TIME Sex/Relationships

10 Ways To Sleep Better With Your Partner

bed
Getty Images

Learning to share a bed with a snorer, sheet hogger, or kicker can save your sanity—and your relationship

A good night’s rest can be hard enough to get on your own. Add in the challenge of sleeping with a partner who snores, hogs the covers, or can only nod off to the sound of the nightly news—or has issues with your sleep patterns and needs—and it’s no wonder so many partners are sleep-deprived. In fact, about 25% of American couples retreat to separate sleeping quarters, according to the National Sleep Foundation. That can be an effective solution for some spouses, but it can also take a toll on your bond and intimacy, says Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and sleep specialist and author of The Sleep Doctor’s Diet Plan. If his and hers beds don’t appeal to you, you’ve still got options. Read on for easy, expert-backed ways to navigate your different sleep styles and score the snoozetime you both deserve.

Your partner’s snoring leaves you staring at the ceiling

About 37 million adults snore regularly, according to the National Sleep Foundation, resulting in poor snooze quality for their bedmates and themselves. Men are more likely to saw away, and snoring tends to worsen with age. “The sound comes from vibrations made as you breathe through narrowed airways while sleeping,” says Breus. Congestion is often a trigger; so is drinking alcohol close to bedtime. Even sleeping on your back can be to blame, which is why nonsnoring partners often roll (or push!) the snorer over to get some peace and quiet. If addressing these issues doesn’t help, have your partner check in with a sleep doctor. Snoring can be a sign of sleep apnea, a serious but treatable condition that causes breathing to stop several times per night. In the meantime, Breus suggests the snore-free partner drown out the buzz by surrounding their ears with a wall of pillows. “The sound will bounce back in the other direction, reducing the noise enough so you’re more likely to drift off,” he says.

You can’t agree on room temperature

The optimum temperature for sleep ranges from 68 to 72 degrees fahrenheit, says Breus. But that won’t persuade a partner who craves a toasty-warm bedroom to stop secretly hiking the thermostat, nor will it stop a chill-loving spouse from throwing open the window. Call a compromise: Pick a temperature between your two preferences. The person who likes it warmer has the option of putting on another blanket or thicker pajamas, while the cold-preferring partner can sleep outside the sheets or duvet, suggests Breus. Upgrading to a bigger bed might also help. “A larger bed means more room, so the person who wants it cooler isn’t as affected by the other’s body heat,” says Janet Kennedy, Ph.D., clinical psychologist and sleep specialist in New York City and author of The Essential Guide to Sleep for Your Baby and You.

HEALTH.COM: 10 Reasons You’re Not Having Sex

Your kids keep interrupting your zzz’s

When spouses don’t agree on how to handle a child who has had a bad dream or has a potty emergency, conflict can ensue—not to mention next-day exhaustion. “Sometimes only one parent ends up taking care of the child’s needs, and that can build resentment,” says Kennedy. “Or one partner is fine with the child coming into their bed for the rest of the night, while the other parent wants the bedroom off-limits.” Kennedy suggests reaching a solution outside of the bedroom, when you and your partner are rested and thinking rationally. “You need to be on the same page about how to handle this situation, so you set boundaries for your kids but also share the responsibility of a middle-of-the-night interruption,” she advises. Otherwise, not only will you both be sleep-deprived, the conflict can potentially shake up your bond.

You have different mattress preferences

Some people love a soft, sink-into-it bed; others require bedding as firm as a board before they can start counting sheep. Luckily, mattress manufacturers have caught on to this, and options that address both preferences exist. “The Sleep Number Bed is popular because you can make one side firmer and the other softer, so spouses don’t have to resort to separate beds,” says Breus. Memory foam mattresses are also couple-friendly because they mold to your weight and body size without affecting the partner lying alongside. You could also look into a split-king bed that features a king-size frame with two side-by-side separate mattresses. These beds can be pricey, but think of it as an investment in your health and relationship, not just another piece of furniture.

HEALTH.COM: Best and Worst Foods for Sleep

You go to bed or wake up at different times

This one’s tricky: we all have an internal clock that generally determines what time we turn in for the night and wake up in the morning. Yet it’s almost impossible to change your personal pattern, says Breus. Make a deal: the later-to-bed partner promises to be extra quiet and not do anything in the bedroom that can cause the other to wake, then in the morning, the early riser promises to do the same for the partner sleeping in. “If you need to rise first, offer to not hit the snooze button too often, so it goes off a bunch of times and disturbs the other person,” says Kennedy. Similarly, night owls should use headphones to listen to music or watch TV while the other spouse is snoozing, advises Breus. Schedule time in bed to be intimate or to talk at a neutral time, like early in the evening or later in the morning, so one partner isn’t wired while the other is too tired.

You like it dark; your partner needs light

Preferring a dark bedroom makes sense; darkness is a cue to your brain to ramp up production of the hormone melatonin, which helps your body wind down, says Breus. Thing is, some people are conditioned to sleep with a light on. If you and your partner are in opposing camps, compromise by agreeing to keep a very small low-wattage lamp or nightlight plugged in, or use a clip-on booklight that can be directed away from the other partner, says Breus. And eye masks look silly, but don’t discount them—they can be surprisingly good at blocking out light. Breus also recommends a new type of lightbulb for your bedside lamp. Goodnight Bulbs use a special bulb that cuts down on blue light, the kind emitted from TV screens and smartphones that has been implicated in insomnia. Without that blue light, it’s easier for the darkness-wanting spouse to doze off.

HEALTH.COM: 10 Ways to Improve Your Relationship Instantly

You’re a cuddler, but your partner craves space

Even the closest couples can have different pre-sleep intimacy preferences. “One partner might like snuggling before bed and falling asleep in the other’s arms, while the other feels crowded and can’t relax unless he or she turns away,” says Kennedy. While that might feel like rejection or a reflection that you two aren’t as connected as you thought, Kennedy cautions against viewing it that way. “It’s just a difference in sleep styles,” she says. Here’s a fair middle ground: “Agree to cuddle until the snuggler drifts off, at which point the other person can retreat to their side of the bed and sleep solo for the rest of the night,” she says. Or have a distinct 10 to 15 minute snuggle time, during which you two can touch and talk, and then officially move to opposite sides of the bed once the time has passed. You both have your intimacy needs meet and can easily drift off to dreamland.

He needs the TV to fall asleep; you like quiet

If one of you is conditioned to fall asleep to Jimmy Kimmel’s voice on late-night TV while the other needs silence, you might need to look into headphones, especially the wireless kind. A timer is also a good idea; agree to set it for 15 or 30 minutes, by which time the TV watcher will have sacked out anyway, says Breus. If the noise can’t be totally shut out, agree to keep the TV volume low, then bring a fan into the bedroom next to your side and keep it on all night. It’s a simple white-noise infusion that can drown out the voices on the tube. If you’re out of options, foam earplugs you can buy in a drugstore can be surprisingly effective.

HEALTH.COM: 13 Reasons to Have More Sex

You’re battling a blanket hog

Ever wake up in the middle of a sleep session to find yourself shivering because the comforter you had cocooned yourself in hours ago is now encased around your partner like a burrito? Sounds like you’re sleeping with a blanket hog—though it’s not necessarily a deliberate move on your bedmate’s part. If the tug of war over covers happens regularly, it’s no surprise you’re fatigued, says Breus. The solution is to have his and hers covers: one top sheet, blanket and/or comforter for you, and another stack for him. It’s harder for one partner to steal the covers from the other if you each have your own layers.

One partner tosses, turns, and thrashes all night

Everyone changes position at least a few times as they cycle through a night of sleep. But women tend to be more sensitive to their partner’s movements, and that means they’re more likely to be woken up by the kicking, jostles, or twitchy motions of a restless sleeper, says Breus. Layering up in separate blankets can help minimize the disruption, since his or her legs and arms will be wrapped under a different comforter and sheet set. Or consider a foam mattress like a Tempur-Pedic—the lack of springs cuts down on excessive bounce and motion, says Kennedy. A larger bed also allows you to maintain an arm’s length of distance, so the other person can thrash all over the place and not make contact with you.

HEALTH.COM: 20 Weird Facts About Love and Sex

This article originally appeared on Health.com.

TIME

Viral Threats

TURKEY-SYRIA-CONFLICT-KURDS
Militants of Islamic State are seen before explosion of air strike on Tilsehir hill near the Turkish border village Yumurtalik in Sanliurfa province, Oct. 23, 2014. BULENT KILIC—AFP/Getty Images

Why combatting the extremists of ISIS is harder than fighting an Ebola outbreak

As images of brutal beheadings and dying plague victims compete for the world’s shrinking attention span, it is instructive to compare the unexpected terrors of the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (known as ISIS or ISIL) and Ebola. In October, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out that “the twin plagues of Ebola and ISIL both fomented quietly, neglected by a world that knew they existed but misread their terrible potential, before exploding into the global consciousness.” Seeking more direct connections, various press stories have cited “experts” discussing the potential for ISIS to weaponize Ebola for bioterrorist attacks on the West.

Sensationalist claims aside, questions about similarities and differences are worth considering. Both burst onto the scene this year, capturing imaginations as they spread with surprising speed and severity. About Ebola, the world knows a lot and is doing relatively little. About ISIS, we know relatively little but are doing a lot.

In the case of Ebola, the first U.S.-funded treatment unit opened on Nov. 10—more than eight months after the epidemic came to the world’s attention. The U.S. has committed more than $350 million and 3,000 troops to this challenge to date. To combat ISIS, President Obama announced on Nov. 7 that he would be sending an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq to supplement his initial deployment of 1,500. And he has asked Congress for a down payment of $5.6 billion in this chapter of the global war on terrorism declared by his predecessor 13 years ago and on which the U.S. has spent more than $4 trillion so far.

Over recent centuries, medicine has made more progress than statecraft. It can be useful therefore to examine ISIS through a public-health lens. When confronting a disease, modern medicine begins by asking: What is the pathogen? How does it spread? Who is at risk? And, informed by this understanding, how can it be treated and possibly prevented?

About Ebola, we know the answers to each. But what about ISIS?

Start with identification of the virus itself. In the case of Ebola, scientists know the genetic code of the specific virus that causes an infected human being to bleed and die. Evidence suggests that the virus is animal-borne, and bats appear to be the most likely source. Scientists have traced the current outbreak to a likely animal-to-human transfer in December 2013.

In the case of ISIS, neither the identity of the virus nor the circumstances that gave rise to it are clear. Most see ISIS as a mutation of al-Qaeda, the Osama bin Laden–led terrorist group that killed nearly 3,000 people in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September 2001. In response to those attacks, President George W. Bush declared the start of a global war on terrorism and sent American troops into direct conflict with the al-Qaeda core in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the years since, the White House has deployed military personnel and intelligence officers to deal with offshoots of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), Yemen (AQAP), Syria (al-Nusra) and Somalia (al-Shabab).

But while ISIS has its roots in AQI, it was excommunicated by al-Qaeda leadership in February. Moreover, over the past six months, ISIS has distinguished itself as a remarkably purpose-driven organization, achieving unprecedented success on the battlefield—as well as engaging in indiscriminate violence, mass murders, sexual slavery and apparently even attempted genocide.

Horrifying as the symptoms of both Ebola and ISIS are, from an epidemiological perspective, the mere emergence of a deadly disease is not sufficient cause for global concern. For an outbreak to become truly worrying, it must be highly contagious. So how does the ISIS virus spread?

Ebola is transmitted only through contact with infected bodily fluids. No transfer of fluids, no spread. Not so for ISIS, where online images and words can instantly appear worldwide. ISIS’s leadership has demonstrated extraordinary skill and sophistication in crafting persuasive messages for specific audiences. It has won some followers by offering a sense of community and belonging, others by intimidation and a sense of inevitable victory, and still others by claims to restore the purity of Wahhabi Islam. According to CIA estimates, ISIS’s ranks of fighters tripled from initial estimates of 10,000 to more than 31,000 by mid-September. These militants include over 15,000 foreign volunteers from around the globe, including more than 2,000 from Europe and more than 100 from the U.S.

Individuals at risk of Ebola are relatively easy to identify: all have come into direct contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic Ebola patient, and almost all these cases occurred in just a handful of countries in West Africa. Once symptoms begin, those with the virus soon find it difficult to move, much less travel, for very long undetected.

But who is most likely to catch the ISIS virus? The most susceptible appear to be 18- to 35-year-old male Sunni Muslims, among whom there are many Western converts, disaffected or isolated in their local environment. But militants’ individual circumstances vary greatly, with foreign fighters hailing from more than 80 countries. These terrorists’ message can also inspire “lone wolf” sympathizers to engage in deadly behavior thousands of miles from any master planner or jihadist cell.

In sum, if Ebola were judged as a serious threat to the U.S., Americans have the knowledge to stop it in its tracks. Imagine an outbreak in the U.S. or another advanced society. The infected would be immediately quarantined, limiting contact to appropriately protected medical professionals—thus breaking the chain of infection. It is no surprise that all but two of the individuals infected by the virus who have returned to the U.S. have recovered and have not infected others. Countries like Liberia, on the other hand, with no comprehensive modern public-health or medical system, face entirely different challenges. International assistance has come slowly, piecemeal and in a largely uncoordinated fashion.

Of course, if ISIS really were a disease, it would be a nightmare: a deadly, highly contagious killer whose identity, origins, transmission and risk factors are poorly understood. Facing it, we find ourselves more like the Founding Fathers of the U.S., who in the 1790s experienced seasonal outbreaks of yellow fever in Philadelphia (then the capital of the country). Imagining that it was caused by the “putrid” airs of hot summers in the city, President John Adams and his Cabinet simply left the city, not returning until later in the fall when the plague subsided. In one particularly virulent year, Adams remained at his home in Quincy, Mass., for four months.

Not until more than a century later did medical science discover that the disease was transmitted by mosquitoes and its spread could be stopped.

We cannot hope to temporarily escape the ­“putrid” airs of ISIS until our understanding of that scourge improves. Faced with the realities of this threat, how would the medical world suggest we respond?

First, we would begin with humility. Since 9/11, the dominant U.S. strategy to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism has been to kill its hosts. Thirteen years on, having toppled the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, waged war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, decimated the al-Qaeda core in Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted 500 drone strikes against al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Pakistan, and now launched over 1,000 air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we should pause and ask: Are the numbers of those currently infected by the disease shrinking—or growing? As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once put it: Are we creating more enemies than we are killing? With our current approach, will we be declaring war on another acronym a decade from now? As we mount a response to ISIS, we must examine honestly past failures and successes and work to improve our limited understanding of what we are facing. We should then proceed with caution, keeping in mind Hippocrates’ wise counsel “to help, or at least, to do no harm.”

Second, we would tailor our treatments to reflect the different theaters of the disease. Health care professionals fighting Ebola in West Africa face quite different challenges of containment, treatment and prevention than do their counterparts dealing with isolated cases in the Western world. Similarly, our strategy to “defeat and ultimately destroy” ISIS in its hotbed of Iraq and Syria must be linked to, but differentiated from, our treatment for foreign fighters likely to “catch” the ISIS virus in Western nations. While continuing to focus on the center of the outbreak, the U.S. must also work to identify, track and—when necessary—isolate infected individuals within its borders.

Just as Ebola quarantines have raised ethical debates, our response to foreign fighters will need to address difficult trade-offs between individual rights and collective security. Should citizens who choose to fight for ISIS be stripped of their citizenship, imprisoned on their return, or denied entry to their home country? Such a response would certainly chill “jihadi tourism.” Should potential foreign fighters be denied passports or have their travel restricted? How closely should security agencies be allowed to monitor individuals who visit the most extremist Salafist websites or espouse ISIS-friendly views? Will punitive measures control the threat or only add fuel to radical beliefs?

Finally, we should acknowledge the fact that for the foreseeable future, there may be no permanent cure for Islamic extremism. Against Ebola, researchers are racing toward a vaccine that could decisively prevent future epidemics. But the past decade has taught us that despite our best efforts, if and when the ISIS outbreak is controlled, another strain of the virus is likely to emerge. In this sense, violent Islamic extremism may be more like the flu than Ebola: a virus for which we have no cure, but for which we can develop a coherent management strategy to minimize the number of annual infections and deaths. And recalling the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed at least 50 million people around the world, we must remain vigilant to the possibility that a new, more virulent and contagious strain of extremism could emerge with even graver consequences.

Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government

TIME Mental Health/Psychology

5 Signs You Should Take a Break From Social Media

people using phones
Getty Images

If you can’t rake the leaves or paint your nails without tweeting about it

In a tech-obsessed society where 500 million tweets are sent per day and 1.28 billion people use Facebook on a regular basis, how can you tell when your own love of “checking in” has gone too far? Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, PhD, technology expert and author of The Distraction Addiction, shares some of the most common signs that you should to sign off for a bit.

You make elaborate desserts and projects just to Instagram them

Did you spend extra time making your salad look picture-perfect or recreate a DIY off Pinterest just to appear crafty? If you’re guilty of situations like these, you may be ready for a break. “When you start crafting your life to be more Twitter- or Instagram-friendly, it’s time to step back,” says Pang. “Thinking about where you’ll go or what you’ll do with an eye to how it will appear on social media undermines your ability to be yourself,” he adds.

HEALTH.COM: 12 Worst Habits for Your Mental Health

You can’t rake the leaves or paint your nails without tweeting about it

We all have that friend on social media who can’t help but share every single detail of her life. Unfortunately, you may also be that friend. “Composing tweets about what you’re doing as you’re doing it or feeling the need to report your thoughts in real-time are all signs that social media is taking over your life,” says Pang. “There are only 24 hours in a day, and the more time we spend sharing with our friends what we’re doing hour-by-hour, the less time we have to discover for ourselves why we enjoy these activities and what our days are adding up to mean,” he explains.

You know way too much about your connections

“The big warning sign to look out for here is when you start becoming compulsive about knowing the statuses of your social media ‘friends,’” Pang says. So if you readily know that the random guy you once met at a party just bought a house, and you’ve already stalked his wife’s Facebook profile, you may want to reevaluate how much time you’re spending online. “The irony of social media is that while it can be great for keeping up with the details of our friend’s lives, too much engagement can obscure the big picture and weaken our ability to make sense of our own lives,” adds Pang.

HEALTH.COM: 10 Signs You Should See a Doctor for Depression

You feel like you don’t measure up to your successful/happy/thriving friends

Thumbing through your social feed can quickly lead to an inundation of good—and often envy-inducing—news. Witnessing your friends’ promotions, engagements, and extravagant vacations can stir up feelings of jealousy and inadequacy, whether you realize it or not. In fact, spending too much time on social media can cause feelings of negative body image among women, increase the amount of anxiety a person has on a daily basis, and even lead to damaged friendships and relationships. “When keeping up with your friends’ lives gets in the way of you happily leading your own life, you need a break,” says Pang.

You feel anxious when you don’t have access to your phone

Do you check Facebook at traffic lights or while talking to your friends at the table? Do you refresh your Twitter feed as soon as you wake up or as you’re falling asleep? “The more you’re on social media, the less material you actually have to talk about that’s interesting and worth having other people hear,” says Pang. Think about it: How many conversations or real-life events have you missed out on because you were too wrapped up in your phone? The more time you spend liking, the less likable your own world ends up becoming, Pang explains.

HEALTH.COM: 13 Ways to Beat Stress Instantly

How to take a step back

Start by setting aside a specific time every day for catching up on social media. “Humans have a schedule for exercising, going to work, eating meals, and sleeping. So if one hour per day, at the same time each day, is good enough for dinner, it’s good enough for your news feed,” says Pang. When you do post status updates, limit yourself to only discussing life stories, instead of off-the-cuff thoughts or irrelevant snapshots of your food or your dog (no matter how cute he may be).

Finally, experiment with temporarily limiting your access. “Challenge yourself to abstaining from social media for a full week, or, if that’s too daunting, just delete Twitter, Instagram and Facebook from your phone for a week,” Pang suggests. “Does your life get better or worse? You may find that you feel perfectly satisfied without social media in your life,” says Pang.

HEALTH.COM: 12 Signs You May Have an Anxiety Disorder

This article originally appeared on Health.com.

TIME Mental Health/Psychology

4 Health Benefits of Being Generous

Close-up of a person holding out helping hand
Getty Images

Giving may give you a longer life

Forget about all the sweet deals you scored on Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Today’s the day to put your shopping exploits aside and embrace something a little more warm and fuzzy: generosity.

It’s officially #GivingTuesday, a global day reserved for people to get out and do something nice for others. While some towns might have a specific campaign planned, you can get in on the action yourself just by donating to charity or volunteering at your local shelter. No act of kindness is too small.

It doesn’t hurt either that giving to others can be a big boost for your health. Read on for four awesome perks of being more generous:

It may lower blood pressure

Helping out friends and family could be one way to boost your cardiovascular health this holiday season. A 2006 study in the International Journal of Psychophysiology found that participants who gave social support to people within their network had lower overall blood pressure and arterial pressure than those who didn’t. Not to mention those in the study who were more likely to give to others also reported they received greater social support in return. Why not bring a homemade meal to a friend who’s caring for someone else this holiday season? Not only will you feel good on the inside, but your friend might just be inclined to return the favor.

HEALTH.COM: How Friends Make You Healthier

It can help reduce stress

Hoarding money like Scrooge may be good for your wallet, but it’s not so great for your health. A recent study from Queensland University of Technology published in PLOS One found that stingy behavior increases stress. Researchers asked 156 volunteers to play a bargaining game and decide how to divide a sum of money. Using heart rate monitors, they found players who made low offers (below 40% of the total) experienced increased heart rate and stress levels compared to those who made high offers. More proof to consider giving away some money to those less fortunate over the holidays: A study in the Journal of Health Psychology found that people who decided not to donate money to their partner in a bargaining game to felt more shame and had higher levels of stress hormone cortisol afterwards.

HEALTH.COM: 20 Habits That Make Holiday Stress Worse

It could help you live longer

Lending a hand for small tasks may end up boosting your longevity. In a 2013 study of 846 people published in the American Journal of Public Health, people who helped others by running errands or doing chores seemed to be protected from the negative impact of stress. While stressful events were not linked to a higher risk of death for those do-gooders, people who didn’t help others did have a 30% higher risk of dying during the study if they reported having a stressful life event. If a member of your family always cooks the holiday dinner, it might not be a bad idea to pitch in this year with the meal.

HEALTH.COM: 16 Unexpected Ways to Add Years to Your Life

It can boost your mood

Research shows that giving money away can feel just as good as receiving it. For a 2007 study in Science, researchers used brain imaging technology on 19 women to see how certain regions were activated when they either kept $100 or gave it to a local food bank. Turns out the same pleasure-related centers in the brain that lit up in those who took the money also went off in those who donated the money—even more so when the decision was voluntary and not required by researchers. Whether you drop some change into a Salvation Army bucket or send a larger sum to your favorite charity, you can’t go wrong this holiday season with a little giving.

HEALTH.COM: 14 Strategies to Become a Happier Person

This article originally appeared on Health.com.

TIME Diet/Nutrition

Here’s the Scientific Way to Make a Perfect Pumpkin Pie

Prebake the crust for pumpkin pie before filling

WSF logo small

The kind of fat that goes into a pie dough can totally change the chemistry of the crust—and for a supremely flaky crust, you can’t beat lard, as former White House pastry chef Bill Yosses explains in the above selection from the 2014 World Science Festival event “Biophysics? More like Pie-o-Physics!” (Yosses is something of an authority on deliciousness; earlier this year, President Obama joked that his pies were so good he must be lacing them with crack cocaine.)

But traditional Thanksgiving fare presents additional “pie-o-physics” conundrums. Pumpkin pie filling is closer on the pastry evolutionary tree to flan or custard. Baking one requires some special considerations, according to Yosses.

In pumpkin pie, “the eggs coagulate to form a silken smooth network,” Yosses told us. “The egg proteins shrink as they cook, and you need to stop the process at the right time.” The time to remove a pumpkin pie, he says, is when it is “set,” but the center should still jiggle when shaken in the oven. “This is sensitive because too little cooking and the pie will be liquid.”

To avoid overcooking his pumpkin pies, one trick Yosses likes to employ is to lower the bottom of pie dish into cold water for about 30 seconds right after taking it out of the oven (take care not to splash water or burn yourself). This will stop the protein threads from continuing to cook.

“I like a filling made with acorn squash and some sugar pumpkin, and I love trying all kinds of vegetable and ginger variations—but then it is not really a pumpkin pie,” Yosses says. He prebakes the crust for his pumpkin pie before filling. If you do the same, but don’t want an extra-crispy edge on the crust that forms during the second round in the oven, he recommends covering the edge with aluminum foil before baking.

If any foodies reading this feel guilty about going with canned pumpkin instead of the fresh stuff, take comfort in the fact that Yosses himself often reaches for a can of Libby’s pumpkin pie mix. As he says: “Why reinvent the wheel?”

This piece originally appeared on World Science Festival.

TIME Research

How to Survive a Spaceship Disaster

sky
Getty Images

One of the most dangerous parts of an astronaut’s journey is the very beginning

WSF logo small

Falling from ten miles up, with no spacesuit on, in air that’s 70 degrees below zero and so thin you can hardly draw breath…Conditions were not ideal for Peter Siebold, a test pilot flying on Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two, to survive. But he did. Siebold told investigators that he was thrown from the plane as it broke up, and unbuckled from his seat at some point before his parachute deployed automatically. It’s unclear at this point why the same thing didn’t happen for his copilot, Michael Alsbury.

Now, as spaceflight goes commercial, the destruction of both Spaceship Two and the Antares unmanned rocket is likely to bring the eyes of federal regulators back towards an industry that has until now enjoyed minimal red tape. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, first passed by Congress in 2004, was designed to encourage innovation by keeping the rules not so stringent for the fledgling private space industry. But “the moratorium [was designed to] be in place until a certain date or the event of the first death,” Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Space Law, told the MIT Technology Review. “Unfortunately, the first death has now occurred, and the FAA will likely revisit the need for regulations, if any.”

A Virgin Galactic spokesperson said in an email that the company couldn’t comment too broadly about the escape mechanisms for its spacecraft, due to the pending investigation. The spokesperson did confirm there are two exits from the cabin, but said that “specific design elements of the passenger cabin and spacesuits are still being developed and have not been made public.”

Since the earliest days of the space program, researchers have tried to develop realistic ways to provide astronauts with an emergency exit. But in an emerging field of such complexity, what mechanisms are plausible…and practical? Here’s a brief history of the effort so far.

Condition One: Failure To Launch

One of the most dangerous parts of an astronaut’s journey is the very beginning. To maximize the chance of survival during a launch, most spacecraft from the Mercury project onwards have incorporated a launch escape system (LES), which can carry the module containing the human crew away from a sudden threat to the rest of the craft—either while still on the launch pad, or during the initial ascent.

The Apollo LES was powered by a solid fuel rocket. At the first sign of trouble (transmitted by the loss of signal from wires attached to the launch vehicle), the LES would fire automatically, steering the command module up and away from danger, then jettison and allow the module to open its parachute and land. A similar principle lies behind the launch escape mechanisms used for Russia’s Soyuz capsules and the Shenzhou capsule used by the Chinese space program. The Orion spacecraft, NASA’s next generation of manned craft in development, also features an LES mounted on top of the craft, called a Launch Abort System.

On the private industry side of LESs, SpaceX’s Dragon capsule incorporates the rocket motors of the escape mechanism into the sides of the capsule itself, instead of mounting the LES on top. Since the LES isn’t discarded after launch, this “pusher” method provides the capsule with emergency escape capability throughout the entire flight—something the Space Shuttle and Apollo crafts never had, the company notes. (The drawback is that, if unused, all that fuel for the escape system is extra weight to carry around). Testing Dragon’s abort system both on the launch pad and in flight is something SpaceX expects to have done by January.

Using one of these devices is no picnic. Orion’s LAS was estimated to put about 15.5 Gs of force on an astronaut—more than a fighter pilot experiences, but a little alleviated by the fact that the astronauts are lying on their backs. “They’ll feel the effects,” Orion’s launch abort systems director Roger McNamara told Space.com, but “the bottom line is they’ll be walking away.”

Condition Two: Disaster In Orbit

In the 1960s, General Electric tested an emergency inflatable device called MOOSE (Manned Orbital Operations Safety Equipment, but originally Man Out Of Space Easiest) that was basically a small rocket motor attached to a six-foot-long polyester bag equipped with a heat shield, life support system, radio equipment and parachute. After a space-suited astronaut exited his or her space vehicle and climbed into the bag, he or she would activate pressurized canisters that filled it up with polyurethane foam.

More recently, NASA explored a new escape pod design called the X-38, a 7-person lifeboat designed to provide an escape route for astronauts on the International Space Station (say in case the Soyuz space capsule were damaged, or made unavailable because of political infighting, or hijacked by Sandra Bullock). This design made it as far as test flights, but was scrapped in 2002 over budget concerns.

Condition Three: Extraterrestrial Rescue

What if a disaster trapped astronauts on the moon? To prepare for that contingency, NASA worked on designs for unmanned Gemini Lunar Rescue Vehicles that could scoop up a marooned crew of two or three astronauts from the lunar surface, or from orbit around the moon. But funding cutbacks during the Apollo program prevented the agency from fully exploring these designs.

Condition Four: Trouble With The Landing

NASA’s space shuttles had an inflight escape system to be used only when the orbiter could not land properly after reentering orbit, which used a pole that extended out from one of the side hatches. The astronauts would hook themselves to the pole with a Kevlar strap and then jump out, allowing the pole to guide them out and underneath the left wing of the spacecraft. However, for this exit system to work, the space shuttle would have to be in pretty good shape, capable of staying in controlled, gliding flight. You can see the pole being used in this test footage here:

This article originally appeared on World Science Festival.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser