Technological determinism goes aloft: notes on the human - machine issue in outer space exploration

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

University of Skovde, Skovde, Sweden

Technological determinism goes aloft: notes on the human - machine issue in outer space exploration

Lika Rodin

Abstract

The future of space exploration is unimaginable without broadening the role of technology. Already, the necessity of manned space expeditions is becoming increasingly problematized. This study looks at the role of technology and human - machine relationships unfolding within national space programs through the lens of the `soft' version of technological determinism suggested by Albert Borgmann. This theoretical tradition recognizes, without neglecting human agency, the shaping effect of technology on human organization, prosperity and actions as well as on individuals' relationships with the self and other. The commodification of technology - economic and ethical - is viewed to be the effects of technological expansion. Ethical commodification is characterized by disattachment of the individual from the natural surrounding and from the self. In the field of space exploration, ethical commodification is associated with the process of automation that developed differently in distinctive national contexts. Thus, if the history of American spaceflight is characterized by the initial struggle against automation, seen to be a means of disempowering astronauts as a professional group, the Russian space program favoured automation from the very beginning. In both contexts, however, automation eventually established itself and continues to shape contemporary perceptions on spaceflight. The accumulated experiences of man-machine interactions are useful for understanding ethical commodification as a social phenomenon. Drawing on the autobiographical narratives of Soviet / Russian cosmonauts, I specify the ways in which ethical commodification of hardware and software manifested itself in spaceflight and how it could be diverted. In conclusion, a perspective that resists alienation is suggested for the enterprise of space exploration at large.

Key words: space exploration, automatization, commodification, human - machine interactions, ethical commodification.

Аннотация

Технологический детерминизм уходит ввысь: заметки о проблеме человек - машина в освоении космоса

Лика Родин

Университет Сковде, г. Сковде, Швеция

Будущее освоения космического пространства немыслимо без расширения роли технологий. Уже сегодня необходимость в пилотируемых космических экспедициях становится все более проблемным вопросом. В данном исследовании рассматривается роль техники и отношений человека с машиной, разворачивающиеся в рамках национальных космических программ, через призму «мягкой» версии технологического детерминизма, предложенной Альбертом Боргманном. Не отрицая способности человеческой агентности, эта теоретическая традиция признает формирующее влияние технологий на общество, его процветание, человеческие действия, а также на отношения индивидов с собой и другими. Коммодификация технологий - экономическая и этическая - рассматривается как следствие технологической экспансии. Этическая коммодификация характеризуется отчуждением индивидов от естественного окружения и от самих себя. В области освоения космоса этическая коммодификация связана с процессом автоматизации, который развивался по-разному в различных национальных контекстах. Так, если история американской космонавтики характеризуется первоначальной борьбой с автоматизацией, которая воспринималась средством ослабления космонавтов как профессиональной группы, российская космическая программа с самого начала поддерживала автоматизацию. Тем не менее в обоих случаях последняя в конечном итоге утвердилась и продолжает формировать современные представления о космических полетах. Накопленный опыт взаимодействия человек - машина полезен для понимания этической коммодификации как социального явления. Анализ автобиографических рассказов советских / российских космонавтов, проведеннный в рамках данного исследования, демонстрирует, как этическая коммодификация аппаратного и программного обеспечения проявлялась в космических полетах и была нейтрализована. В заключении статьи предлагается перспектива противодействия отчуждению в деле освоения космоса в целом.

Ключевые слова: освоение космоса, автоматизация, коммодификация, взаимодействие человек - машина, этическая коммодификация.

Introduction

The future of manned spaceflight is a vibrant topic in contemporary public debates and academic discussions [Launius 2006; McCurdy 2006]. Questions about the rationale for the expansive, demanding and potentially dangerous enterprise of sending humans into outer space are raised by various stakeholders in different political contexts. And indeed, why not allow robots and computers to perform jobs aloft while humans reap the benefit of the data or other outcomes produced, sitting comfortably in their offices back on Earth? [Mindell 2008]. Such a development would broaden the role of technology in human society and transform the current understanding of human agency, control and well-being.

The issue of technology in space exploration was addressed by several disciplines and at different analytical levels. At the macro-level of analysis, space technology was studied in the context of national political ethos [Gerovitch 2011; 2014; 2015; Mindell 2006; 2008; Siddiqi 2010], international relationships [Krige 2006; Sariak 2017; Shayler 2017], warfare [Klein 2012], advocacy [Sadeh , and cultural representations [McCurdy

2005] . At the mezzo-level, organizational features and interinstitutional interactions were taken into account [Brown 2006; Gerovitch 2006; 2014; Mindell 2006; 2008; Vaughan 2006]. At the microlevel, human - machine relationships, professional identities and practices were subjected to examination [Gerovitch 2006; 2014; Hersch 2009; Mindell 2006; 2008]. Finally, space-related technologies were considered within the domains of ontology [Clynes, Kline 1995; Clynes 1995] and epistemology [Arnould 2013]. This accumulated knowledge allows a broad view on the place of technology in the exploration and utilization of outer space, though the fundamental question of the perspectives of human direct presence in space still remains open.

This study aims to deepen the understanding of human - machine relationships in spaceflight and the role of technology in the enterprise of space exploration more generally. Previous research associated primarily with the disciplinary field of history indicated that certain political and professional groups might deliberately promote or suppress automation in the field of space exploration [Gerovitch 2006; 2015; Mindell 2006; 2008]. Framed in line with a liberal anthropocentric paradigm, these projects rather scarcely accounted for the dynamic force of technological development itself. In the current study, I rely on a `soft' version of technological determinism that recognizes the shaping effect of technology on human organization, prosperity, actions and relationships with the self and other, simultaneously living open possibilities for reflexive practices capable of maintaining (even if partially) one's embodied and mindful existence within a technologized environment [Borgmann 2010].

The paper consists of four parts. First, I will reinterpret previous research on human - machine relationships, with a focus on the logic of technological progress. After that, Albert Borgmann's theory of commodification of technology will be presented and applied in the analysis of autobiographical reports from the Soviet / Russian space program. Finally, the (de)commodification framework will be employed to account for the perspective in the enterprise of space exploration at large. I conclude with anticipatory reflections around the role of technology in the future of manned spaceflight and its effects.

One of the central themes in the discussion on technology in outer space exploration is the `automation versus human control' problem [Mindell 2008]. Automation is typically associated with pilots ' deskilling and decrease in professional status, and therefore might be met with opposition [Mindell 2006; 2008; Gerovitch 2006]. In this section, I reread the research on American and Russian space programs to highlight the objective dynamics behind the move towards in-flight technologization in its explicit and implicit forms. Such focus does not deny the role of social-political processes, recognizing the mutual transformative interactions between different developmental forces. However, as follows from the previous research, automation tends to eventually establish itself and shape mainstream perceptions on spaceflight.

The American context. In the American context, the discussion on automation can be traced back to the early days of aviation and reflects the dynamics of exchange between two professional fields: aviation and astronautics. According to David Mindell [Mindell 2008, 20], the man-machine problem emerged in the early days of aviation from the stability-control issue. While stability - the capability of an airplane to regain a straight movement after a deviating manoeuver - was always seen as a desirable characteristic typically built into the very design of the aircraft, its excess meant a reduction of controllability in the form of human input. Historically, European engineers tended to prioritize stability features, whereas American aviation demonstrated a loyalty to pilots' controlling functions. Piloting as a profession enjoyed an elite status in the United States, having been strongly associated with exceptional tacit knowledge and practical skills. However, with the development of the air transportation industry, the situation changed. Long-duration and frequent flights put additional demands on pilots' physical and psychological strength, facilitating wider acceptance of automation in the cockpit. To compensate for their shrinking role in function control, aviators gained pluralization in the character of their missions, which from that point started to involve commercial and military interests. Moreover, pilots increasingly engaged in engineering training, which allowed them to participate in the development of cockpit instruments (e.g. artificial horizon and directional gyros) aimed at blind flying [Mindell 2008].

The automation trend culminated in the introduction of the autopilot capability [Mindell 2008]. In the 1950s - the age of jets - the issue of stability had become associated more with the power of electronic devices steering the flight than with the airplane design. Pilots increasingly became elements of a complex managerial system built on the principle of a `feedback loop', a cybernetic system. As presented in one of the public discussions, rather suddenly, the profession of aviation - that vocation of leather jackets and exciting experiences - has become a career of computer monitoring and equipment management. You ones thought you would dance on silver wings, and now you are merely tapping on a keyboard [Mindell 2008, 267].

The American spaceflight industry inherited from aviation the discussion on automation and human control. It turned out to be additionally coloured by the political objectives of the space exploration enterprise. Sending humans into outer space was especially important for national prestige and professional identity. As stated during public debates over the lunar Apollo program, `it is a man, not merely machines, in space that captures the imagination of the world' [Mindell 2006, 148]. In an ideological sense, the image of manned spaceflight resonated with the traditional American values of individualism, self-directedness and selfefficiency. Still, astronauts had to struggle for a meaningful role in spaceflight performance. In the Apollo program, space flyers drew special attention to the moment of landing, perceived to be the crucial point of a lunar expedition. As a result, ideas of human agency, self-esteem and the explorative character of spaceflight were claimed to be incorporated into the design of the Apollo spacecraft itself [Mindell 2006].

Less enthusiastic commentators problematized the very notion of manual control in the context of high technologization. Joe Shea, a deputy director of Manned Space Flight (Systems) for NASA, indicated already in 1963 that the opposition between manual and automatic piloting is rather an `emotional' feature of astronautics, since humans in the situation of manual landing control computers that actually steer the vehicle. In this sense, talking about the `humanization' of the Apollo approach would be `stretching things a bit', according to Shea [Mindell 2008, 263]. Moreover, human operations aloft were typically secured by intensive premission simulation training aimed at mastering the effective bodily and cognitive motions [Mindell 2006; 2008], and assisted by manuals and checklists, `a kind of “program” that ran on people instead of machines' [Hersch 2009, 7; Mindell 2008]. Instructions were employed in both within- and extra-vehicle activities. As an example, Neil Armstrong had a checklist integrated into his spacesuit while operating on the lunar surface [Hersch 2009].

In the 1970s, the space pilots' success was furthered in the framework of the Shuttle program, which, as some astronauts believed, was capable of restoring the dignity of the piloting profession [Mindell 2008]. Even in an aesthetic sense, the shuttle had an advantage over a more traditional space capsule. As one astronaut explained in regard to difference in landing, `Whereas the Apollo command module fell into the sea, the crew recovered by helicopter like a bag of cats saved from a water grave', the space orbiter `makes a smooth landing at the destination airport and the flight crew steps down from the spacecraft in front of a waiting throng in a dignified and properly heroic manner' [Mindell 2008, 264]. While human input was overly advocated, only one shuttle flight - STS- 2 - was allowed to realize this ideal. Typically, reentry was automatic, and only touchdown was performed manually. After the Columbia tragedy, even this routine was seriously reconsidered toward further automation [Mindell 2008].

The American discourse (both public and professional) around space exploration had been characterized by anthropocentrism grounded in the idea of human privilege and the related value of human agency as a prerequisite of individual and collective well-being. It was built on the aspiration of exploration as an expansion of `the realm of human experience' unrelated to any special technological ambitions [Mindell 2008, 270]. In spite of this anthropocentric ideology, as above presented, a non-linear - but steady - move towards in-flight automation (technological and procedural) accrued, demonstrating the shaping role of technological progress. This development partly resonated with the realities and concerns of the Soviet / Russian space program.

The Russian context. According to some commentators, discussions around spacecraft automation within the Soviet space program of the 1960s and 1970s mirrored the fragmentation of the national space exploration community, in which engineering agencies, the military and scientific organizations occasionally pushed for distinctive objectives [Gerovitch 2006]. This mezzo-level dynamic might be complemented in some periods - similar to the American space enterprise presented above - by large-scale, social-political goals, including presage and geopolitical competition, which constructed an iconic image of a spaceman [Gerovitch 2006; 2011; 2014; 2015]. However, the publically promoted anthropocentric view on space exploration was almost separated from the technology-favouring agenda of engineering bureaus [Gerovitch 2006].

The first generation of Soviet manned spacecraft - Vostok - was highly automated, a fact mainly perceived by engineers and space program managers to be an advantage in the context of profound uncertainty associated with early space flights [Gerovitch 2006]. The positive initial experience laid the foundation for the further promotion of automation as a reliable, cost-efficient and safe solution. Spaceships were designed at first hand to function in an automatic regime, with additions made for manual operation. As a result, the cabin configuration of the next-in-line manned spacecraft Voskhod was not particularly suitable for performing the manual tasks that cosmonauts received from time to time. For instance, the illuminator and the control stick were situated very unsuitable and demanded from cosmonauts additional motions during the flight [Gerovitch 2006].

The next generation of space vehicles - Soyuz - was thought to carry out a variety of new functions, including randomizing and docking [Gerovitch 2006]. It provided test pilots with the opportunity to raise their voices in favour of the human role in spaceflight. Some cosmonauts argued that in designing a spaceship, priority should be given to human activities and that automata can be left as a backup option. Distinct from their American counterparts struggling to reclaim landing procedures from machines, cosmonauts pressed on the issue of docking, an operation crucial in the long-duration and multivehicle missions characteristic of the Soviet space program. From that point, a cybernetic approach started coming more actively into play, though adaptation of system thinking might take some time. Crews were still frequently considered to be a supplementary rather than a fully integrated operational element [Gerovitch 2006]. Similar to astronauts [Hersch 2009; Mindell 2008], cosmonauts intensively practiced in-flight procedures on simulators, anticipating a variety of possible situations to achieve an almost automatic performance. In a broad sense, humans might, therefore, come to resemble machines [Gerovitch 2015].