in this case, the valve opened to the vacuum of space and the capsule’s air escaped in less than one minute,” NASA explained.

Evidence exists to show the cosmonauts tried to fix the issue by trying to manually close the valve. But with that processing taking minutes, they lost consciousness before they could save their own lives.

Soyuz 11 continued on its journey to Earth where it safely landed. Ground control had some concern after communication went quiet with the crew but it wasn’t until they opened the hatch and found the three cosmonauts that they realised just how tragic of a situation this was.

“They were not wearing pressure suits. The Soviet government honored the cosmonauts with a state funeral, with NASA astronaut Thomas P. Stafford representing the President of the United States,” NASA writes.

“As a result of the accident, the Soviets temporarily halted human spaceflights while engineers redesigned the Soyuz spacecraft. Since then, all cosmonauts have worn spacesuits during Soyuz launches and landings.”

Over on TikTok, a flight attendant named Cher Killough has took it upon herself to share three common habits that air passengers demonstrate whilst travelling – and they’re ones you might want to kick into touch if you’re a guilty reader.

Before you start theorising, no, it’s got nothing to do with booze consumption (phew!).

Killough, who’s worked in the business for five years, identified man-spreading; wearing a strong fragrance, and taking off your shoes and socks as these definite do-nots.

She even goes as far as suggesting they deserve to be made illegal.

On the man-spread issue, she said in a clip: “Specifically man-spreading when you’re in a middle seat but any time of seat should be unacceptable.

“When I’ve been a passenger I have had that numerous times where men will spread their knees all the way into my seat section, or the other person on the other side of me. It’s just unacceptable.”

Then came her analysis of perfume-spraying, which is quite understandably a thing on flights as many flyers like to pay the duty free catalogue a visit.

“I don’t care if [the smell] is good or bad,” the TikToker noted. “No one wants to smell whatever fragrance you decided to wear today. Whether it’s body odour or perfume or cologne.”

According to Killough, that’s because the cabin is “already an environment where people are prone to getting nauseous”, so dealing with extra fragrances “is just not a good mix.”

Which brings us to the flight attendant’s third and final bugbear: exposed human feet.

Rightly so, Killough explained there’s not a single moment of the journey when it’s acceptable to unleash your toes upon the rest of the travellers and onboard staff.

“You seriously deserve to go to jail if you have your bare toes out when you go to the bathroom,” she shared. “I see this all the time, and it should be against the law. I don’t want to see your toes at all.”

In less smelly news, travel experts have issued an airport luggage warning to anyone with a tag on their suitcase, and it could save you massive headaches in the future.

Given the fact that our lives are heavily regimented by a 24-hour cycle, living with the complete absence of time sounds pretty jarring — or even torturous. But for French explorer Michel Siffre, secluding himself underground in a cave wasn’t a nightmare scenario but instead a fun experiment.

So fun that after emerging from his two-month subterranean sabbatical in 1962 he decided to head on back down there for a whopping six months in 1972.

Here is what he was able to discover about the human body and it’s internal body clock.

In 1972 Siffre, then aged 33, made the decision to spend six months living in Midnight Cave, Texas. Like his previous 1962 experiment, the hypothesis was simple: what impact does time have on the body and it’s human circadian rhythms (our internal body-clock)? And, once deprived of an external indicator of time, would the body’s sleep-wake cycle be impacted?

And it was here that the field of human chronobiology was formed.

What were the aims of Siffre’s experiment?

Like his first experiment, Siffre would retreat into the cave with limited communication to the outside world, he was able to contact the team monitoring him but not vice versa, and conduct various experiments while being watched.

Daytime would be determined whenever Siffre woke-up and he slept whenever he felt the need to.

Explaining his decision to head back underground a decade after his initial experiment during an interview with a 2008 interview with Cabinet Magazine, the explorer said he wanted to understand if there were any changes in how his ‘brain perceives time’ since his first experiment and the ’48-hour sleep/wake cycle’.

“I decided I would stay underground for six months to try to catch the forty-eight-hour cycle,” he said.

What did Siffre discover during his six months underground?

Siffre would indeed succeed in catching the elusive 48-hour sleep wake cycle during his second underground excursion, although not regularly.

“There were two periods where I caught the forty-eight-hour cycle—but not regularly,” he said. “I would have thirty-six hours of continuous wakefulness, followed by twelve hours of sleep.”

Perhaps more interesting is the fact that Siffre wasn’t able to tell the difference between the longer and shorter days he experienced in the cave.

“There was no evidence that I perceived those days any differently. Sometimes I would sleep two hours or eighteen hours, and I couldn’t tell the difference,” he added.

The experiment would also have negative impacts on Siffre’s mental wellbeing, which began to deteriorate during his time in the cave.

During a 1975 recollection of his experience, Siffre the Frenchman explained feeling a sense of overwhelming ‘lethargy and bitterness’ due to isolation.

The moral of the story? Humans cannot understand time without external stimuli and that being alone underground is very boring.

US President Donald Trump has been promising to declassify tens of thousands of secret papers since he first term in the White House, and the moment finally arrived on Tuesday (18 March).

JFK, the US’ 35th president, was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 while on a presidential motorcade in Dallas, Texas.

His death triggered many conspiracy theories in the decades to follow, which is why the release of the assassination files this week has been such a huge talking point around the world – but Schlossberg isn’t happy about it.

Now working as a political correspondent for Vogue magazine, Schlossberg – whose mother is the only surviving child of JFK and former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy – royally kicked off on social media once the documents were released.

But maybe he’s yet to realise that they barely provide any earth-shaking information?

He wrote via the site formerly known as Twitter on Wednesday (19 March): “No — THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID NOT GIVE ANYONE IN PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S FAMILY ‘A HEADS UP’ ABOUT THE RELEASE. a total surprise, and not shocker!!

Schlossberg was, of course, referring to JFK’s son here, whose mother Ethel Kennedy sadly passed away just five months ago.

sers took umbrage with the journalist’s apparent frustration though, highlighting the fact the family knew this day would eventually come.

“I mean, they’ve only been saying it for how long now? If you didn’t know it was coming then that’s on you,” read one of the strong reactions.

“He’s been talking about it for ten years Jack,” was another point.

A third person went on to ask: “He’s been saying he was going to release those files for years. how you could not possibly know seems like a lie. or maybe you thought he was joking and would never do it. but how did I know it was coming yet you, a Kennedy, didn’t.”

This didn’t stop Schlossberg from reinforcing his annoyance on Instagram a little bit later on.

Directing his phone camera towards an on-screen CNN broadcast, which was covering the declassification story, he said: “You’re better than this. This is so f**king stupid, there’s so much actual news going on, why are you covering this?

“At least report that something happened, why are you guys covering this? Stop. This is why this s**t takes hold, because you guys f**king cover it over and over and over again.”

In life, you get what you pay for, and this statement even rings true when it comes to fast food joints.

But this didn’t stop one customer branding the prices ‘out of control’ after a meal for one person set them back £18.58 ($24.10).

Taking to X to vent their frustrations, the social media user explained they were left stunned by how much a Bacon Cheeseburger, small portion of fries and a regular soda had cost.

The burger made up the majority of the bill, coming in at £9.83 ($12.49), while the chips were £4.08 ($5.19) and the drink £2.27 ($2.89).

The disgruntled diner added: “I was expecting about $12 to $15 per person for Five Guys. $22 (without tip) just seems to cross a line. What is the right amount these days?”

There’s no denying that Five Guys is dear in comparison to other fast food restaurants, but CEO Jerry Murrell reckons the prices are justifiable.

His family business which is named after his five sons has been going since 1986, so his cost-analysis has got to be at least half right.

Five Guys now boasts nearly 1,700 branches across the world and there’s another 1,500 units in development, showing the success of Murrell’s sales strategy – even if it is controversial among customers.

The father-of-five earlier revealed the reasoning behind why a meal at Five Guys costs significantly more than its competitors.

“Our food prices fluctuate,” Murrell previously told Inc Magazine. “We do not base our price on anything but margins.

“We raise our prices to reflect whatever our food costs are. So, if the mayonnaise guy triples his price, we pay triple for the mayonnaise!

“And then we’ll increase the price of our product.”

There is some good news for Five Guys fans who are feeling the financial toll of eating there, though – those who live in the US might be able to take advantage of the ‘Classic Combo’ deal instead.

It was announced in January that the new meal would be trialled at 177 restaurants in the States, allowing customers to save a few quid while they snack.

The ‘Classic Combo’ is made up of a Little Burger or Little Cheeseburger, a Little Fry (regular or cajun), and a 16-ounce beverage.

The whole thing will set you back just over a tenner, which is $12.99 for our American friends.

Announcing the meal deal, Murrell said earlier this year: “Our loyal fans have requested a combo from us for a long time, and we are ready to give them this gift leading up to our 40th anniversary.

“By testing the concept now, we can gauge customer response and refine our offering before an official launch.”

You never know…if it performs well, the Classic Combo could come to our side of the pond too, which I’m sure would be music to the ears of Five Guys fans in the UK.

Murrell does make a point of taking customer feedback on board, as he believes the ‘best salesman is our customer’.

“Treat that person right, he’ll walk out the door and sell for you,” he also told Inc Magazine. “From the beginning, I wanted people to know that we put all our money into the food.

“That’s why the décor is so simple — red and white tiles. We don’t spend our money on décor. Or on guys in chicken suits. But we’ll go overboard on food.”

Rowling took to Twitter to seemingly take a swipe at Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, the three actors who played Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ron Weasley in the film franchise.

The feud between the trio and Rowling dates back five years and includes several angry statements from the author about the actors who brought her most iconic characters to life.

Here’s how the feud got to the point it did now, in which Rowling will semi-regularly take digs at Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint.

J.K. Rowling begins commenting on the trans community

J.K. Rowling began expressing views she called ‘gender-critical’ back in 2019, with this exploding in 2020 when she began hitting out at people using the term ‘people who menstruate’.

The term is intended to be more inclusive of the transgender community, however, this led Rowling tweeting: “People who menstruate. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

She would follow this up by saying: “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

Rowling’s tweets drew a great deal of criticism worldwide, with many pointing out that her ‘gender critical’ perspective denied detailed scientific research that demonstrates that gender is a spectrum, separate to the idea of ‘sex’.

Since then, the author has engaged in several attacks on the transgender community. This includes stating she would ‘rather go to prison’ than use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns, and deliberately misgendering India Willoughby, the UK’s first transgender national television newsreader.

2020 – Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint respond and defend the trans community

The trio all responded following the backlash surrounding this. Radcliffe was the first to address it, issuing a statement via The Trevor Project, an LGBTQIA+ suicide prevention nonprofit.

He said in his statement: “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”

This statement was affirmed by Watson, who tweeted: “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are. I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you, and love you for who you are.”

Rupert Grint was similarly supportive, saying in a statement to the Sunday Times: “I firmly stand with the trans community and echo the sentiments expressed by many of my peers. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. We should all be entitled to live with love and without judgment.”

2024 – The Cass Report and J.K. Rowling’s public dig at Radcliffe and Watson

In 2024, a document commonly called the Cass Report was released, the full name of which was an ‘Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People’. These were recommendations made to NHS England by Dr Hilary Cass, an independent chair of the review.

The review advised against giving children and young people gender-affirming care. Though the report was welcomed by many, it received a great deal of criticism.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health rejected the findings, releasing a strong criticism of the review.

Rowling was one of the many to praise the recommendations, however, saying: “Even if you don’t feel ashamed of cheerleading for what now looks like severe medical malpractice, even if you don’t want to accept that you might have been wrong, where’s your sense of self-preservation.”

This led one fan of Rowling to respond, stating they were waiting on apologies from Radcliffe and Watson to her ‘safe in the knowledge [Rowling] will forgive them’.

The Harry Potter author responded by saying: “Not safe, I’m afraid. Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.”

2025 – J.K. Rowling issues her latest dig at the Harry Potter actors

Rowling issued her latest swipe at the actors, however, this time seemed to include Rupert Grint amongst her ire. One fan asked her which actor/actress ‘instantly ruins a movie from her’, with Rowling responding saying: “Three guesses. Sorry but that was irresistible.”

Grint, Radcliffe, and Watson have yet to respond, but Radcliffe and Watson did respond to her earlier comments in 2024. Watson’s was the less direct of the pair, taking to Twitter simply to reaffirm her support for the Transgender community.

Radcliffe meanwhile stated that the split with Rowling was ‘sad’, however said; “I will continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ people, and have no further comment than that.”

Yesterday (18 March) saw Barry ‘Butch’ Wilmore and Sunita ‘Suni’ Williams land safely off the coast of Florida alongside fellow astronauts Nick Hague and Alexander Gorbunov, therefore bringing an end to one of the biggest space stories of the year.

They left Earth last June as test pilots for Boeing’s Starliner mission, however a series of technical issues meant that Butch and Suni had an unexpected lengthy stay on the International Space Station.

The pair were expected to spend around eight days in orbit for the mission but ended up staying in space for a whopping 286 days.

This would mean the pair spent an additional 278 (roughly nine months) in space.

So you’d imagine the pair have racked up a pretty hefty overtime bill.

How much will Butch and Suni be paid for their extra time in space?

NASA has not commented on how much the two astronauts will be paid for spending an additional nine months in space, which means we don’t know exactly how much extra Butch and Suni will be paid, however it may not be as much as you’d think.

According to former NASA employee Cady Coleman, astronauts receive ‘no overtime’ on top of their regular salary.

“There is some small amount of money per day for incidentals that they end up being legally obligated to pay you,” Coleman explained to the Washingtonian back in February, adding that for her incidental pay was about $4 (£3) a day.

Should Coleman’s figure still be accurate, then Butch and Suni would receive an additional $1,144 (£882) for their time in space alongside their regular salaries, reportedly around $125,133 (£96,513) and $162,672 (£125,466) a year.

These figures are, of course, not confirmed, but if true, it’s not quite the mega-payout many were expecting.

The suggested lack of a payout may also have to do with the fact that neither Butch or Suni were ‘stranded’ or ‘trapped’ on the ISS, which initially appeared to be the case.

NASA has repeatedly insisted that the pair weren’t abandoned but had instead joined the existing ISS crew mission. Astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell also explained to the outlet that two astronauts were pulled from a scheduled ISS mission in September, allowing Butch and Suni to replace the pair.

This also meant the pair wouldn’t be returning home any earlier than this month, as the station needs a certain amount of astronauts to function properly.

This is also backed up by retired Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who recently explained to LADbible: “They were where they wanted to be, and they could come home if they needed to, every single day that they were there. Nobody’s stranded.”

If your personal and financial circumstances allow you to keep ahold of your money, then it might be worth sticking those savings away in an ISA for tax purposes.

What is a cash ISA?

During a recent episode of The Martin Lewis Money Show Live on ITV, the finance guru explained that ‘a cash ISA is just a savings account where the interest is never taxed’.

“It’s no more complicated than that,” he said, clarifying that anyone over the age of 18 can put up to £20,000 in an ISA, each year.

£20,000 ISA allowance warning

Lewis says if you’re thinking about getting an ISA and using it to its full capacity, then make sure you do so by 5 April.

“You can put in £20,000 per tax year, in a cash ISA or in ISAs in general. Go quickly though as if you need to fill this year’s while as the deadline is 5 April. In practice many of the product providers close early for admin reasons,” he added.

“The important thing to understand is once your money’s in a cash ISA it’s tax free year after year. So you could put, if you were lucky enough to have the money, you could put, if you haven’t used your ISA this year, £20,000 in now.”

On the major long term benefit, Lewis said: “Then on 6 April you get another £20,000 that you could put in. Now you’ve got £40,000 in. If things don’t change the year after you could put another £20,000 in.”

Different types of ISAs

On Lewis’ Money Saving Expert website, it recommends to pick either an easy access ISA, which allow withdrawals, or a fixed-rate ISA.

Easy access ISA

• Trading 212 – 5.25 percent (for three months)

• Tembo – 4.8 percent (top straight rate)

• Post Office – 4.4 percent (top ‘big name’)

Fixed-rate ISAs (with access)

• Shawbrook Bank – 4.5 percent for one year

• Close Brothers – 4.41 percent for two years

You can open and pay into multiple cash ISAs at a time

If you wanted, you could pay into an easy access account and a fixed rate account at the same time over the course of each tax year. This includes with two different providers.

However, the total amount across all your ISAs can’t go over the £20,000 allowance.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ rumours to cut the ISA allowance to £4,000

There have been rumours circulating around that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is allegedly planning a cash ISA limit cut from £20,000 to £4,000.

But The Guardian reported last week that no ISA price cuts are set to be announced in the spring statement this month.

Lewis added: “The only rumour I’ve heard is dropping the future allowance from £20,000 to £4,000. Apparently it’s not coming in the Spring Statement – I don’t have that confirmed that’s other people’s reports.

“But it might come in the Autumn Budget. It’s still being considered no decisions been made. If that’s right let’s just make it plain for everyone. Some people are saying ‘take money out of cash ISAs’ that would be bonkers – bonkers.”

The show, which is currently the number one series both worldwide and in the UK, centres around a young boy, Jamie, who is arrested on suspicion of murder.

All four episodes of Adolescence are shot in one single take, a technical marvel which led many viewers full of questions of how they did it.

While many questions have been answered – and one that won’t be answered – Netflix have answered several of the burning questions viewers still had.

Warning: Minor spoilers lie ahead for all four episodes of Adolescence

How they got a camera to go through glass in episode two

In episode two of the show, Ashley Walters’ character goes to investigate Jamie’s school.

At one point, one of the students runs away the second he enters their classroom, jumping out a nearby window.

When the camera follows the pair in their chase, the camera goes through the window, seemingly travelling through glass.

This led many online to wonder how they achieved this without cutting once, which Netflix answered in their new Q&A.

They said: “There wasn’t actually a window there. It was taken

out and put back in using VFX. One of the camera operators was in the

classroom, then when Ryan jumped out of the window, the other operator – who

was crouching on the other side – took the camera and continued the chase.”

Van questions from episode four

The show’s finale for much of the episode follows Stephen Graham’s character and his family on his birthday. The birthday, however, is ruined when someone paints the word ‘nonce’ on the side of his work van, leading him to drive to an off-brand made up version of B&Q.

Much of the episode is filmed inside the van, whilst he is driving and acting simultaneously. When asked how they filmed this, and why you can’t see a camera rig, Netflix said: “There were two vans! The first one is the one you see at the start of the episode when Eddie is trying to get the graffiti off.

“When they go back inside the house, the crew swapped out the vans for one that has a camera rig on the front. As they come back out of the house and get in the van, the shot stays on them as the camera is attached to the rig on the front.”

This isn’t the only van question, however, as some fans were curious whether Stephen Graham threw paint over his van (in an enraged attempt to cover up the ‘nonce’) every take. Netflix confirmed that he actually did as they used a special paint that could be stuck to the van and taken off after every take.

How they found Jamie, whether they rammed in the door in episode one every time, and how much ad-libbing there was

The Q&A also answered a number of miscellaneous other questions, some of which are fascinating.

Though it has been discussed in great detail by Graham and the show’s director, Philip Barantini, they gave even more insight into how they found Owen Cooper. The show’s star was a first time actor, having only done weekly acting classes prior to the series, with the one hour long takes of episode three being his first time ever on a film set.

Netflix said: “Owen was one of hundreds of potential Jamies seen by casting director Shaheen Baig – he was first spotted after sending in a self-taped improv scene. After a few more callbacks and workshops, Owen had a chemistry read with Stephen Graham. Guess that must have gone pretty well!”

They also added that the actor’s interchange with Erin Doherty in episode three where he yawns and she asks if he’s boring her was entirely ad-libbed.

Finally, the show opens with police raiding Jamie’s house – and Netflix confirmed that they rammed the door in every single time. Even though they ended up using just the second take of episode one, Netflix confirmed that the door was rammed in 12 different times.