How can space contribute to a possible socio

Transcription

- © PUF 15 juillet 2014 09:32 - Le travail humain vol 77 n° 3 - 2014 - Collectif - Le travail humain - 155 x 240 - page 281 / 298
SYNTHESIS
SYNTHÈSE
HOW CAN SPACE CONTRIBUTE TO A POSSIBLE
SOCIO-TECHNICAL FUTURE ON EARTH ?
by G. A. Boy and O. Doule1∑
résumé
comment l’exploration spatiale peut-elle contribuer à un futur sociotechnique possible sur la terre ?
L’ergonomie traditionnelle s’inscrit dans la continuité de la relation entre l’être
humain, les artefacts qu’il construit, l’environnement et les sociétés. L’actuel développement technologique sans précédent est en train de briser cette continuité.
Nous devons penser l’évolution humaine et sa relation au travail en de nouveaux
termes que la conquête spatiale a déjà commencé à façonner. Cet article présente
les raisons fondamentales pour lesquelles l’exploration spatiale est essentielle pour
la croissance, l’évolution et le développement durable de l’humanité, non seulement
au niveau ergonomique individuel mais aussi au niveau sociétal. L’ergonomie
prospective doit prendre en compte ces stratégies. Nous faisons l’hypothèse que
toute entité placée hors de son environnement naturel —où elle s’est adaptée pour
y vivre –, réagit au nouvel environnement – où elle n’est pas adaptée pour y
vivre – de façon spécifique pour se défendre, s’adapter et survivre. Non seulement
de telles frontières de survie et de nouvelles capacités d’adaptation devront être
découvertes, mais nous pouvons aussi mieux comprendre nos exigences vitales
nominales actuelles. Pendant le programme Apollo de la NASA, les humains ont
déjà étendu leur environnement vital à la Lune. Nous nous adaptons à un nouvel environnement en utilisant un “pont technologique” qui facilite et étend nos
capacités d’adaptation beaucoup plus rapidement que ce que l’évolution naturelle
ne le permet, lorsque c’est possible. Dans l’espace par exemple, il est impératif
d’étendre notre environnement de vie et de travail, mais jusqu’où pouvons-nous
aller ? Pouvons-nous vivre n’importe où ? Quelles sont les limites et les possibilités
fondamentales qui doivent être identifiées ? Par exemple, sommes-nous limités à
des zones et régions habitables de notre système solaire et notre galaxie ? Sommesnous capables de nous adapter totalement à la microgravité ? Quelles sont les possibilités technologiques à développer pour avoir suffisamment d’oxygène et d’eau ?
En définitive, que signifie d’être un humain dans l’univers et sur la Terre en particulier ? Nous considérons que ces questions sont cruciales au début du xxie siècle
parce que notre planète Terre est en train de changer rapidement lorsque nous
considérons plusieurs paramètres tels que notre démographie globale, notre écologie
en constante dégradation et notre économie incontrôlable. Nous sommes devant
une page blanche exactement de la même manière que lorsque nous analysons
1. Human-Centered Design Institute (HCDi), Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West
University Blvd, Melbourne, FL, 32901, USA. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Le Travail Humain, tome 77, n°3/2014, 281-297
282
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
une vie possible sur Mars. Nous devons mieux comprendre les limites et capacités
humaines dans des mondes à la fois naturels et artificiels que nous avons générés,
et ce que la nature offre - soit nominalement soit par réaction, à nos coûteuses
façons socio-économiques de vivre.
Mots-clés : adaptation, ergonomie prospective, conception anthropocentrée, écologie, environnements artificiels de vie, vols spatiaux habités, vie
extraterrestre.
I. INTRODUCTION
The ergonomics discipline was born after the Second World War as “the
scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions
among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that
applies theoretical principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system” (IEA, 2010). The primary goal
was to improve working conditions, mainly physically. Then computers
entered the show and physical ergonomics shifted to cognitive ergonomics. Today, our society is changing rapidly not only because of the massive
introduction of computers and software, but because of the interconnectivity that we have through computer networks, and the energy crisis in
term of moving from oil to renewable energies. More than ever, we need
to be prospective and creative and jump into the 21st century to make the
third industrial revolution. We are now using smart phones and other modern devices to be connected anytime anywhere. We are no longer isolated
as we were in the past. These preliminary observations stress the need for
a deeper investigation of our rapidly evolving environment, in the physical
sense as well as in the cognitive and emotional senses.
We currently live in a society driven and structured by monetary values,
and driven by markets rather than our wisdom and intellectual capacities.
These societal priorities are also inherently transferred into the field of
research and design. They deform rather than form our environment (Boy,
2013). Since the nineteenth century people experienced several industrial
revolutions going from horses to steam machines, to computers and today
to the Internet, nanotechnologies and renewable energies. Space can contribute our current socio-technical evolution from several perspectives,
including concrete colonization of proximal celestial bodies such as the
Moon and Mars, and also, more metaphorically, exploring new ways of
re-colonizing our planet Earth. For example, mining on the Moon, that
may have significant impact on terrestrial economies and welfare. Mining
on the Moon was introduced in early nineteenth century by Russian writer
Vladimir Odoevsky (Lytkin, 1998), and this topic is seriously addressed
by major world agencies and commercial space industry nowadays. This
paper is not about mining and possibilities of harvesting precious resources
from space, but about “the heart of space exploration”, the human passion
to discover, which attempts to better understand who we are, our living
envelope, and technology that can be used on Earth and can contribute
to improve and understand life on Earth. More importantly, we will try to
15 jui
How can space contribute to a possible socio-technical future on earth ?
283
explore the various relationships between Technology, Organizations and
People (the TOP model introduced by Boy, 2013).
We claim that space exploration and research bring new viewpoints on
human-centered design (HCD). During the last few decades, we accumulated invaluable knowledge both on how space exploration can be done and
why. We believe that designing new artifacts that are intended to improve
our lives involves co-adaptation of technology, organizations and people.
This paper will focus on such co-adaptation. It will be organized into four
mutually inclusive parts: Terraforming and Ecopoiesis; Space Settlements
and Habitats; Human Subsystems; Principles and Technologies Derived.
Examples will be presented.
II. TERRAFORMING AND ECOPOIESIS
Terraforming is the process that enables people to convert a sterile
planet into a habitable and self-sustaining system. It is mandatory to study
the planetary system as a whole. We will talk about a holistic approach. For
example, understanding the evolution of our global climate on Earth is
crucial. Space exploration and research bring new viewpoints for exploration and research on Earth, searching for analogue systems and providing
less biased perspectives.
Space technology brings new means to support investigations and
design of livable systems developed during the Apollo program, for example, which brought a lot of new possibilities on the Earth. Another example is radiation and thermal insulation of spacecraft implemented using
aluminum, propylene and Mylar, materials that are now commonly used
on Earth. Similar situation is regarding clear water technology and fire
protection of steel structures. Food service in hospitals and lyophilization
of products were first experienced during the Apollo program.
We build great things by necessity. Exploring a new planet requires
the creation of things that are necessary for survival. For example, NASA
is currently working on a mechanism to make oxygen from regolith, i.e.
dust on the surface of the Moon. We need to try and take risks to develop
usable, useful and sometimes mandatory artifacts.
Traditional human factors and ergonomics always tried to avoid risk.
Ergonomics was for a long time based on work evolution continuity,
rejecting work revolution. When we shifted from conventional mechanicalengineering based aircraft to fly-by-wire aircraft, cockpits drastically
changed. Pilots became system managers as well as aviators. Safety was also
drastically improved even if the nature of accidents also changed. Today,
complacency has become a major threat in aviation, because it is much
easier to fly than before and pilots tend to rely on automation. We have
come to a point where we need to redefine pilot’s job and responsibilities.
It is easy to criticize new technology at its beginning, when work changes.
However, it is important to understand that there is always a maturity
period, where not only the technology has to mature, but also practices.
Most human factors work following commercial cockpit automation of the
284
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
eighties did not see this maturity issue, and focused on issues related to
things that were still evolving. Today, this technology is more mature and
provides more operational safety (Boy, 2013).
Aviation changed our lives. Transportation in general modified the way
we live. It enabled connectivity in many ways. It also modified, and still
modifies, our environment. The problem today deals with the number of
cars and aircrafts more than anything else. These numbers increase because
people find transportation means useful and usable, and guess what? They
use them massively. The same case is the Internet. Internet changes our
lives and connects us planet-wide. Our planet is not the same as in the
beginning of the 20th century; it resembles a planetary village that we need
to explore. This is a kind of terraforming that is far from being finished. It
is just the beginning. But before we enter into more details on terraforming, let’s define Ecopoiesis as a first stage, the induction stage.
Ecopoiesis is a set of emerging life-support phenomena as opposed to
forced usual Earth-like phenomena (which is terraforming). Ecopoiesis processes progessively emerge from adaptation and evolution. Of course, we cannot predict how life would evolve on another planetary system, but we can
imagine possible futures, model them, simulate them and somehow experience them. We are talking about analogs. The idea of creating self-sustaining
life on other planets is also followed by various safety concerns; one of which
actually points out a terraformed planet as a refuge for humankind (Strauss,
1990). For example, studying planet Mars supports unveiling planet Earth
possible futures by considering past habitability of Martian environment
(Stephen & Schneider, 2004). The Martian case can then be extrapolated
to planet Earth’s conditions (McKay & Stoker, 1989). More specifically, the
Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) currently attempts to identify possible
states of planet Mars that may involve living forms (NASA/JPL-Caltech,
2012), and that are not excluded to be similar to those on Earth.
Figure 1 : Explications possibles des sources et du transfert de méthane dans l’atmosphère marsienne
(NASA/JPL-Caltech, 2012).
Figure 1: Possible explanations of methane sources and transfer in Martian atmosphere
(NASA/JPL-Caltech, 2012).
15 jui
285
Thanks to many research efforts and discoveries on other planetary
bodies, we have become aware of global planetary changes, humaninduced pollution of our planet, and their complex interrelations. As planet
Mars was studied for its unknown surface environment and atmosphere,
scientists realized the global changes and interrelations of small climate
events within the whole planetary system. This “analog” research and particularly its principles were then possible to extrapolate to planet Earth
(e.g., research performed by Lovelock) (Millar, 2002).
Consequently, what does it mean to live on Mars? Two primary conditions for life are livable presence of oxygen and water. It is interesting
to notice that we are coming back to these premises on the Earth where
pollution and rarefaction of drinkable water have become major issues.
We often point the negative effect of the first and second industrial revolutions, which did not take into account ecology, but putting to the front
economy. Today, the ecological state of the planet Earth is in jeopardy. This
is a question of high-level goal. Ecology should not be serving economy,
but the opposite. Economy should come back to its initial role of supporting human welfare. We cannot do ergonomics on wrong premises. The real
problem today is at the top where economy, and finance in particular, is
ruling the world, instead of serving the world.
It is interesting to notice that human beings adapt to extreme environments. This adaptation is almost always constructed cognitively. Aviation was
possible only because people thought about what flying was about, i.e. thrust
and lift as primary concepts that needed to be understood and designed
both cognitively and practically. People cannot fly like birds do, but they
were smart enough to build prostheses that enabled them to fly. It is another
way of talking about Ecopoiesis and terraforming. The main issue is filling
the gap between people capabilities and environmental constraints.
III. SPACE SETTLEMENTS AND HABITATS
Ergonomics in its primary sense, i.e. the science of work, should take
into account our evolution: the Homo-sapiens has become the HomoTechnologicus. As already said, it is urgent that we state the right questions
regarding technology, organizations and people (the TOP model). Among
other things, we need to take into account cultures, society evolution and
various migrations (Ardittis & Attali, 1994). New types of settlements have
started. Even if the term “colony” has nowadays a very negative connotation, e.g. the colonization of already inhabited countries during several
centuries, we can use it in the sense of reference to the original large visionary space settlement concepts that were exploring new ways of living, producing goods and creating new cultures fully independently of resources
and culture on Earth.
The idea of moving millions of people into space colonies started to
appear during the 20th century when scientists, engineers and architects
realized that humankind is going to exhaust Earth’s planetary resources
soon and the risk of overpopulation and pollution of Earth was perceived
Bernal, O’Neill, Stanford/NASA
team, and
- © PUFresearch
architect Paolo Soleri were actually expanding the
problem of humans’ resource consummation towards
expansion in the universe instead of resolving it
(considering limitless resources of the outer space). The
complexity of the human biosphere was not understood as
well as 286
nowadays and thus the only solutionG. A. Boy,
was to
O. Doule
replicate a large natural biosphere.
The colonies
by 1977).
these
were
correctly
as a real designed
risk too (Brand,
Themasterminds
solutions that were
proposed
were
and futuristic for their time
certainly
not unrealisticwould
for
intendedquite
to poetic
be self–sustainable
sobut
the
communities
the
future.
First
large
space
colony
was
proposed
by
Russian
professor
not needKonstantin
any external
input brought from Earth after
E. Tsiolkovski in early 20th century, even if his concept did not
completion,
a resource-independent
habitation
addressbeing
overpopulation
or lack of resources. His work pointed
out technical
of such a large
Amongst
many other
Tsiolkovski
system. feasibility
Nevertheless
theproject.
overall
effort
tocredits,
construct
them
holds also credit for a first space settlement considering possibility of creatwould beingastronomical.
These space settlements (colonies)
closed artificial biosphere in outer space (Table 1).
were offering
replication
of the
terrestrial
biosphere
The later twentieth century
settlements
(see Table 1)
by Bernal, in
O’Neill,
Stanford/NASA
research
team,
and
architect
Paolo
Soleri
were
mass scale, biosphere that would be closed loop with
actually expanding the problem of humans’ resource consummation
biological
regeneration
capability
1977). limittowards
expansion in the universe
instead of (Brand,
resolving it (considering
Althoughlessthe
technology
to
replicate
biological
life
resources of the outer space). The complexity of the human biosphere
was
not
understood
as
well
as
nowadays
and
thus
the
only
solution
to
support exists, the International Space Station iswas
still
replicate a large natural biosphere.
not fully The
independent
of by
terrestrial
resources
and
colonies designed
these masterminds
were correctly
intended
chemical,
rather
than so
biological,
ofexternal
the
to be
self–sustainable
the communitiesrecuperation
would not need any
input
brought
from
Earth
after
completion,
being
a
resource-independatmosphere prevails.
ent habitation system. Nevertheless the overall effort to construct them
Table 1:would
List
early space
colonies
- (colonies)
habitable
be of
astronomical.
These space
settlements
were offering replication
of the terrestrial
biosphere
in mass scale,
biosphere that
settlements
that support
fully
autonomous
habitation
out
would
be
closed
loop
with
biological
regeneration
capability
(Brand,
of the Earth’s surface using biological closed loop
1977). Although the technology to replicate biological life support exists,
environmental
life support
systems
the International
Space Station
is still not(replicating
fully independent of terrestrial resources
and biosphere)
chemical, rather than
recuperation
of the
terrestrial
natural
- 2Dbiological,
schemes
are adopted
atmosphere
prevails.
from (Tsiolkovsky, 2012), (Heppenheimer, 1978),
(Downton, 2009).
ableau 1 : Listes des premières colonies spatiales – des colonies habitables qui
Tableau T
1�:
Listes
des entièrement
premières
colonies
spatiales
permettent
une habitation
autonome
hors de la Terre
en utilisant – des
coloniesdeshabitables
qui
permettent
une
habitation
systèmes biologiques en boucle fermée sur l’environnement de soutien
à la vie autonome
(répliquât d’unehors
biosphère
naturelle)en
– Les
schémas 2D sont
entièrement
deterrestre
la Terre
utilisant
des
tirés de (Tsiolkovsky, 2012), (Heppenheimer, 1978), (Downton, 2009).
systèmes biologiques en boucle fermée sur l'environnement
Table à
1: List
early space
colonies - habitable
settlements
that support
fully
de soutien
la ofvie
(répliquât
d’une
biosphère
terrestre
autonomous habitation out of the Earth’s surface using biological closed loop
naturelle)
– Leslifeschémas
2D (replicating
sont tirés
denatural
(Tsiolkovsky,
environmental
support systems
terrestrial
biosphere)
2D
schemes
are
adopted
from
(Tsiolkovsky,
2012),
(Heppenheimer,
2012), (Heppenheimer, 1978), (Downton, 2009). 1978),
(Downton, 2009).
Author
Concep Yea Descripti 2D schemes (credit: O.
Author
Concept
Year Description
2D schemes (credit: O. Doule)
t
r
on
Doule)
Konstantin First
1911 Artificial graKonstantE. First self-sus191 Artificia
vity space
tainable
Tsiolkovski
settlement.
in E.
self- space
1 set- l gravity
Largest
Tsiolkov sustaitlement space
diameter is
estimated to 30
ski
nable concept settlemen
meter diaspace
t. meter. (capacity
15 juillet 2014 09:32 - Le travail humain vol 77 n° 3 - 2014 - Collectif - Le travail humain - 155 x 240 - page 286 / 298
15 jui
unknown)
8
to 30
meter
- © PUF diameter.
15 juillet 2014 09:32 - Le travail humain vol
77
n°
3
2014
Collectif
- Le travail humain - 155 x 240 - page 287 / 298
settle
Largest
(capacity
diameter
settlement
Largest
unknown)
is
ment concep diameter
John D.
Bernal
192
t
estimated
concep
is Artificia
Bernal
Sphere 9
lto
gravity
30
t
estimated
settlemen
meter
to 30
tdiameter.
for
meter
(capacity
20000
diameter.
How can space contribute to a possible
socio-technical
future on earth ?
287
unknown)
people.
(capacity
John D.
Bernal 192 Habitable
Artificia
sphere
Bernal
Sphere 9unknown)
l gravity
John
D.
Bernal
192
settlemen
has
1.6
John D.
Bernal
1929 Artificia
Artificial
gratsettlement
for
Bernal
Sphere
9
l vity
gravity
kilometer
Bernal
Sphere
20000 peofordiameter.
20000
settlemen
people.
Habitable
t ple.
for
Paolo
Astero 196
Artificia
Habitable
sphere
has
Soleri
mo
6 20000
l gravity
sphere
1.6settlemen
kilometer
people.
has 1.6
diameter.
Habitable
tkilometer
for
sphere
70000
diameter.
Paolo
Asteromo 1966 has
Artificial
people
1.6
Astero 196
Artificia
Soleri Paolo
gravity
setwith
kilometer
Soleri
mo
6 tlement
l gravity
for
habitable
diameter.
settlemen
70000
people
central
thabitable
for
Paolo
Astero 196 Artificia
with
ring
1.4
70000
Soleri
mo
6
l central
gravity
ring
kilometer
people
settlemen
1.4 kilometer
diameter.
with
t diameter.
for
habitable
Stanford Stanfo 197
Artificia
70000
Stanford
Stanford
1975
Artificial
Universi
rd
5 people
lcentral
gravity
University,
Torus
gravity
set-1.4
ring
ty,
Torus
settlemen
with
NASAtlement
for
kilometer
NASAt
for
habitable
Ames
10000
people
diameter.
Ames
10000
central
ResearchStanford Stanfo 197
withArtificia
habitable
people
Research
Center Universi rd
ring
1.6
meter
ring
1.4
5
l
gravity
Center
with
diameter.
kilometer
ty,
Torus
settlemen
habitable
diameter.
NASAt for1.6
ring
Gerard
Island
197
Artificia
Gerard Ames Island III 1975 Artificial
gra10000
Stanford
Stanfo
197
Artificia
meter
O’Neill
III
5 vity people
l
gravity
O’Neill Research
settlement
Universi rd
5
l for
gravity
diameter.
settlemen
1with
million
Center
ty,
Torus
settlemen
t for
people
com-1
habitable
million
NASAt posed
for
of
ringtwo
1.6
people 8
Ames
10000
counter-spun
meter
composed
kilometer
diampeople
Research
diameter.
two
eter of
cylinders.
Center
with
counterhabitable
spun 8
ring kilometer
1.6
meter
diameter
Introduced in the seventies,
space
colonies concepts appeared to be
diameter.
cylinders
the solution to our Earth problems. dealing with socio-technical resources,
Introduced
in the seventies,
space
colonies
concepts
overpopulation
and environmental
pollution.
Their
development
appears
appeared
to be the
solution
toinduced
our Earth
to be longer
than expected.
However,
they
newproblems
thoughts dealing
and posresources, overpopulation and
sibilities with
on thesocio-technical
Earth:
9
9
environmental pollution. Their development appears to be
longer than expected. However, they induced new thoughts
– We now
have methods and technologies to address life sustainability in
and possibilities on the Earth:
new environments.
–
We now have methods and technologies to address life
– We know
that modeling
can help tremendously in figusustainability
in and
newsimulation
environments.
ring out
solutions.
– appropriate
We know that
modeling and simulation can help
– We improved
our understanding
what
life-criticalsolutions.
systems are.
tremendously
in figuring of
out
appropriate
– We know
that
we need toour
address
complexity of
as awhat
whole
in order to dis–
We improved
understanding
life-critical
coversystems
emergingare.
properties of the systems that we are planning to design
–
We know that we need to address complexity as a
and develop.
whole
in that
order
discover
emerging
properties
of the
– We also
know
weto
cannot
design
and develop
technology
without
systems that we are planning to design and develop.
reference to our past and future, and we should address and design
–
We also know that we cannot design and develop
technology without reference to our past and future, and
we should address and design concurrently technology,
organizations and human evolution. More specifically,
people roles, capabilities and limitations have to be
taken into account.
In addition, the risk humans take when moving to another
environment is pictured in humankind history. Humans
either over exploit the environment to maximum so it
could not support humans’ activities anymore or create
technological prostheses (extensions) to enable temporary
solution re-initiating the exploitation cycle. When the
9
288
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
concurrently technology, organizations and human evolution. More
specifically, people roles, capabilities and limitations have to be taken
into account.
In addition, the risk humans take when moving to another environment is pictured in humankind history. Humans either over exploit the
environment to maximum so it could not support humans’ activities anymore or create technological prostheses (extensions) to enable temporary
solution re-initiating the exploitation cycle. When the technological solutions fail, human existence is a subject to inevitable extinction (Dator,
2002).
People discovering new phenomena in a new environment need to
learn new skills and understand new knowledge to survive in this environment. It was the case when we started flying (people do not naturally
fly, but flying has become a familiar activity during the 20th century).
Such learning and understanding involve new cognitive, emotional and
societal functions and structures. Discovering outer space functions led
to new kinds of technology developments that turned out to be very valuable on the Earth, such as technology spin-offs (e.g., the pacemaker1
device originally developed for satellite control). Another example is the
spin-on biosphere allowing human presence in space that was well tested
on Earth. Experiments (Biospheres I and II, 1.2 hectare) proved that it
was possible for human beings to live in fully artificial, isolated environment in space. These biospheres were much smaller than proposed colonies in Table 1 with possible exception of Tsiolkovsky’s concept, whose
capacity is unknown and dimensions are estimated based on original
sketches. We should make clear that it is going both ways; technology
transfer processes can be thought as spin-off going from space to Earth,
or spin-on going from Earth to space. Again, modeling and simulation
are at stake. Analog environments are good solutions to test and discover
emerging properties. Such environments have to be as realistic as possible in order to provide good results.
In an artificially controlled and replicated environment, we need to
know all aspects of our bodily functions. In our growing polluted and overpopulated environment, we need to test solutions at a reasonably large
scale. An example of such a HCD approach for human spaceflights is provided in Figure 2.
Discoveries at any scale in extreme environments may significantly
contribute to our knowledge and expansion in our universe. Most importantly, they tend to enhance our quality of life on Earth. National agencies (NASA in particular) already brought many examples of technological
spin-offs (Lockney, 2011).
Our socio-technical evolution during the last hundred years and its
recent acceleration brought to the front the necessity of re-colonizing
our planet Earth. We not only need to understand what we have sociotechnically done, but also find out what is the best way to further develop
1. Small electronic device helping to control human heart rythm (http://www.space.
com/731-nasa-spin-offs-bringing-space-earth.html).
15 jui
289
technology, organizations and people. We have accumulated a huge
amount of technological solutions that we commonly use, such as photovoltaic technology, water purification, thermal insolation, food processing
and advanced robotics. Unfortunately, these solutions are not integrated
and lead to unforeseen problems. Integration is a key. As in space programs, we need to take a holistic view instead of a cumulative habit. This
is more than ever a necessity because we have created a new world where
almost everything is now interconnected, therefore increasing the complexity of the whole.
Figure 2 : Transfert des connaissances entre les applications terrestres et spatiales dans le temps.
Figure 2: Knowledge transfer between terrestrial and space applications over time.
IV. HUMAN SUBSYSTEMS – LEARNING FROM SPACE
FLIGHT
“Understanding physiology at the limits of human tolerance to environmental conditions
is a worthy goal in itself but may in addition lead to developments in both knowledge and
treatments in clinical settings” (Grocott, 2008).
Safety is the most important aspect of human spaceflight. Spaceflight
is extremely risky and a very expensive endeavor (due to rocket propulsion
still taking the lead). Therefore, understanding human factors in spaceflight is one of primary requirements.
290
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
Figure 3 : Maquette d’un siège de Soyouz munie d’une coque liner intérieure personnalisée et
occupée par un cosmonaute placé dans un scaphandre spatial russe Sokoi (crédit : O. Doule).
Figure 3: Soyuz seat mockup with personalized interior shell liner occupied
by cosmonaut dressed in Russian Sokol space suit (Credit: O. Doule).
Ergonomic functions are strongly personalized, and anthropometry
is reflected in the design of seats in Soyuz TMA spacecraft for example
(Figure 3). Safety is always the primary principle for such precision requirements. A personalized seat much better protects its occupant, and provides
more comfort than a standard unit that would be designed based on average sample size (Kuipers, 2012). Space brings customization to the front.
Transferring this concept to Earth design and engineering, it is very interesting to observe that despite the usual credo of ergonomics that promotes the
adaptation of technology to people, economy and finance impose standardization, which means the adaptation of people to technology. The question
is then to define higher-level goals for our societies and people. If we want
to explore our planet Earth, as we want to explore the Moon or Mars, we
need to adapt technology to people in a deeper sense than what we usually
do today.
Further exploring applied personalized anthropometry in space, spacecraft and space stations subsystems need to precisely consider everyone’s
physiological processes (Figure 4). Therefore each metabolic process has
to be, and is, well monitored prior to the spaceflight. Personalized scales
for all human body inputs and outputs are provided, based on measurable
inputs and outputs. This data further serves precise planning of human
body needs for the length of the mission.
Figure 4 : Besoins des “sous-systèmes” du corps humain – adapté de (Eckart, 1996), crédit : HCDi.
15 jui
291
Figure 4: Human body “subsystem” needs – adapted from (Eckart, 1996), credit: HCDi.
In other words, if we want people to survive in space, we need to take
care of them! Would not it be the case on the Earth, which is changing so
fast right now ecologically, socio-technically and culturally? When you plan
for a trip, you try to organize everything around three main principles that
are safety, efficiency and comfort. These are ergonomic principles. It is
interesting to observe that France has written the Precautionary principle
in its constitution. It was initially limited to the environment, but “there
has also been a marked evolution in the French legal system towards the
systematic search for a guilty party at the slightest suspicion that an event
may have been caused, directly or indirectly, by an element of risk taking”
(Boy & Brachet, 2010). It is time to better understand what risk taking
really means. In life-critical systems, we have developed regulations and
procedures that bound risk. However, these regulations and procedures
have increased both in number and content to a point where people barely
have time, opportunity and sometimes desire to follow them. Again, integration is at stake. We need to integrate instead of accumulate knowledge
and policies.
Lessons learned from the development and use of life-critical systems
such as experience with human space flight shows that humans may fail.
Human error was the topic of many research efforts during the last three
decades. However, this was a very negative view of human’s role, putting
people as problems. Therefore, technology and regulations were implemented to be system solutions. But on the contrary, when people are correctly engaged, they can provide solutions. Human engagement requires
competence, knowledge, experience, training, motivation, creativity and
responsibility.
Appropriate implementation of these space human factors strategies
and experience may be extremely useful in human-centered design on the
Earth. Pressure on efficiency of the environmental resource utilization will
increase with the growing risk of overpopulation and non-reusable natural
resources exhaustion.
V. SYSTEMS DERIVED, SPACE SPIN-OFFS, SYSTEMS
FOR LIVING
Although national offices transfer a large amount of space technology,
materials and procedures, the most important phenomenon derived from
the space sector is individual consciousness of life on a very unique planet
in the solar system and maybe in the entire universe. This consciousness
enables the design of effective closed loop systems supporting humans out
of their natural environment.
Therefore another very important aspect is the design approach that
carefully integrates all subsystems in order to keep the artificial biosphere
292
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
system supporting human with recycled atmosphere. This integration
allows human existence in the outer space, and when extrapolated to terrestrial conditions, it enables a fully sustainable individual living envelope.
Such envelope, well understood from a technical and systems engineering
point of view, may significantly enhance the design of any type of artificially
built environment from habitats, large scale architecture of any function
and typology or even historical buildings to automotive and aeronautics
(Figure 5).
Figure 5 : Le concept d’architecture intégrée dans lequel l’humain existe en harmonie
avec son environnement, basé sur le niveau d’intégration architecture-environnement
(Doule & Vernoosfaderani, 2011).
Figure 5: Integrated architecture concept where human exists in harmony
with its environment, based on architecture-environment integration level
(Doule & Vernoosfaderani, 2011).
The partially-closed/open loop system operated in the International
Space Station (Figure 6) is an excellent example of an integrated technological biosphere supporting human out of his natural environment. It
includes not only power and thermal subsystems, station keeping, telecommunication subsystems but most importantly chemical environmental
control and life support with water management filtering system.
Number of technologies and subsystems developed for space are already
being used in terrestrial conditions (power generation systems, water filtering systems, etc.) but they are often used ad-hoc as an individual technical
component or as an addition to an existing system.
Mastering principles of subsystems integration as it has been done
on the International Space Station (ISS) and incorporating interdisciplinary integration within the philosophy and strategy of the Ergonomics
discipline would enhance not only the terrestrial domain but also the
space sector. Although the ISS is the only and most sophisticated habitat humankind has ever built, the internal environmental ergonomics
is subject to significant upgrade. The entire station, while designed for
research purposes as a laboratory, did not significantly address habitability aspect of the microgravity environment while strictly focusing on
survivability.
15 jui
293
Consequently, space exploration contributes to the future of ergonomics by producing human-centered systems and methodologies, and primarily shows technological and cultural evolutions. Once the artificial human
envelope integration is mastered (Figure 5), not only solutions to current
sustainable and ecological issues can be found, but also the large settlements proposed (e.g., Table 1) will be enabled.
Figure 6 : Exemple de système de la Station spatiale internationale partiellement en boucle fermée
pour l’eau, l’atmosphère, la nourriture, les détritus et le contrôle thermique (Hanford, 2005).
Figure 6: Example of the International Space Station partially closed loop life support system
including water, atmosphere, food, waste and thermal management (Hanford, 2005).
VI. Principles deriveD – conclusions
From a prospective point of view, our socio-technical future is very
likely directed toward design and development of personalized systems
and subsystems, environment, and general focus on the individual living
envelope.
Ergonomics not only provides solutions to enhance safety, anthropometrically organized space and cognitive activities as suggested by industry
guides for example (EIG, 2012), but also enhances physical conditions,
well-being, body regeneration, and at the same time recycles, generates
power and provides “personalized and up to date” human-machine interface functions.
294
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
A practical example may be comfortable wellness furniture that may be
effectively integrated within the working space and station, effectively supporting energy sustainability and autonomy. The Mood Chair (Figure 7)
with desktop surface that integrates human power generation for recharging electronic devices is a good example (Tarisa, 2010).
Work is an inherent part of human existence. According to Hannah
Arendt, life can be described as and divided into work (of our hands), labor
(of our body) and action (placed in the realm of uncertainty) (Frampton,
2002). Ergonomics in its primary sense (i.e., the science of work) should
take into account these three components, as well as cultural differences
and society evolution.
Figure 7 : Exemple d’un fauteuil confortable, efficace, durable et ergonomique issu du design
industriel et muni d’un système de chargement d’un ordinateur portatif utilisant un mécanisme
rotatif (Tarisa, 2010).
Figure 7: Example of comfortable, effective, sustainable and ergonomic industrial design
chair with laptop charging system integrated with spinning machine (Tarisa, 2010).
Ergonomics requires more integration with other disciplines and fields
of study in order to “catch a breath” with current human needs. It may
need to extend its purely positivist and empirical scientific approaches
and broaden its economic interests and outcome also to ethical outcomes
(Dekker, Hancock, & Wilkin, 2013). It should become an inherent part
of architecture, automotive, aerospace and product design, and become
a driver for design and building standards. In the future, it will hopefully
become a universal approach based on human-centered design principles
that span through a variety of appropriate disciplines and applications.
This approach will strongly support integration as a grounding design
process. Ergonomics should benefit of space spin-offs that bring innovative
design principles and technology. Space applications have been proven not
15 jui
human-centered design principles that span through a
variety of appropriate disciplines and applications. This
approach will strongly support integration as a grounding
design process. Ergonomics should benefit of space spinoffs that bring innovative design principles and
How canSpace
space contribute
to a possible socio-technical
on earth ?
295 only
technology.
applications
have future
been
proven not
to be cost profitable (Amesse, Cohendet, Poirier, &
Chouinard,
but also
key
for faster
research
and
only to2002)
be cost profitable
(Amesse,
Cohendet,
Poirier, & Chouinard,
2002)
development
8)research
(Goehlich,
Blanksby,
Hatano,
but also(Figure
key for faster
and development
(Figure 8)Goh,
(Goehlich,
Goh,2005).
Hatano, Pečnik, & Wong, 2005).
Penik, Blanksby,
& Wong,
Figure 8 : Schéma scheme
simplifié de transfert
comme un facilitateur
Figure 8: Simplified
of technologique
technology
transfer as a
financier de recherche et développement dans le domaine spatial
financial enabler
of
research
and
development
in space
(Goehlich, Blanksby, Goh, Hatano, Pečnik, & Wong, 2005).
(Goehlich, Blanksby,
Goh, Hatano, Penik, & Wong, 2005).
Figure 8: Simplified scheme of technology transfer as a financial enabler
Figure 8�: Schéma
simplifié
de (Goehlich,
transfert
technologique
of research and development in space
Blanksby, Goh,
Hatano,
Pe
č
nik,
&
Wong,
2005).
comme un facilitateur financier de recherche et
développement dans le domaine spatial (Goehlich,
Blanksby, The
Goh,
Hatano,
Penik,
Wong,
above
described and
proposed&path
of the2005).
field of ergonomics
coulddescribed
be simply characterized
as Personalized
Ergonomics
providesof
The above
and proposed
path
of thethat
field
systemcould
of balancing
andcharacterized
design principles in a Human-Centered
ergonomics
be research
simply
as Personalized
way.
ErgonomicsButthat
provides
system
ofchallenge
balancing
research
and
the field
of ergonomics
has another
ahead. The
science
design principles
inhasa toHuman-Centered
way.
of work and usage
start globally emphasize
bankrupt aspect of
that is
from the
workanother
environmentchallenge
and exists thanks
But the ethics
field
ofdisappearing
ergonomics
has
ahead.
to
its
natural
persistence.
Technological
capability
within
the
product
The science of work and usage has to start globally
design is intimately related to financial benefits of the product life cycle.
emphasize
bankrupt
aspect
ofwere
ethics
is with
disappearing
Unfortunately,
some
appliances
created that
disposable
pre-profrom the
work errors
environment
and
to its
grammed
that force their
usersexists
to change thanks
the overal product
after
period of time and
cause unnecessary capability
expenses. This is an
exam- the
natural some
persistence.
Technological
within
of financially-driven design, as opposed to human-centered design
product ple
design
is intimately related to financial
that promotes sustainable products. We should use technology for the
benefits
of
the product
life
cycle.
Unfortunately,
sake
of long-term
humanitarian
evolution,
instead
of using it for the sakesome
of short-term
financial benefits.
We need to change
sad contempoappliances
were created
disposable
with this
pre-programmed
rary
economical
approach,
and
focus
on
ethical,
societal
and human
errors that force their users to change the overal
issues. Ethics as one of important aspects of Ergonomics will play an
product important
after role
some
of but
time
and in
cause
unnecessary
not period
only in design
specifically
its organization
and
expenses.
This
is
an
example
of
financially-driven
management.
design, as opposed to human-centered design that promotes
sustainable products. We should use technology for the
sake of long-term humanitarian evolution, instead of
19
296
G. A. Boy, O. Doule
Achnowledgements
We thank Rizki Tarisa for providing his design of Mood Chair. We also
thank the reviewers and editors who provided insightful comments. This
article greatly benefited from many discussions at HCDi; thanks to faculty
and graduate students of HCDi.
Bibliography
Amesse, F., Cohendet, P., Poirier, A., & Chouinard, J.-M. (2002). Economic
Effects and Spin-offs in a Small Space Economy: The Case of Canada. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 27, 339-348.
Ardittis, S., & Attali, J. (1994). The Politics of East-West Migration. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Boy, G.A. (2013). Orchestrating Human-Centered Design. London: Springer.
Boy, G.A., & Brachet, G. (2010). Risk Taking. Toulouse: Air and Space Academy
Press.
Brand, S. (1977). Space Colonies (A Coevolution Book). San Francisco: Penquin.
Dator, J. (2002). For the Panel on Sustainable Islands. Manoa: University of Hawaii,
College of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science, Future Studies.
Dekker, S.W., Hancock, P.A., & Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability:
towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56 (3), 357-364.
Doule, O., & Vernoosfaderani, M.T. (2011). Space Architecture for Sustainable
Living (poster). 1st Envihab Symposium, 23-24 May. Cologne: http://www.
spacearchitect.eu/poster_do1.
Downton, P.F. (2009). Ecopolis: Architecture and cities for a changing climate.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Eckart, P. (1996). Spaceflight Life Support and Biospherics. London: Kluwer/
Microcosm Press.
EIG (2012). Ergonomic Industry Guidelines. Retrieved on December 12, 2012, from
Washigton State Department of Labor and Industries: http://www.lni.wa.gov/
Safety/Topics/Ergonomics/IndGuide/default.asp
Frampton, K. (2002). Labour, work and architecture. London: Phaidon Press.
Goehlich, R.A., Blanksby, C., Goh, G.M., Hatano,Y., Pečnik, B., & Wong, J. (2005).
Space Spin-offs: Making them known, improving their use. Space Policy, 21,
307-312.
Grocott, M.P. (2008). Human physiology in extreme environments: Lessons from
life at the limits? Postgraduate Medical Journal, Janunary 84 (987), 2-3.
Hanford, A.J. (2005). Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development
Metric – Fiscal Year 2005. Houston: Jacobs Sverdrup.
Heppenheimer, T.A. (1978). Colonies in Space. New York: Warner Books.
IEA (2010). IEA - Ergonomics, human centered design. Retrieved from What is
Ergonomics: http://www.iea.cc/01_what/What%20is%20Ergonomics.html
Kuipers, A. (2012). Soyuz leak check in preparation for return to Earth. Retrieved
on November 24, 2012, from The PromISSe mission: http://blogs.esa.int/
promisse/tag/soyuz-tma-03m/page/2/
Lockney, D. (2011). Office of the chief technologist. Retrieved from NASA Spinoff:
http://spinoff.nasa.gov/ on August 10, 2011.
Lytkin, V.V. (1998). Tsiolkovsky’s inspiration. Ad Astra , 10 (6), 34- 39.
McKay, C.P., & Stoker, C.R. (1989). The early environment and its evolution on
Mars: Implication for life. Reviews of Geophysics, 27 (2), 189-214.
15 jui
297
Millar, D. (2002, November 24). The Cambridge Dictionary of Scientists, Lovelock,
James (Ephraim). Retrieved from Credoreference: http://www.credoreference.
com.portal.lib.fit.edu/entry/dicscientist/lovelock_james_ephraim_1919
NASA/JPL-Caltech. (2012). Potential Sources and Sinks of Methane on Mars.
Retrieved from Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity Rover: http://mars.
jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4846&NewsInfo=59C884BFF2B8E0EFCAD70BB94F94BA55AC4A8F9603007CD9C74E50
EBADDFDB8DDF99D9D5EED0DF46C75492E5C2EF9301CEC7D30
6DB4B11E9D1719F8B0E399E6E44
Stephen, H., Schneider, J.R. (2004). Scientists Deabte Gaia: The Next Century. The
MIT Press.
Strauss, S. (1990). SCIENCE Ethics of ecopoiesis are easy, for now. The Globe and
Mail , D.4.
Tarisa, R. (2010). Projects at a glance. Retrieved from Coroflot: http://www.coroflot.
com/rizkitarisa/PROJECTS-AT-A-GLANCE
Tsiolkovsky, K.E. (2012). Delo No 84 - Статья К.Э. Циолковского - Альбом
космических путешествий. Retrieved on November 30, 2012, from Ruskaia
Akademia Nauk: http://www.ras.ru/ktsiolkovskyarchive/1_actview.aspx?id=84
summary
Traditional ergonomics fits into the continuity of the relationship between
people, artifacts, which they build, their environment and societies. The current
unprecedented technological development is breaking this continuity. We must
think of human evolution and its relationship to work in new ways that space
exploration has already begun to shape.This article outlines elementary strategies
that explain how and why space exploration is essential for humankind’s growth,
evolution and sustainable development, not only at the individual ergonmic level
but also at the societal level. Prospective ergonomics needs to take into account
these strategies.We claim that if we place any living entity out of its natural environment –where it is adapted to live in–, this entity reacts to the new environment
–where it is not adapted to live in– in a specific way to defend, adapt and survive. Not only such survival boundaries and new adaptation capabilities should
be discovered, but also life requirements in nominal environments can be better
understood. During the NASA Apollo program, humans already extended their
living environment to the Moon.We do adapt to a new environment by using a
“technological bridge” that facilitates and extends our “adaptation” capabilities
much more rapidly than what natural evolution would require whenever possible.
In space for example, it is mandatory to extend our living and working environment, but how far can we do this? Can we live everywhere? What are the fundamental limitations and possibilities that needed to be identified? For example, are
we limited to habitable zones and regions in our solar system and galaxy? Are we
able to fully adapt to microgravity? What are the technological possibilities needed
to develop to have sustainable oxygen and water supply? Ultimately, what does
it mean to be a human being in the Universe and on Earth in particular? We
consider that these questions are crucial in the beginning of the 21st century because
our planet Earth is changing rapidly when we consider several parameters such as
our global demography, constantly degraded ecology and uncontrollable economy.
We are facing a blank slate exactly in the same way as when we analyze a possible life on Mars.We need to better understand human limitations and capabilities
- © PUF -
15 juillet 2014 09:32 - Le travail humain vol 77 n° 3 - 2014 - Collectif - Le travail humain - 155 x 240 - page 298 / 298
in both natural and artificial worlds that we have generated, and nature provides
either nominally or by reaction to our expanding socio-technical ways of living.
Key words: Adaptation, human-centered design, prospective ergonomics,
ecology, artificial living environments, human space flights, extraterrestrial life,
society evolution, space settlements, technology transfer.
Cet ouvrage a été mis en pages et imprimé en France
par JOUVE
1, rue du Docteur-Sauvé – 53101 Mayenne
issn 0041-1868
isbn 978-2-13-062957-3 — cppap n° 1015 T 83762 — Impr. n° 2163739L
Dépôt légal : xxx 2014
© Presses Universitaires de France, 2014
6, avenue Reille, 75014 Paris

How can space contribute to a possible socio

Transcription

Documents pareils

JEAN-MARIE BURKHARDT

LUXEMBOURG [PROVINCE]

WORK DESCRIPTION - DESCRIPTION DE TRAVAIL Client Service

NES2008_SNadeau 1 Integrating occupational health and safety in

generating prospective scenarios of use in innovation projects

14.2 Preparing for a New Job Interactive Audio

FRENO3405 3rd Year Grammar and Composition Course

013-MUSIC-Musique-en..

Joint Celebration Cake

LITIGATION MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION BRANCH

GRILT - Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en