Feedback is 快猫短视频鈥檚 popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
LunAAARRRR pirates
The moon looms large in the sky 鈥� and also, it seems, in the minds of future-oriented people. Right now, there is an awful lot of forward-thinking going on with regard to our natural satellite. One might almost imagine that people were trying to distract themselves.
Advertisement
For instance, in our 21 March missive, we discussed accounting firm PwC鈥檚 ongoing attempts to forecast the size of the future lunar economy: its future estimates were all measured in billions, which is a strong claim given that the current Gross Lunar Product is, to a close approximation, $0.00.
Now, via , we learn that some thinkers have taken it a step further. Readers may recall the existence of the US Space Force, the newest branch of the military. It seems the Space Force is establishing 鈥渁 cislunar [near the moon] coordination office鈥� to think through 鈥渢he importance of the cislunar region for warfighting and national security鈥�.
For instance, suppose the US builds a base on the moon. How might it defend this new installation and ensure that supply missions can safely reach it? It seems this requires the Space Force to establish some kind of operational control of cislunar space.
As Feedback rocketed down the moon warfare rabbit hole (and if that isn鈥檛 a mixed metaphor, we don鈥檛 know what is), we discovered a 2025 book called Space Piracy: Preparing for a criminal crisis in orbit by Marc Feldman and Hugh Taylor. The authors contend that acts of piracy in space could happen, perhaps perpetrated by existing criminal gangs who see profit in it or by rogue states. For instance, they suggest that some dastardly persons might hack a spacecraft鈥檚 software or blockade the moon, halting supplies to a lunar base.
So concerned are Feldman and Taylor that they have since founded the Center for the Study of Space Crime, Piracy, and Governance to talk about space piracy more.
Feedback wondered if we were being unduly sceptical about the march of technological progress. We are all too aware of the confident sceptics who said powered flight was impossible and that computers would never amount to anything much. It follows that, while the moon isn鈥檛 currently a centre of profit, piracy or armed conflict, it might be one day.
Hence we consulted an academic review of the space piracy book by Mark T. Peters II (now retired from the US Air Force). Peters concludes: 鈥淒espite some logical arguments, I cannot understand any scenario with viable space pirates鈥� The book fails to demonstrate viable space piracy scenarios in any area other than cyber, which is already well known and understood.鈥�
Feedback can鈥檛 quite decide if all this is admirably forward-thinking policy or an excuse to spend time workshopping how to turn the plot of The Expanse into reality. This may well be entirely useless, but it does sound like fun, so we would like to join.
Doesn鈥檛 add up
Feedback isn鈥檛 one to hide our mistakes: this entire item is a correction. When we said something was silly, we failed to understand just how silly it was.
The issue concerns some figures bandied around by the US health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Discussing drug pricing, he said: 鈥淲ell, if the drug was $100 and it raises to $600, that would be a 600 per cent rise鈥� If it drops from $600 to $100, that鈥檚 a 600 per cent savings.鈥�
In common, we suspect, with a fairly large percentage of the world, Feedback identified that the drop from $600 to $100 is not, in fact, 600 per cent (6 May). After all, a fall of 100 per cent would leave you with $0.00. But we missed that RFK Jr.鈥檚 first statement was also wrong.
With apologies to the many, many people who wrote in to point this out, we are going to cite the aptly named Chris Smart (please do not take that as an incentive to use nominatively deterministic pseudonyms when writing to Feedback). Chris says: 鈥淭he premise鈥� is that a rise from $100 to $600 is a 600 per cent increase. No it isn鈥檛. The rise from $100 to $600 is $500 which is a 500 per cent increase. So both the premise and conclusion were incorrect, making it a vacuous truth.鈥�
The confusion, which Tom Brock further clarifies, is between the percentage rise and the new value as a percentage of the original, which aren鈥檛 the same. Tom explains: 鈥淚f the price was $100 and rises to $600, that is a rise of 500 per cent: the new value is 600 per cent of the old.鈥�
Blunders like this, by the way, are why journalists are advised not to talk about percentage changes at all and to stick to natural numbers instead. It鈥檚 too easy to confuse both yourself and the audience (although based on the current state of our inbox, Feedback鈥檚 audience wasn鈥檛 confused at all).
This is all mildly embarrassing, but fortunately both Feedback and RFK Jr. have low-stakes jobs.
A bookish type
The recommendation algorithms are starting to know Feedback a little too well. It鈥檚 one thing to have websites identifying things that lie in the general vicinity of our core interests; it鈥檚 another to have them deliver story items on a platter. Yet somehow our podcast app realised that we would want to know about the podcast Off the Shelf, which is about books and publishing.
Off the Shelf鈥榮 host has such an appropriate moniker that the podcast鈥檚 blurb includes the phrase 鈥測es, that鈥檚 her actual last name鈥�, because her name is, of course, Morgann Book.
听
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week鈥檚 and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
