An analogue and human Millennium is born

by Adriano Autino

The new Millennium begins, or it begun, or it will begin, around the year 2000. As someone can be seen, also in the TDF Forum, many place the beginning of the new Millennium the 1^st January 2000, others in 2001. For the matter the calendar itself (or the calendars, seen that the Christian calendar is not the only one on the planet) is a convention. We live in an age devoid of certainties, and it seems that we are not able neither to agree on the interpretation of a convention. I am not interested, here, to take part for one of the interpretations. Let’s say that the new Century and the new Millennium starts, more or less, around the year 2000: at the beginning, at the end, or (why not?) at a certain point in the middle of the year. Until a certain point we will feel ourselves still in our old time-country and, since another point, the novelty items will be so many and such that we will start to feel outside, migrants, in a new time-country. The transition will not be, obviously, noticed by everybody in the same time: there will be a time-point, when the majority of the people will feel to be in the new Millennium, and everything will appear (and it will be) different. All that is, by itself, very much human and, we could say, very analogue (i.e. gradual, and not on off)!

No doubt that the new Millennium shall be the Millennium of Humanity. Passed over the Industrial Age, we are getting more and more inside the Electronic Age. With the Industrial Age we leave at our shoulders the big deterministic illusion that pervaded our culture on the wave of development of the Mechanics. If the industrial civilization was also called the "machine society" this will not be the name of the Electronic Age. The electronic support gives back to our culture that world of shades and infinite intermediate tones that was apparently lost, with the mechanic culture. Getting back the shades we will loose the few certainties we deceived ourselves with, but this is a price we will willingly pay.

The ones that deceived themselves, for instance, to relax thanks to an informatic-procedural golem, able to think everything and to protect us even from ourselves, should abandon their illusion. The human hand, the human’s mind, its direction sometimes decided and sometimes hesitating or meditative, the human capability of judgement, of extrapolation and interpolation, are more than ever needed, and they will increasingly be needed. Those managers and entrepreneurs, thinking they had access to a kind of toys-land, where the manpower was perfectly interchangeable, replaceable, spendible, should better abandon their illusion. The specific expertizes and capabilities of the individuals are very relevant, and will be more and more relevant! Nothing will allow bureaucrats lacking of imagination to refuge in that dis-analytic beatitude they seem to wish so hardly: neither ISO9000, nor ESA PS05, nor the thinking machine, will give them that craved status in which money come in the account while they make nothing and take care of anything! Let instead be happy those entrepreneurs (some of this kind will surely exist) that many times ago chose the analysis and the enhancement of the individuals value as their tool and flag: it is starting a Century that will well award prizes to their (our, because I put myself in such number) foreseeing.

Why do I maintain the above? I started to talk about it, a couple of months ago, in the piece titled "Lost spacecraft’s and earthquakes". After the Mars Climate Observer, crashed on Mars surface due to a banal measure unit mistake (feet vs. meters) we loosed then also the Mars Polar Lander, and nowadays we neither now why. But, if NASA cries, ESA surely does not laugh: sometimes ago the Arian 5, engaged to take the Cluster satellite to orbit, exploded. What does link such failures, a part that they belong all to the space activities? We could say: the lasting of a false deterministic culture of the industrial age, still dominating, in the full of the electronic age. Let’s make no mistake: when I say false deterministic culture, I don’t surely mean that it is wrong to define the goal of determinism, when we deal with space systems, or anyway needing high degree of safety, availability and reliability. I mean that the means, or better our approach, is wrong, and that we should rid ourselves as soon as possible of a dangerous illusion, leaded by mechanics: that all the mechanisms aim to "go neat and settled" in an almost natural way, as two mechanic parts made (but properly made, by man!) to perfectly fit together in a perfect joint. Nothing, in nature (and neither in Electronics, that is similar to nature more than mechanics) aims to automatically fit perfectly, with a satisfying and decisive clack!

We are hardly taking awareness that a system is instead as much better as more is able to adapt itself to, and to describe, the reality: the changeable, capricious, rich of infinite shades and details natural systems, or the systems resulting by the interaction between human and nature. Nothing like the easy and perfect joints, as we can see. It is therefore clear that we don’t have in front of us obvious jobs, that anyone can do, with few education and high replaceability. We are instead facing many trades and professions, each one of them costs specific education, study, and even applicated research. Yes, it is coming a time in which it will be required to the many, in the discharge of their "normal" working functions, to perform more or less research, with scientific aim, i.e.: try, analysis and errors recovery; try again, systematize the experiences, education of others on the learned matters. Let’s think what a disappointment for the ones that thought to reproduce low cultural profile manpower, by a stencil (as the industrial age let them hope)! In our new time-country nothing is granted, easy, automated: each system will work well only thanks to an high degree of concentration and application of the suitable skills and expertizes. The individuals holding skills and able to concentrate in sufficient degree will can expect thus congratulations, the due dose of wonder, and the due award in monetary terms, each they will achieve a good result! I invite, here and now, anyone that, in similar case will be addressed with indifference, that "he just made his duty", and that "by a supplier it is logic to expect" such contributes, to call the newspapers and to kick up a row! Nothing is due, and nothing is easy, dear sirs! Each successful systemistic contribute is extraordinary, the age we are entering is extraordinary, and none bureaucrat lacking of fantasy will can fail to appreciate it anymore!

Neither is allowed to close the complexity in a procedure, as a kind of black-box to be re-used without making again the analysis, as the disaster of the Ariane 5 demonstrates. After long analysis it results that Ariane 5 exploded thanks to… the PS05 procedure (the ESA quality standard)! PS05 prescribes in fact to reuse the software each time it is possible, but does not prescribe, evidently, to analyze again, in details, the useability in each specific case, and nor to execute all the needed tests to assure that, in the new system, nothing of essential was missing. It happened then that, on board of Ariane 5, it was used a control system previously used for Ariane 4 (and many times successfully tested, on Ariane 4!). Ariane 5 is however a more complex machine, wrt its predecessor Ariane 4, and thus equipped with more advanced and sophisticated sensors. Some data from Ariane 5 sensors reached the (Ariane 4 re-used) control system, but it was not able to process such data, because it was lacking of the needed software parts and, during the integration phases, the tests that could allow to detect the lack were not executed. The system believed that something was not working well, and set up the self-destruction of the vector, while everything was normally proceeding (during the ascent the on board control system is programmed to self-destroy the rocket in case of malfunction, in order to avoid damages on inhabited regions). A new evidence of the argument I started in the last editorial: the re-use of well tested software can be useful, provided that the designer (i.e. the human) re-analyzes, punctually and in detailed way, the applicability in the new case, and identifies with sureness the new parts to be added. The same concepts applies to the procedure: to keep the procedure from a previous experience is useful because it allows us not to re-invent all the steps of development and test to be executed in the new case. But anyway we shall re-analyze the procedure, punctually and in detailed way, in order to see which steps we shall add, due to the specific complexity of the new system. It will never be possible thus (as ranks of bureaucrats greedy and lacking of fantasy hope) to give a tested procedure in the hands of a novice (slave of the machine) and to wash one’s hands of it: the irreplaceable contribute of an expert human is needed, and also of novice humans, specifically educated by expert humans. The machine will be our faithful and efficient servant, if we will be able to consider it so, and not to attribute to it powers and know-how’s that it will never have.

The case of the two NASA’s Martian probes is not, all considered, very different. The causes of the loss of MPL can be various, unpredictable as specific causes, though predictable as kind. First of all I observe that the small-missions philosophy (vs. the mega-missions of some tens years ago) leaded to use commercial components, very much cheaper wrt the rad-hard components once used for the space missions. And surely such philosophy (let's remember it, suggested by needs of saving and sustainability) didn't promote any research for categorical intelligence systems, i.e. able to face categories of possible failures causes (provided that such machine was feasible, and I dare to strongly doubt about it). The space components previously used had some certain characteristics: (i) it was 10 years late wrt the advanced market performances (giving priority to well tested components), (i) it was very much more robust and less subject to failures wrt the commercial components. Thanks to such characteristics some disciplines evolved very less than others, in the space systemistic culture. The diagnostics, for instance, is not so useful in a context where the components do not fail and, anyway, even if a fail is diagnosed, it is not convenient to go and repair the fail (unless we are not speaking of HUBBLE)! The redundancy and the fault tolerance, idem: if the components do not fail (and, furthermore, pound and space constrains are to be respected) there is no convenience in duplicating hardware parts, whatever their strategic importance. Armed with such a systemistic culture, they embarked in lower cost missions, using commercial components. But the commercial components (unlike the rad-hard ones) fail. If they are used on Earth they can be replaced: in space they can't! some components could have been damaged by an environment for which it was not designed. Or some unforeseen condition could have sent in confusion the MPL onboard system. Or the NASA's quality procedure (USA equivalent of PS05) it was slavishly applied by spendible designers.

Furthermore they claimed, in this case, to commit the role of cosmic explorer to a machine. The role of the explorer, on the contrary, is typically due to the human, the only one able to analyze the unpredictable circumstances as categories, and to face them. But the discussion widens out. A society aimed to standardize the individuals tried in many ways to erase the human figures of positive example. For long time we sang that we don't need heroes. Such ideology was aimed to refuse both the rethoric of the working class hero of the stalinist propaganda, and the rethoric of the military heroism, that historically brought more mournings than glory. Such items, of social critics, though correct, offered a fertile ground to the social manipulators, the ones that don't want to discourage the common man, with unfillable comparisons, in order not to depress him as insatiable consumer. But I'm afraid that, once again, they threw away the baby with the dirty water. Our society needs or, if you like, it needs again, positive examples. First of all the common man is a species threatened with extinction. There are anymore common men: there are many, many persons of genius. They will be happy to identify themselves in new human figures of positive example, and they will not feel belittled at all. On the other hand we register a success, and this is of good wish for the new Millennium, of the third mission to repair the space telescope HUBBLE: human mission, a proof of what I'm saying. Sure, with MPL we waste just 300 billions lire, a trifle, compared to the costs of other missions, but I believe that is time to stop sending around tin boxes, destined to become space trash, not garrisoned and not re-usable.

Let the new Millennium be an opportunity to prepare a serious plan, to explore and colonize the Solar System. In this case, if the Agencies will finally demonstrate serious aims, they must also consider (seriously) if the Martian adventure shall have priority, or we should better give course to a more reasonable lunar apprenticeship, as we, supporters of the Astronautics, are saying since times. We shouldn't like that, once man put a feet on Mars, the high frontier opening process will stop for other 30 years. The just born Millennium doesn't deserve this!

TDF 1/2000-06