Category: Systems

Public and Private Life

What’s public and what’s private? There was a mythical age of the past when the dividing line between these two was self-evident and sacrosanct. Wholy respected by every member of society. A time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. Anything that happened within it’s walls was not for prying eyes or journalistic speculation. Everyone knew their place.

Naturally, this is utter nonsense. At least described in the way I’ve put it. Times change. Those immortal two words. So, the line between what’s public and what’s private has wobbled around over the centuries. I’m not, as you might expect, saying that nothing has changed over time because a hell of a lot has changed. Now, there are factors that make the public life different from past decades. Themes run through the ages along with unyielding change.

It’s very much in the News now. The impression given is that the act of standing-up in public has risks that can be high. Not so much the traditional risks of humiliation, being ostracised or suffering abject failure but real risks to life, in a physical sense.

It would be ridiculous to say that these are more violent times. When I look out of my kitchen window, I am reminded of the English Civil War[1]. Father and son, brothers, uncles, and cousins fought on opposite sides with fatal consequences. The ruined castle on the hill to my North is a monument to that terrible bloody conflict. In the lifetime of my parents the bombs fell from the sky on innocent civilians in this land, as they do in Ukraine to this day.

The tendency to think that we are a much more civilised society in the 21st Century is a liberal and progressive notion. We are better fed and read. There are greater comforts and the four horsemen of the apocalypse are kept at arm’s length. Not disappeared but kept in check. Although the recent experience of COVID did unsettle everyone for a while.

What we do cherish. I hope we cherish, in this country. Is the relative freedom of speech that allows debate to be conducted in public. I use the word relative because the absolutists, who have an anything goes attitude, are not what I mean. Fundamentalist often ride with the four horsemen. Words do matter.

I’m straying from my point. There’s great merit in protecting public life. In matters that are of fundamental importance individuals must be free to stand-up and say their piece. Stifling debate is like putting the heat on a pressure cooker without a safety valve.

I’ve always been struck by the civility of most people. That’s what I’ve found when knocking on doors during political campaigns of one form or another. There’s a core of decency at all levels of society. Now and then, that thread is broken. It does take a lot to paint a different picture. That’s where the proliferation of social media has changed the dynamic.

The printing press was not an evil invention. That didn’t stop it being used for evil ends. The same with social media. Printed media is subject to regulation. A system of regulation that has developed over decades. That doesn’t stop a wide range of views being expressed. The fertiliser of public life. Similar boundaries are set for broadcast media. This is civilisation.

To date, social media is the wild west. It’s become essential to public life. At the same time, it’s a grave danger to public life. When it’s used to stir-up passions that lead to violence the danger is self-evident. Social media is not sacrosanct. Regulation is essential.

[1] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/the-english-civil-wars-history-and-stories/

Digital Dependency

Here’s a collection of annoying and sometime hazardous events that can happen in our digital world.  Digital dependency is growing at an ever-increasing rate. There’s no way we can put our head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. Yet, I’d say we are ill-prepared for the stuff that can go wrong. Well, anyone over the age of 25 years can be ill-prepared. Maybe the younger ones are ill-prepared too because of the immense trust they place in digital systems.

Last night, the wonderful “smart” TV that sits in our living room behaved in a way that is designed to get anyone’s back-up. Ironically that’s the function that is often missing – back-up.

Do I blame my clever Sony digital TV or the App that’s running on the TV? The many Apps. Anyway, the TV guide displayed but every time a selection was made the TV screen went blank. Me being used to troubleshooting, I tried another App. All worked fine. So, only one App was misbehaving. Ony one App was not doing what it should do.

To most people this would be a shout out to say; my TV is broken. How can it be broken it’s nearly new? It’s not performing its most basic function. To me, my deduction was that the App that provides the digital stream of the live broadcast channels was doing some kind of update but, unhelpfully, not telling anyone about it. The dumb thing is that the screen went blank. No information. Why the developers of this App couldn’t have thought ahead and put up the screen words saying – please wait – I have no idea. Perhaps they like to see our blood boil.

By the way, the above event happened just at the end of a world cup football game last evening.

Believe it or not, this irritating blank screen case has occurred in flight on an in-service aircraft. The main displays in the aircraft cockpit blanked. For those who may not be familiar, the main critical flight information is displayed to pilots on electronic screens in a modern aircraft cockpit. So, when everything goes blank it’s not a nice situation. Because safety is the primary concern there are independent standby instruments. They are only basic and aimed at managing the situation.

The case that I’m writing about above was because of a notorious software error. One that’s by no means new. Most serious and well-trained developers will know the case.

Do a little maths. Have you ever taken any number and divided it by zero? For fun, I picked up a desk calculator, yes, they still exist and did this simple sum. The makers, Casio have that one figured out. A small E comes up on the corner of the screen. E for error. Trapping this potential error is elementary best practice. For flight safety related systems, it’s vital.

What’s my message? It’s to understand what it means for something to be broken.

A vast swath of the population continues to have a, learned from experience, idea of what broken means. It’s basically an analogue notion. If I get a puncture in the wheel of my car’s tyre it’s visible, it’s understandable and it’s fixable. It’s a physical phenomenon.

If my super-duper mobile phone does something strange and unexpected, it might be visible, understandable and fixable but it might not be. In essence I have few ways of knowing. I hesitate to introduce the subject of Wi-Fi connected computer printers to this short article, but I will. Some of the most frustrating, unhelpful and mysterious software has been developed for this equipment. Annoying to a level that is difficult to match anywhere on Earth.

Restoring Regional Voices

He’s right in some respects. The new Prime Minister (PM) in waiting. The UK is highly centralised. Those Portland stone buildings in London encase power in a way that was necessary during war time. Served us well. Weirdly we’ve not been able to wean ourselves off this addiction to a concentration of power. Vested interests have made agreements that reinforce the route to disappointment. That’s the story of the last decades.

It’s got worse since Brexit too. This outdated imperialism, which puts a badly prepared elite in charge is the hallmark of Boris Johnson’s time as PM. What’s strange is that lots of voters bought that combination, even when it was destined to fail from day one. It’s a wee bit ironic that those who shouted about sovereignty during the referendum, ten years ago, are the once most guilty of disenfranchising the regions of the country. Promoting the idea that there’s a mythical national saviour who can ride in and restore past glory. Quite often these folk are male, prosperous and have a similar educational background.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) there was a distinct recognition of the regions. It was the basis for electing MEPs. It gave a voice to regional concerns and built relations between European regions. Those with shared challenges. It focused resources on specific regional needs.

However, the UK was so often constrained by those Portland stone buildings in London that fine words rarely turned into actions. The idea that Turin and Coventry or Liverpool and Cologne might have similar challenges was too much for classical imperial mentalities to make a connection. Politically too, in so many cases UK MPs and MEPs did not work well together.

Optimist as I am, the formula for future prosperity promoted by the PM in waiting is old-fashioned. Let’s take re-industrialisation. This is sold to people as a restoration of industrial landmarks from the days of mass employment in large factories. I’m not saying this isn’t needed. For some in-demand products, like wind turbines, electric vehicles and storage batteries mega factories will be needed. These will not provide mass employment in the old-fashioned way. Automation inevitably plays a growing part in production.

Whether we like it or not, a new industrial revolution is underway. The new oil is data. I’m echoing the British mathematician Clive Humby who is quoted as coming up with: “Data is the new oil.” Isn’t that classic. Back in 2006, when the iPhone arrived, it was a British mathematician who coined five words that summed up what was happening. 20-years have elapsed, but our political debate is still grounded in a mechanistic post-war philosophy.

As for Brexit’s high horse, namely “sovereignty” in respect of data we seemed to have seeded that to others. This is more of the Brexit illusion. If I was of a conspiratorial way of thinking, it’s as if diverting people’s attention has enabled powerful entities to control the future.

Now, Mr Prime Minister (PM) in waiting, take up your position at the lectern and say something that addresses the direction the windvane to the future is pointing.

I’m not saying cover the country with vast energy hungry data centres. No, where it’s happening, that’s really proving extremely unpopular. Instead make sure that the UK’s data infrastructure works as well at Lands Ends as it does in at the tip of the Shetlands. That education and training move to practical working with data rather than the theoretical. That no one is left behind.

Lessons from Operational Events

For an aviation industry that takes pride in learning lessons from experience and taking timely corrective action, a series of operational events is surprising to say the least.

Today’s large aircraft do look much the same. The tricycle undercarriage has become universal. A set of steerable wheels at the front and a heavy set of landing gear, each side, to the rear. When parked, a nose gear collapse or inadvertent retraction on a large aircraft is not catastrophic. The aircraft can be recovered, inspected, and repaired. This undesirable event can be dangerous for anyone in the vicinity. It has the potential to be fatal. Fortunately, so far, there has been no fatalities.

For an aircraft operator such an event at an airport gate is a massive expense. Putting an in-service aircraft out of action for a considerable time.

To date, several damaging nose gear collapse (and alike) events have occurred to large aircraft[1]. Detailed analysis of these events exists and corrective actions are proposed.

One conclusion is to say that this is about people not following procedures. That is the instruction is to put a pin in one place but instead it gets put in the wrong place. So, this dramatic unintended event is written up as a maintenance error. It’s an outcome that no one intended. That’s fine. There’s no doubt that an error was made. Accepting that an error occurred is not a reason to blame. That is if there are no signs of negligence.

The trouble is the simple question – how easy was it to make that error?

Then we get into that grey area of the gap between aircraft design and operations. In a design office it may be reasonably assumed that a procedure will be followed in an almost robotic manner. No need for the people in operations to think beyond taking the same action day-after-day. This would surely become widespread practice.

As we know the actual environment of aircraft operations can be more demanding than the original equipment manufactures might imagine. Pressure to turn around an aircraft can be high, working conditions can be poor and fatigue can play a part.

There are lines of communication between the aircraft design and operations organisations, and such difficulties are regularly discussed.

Faced with an event categorised as maintenance error then what next? Redesign the aircraft? Change a procedure or require more training? Those are three of the options, there are more.

This is where the possible discussion gets reactive. Now, it would be extremely costly to redesign an aircraft for the sake of an event that is rare or for which the consequences are minor. It is possible to put numbers on each of these. The rarity, the cost, and the impact.

Modifying or rewriting a procedure, on the other hand, can be less costly and it may be quite sufficient as a corrective action. That said, any procedure that can be written can be subject to error. In fact, the original procedure may have been straightforward and well thought out.

Then there is the fall-back position. Give the people in aircraft operations more training. The assumption being that more training means less errors. It is a crude assumption because this is not a linear relationship. So many other factors come into play.

Discussions surround the above possibilities can become protracted. There’s a call for more analysis and more data. There’s the proposal for a study to be conducted. Once in that loop a year can go by as if it was a month.

There’s always the argument that highlights dozens of aircraft operators haven’t had this event occur and therefore the finger is pointed at those who have. This argument gets an outing, but it is foolish. It’s like saying – I haven’t had an accident yet, and therefore I’m safe. Foolish.

There are a lot of detailed discussions and a million and one opinions. Taking the big picture, this is a problem that is solvable[2]. What is surprising is the reoccurrence of the problem.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-g-zbjb-inadvertent-nose-landing-gear-retraction-during-pre-flight-maintenance

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/12/2019-26734/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Allure of Geodesic Domes

Buildings and structure do leave an impression. That impression can sit at the back of the mind for decades. Certainly, it could be more than 20-years since I visited the Montreal Biosphère. This large open structure was created for the 1967 World Fair in Montreal[1]. It’s kept alive as a science museum.

Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome is an icon. This is an impressive structure that is almost timeless in its virtues. Visually distinctive, strong, and applying the minimum of lightweight materials. I say timeless. That said, geodesic domes and similar structures can be pigeonholed in the late sixties and early seventies. There was a period when this was a fashionable view of the future. What we consider “modern” is shifting sand.

When the “oil crisis[2]” hit in the seventies, such domes were seen as an environmentally efficient means of putting up structures quickly and simply. Even the building methods needed didn’t require immense resources or highly trained technicians.

One other image that I have that sticks in the mind is a quite different application of the technology Fuller promoted. Again, the basic idea was copied again because of its utility. In the UK, on the North York Moors, were, at one time, a line of huge “golf balls.” The military radomes at Fylingdale were an impressive sight on the landscape for about 30-years. In fact, a tourist attraction.

So, why did Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes fall out of fashion? It could be that we are so addicted to pouring concrete that smart structures took a back seat. Much as the “oil crisis” was forgotten and the incentives to drill for more oil has spanned the last five decades.

It’s true that domes have never gone away. If I wanted to buy a geodesic dome greenhouse[3] or a tent for camping, I’d have no trouble. These easy to build, affordable structures offer stability and durability. However, these elemental structures are viewed as novelties or the obsession of environmentally concerned activists. Which, when I think about it, is entirely silly.

There’s an argument to be made about aesthetic appeal. It’s familiarity that sometimes blinds us. We may not be blind to anything other than conventional vertical walls and rectangular rooms, but there’s a conservatism inherent in architectural fashion.

Afterall, the Greeks and the Romans didn’t build geodesic domes. Yet, I think they would have if they had the strong lightweight materials to do so. Classical practically wouldn’t have been inhibited. Domes and their component parts became a post-war artifact because of advances in materials, as much as anything. The imperative to build military aircraft in large numbers, as strong and fast as could be done drove an innovative use of materials.

In the current 21st century “oil crisis” will we see a new love for geodesic domes? Even new applications. It’s an interesting thought.

[1] https://www.mtl.org/en/experience/expo-67-legacy

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lj4976lvo

[3] https://www.snowdondomes.com/portfolio/shirleys-domes-35m-diameter-polycarbonate-dome

Future Aircraft Systems

I read that there’s lesson to learn from the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) experience that plagued Boeing. And led to fatalities. There’s a lot that has been written about the tragic saga. Much of great value.

It’s true. Aviation advances as the community learns lessons from incidents and accidents. Yes, there’s variability in the effectivity of this learning process. Occasions when oceans are written about one case and dozens of others are given an inappropriate light touch[1]. A trustworthy centralised repository of safety recommendations from published aviation accident reports is a useful tool. A point of reference. In the first months of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in Cologne, back in 2005, my team established such a database. It’s only possible to track the follow-up of key safety recommendation if there’s a well-maintained administrative system. Safety is often about the intelligent use of data.

Cockpit design, and the human factors issues involved, are without doubt one of the most critical parts of an aircraft. Society is not ready for fully autonomous passenger carrying aircraft. I believe it will happen, in decades to come but the horizon is way off. For certain types of vehicles, autonomy must be the solution given that flight control is beyond human capacities. Here’s I’m thinking mostly of hypersonic and space flight.

For a pilot to exercise responsibility for a flight there’s a need to have, at least, a basic understanding of what a machine is doing. In past times of strings and wires and clockwork instruments that understanding was ingrained knowledge gained from training and experience.

Future aircraft systems will not be easily described as functional blocks that perform well understood and dedicated functions. An autopilot, an autothrottle, autobraking, a flight management system, even an engine. Hybridisation is coming.

That does not mean a pilot must understand the inner working for a multicore microprocessor or complex software algorithm. Flight test pilots being the exception, in this case.

The design goal should always be to make safer systems. Engineering these aircraft systems is not a case of purely fitting together a set of Lego like components. The error made with the MCAS is one that ignored this fact. Interdependencies are manyfold.

Ideally, future aircraft systems, however capable and complex, should be describable, predicable, and ultimately trustworthy. These words sound so simple. One reason this is not simple is that very word – complex. The minute that there’s a massive number of possible combinations and permutations of conditions at may exit boundaries must be set. What’s a little more reassuring is that complexity if far from new in human experience[2].

Just to make the airspace of the future even more complex it’s no longer correct to think of an aircraft as alone and free to make any appropriate manoeuvre. Increasing connectivity, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (AI) all come into the mix.

To stay safe, pilots will have to appreciate how constraints and boundaries are managed. This information must be provided transparently and preferable with options.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/opinions/the-safety-paradox-fewer-accidents-greater-responsibility/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Local Elections: Challenges and Opportunities

Listening to the leader of the opposition in the UK is like listening to a paddle boat[1] rider whose getting swept out to sea. Paddling ever faster, piling on the rhetoric, with no idea how to get back to the shore. It’s probably a big plastic duck with flaky paint and no safety certificate.

Equating talking tough with talking faster doesn’t cut it. Using the word “plan” without having one is aiming for deep trouble. Doubling down on past errors of judgement isn’t the least bit convincing. Drawing intendable distinctions, as if in front of a judge, impresses few listeners.

May’s elections coming around the corner. These are predominantly local elections. So, when Party leaders bypass the hardy perennials, like the state of the potholes in the roads, and veer off into international politics it’s clear they haven’t much to say. Local authorities provide a substantial number of vital services and so there’s plenty of subjects to address, if they would be minded to do so.

Here we are in a state of play that has a real air of novelly about it. The two tribes that have dominated politics in this country are struggling in the doldrums. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are floundering. Tarnished by a lengthy list of past mistakes. Their current leaders unable to project a vision for the future.

Here we have no council elections this year. Either elections are held once every four-years or a proportion of a local authority are up for election every year. There’s merit in both schemes.

In the first case there can be a more dramatic change of leadership as a whole council changes in one go. That can give the winners a clear mandate to meet a particular promise. On the downside, one emotive campaign issue can dominate, even if it’s small relative to the impact of a new four-year administration.

In the second case there’s a more gradual change of political complexion of a local council. More chance of continuity of actions and polices. Also, the local electorate get in the habit of expressing a view and an election every year at the same time. On the downside this can put more power in the hands of the council officers than the elected councillors.

Overall, I prefer annual local elections in May, despite the cost associated with their running. It’s a better way of engaging the community rather than a build-up to a bigger event. It’s also easier to find candidates who are willing and able to stand for election and likely to see through a full-term in office.

This week is a week for political scientist to chew over something other than opinion polls. Real ballots, in real ballot boxes are so much more real. Professor John Curtice will be on every media outlet. We will see if the predication of the steady decline of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party come about.

I expect that result will be the one that people are talking about at the end of the week. In my view there will be a distribution of votes across the choices that are on the ballot. This will not mean greater clarity or definition of where we are heading as a country. As a liberal, I can’t complin if there’s a great diversity of views expressed.

What I can say it that we will need a better electoral system that copes with a multiple Party array of choices. Electoral reform[2] is likely to become a necessity.

[1] https://swanpedalboats.com/ducks/

[2] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/

Email Overload

So called snail-mail is in an inevitable decline. One day it will be necessary to explain the concept of an envelope, and what it’s for, to younger people. To write, with a handheld pen, place a piece of paper inside an adequately formed folded paper enclosure and sealing it. This may involve moistening a surface or removing a strip of paper. To take account of the costs associated with this procedure a small, preprinted paper stamp is attached to one corner of the enclosure. The enclosure must meet regulations to then be accepted by a carrier who will take it from a bright red box. This artifact, called a “letter” is then piled up with lots of others to eventually be sorted and directed towards a specified destination. If the process is successful, a recipient may then destroy the envelope and read the letter.

When spelt out like so, it’s no wonder that e-mail has taken over the world. After centuries of operation the popular paper-based means of communication is now a novelty. Classical mail hangs on mostly as a means of getting birthday cards, and other celebratory cards, from A to B.

Even ardent official users, like the taxman, a trying to entice us all to become paperless. Major banks are also exhibiting this aversion to paper. Often more for their convenience rather than ours as their administrative systems become exclusively digital.

There’s a universal aspect that’s shared by the old world and the new world. It’s one that’s almost impossible to shake off. Filter it as we may, the piling up of junk mail is as bad on the doorstep as it is in the in-box. Junk splits into a whole series of categories. Putting aside the malicious and criminal variety, there’s a mass of mail that’s devoted to sales and marketing. I’ve ranted about this bombardment before, even if it makes no difference. The likes of:

“We are always looking to improve your experience with us, and we invite you to give your feedback in this short survey.”

Breaking this e-mail request down, it proports to be to my advantage to spend time answering the sender’s questions. Obviously, it’s to the questioner’s advantage and not mine. To sweeten the pill there’s a chance to win a small prize. Probably with odds set at a billion to one.

If this experience was occasional and advantageous to me, complaining might not be the right way to go. Sadly, the reality is the stream of e-mails, from multiple services, gets so annoying that I wish these tedious e-mails were paper. Then at least my recycling bin would benefit.

My approach is to instantly delete these e-mails. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this one. Customer feedback can go and take a hike. Naturally, I want the coffee shop I regularly use and my main bank to improve their services. But if these organisations think this is the way to do it, I think they have a big hole in their thinking.

Yes, if quick enough, it’s possible to opt in or out of marketing communications but endless feedback surveys seem to be exempt. They are the confetti of the marketing world.

“How did we do?” Is ticking a box really going to provide an answer to that question? “Thanks for your time” Nice, but as insincere as an algorithm can be.

Some forward-thinking organisations may eventually eliminate junk mail. In time there must be a better way of interacting. It’s about time they hurried up.

Human Space Travel

It’s right to point out that space exploration is not solely a scientific endeavour. It’s odd to have to point that out. I do so because there are some purists who think that money should only be spent of space exploration if there’s a tangible scientific gain to be had. This thinking goes back to the agreement that public funds should only be spent of Earthy concerns. A glance at the extensive list of trouble that persist around the globe is one reason to focus on Terra firma rather than up at the heavens. That said, the choice is rarely simple.

Then there’s the accusation that exploration, of any kind, is intrinsically imperial. Powerful entities looking for sources of future dominance and wealth. This is not entirely wrong given humanity’s history of plundering resources from wherever they come. Minerals and trade routes being a couple of the primary sources of interest. A strong political will can be amassed to compete to be first to get a foothold on new territory. Despite all the above there’s something more complex going on.

The recent Artemis II space mission may not have been a great boost to humanity’s scientific knowledge. This adventurous lunar fly-by mission was more about proving technology than gathering an abundance of discoveries. Afterall, the far-side of the Moon can quite adequately be surveyed by automated spacecraft. Much as is being done by robotic machines on Mars.

I think there’s little doubt that 1st to 11th April 2026 will be recorded in the history books. If for no other reason that the gap between the Apollo space missions and Artemis. Like so many schoolboys in the 1960s, I watched those black and white TV images of men on the Moon, as they happened. I became an engineer. Would that have happened anyway? Probably, but I’m not discounting the inspirational impact of the Apollo missions.

[What would we ever do without the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Certainly, naming new space missions would be a lot harder.]

Do we need crewed missions in future? Given the advances in automation and autonomy that have taken place in the last 50-years, so much can be achieved without the need for humans on-board a spacecraft. However, this is not a binary argument. There are, and always will be, the need to take human experience to the absolute limits. President Kennedy cited George Mallory for a reason to explores space, “Because it’s there,” he said.

The simple notion that humans should be constrained and confined to Terra firma runs contrary to our intrinsic nature. Although societies do become more risk adverse as they acquire the comforts of economic success, there’s still an appetite for exploration even if it entails great safety risks. The allure of being the first does not diminish.

Ideally, the combination of adventure and discovery go hand in hand. Space exploration is not just indulging the most adventurous amongst us. Thus, I go back to my proposition that there something more complex going on.

The ancient Greeks and Romans could help. For what is humanity’s destiny? Ad Astra has a meaning. Far more than the movie of that name. Not one of my favourite movies either.

There’s an inevitability that humanity will go to the stars. That is, if in the meantime wars or environmental degradation do not consume us. Exploration is part of a natural progression of intelligent life. It maybe (likely to be) happened elsewhere in the universe too.