A sane, sensible documentary on future manned space programs

[BaalChatzaf]

Have a look at this  (hour and five minutes).  A sensible look at what manned space programs we could be undertaking and a very fine list of the engineering problems we have yet to solve.  This documentary is a fine antidote to the nonsense being peddled by Robert Zubin and his friends.

Please see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLZDVsAfUUU

It is entitled why we -can't- go go Mars (meaning why we cannot go to Mars without our current technology). 

[Peter]

There is a show on this summer called “Salvation,” with the usual Scifi stereotypes:  Asteroid. Collision with earth. Underground bunkers. Arks or spacecraft. Selection of occupants, etc.

Medical Science can currently affect the gene pool. And in the future people with errant genes will be even more able to reproduce offspring without defects. And there has recently been more speculation about colonizing Mars or the moon. Who wants to go? Who should go?

On the show, they mentioned a minimum number of diverse individuals needed to continue on with the species and they came up with the number 160 people. But I had previously read that 160 is around the minimum number of “childbearing females” needed, with a diverse sperm bank to select from. Artificial wombs are still around the corner. So if males are included on the ark we might need the capacity to voyage with over three hundred humans with a sperm bank.      

Should we call the selection process *Eugenics* with all its bad memories and connotations? Of course not, but humanity needs to think about the possibility of a Extinction Level Event. Or the sheer need to explore our galaxy.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are raising numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, claim that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics. This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products" In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction . . . . There are examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not influencing the prevalence of heterozygote carriers of those diseases. The elevated prevalence of certain genetically transmitted diseases among the Ashkenazi Jewish population (Tay–Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease, and Gaucher's disease), has been decreased in current populations by the application of genetic screening . . . .  Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted "improvement" of the gene pool could very likely—as evidenced in numerous instances in isolated island populations —result in extinction due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and other factors both known and unknown. A long-term, species-wide eugenics plan might lead to a scenario similar to this because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition . . . .  Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family. Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise." Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that "[e]ugenics doesn't seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that PGD, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn't sufficient to show that they're wrong."  . . . . In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

There is a show on this summer called “Salvation,” with the usual Scifi stereotypes:  Asteroid. Collision with earth. Underground bunkers. Arks or spacecraft. Selection of occupants, etc.

Medical Science can currently affect the gene pool. And in the future people with errant genes will be even more able to reproduce offspring without defects. And there has recently been more speculation about colonizing Mars or the moon. Who wants to go? Who should go?

On the show, they mentioned a minimum number of diverse individuals needed to continue on with the species and they came up with the number 160 people. But I had previously read that 160 is around the minimum number of “childbearing females” needed, with a diverse sperm bank to select from. Artificial wombs are still around the corner. So if males are included on the ark we might need the capacity to voyage with over three hundred humans with a sperm bank.      

Should we call the selection process *Eugenics* with all its bad memories and connotations? Of course not, but humanity needs to think about the possibility of a Extinction Level Event. Or the sheer need to explore our galaxy.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are raising numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, claim that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics. This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products" In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction . . . . There are examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not influencing the prevalence of heterozygote carriers of those diseases. The elevated prevalence of certain genetically transmitted diseases among the Ashkenazi Jewish population (Tay–Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease, and Gaucher's disease), has been decreased in current populations by the application of genetic screening . . . .  Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted "improvement" of the gene pool could very likely—as evidenced in numerous instances in isolated island populations —result in extinction due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and other factors both known and unknown. A long-term, species-wide eugenics plan might lead to a scenario similar to this because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition . . . .  Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family. Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise." Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that "[e]ugenics doesn't seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that PGD, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn't sufficient to show that they're wrong."  . . . . In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. 

Where will the "ark" land  and where will the passengers dwell.  It is one thing to escape the immediate effects of a bolide collision,  it is another thing to find a place to live long term.  Right now there is no place in the  'verse for humans to live except right here on Earth.

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Where will the "ark" land and where will the passengers dwell.  It is one thing to escape the immediate effects of a bolide collision, it is another thing to find a place to live long term.  Right now there is no place in the 'verse for humans to live except right here on Earth. end quote

I looked the word “bolide” up and it seemed to just be a meteorite that explodes in the atmosphere but does not hit the land or ocean. Never the less, there are ways of enhancing your chances of survival.

Since more of the earth is covered in water, the odds are that a collision will happen in the ocean. So, a tidal wave could be the big killer of humans. If humanity had prior notice, then people could temporarily move out of low lying areas. If a tidal wave or flood did occur then people might move out permanently from flood prone areas, just as has happened as in places around The Gulf Coast.

I have thought about building a “safe room” in my house but never have. I have one interior bathroom without windows and it could be used in an emergency. And I have a survival book about how to live if a nuclear bomb is detonated. Keep a roll of duct tape handy. I remember it would be tougher staying in a sealed room or house in the summer. Winters are much easier to stay comfortable in.    

I store tap water in old gallon water bottles and rotate the supply about every six months. I also keep six or more unopened gallons of distilled water. If a hurricane is going to strike the mainland I may store more water temporarily.

I keep extra crackers and Jif peanut butter, usually three large jars of Jif and some jelly and I rotate them. I keep cans of vegetables, deviled ham, Spam, Ravioli, etc., in small quantities, but we could last a week without being hungry. Of course if a disaster is about to strike . . . . I would buy more.

I have a 5000 watt gas generator, though lately I have only been keeping two gallons of gas on hand, and a half dozen containers of oil. The generator can be plugged into the house circuit if rain is NOT falling or I can run it under a porch roof and I have several 100 and 50 foot extension cords as well as a few multipronged shorter cords. I also have ten heavy plastic, empty gas cans which I can fill before a disaster happens. Since I have well water, I should be able to have plenty of water too for showers.

I might also withdraw cash, but only if a disaster is possible and not before. Unfortunately, I think most stores have thrown away those old credit card machines that worked by hand so if the power goes out, cards cannot be used.

I know many on this list live in large population areas but I don’t. I urge you to move to safer zones. And of course, get a shotgun, rifle, and hand gun.

Peter            

[Peter]

I keep the following reminder on hand in a drawer. When the power goes out! (revised 8/28/14)

The new air system may need 60 to 90 amps so the generator will not run the system. I think it is 30 amps.

In the house and garage: Make sure the main circuit breaker is off. IF IT IS NOT a Delmarva Power lineman can be electrocuted when our generator is turned on! When the power goes out, also turn off all appliances at the box. Inside the house manually turn off TV’s, computers and sensitive electronics. Make sure the new 220 volt breakers are off at the box, per Bill Rogers, electrician. Take any vehicles out of the garage. Pull the generator near the back door, or if it is raining or snowing, put it just into the garage with one or two fans to blow the fumes out. Open the windows to the garage. Position the generator so the wind is not blowing the fumes back into the garage. Get the cats out of the garage before running the generator.

 

Make sure the power switch on the generator is off, but turn the other switch on (its called a rocker, just like the lawn mower’s key.) Turn the gas line as indicated in the diagram on the generator, to the left. Then the gas is flowing. Put the choke on. Pull the starter cord lightly about a foot, until you feel some tension. Then pull it hard. Repeat if necessary. Try it with the choke off if that doesn’t work. It could be flooded. Once it is running, let it run a few minutes, then put the plug into the generator and turn clockwise until it stops. Connect the other end to the new 220 circuit in the garage.

 

NOW turn the “power on” switch on the generator on. Turn on the bottom left three switches on fuse box. Power is now flowing to the house. Wait a few minutes and then start turning the water pump, air conditioners etc., back on. The recommended wattage in the manual is a bit low. We should be able to run more than they say, but portable heaters, when it is cold out, might draw quite a bit (1500 Watts each.) So just use 2 or 3 space heaters on the 500 watt setting. If too much Wattage is being drawn, the 220 circuit on the generator will trip, and we will need an electrician. The 120 Watt can be reset by us, but we would need a lot of power cords.

Appliance Wattages

 

TURN THESE ON one at a time:

17 and 19 should be the generator, then 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16.

1 Kitchen receptacles refrigerator 800 watts ON

2 Dining room receptacles, big air conditioner 1410 watts ON

9 nothing (says GFI on box) LEAVE ON, MAY BE GROUND

10 Living room receptacles under bow windows and near front door ON

11 Garage door 480 watts and receptacles freezer 245? (245 kw hours per year) ON, and/or plug in freezer directly from generator using extension cord

13 Lighting in kitchen, dining room, guest bathroom, hallway, utility room ON

14 Receptacles in computer room, master bedroom, Laura’s room, Sarah’s bedroom ON

16 Water pump 1000 watts ALWAYS ON

Freezer 2 4 5 kw per year Watts? New one from Lowe’s 9 cubic feet, shows 245 kw per year, so say 300 watts.

Refrigerator 8 0 0

Water Pump 1 0 0 0 ??? (new pump installed May 2012 but it doesn’t show wattage. It may be less than 1K)           

Large Air Conditioner 1 4 1 0 (as of Sept 10, 2010 Kenmore model 253.70151 15000 btu)

Small Air Conditioner 8 0 0, approximately. (We have three small ones, but I am only using one to calculate our maximum.)  2 lamps 1 5 0

Just up to this much equals 4 4 6 0. If we unplug the Freezer we will still be using 4160, leaving 840.  Our strategy will be to briefly turn off the air conditioners, space heaters, and freezer as we need to use additional items. We will need to unplug items we are not using that are plugged in now, or attached to the electrical wiring, and always on, like the computer. Using the generators at near capacity will only give us approximately eight hours of run time on one tank of gas. We will have the equivalent of six tanks of gas if we preload the generator with gas, and then refill the gas cans. The electrician recommended we use an additional 120 volt line running to the freezer, as well as one or two fans plugged into the 120 receptacles on the generator.

Additional items

Ceramic or hot oil heaters 1 5 0 0 Watts each

Water Heater - ours is  4 5 0 0 Watts (as of 6/23/12) If it is really needed, Turn everything off except water heater, and water pump, and take showers.

Washing machine 2 0 0 0

Clothes Dryer 1 3 0 0 minimum to 3 0 0 0 ! ! ! Use low or no heat

Dish washer 1 5 0 0

Microwave 1 0 0 0 to 1 1 0 0. Buy pizza or fast foods if they are open, freeze them, then reheat them in microwave.

Garage door opener 4 8 0

Toaster  7 0 0 (only use one side at a time)

Vacuum cleaner 7 5 0

Coffee maker 1 5 0 0 ! ! !  We could make coffee, then turn it off and use the microwave to reheat as needed.

TV 5 0 0 – 7 0 0 (approximately with the auxiliary boxes)

Computer 8 0 0

Range top, one burner 1 5 0 0  to 5 0 0 0 ! ! ! The electrician recommends leaving this off unless this is ALL that is on. Never run the oven on generator power. Never exceed the maximum wattage using the 220 volt connection. Instead, if really necessary, use a lone extension cord and run that 120 volt line to an appliance like the freezer, or a ceramic or hot oil heater.

or 

1 Kitchen receptacles refrigerator 800 watts

2 Dining room receptacles big air conditioner 1410 watts

3 Hot water heater 4500 watts

4 Range 1500 to 5000 watts depending on number of burners

5 Clothes dryer 1300 to 3000 watts

6 Heat for dining room, kitchen, both baths

7 Heating for utility room

8 Heating for master bedroom, Laura’s bedroom

9 nothing (says GFI on box)

10 Living room receptacles under bow windows and near front door

11 Garage door 480 watts and receptacles freezer 245 watts

12 Washer 1500 watts.

13 Lighting in kitchen, dining room, guest bathroom, hallway, utility room

14 Receptacles in master bedroom, Laura’s room, Sarah’s bedroom

15 nothing may be outside receptacles

16 Water pump 1000 watts

17 nothing may be outside receptacles

18 Air conditioner receptacle, dining room (unused, always keep off)

 

And here is another potential scenario:

1 Kitchen receptacles refrigerator 800 watts ON

2 Dining room receptacles big air conditioner 1410 watts ON

3 Hot water heater 4500 watts OFF

4 Range 1500 to 5000 watts depending on number of burners OFF

5 Clothes dryer 1300 to 3000 watts OFF

6 Heat for dining room, kitchen, both baths OFF

7 Heating for utility room OFF

8 Heating for master bedroom, Laura’s bedroom OFF

9 nothing (says GFI on box) LEAVE ON, MAY BE GROUND

10 Living room receptacles under bow windows and near front door ON

11 Garage door480 watts and receptacles freezer 245 watts ON, and/or plug in freezer directly from generator using extension cord

12 Washer 1500 watts OFF. TURN ON AS NEEDED, BRIEFLY

13 Lighting in kitchen, dining room, guest bathroom, hallway, utility room ON

14 Receptacles in master bedroom, Laura’s room, Sarah’s bedroom ON

15 nothing may be outside receptacles OFF

16 Water pump 1000 watts ALWAYS ON

17 nothing may be outside receptacles OFF

18 Air conditioner receptacle, dining room (unused, always keep off) OFF

DO NOT EXCEED 5000 WATTS. We have 12 cans of gas and the generator should be filled up to give us 104 hours or more of run time. Rotate and refill gas cans as needed. Consider taking a shower while the water is still hot!

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: Where will the "ark" land and where will the passengers dwell.  It is one thing to escape the immediate effects of a bolide collision, it is another thing to find a place to live long term.  Right now there is no place in the 'verse for humans to live except right here on Earth. end quote

I looked the word “bolide” up and it seemed to just be a meteorite that explodes in the atmosphere but does not hit the land or ocean. Never the less, there are ways of enhancing your chances of survival.

Since more of the earth is covered in water, the odds are that a collision will happen in the ocean. So, a tidal wave could be the big killer of humans. If humanity had prior notice, then people could temporarily move out of low lying areas. If a tidal wave or flood did occur then people might move out permanently from flood prone areas, just as has happened as in places around The Gulf Coast.

I have thought about building a “safe room” in my house but never have. I have one interior bathroom without windows and it could be used in an emergency. And I have a survival book about how to live if a nuclear bomb is detonated. Keep a roll of duct tape handy. I remember it would be tougher staying in a sealed room or house in the summer. Winters are much easier to stay comfortable in.    

I store tap water in old gallon water bottles and rotate the supply about every six months. I also keep six or more unopened gallons of distilled water. If a hurricane is going to strike the mainland I may store more water temporarily.

I keep extra crackers and Jif peanut butter, usually three large jars of Jif and some jelly and I rotate them. I keep cans of vegetables, deviled ham, Spam, Ravioli, etc., in small quantities, but we could last a week without being hungry. Of course if a disaster is about to strike . . . . I would buy more.

I have a 5000 watt gas generator, though lately I have only been keeping two gallons of gas on hand, and a half dozen containers of oil. The generator can be plugged into the house circuit if rain is NOT falling or I can run it under a porch roof and I have several 100 and 50 foot extension cords as well as a few multipronged shorter cords. I also have ten heavy plastic, empty gas cans which I can fill before a disaster happens. Since I have well water, I should be able to have plenty of water too for showers.

I might also withdraw cash, but only if a disaster is possible and not before. Unfortunately, I think most stores have thrown away those old credit card machines that worked by hand so if the power goes out, cards cannot be used.

I know many on this list live in large population areas but I don’t. I urge you to move to safer zones. And of course, get a shotgun, rifle, and hand gun.

Peter            

Bolide. Any quasi spherical celestial object that strikes the earth.  When the diameter gets up to 10 meters or more there is going to be a major happening.

[Brant Gaede]

Do not store water in plastic bottles sitting directly on concrete.

--Brant

[Peter]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:38 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Do not store water in plastic bottles sitting directly on concrete.

--Brant

All of my water is stored in plastic on concrete. The opened and refilled bottles are freshened every six months. What is wrong with this practice, Brant?

[Brant Gaede]

It seems to accelerate degradation of the plastic itself. I use old milk containers which I periodically replace with the water. There may also be some bacterial growth within the bottle so out with the old one and in with the new one.

--Brant

[Peter]

Thanks Brant. I think of plastic water bottles as "inert" things that will always work. Today I tried drinking distilled water from a bottle that is a few months old. It tasted plain but not as good as my tap water. We have no neighbors to our south west, just woods, thanks to a conservation area, but two neighbors south, south west and about 300 yards away who also have septic systems but those should drain into ditches between us and them. We had our well water tested about a year ago and we  just had a slight amount of nitrates from crop fertilizers but not enough to harm. For a while I used cleaned out gallon milk bottles too but I switched to old, empty distilled water bottles. 

I keep two large plastic "bowls" out back for the animals. Well, they are actually kitty litter boxes though never used for that purpose.  When we have a drought I have a lot of visitors. I change the water in them about every three days or sooner if the level is low or I see any algae. 

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Thanks Brant. I think of plastic water bottles as "inert" things that will always work. Today I tried drinking distilled water from a bottle that is a few months old. It tasted plain but not as good as my tap water. We have no neighbors to our south west, just woods, thanks to a conservation area, but two neighbors south, south west and about 300 yards away who also have septic systems but those should drain into ditches between us and them. We had our well water tested about a year ago and we  just had a slight amount of nitrates from crop fertilizers but not enough to harm. For a while I used cleaned out gallon milk bottles too but I switched to old, empty distilled water bottles. 

I keep two large plastic "bowls" out back for the animals. Well, they are actually kitty litter boxes though never used for that purpose.  When we have a drought I have a lot of visitors. I change the water in them about every three days or sooner if the level is low or I see any algae. 

Peter

You can put water in the bathtub during a possible emergency and get more out of the hot water tank.

A swimming pool could work. Scoop out the water into an open container. The chlorine should evaporate in no more than 24 hours, probably less.

Water boiled at sea level for one minute kills all the germs. A higher altitude means longer boiling time.

There's a straw designed to sip contaminated water through a silver matrix--I think it's silver--purifying the water before it gets to your mouth. Hikers use this.

Etc.

--Brant