Magazine menu Close Magazine menu

Author

Ken Hollings

Ken Hollings is a writer and broadcaster who explores the relationship between culture and technology, specifically how they shape and influence each other. His books include Welcome to Mars, The Bright Labyrinth and The Space Oracle.

Get in touch with Ken

Latest stories by Ken

space technologies shaped business

IT came from outer space: How space technology conquered the world

  • Future tech
  • min read
    • The Russians started it all. The timeline that ends with you reading this on your smartphone began on October 4, 1957. That was the day the former Soviet Union announced it had placed the first artificial satellite into orbit around our planet. Designed to look futuristic About the size and shape of a basketball and weighing little more than 84kg, Sputnik took about 98 minutes to follow its elliptical path around the Earth. A polished aluminum-alloy orb with four long antennae pointing straight out behind it, Sputnik had a futuristic dynamism not seen before in the West. Sergei Korolev, who designed both the satellite and powerful R-7 rocket that carried it into space, meant it to have that effect. He'd foreseen the satellite's technological impact and wanted to see Sputnik replicas on display in the museums of the future. He wasn't the only one who'd foreseen its impact. Back in 1947, James Lipp, head of the US's RAND (Research and Development) Corporation Missile Division, remarked: "One can imagine the consternation and admiration that would be felt here if the United States were to discover suddenly that some other nation had already put up a successful satellite." Sputnik's long-tailed impact RAND was one of the first organizations to study how space technology might shape human behavior on Earth. When it came to Sputnik, the anticipated "consternation and admiration" had unexpected long-term consequences for information technology. The satellite's launch marked a high point in the International Geophysics Year. Its organizers, the International Council of Scientific Unions, had approved a resolution calling for artificial satellites to be placed in orbit around the Earth to study its surface from above. As a simple telemetric device capable of being tracked across the sky from Earth, Sputnik marked the start of the collective mapping of our planet, revolutionizing global navigation, travel and communication. The GPS trackers in smartphones are just one of its many outcomes. Netting the unexpected consequence It's often the unintended consequence that has the most profound impact. Rattled by the Soviet Union's lead in space, the US concentrated resources on closing that gap and pulling ahead in areas where they already had an edge. President Eisenhower had just appointed a new Defense Secretary: Former Procter & Gamble Promotions Manager, Neil McElroy. McElroy's consumer goods experience brought a more integrated organizational approach. The individual initiative became subordinate to a larger, more coordinated system. McElroy's principal achievement was to revolutionize funding for scientific research by establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA.) In 1969 ARPA developed the earliest model of the internet, ARPANET. This breakthrough was an unexpected outcome of the Soviet Union taking such a decisive lead in the Space Race with Sputnik. Putting connection at the center of innovation ARPA funneled resources into areas where the US was ahead of the Soviets: Developing data processing, computers and communication networks. ARPA funding meant companies like IBM, Western Electric and Bell Telephone were soon working with Massachusetts Institute of Technology's national security research and development lab, Lincoln Laboratories and the Jet Propulsion Labs at California's science and engineering institute Caltech. By the end of the 1950s, ARPA's approach to experimentation and innovation – connecting academics with business strategists, researchers with engineers, designers with manufacturers – had a counterpart in NASA, the US's newly formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Satellites, spies and videotape At the same time, the RAND Corporation had turned its attention to low-Earth orbit. Working with audiotape company Ampex, it developed a satellite-based video system to spy on enemies. Throughout the rest of the 20th century and well into the 21st, the impact of videotape on how television shows and films were made, distributed and seen would be enormous. This video system captured Vice President Richard Nixon confronting Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the USSR's missile technology in 1959. While Nixon and Khrushchev clashed in public, NASA displayed its first astronauts at a press conference. The 'Mercury Seven' fast became media personalities. "We have faith in the space age," one astronaut told the press. "All of us have faith in mechanical objects." Perhaps not quite enough faith, as it was Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin who became the first human launched into Earth's orbit. This great leap was really a series of tiny cautious steps. The physiological problems of life in space remained unsolved. Breathing like a cyborg How would humans survive outside the protection of the Earth's atmosphere? One unusual response came from scientists Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline in a magazine article published in 1960, Cyborgs and Space. They suggested: "There may be much more efficient ways of carrying out the functions of the respiratory system than by breathing, which becomes cumbersome in space. One proposed solution for the not too distant future is relatively simple: Don't breathe!" Coining the term 'cyborg,' Clynes and Kline imagined ways machines might help human biology adapt to the hostile environment of space. "If man attempts partial adaptation to space conditions, instead of insisting on carrying his whole environment along with him," they argued, "a number of new possibilities appear." The key possibility was an expanded understanding of how human physiology can interact directly with advanced engineering techniques in the form of prosthetics, exoskeletons, wearable technology, robotic limbs and implants – all now firmly established areas of scientific research and startup ventures. According to one estimate, people automatically check their smartphones for images, locations and messages 80 times a day. The symbiosis between humans and machines underpins both space exploration and data processing. For astronauts interacting with the artificial work environment aboard the International Space Station, the ease of use of sophisticated technology can be a matter of life and death. Astronauts survive in space only because they're kept safe in a seamless technological bubble. Every aspect of life on Earth must be replicated in space, from the most extraordinary to the most banal. Space race makes powdered drink mix sexy Urban myths link NASA to many materials, fabrics and gadgets. In fact, they didn't invent Teflon, Velcro or the powdered drink mix Tang. Teflon had been around since the 1930s, Velcro since the 1950s and Tang was on the market just as NASA was finding its feet. Mercury astronaut John Glenn drinking Tang in orbit as part of an experiment did, however, do a lot for the brand. NASA may not have invented these products, but it helped to popularize them. Having your product associated with astronauts and the space race connected it with science and discovery. Sometimes the association was so close misunderstandings persist. A private company invented and developed the chrome-plated Fisher Space Pen, capable of writing upside-down and in zero gravity. Both NASA and the Soviet Union space program became their customers. Space research that became consumer products It's not as if NASA wasn't producing enough of its own tech spinoffs. In 1976, NASA started its Technology Transfer Program to ensure there could be commercial licensing for innovations resulting from space exploration. Nearly every aspect of our lives has benefitted from this approach. For example, NASA sponsored research into using algae to recycle waste in outer space, only to discover that it made an excellent nutritional supplement for developing infants. Water purification systems devised for the International Space Station have improved water safety on Earth, and NASA studies in high-altitude wind resistance have led to more aerodynamic truck design. Smartphone cameras in space NASA's experiments miniaturizing cameras for use in space led to the active pixel sensor now used in the standard smartphone camera. Today's smartphones also benefit from embedded web technology used onboard the International Space Station to conduct experiments remotely over the internet. This led to the Internet of Things (IoT): Remote wireless connectivity between devices in smart homes, smart cities and all manner of wearable technology from watches to glasses and bracelets. Mapping technology currently focused on the surface of Mars is used to create detailed geospatial views of Earth's cities. Smartphones use space technology, but they've also become space technology. CubeSats are small square satellites, a fraction of the size and weight of Sputnik, that give academic science its own space program to expand knowledge and research. Started in 1999 as a collaboration between California Polytechnic State University and Stanford Space Systems Development Laboratory, they can be used as single units or in orbiting networks. In 2013, NASA technicians launched the first CubeSats fitted with iPhones to take pictures from space and transmit the data back to Earth. Almost 60 years after Sputnik circled the planet, a smartphone took the first space selfie. The possible uses for such large-scale real-time data are astronomic – for meteorology and cartography, logging and agriculture, oil and gas, insurance and transport. We may inhabit a tiny planet in a vast expanding universe, but the space surrounding us is getting smaller and cheaper to access. Good business, as always, is where you find it. Perhaps now is the time to consider how space technology can help your company gain a competitive edge.
rocket women interview

Why business and diverse talent are the future of space exploration

  • Opinions
  • min read
    • Rocketing numbers of women in the space program shows change is happening, but Vinita Marwaha Madill (@Rocket_Woman1,) space engineer and Founder of Rocket Women, says we can do more to support all top space talent. She also sees a crucial role for business in our space exploration future. As part of Tomorrow Unlocked's new audio documentary Fast Forward, I talk with Vinita about her work as a space engineer, how business is changing space and Rocket Women's work supporting women and girls who set their sights on the cosmos. Ken: Tell us about the Rocket Women initiative. Vinita: Rocket Women is a global initiative founded in 2012 that aims to empower diverse young women to choose a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM.) In the UK only 12 percent of engineers are women and less than 8 percent are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. The goal of Rocket Women is to reverse this trend by giving inspirational women worldwide a platform to share advice and have their voices heard. Sally Ride, the first US woman in space, said, "You can't be what you can't see." Role models need to be tangible and visible to inspire and empower. We need diversity in space and technology so the professions reflect more of society. Now more than ever, we need all available talent to solve the hard problems facing the world. Ken: Relatively few women seemed to have been involved in the Apollo space program, and their contributions were not fully acknowledged at the time. But now there is a larger number and diversity of backgrounds. What's changed? Vinita: Much has changed since Sally Ride became the first US woman in space in 1983. Many women contribute to the space career program today. In 2016 NASA had its first 50 percent female astronaut class. There are still social and cultural barriers girls experience from a young age that society needs to overcome. One is equal access to education. Ken: In Rocket Women's mission statement, you talk about trying to prevent unconscious bias. What kind of unconscious bias is influencing space exploration? Vinita: Language represents biases that have been there from the early days of the space program. NASA has made some changes to their language, like changing 'manned' to 'crewed.' We're still using space suits designed in the 1970s on the International Space Station (ISS.) We saw repercussions in 2019 with suit design delaying the first all-female spacewalk. NASA has been working on a new suit design that can provide for everyone, from the smallest female to the largest male. Ken: If you think of the old space race – cold war era – versus the new space race, what attitudes and pathways have changed? Vinita: The role of global space agencies is shifting. Working with business has been a great step, such as getting astronauts to and from the space station through Elon Musk's space transportation company SpaceX. We're looking at how the commercial sector will be part of space exploration in future. NASA is working with Axiom Space and SpaceX, who will transport an Axiom-trained commander and three private astronauts to the ISS to live there for just over a week. So we're about to make space accessible to more people. I look forward to the day everyone can see Earth from space. Astronauts call it the overview effect: It reinforces our interconnectedness and shows how fragile Earth is. Ken: Space still feels like the rich people's game: Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson. It seems you need a few billion in the bank before you can start making space plans. Vinita: It mustn't be just wealthy people who get the chance to see Earth from space. For space tourism, we'll need to develop reusable spacecraft, and that will need funding from business and space agencies. For the first all-civilian space mission, Inspiration4, an investor can buy a flight and pay for a member of the public to be aboard too. As a starting point for space tourism, it's not a bad place. Ken: Why are we going back to the Moon? Vinita: The interest in returning to the Moon is driven by science, technological development and preparing for future exploration. To get us back to the Moon, NASA is developing the Gateway – a mini space station in lunar orbit – with others like the European, Japanese and Canadian space agencies. It's building on the international cooperation that built the ISS. The Moon is also a science destination and port for future space transportation if we want to, for example, go to Mars. It's a platform to overcome the technical challenges of living and working in deep space. The lunar surface has valuable resources like Helium-3. Most importantly, the Moon will be the first place humans learn to live on another celestial body. It's only three days from Earth, and its low gravity and resources make it an ideal place to prepare to go further into space. Ken: There's a challenge in how to live in an environment our bodies aren't designed for. The further we go out into space, the more it becomes clear what it means to be human. Vinita: The further we go out, the more we learn and develop technology that could help on Earth. Many technologies we use today came from the space program. We need ways to communicate with astronauts in deep space and telehealth systems for medical emergencies. That technology could help people on Earth who live in remote communities. If we want to go to Mars, we'll need a way to provide nutrition for a couple of years. How do we develop nutrition for astronauts living on the Moon? It may help us find sustainable ways to feed Earth's growing population. Ken: What do we want from Mars? Why are we going there? Vinita: We need to go to Mars because humans are innate explorers. After mapping all the continents, going to the deepest point of the ocean and the peak of Mount Everest,  humanity's next step is to explore the solar system. The benefits we get from space exploration and the sector's goals are altruistic compared to many industries. With the ISS, many countries are working together. We want to use that cooperation to go back to the Moon and eventually to Mars. Ken: What factors have brought going to the Moon back into our orbit? Vinita: NASA, the European and Canadian space agencies have committed funding. Private companies internationally developing robotic technology to go back to the Moon ignites imaginations. We have political support for the program in the US. Space exploration needs ongoing, sustained effort. We build up our technology over decades: Develop the Gateway program from a smaller space station and add modules, then go back to the lunar surface for a few days at first, then develop a lunar habitat and sustainable exploration. We're looking at that long-term program now, and it's succeeding because everyone is working together. Ken: We have space initiatives in China, India and Israel. What about Russia – one of the original space racers? Vinita: I was lucky to work with Russian colleagues at the European Space Agency (ESA.) We worked on the European Robotic Arm for the Russian segment of the ISS. It will be launched alongside a new Russian scientific module. The robotic arm and the new scientific module will mean increased scientific research capacity on the ISS and help them develop new technology, as well as developing the ISS and supporting cosmonaut spacewalks. Ken: What's one thing about the new space race you most want to emphasise? Vinita: The importance of making sure role models are tangible and visible. For its new human spaceflight program, Artemis, NASA selected a cadre of astronauts with an equal gender split. I can't wait for the day the first woman steps foot on the Moon. It will inspire young men and women everywhere. Listen to an interview with Vinita in Fast Forward Episode 6: The New Space Race Listen to more episodes of Tomorrow Unlocked's Fast Forward audio series
ai ethics

The mirror we don’t recognize ourselves in: Talking AI with Dr. Beth Singler

  • Artificial intelligence
  • min read
    • One of many experts appearing in Tomorrow Unlocked's new audio series Fast Forward is Dr. Beth Singler, anthropologist and Junior Research Fellow in artificial intelligence at University of Cambridge. Dr. Singler (@BVLSingler) examines the social, ethical and philosophical implications of artificial intelligence and robotics. She has spoken at Edinburgh Science Festival, London Science Museum and New Scientist Live, and been interviewed by New Scientist, Forbes and the BBC. I interviewed Dr. Singler about AI and the future of work. Ken: In your work, you engage people in conversations about the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. What do people think AI is? Beth: For the public, it isn't one thing. People point to examples of AI being implemented, but it has different definitions for people. They draw presumptions from science fiction and media accounts of dangerous AI and scary robots. It's a malleable term – people say 'the algorithm' and mean AI. Many think of AI in the workplace replacing human physical work, but we see AI taking on more knowledge labor and even emotional labor. Ken: What kind of emotional tasks can AI do? Beth: We increasingly see interfaces with AI that give simulated emotional responses. AI assistants do tasks for you but pleasantly and civilly. Call center work is already highly structured and scripted – an AI assistant or chatbot can take over that pleasantry system. How workplaces implement AI will influence how we connect with other humans. Ken: Are we creating a human-machine social world we'll have to learn to interact with? Beth: Yes. We're seeing these human-machine interactions playing out in different places – in the home, workplace, and care settings. We're having to understand that relationship and teach our children to negotiate it. There are discussions on whether children should be polite when using AI assistants. We're coming up with a new social format for interactions with AI. Ken: I thought, of course you should be polite to machines – if only because one day they'll look at everything we've said and done and judge us accordingly. I want to be on the right side of them. Beth: We also see arguments that you should be civil to AI assistants because this is how we should behave to other entities, whether human or non-human – that it reflects our natures. If we aren't civil to machines, it says more about us than their needs. There are many different answers to questions of politeness to AI assistants. Ken: People find conversations with Cleverbot amusing when it asks things like, "Don't you wish you had a body?" or "What is God to you?" They don't consider Cleverbot thinks it's appropriate because a human asked IT those questions. We're looking into a strange, distorting mirror and not recognizing our reflection. Beth: Absolutely. There's a reason the Black Mirror TV series is called Black Mirror – it's a reflective surface for understanding ourselves. AI and machine responses come from data sets, and those involve biases. It's a moment to reflect, for instance, on questions of personhood before we even get to anything like artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence. Should we be civil? If we say rude or sexist things to a female AI assistant, does that matter? These questions come out again and again. I'm an anthropologist, meaning I study what humans do and think. These big questions are integral to our concept of what AI is. I've seen in my work engaging the public and seeing their sometimes hopeful, sometimes fearful responses that this will be a conversation we'll have for some time yet. Ken: I was at an airport buying a train ticket one afternoon. It was quiet, and the woman behind the counter said, "You should have been here yesterday – the automatic ticket machines had recalibrated and was giving wrong tickets. People adjust. Machines don't." I wondered if this ability to adjust is part of our relationship with machines. Beth: It's interesting how much we adjust to machines. With the airport systems that use facial recognition software, I often have to take off my glasses, change my hair or bob down. We adjust ourselves to be accepted by the system. You see this in how automation is changing the workplace. There are interviews with facial recognition software involved, so we're trying to smile more in a video interview. We're increasingly making changes to fit the machine-based system. Ken: It suggests an element of trust. Where does trust fit in our relationship with machines? Beth: Trust is key. We want to believe software that observes our responses in job interviews is fair and neutral, but we have examples where trust is let down. In the UK in 2020, an algorithm that helped grade student exam papers damaged public trust – it penalized students studying at less high-achieving schools. In my work, I see examples of people trusting too much – they have an image of a superintelligence that doesn't exist yet. Society can only trust technology it understands. Digital literacy – understanding what AI is and isn't – is key to that. Ken: We tend to understand things better as fiction. It's a way to get a grip on the world. But I get the feeling fiction's not a grip anymore, but a stranglehold. Is that fair? Beth: I enjoy science fiction accounts of AI in their many interpretations, fears and hopes. One of the hazards is a strict, negative story used too often. I'm a fan of the Terminator film franchise, but I see how dystopian imagery of robot uprisings shapes people's views of AI. And AI making crucial decisions about our future – whether we get a job or a mortgage, or how we're treated in hospital – may also be overshadowed by Terminator-like stories. Ken: And it stops us noticing when AI does good things, like in medicine and traffic control. The robots are already among us, but they don't usually walk on two legs. They're more likely to be sorting out your airplane ticket. Beth: There's a move toward making robots cuter and replicating child and animal forms to reduce those threatening associations from science fiction. Think of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator versus the therapeutic robot PARO, modeled on a baby harp seal. Ken: Is there an element of trying to make work more fun? Perhaps work becomes more like play if you have an AI assistant who helps with the emotional labor? Beth: Yes. There's a history of trying to gamify the workplace – developing 'third space' options that involve games or places where you can nap. Perhaps how we apply AI is a part of how we make the workplace more enjoyable. If our software chatted back to us, was entertaining and responded to us, it might seem less laborious. Ken: Going back to emotional labor, programs could soften the edges of work relationships, whether online or in an office – I can imagine something like an 'emotional Roomba' (robot vacuum cleaner) allowing for moments of interaction. Beth: We see examples of AI mediating between humans in conversation, like machine learning algorithms suggesting how to respond to emails or warning your tone is too harsh – softening the edges of our interactions at work is a developing space. Ken: After some emails I've had, I see the value in something like that. Beth: I also saw an application for divorced or divorcing couples helping conversations be more amicable for the benefit of any children. A machine learning algorithm warns you things like, perhaps you're being a bit sarcastic. Ken: I'm scared of an algorithm that understands sarcasm. That will be the end of humanity. Beth: There's a wonderful Tom Gauld cartoon about scientists trying to create a sarcastic bot. And the bot says to the scientist, "It's going great. This guy is a real genius." Ken: What thought about AI and the future of work would you most like people to take away? Beth: I'd like people to consider how much we should change our behavior in relation to AI in the workplace. People don't normally interact in purely rational ways. If we curtail that normal human messiness, we're not anthropomorphizing AI but robo-morphizing humans. If we make ourselves smile more to do well in an interview with facial recognition software, we limit ourselves. Although we might see AI as a human simulation, do we become a human simulation in response to AI? Listen to Tomorrow Unlocked's Fast Forward audio series for more expert views
space law

How space law keeps cowboys and rogue satellite drivers out of orbit

  • Tech for business 
  • min read
    • Space law is a fascinating area. As part of new Tomorrow Unlocked audio series Fast Forward, I'm talking to Assistant Professor and Deputy Director of the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University, Tanja Masson-Zwaan (@tanjamasson) about the challenges of using space law designed for the old space race in the new world of space exploration. Ken: What have been the biggest changes in space exploration since the Moon landings 50 years ago? Tanja: Nowadays, it's not two superpowers – the US and the Soviet Union – but many more countries and start-ups, companies, even universities. That change raises legal issues because space law is based on states rather than corporations or entities. Under the many space treaties, resolutions and so on, states are responsible and liable, and must perform their activities in certain ways. Companies becoming involved, maybe becoming the main actors, stresses the system. That's why we see new national legislation: States are making sure their companies and entities don't break the principles they signed up to. Ken: Are you saying if I launch a satellite that damages someone else's satellite, my government is liable, rather than me? Tanja: When a private entity launches and operates a satellite, it first needs state authorization and supervision – for instance, through a license from the government. If their satellite crashed into a satellite owned by another state, the state that launched the object is liable, not the private entity. That's different from aviation. If you lose your suitcase, you can sue the airline. If your satellite is damaged, you will go to your Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who would present a claim to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the state that launched the satellite that caused the damage. Ken: What's the legal position on mining and mineral rights in space? Tanja: It's an exciting time with missions to the Moon and Mars. The potential for resource extraction and commercialization is creating a buzz, although it's a scientific and technical challenge, as well as a financial and legal one. Extracting and commercially using space resources is also essential for establishing a semi-permanent human presence on these bodies or for using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. You wouldn't have to bring all the water you need from Earth – you could use water on the Moon and transform it into fuel to go to Mars. But whether you can use those resources or commercialize them is a legal question not addressed in the space treaties. The treaties also have a principle that benefits from space must be for all countries. Many conditions must be guaranteed. But how? That's the debate. Ken: When the US planted its flag on the Moon in 1969, did that have legal validity? Did they claim anything? Tanja: The US explicitly said putting their flag on the Moon was an expression of pride about being the first nation to the Moon, not claiming to own the Moon. To claim the Moon is contrary to a cardinal principle of space law: You cannot own any part of outer space – but owning a part of space isn't needed to use it and its resources. Ken: Low earth orbit is getting crowded. There are functioning and non-functioning satellites and all kinds of space junk. What legal space do they occupy? Tanja: If anyone wants to use that space, they must follow rules. For example, states must coordinate with a United Nations specialized agency, the International Telecommunication Union, to get rights to use frequencies or orbits, which they can then give to their satellite operators. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty says the use and exploration of outer space are free, so states can put satellites in space if they follow rules, but they can't claim to own that space. The state must also authorize and supervise if private entities carry out activities. Ken: You mentioned in a blog post the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which could decide on outer space disputes. What kind of issues are brought to the court? Tanja: Over 100 states are party to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It has special rules for solving disputes about space activities. Disputes could arise about collision damage or signal interference, but also product liability and intellectual property. Diplomacy usually solves space disputes because there are always other interests at stake, like friendly trade relations. So far, no case has been brought to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, nor to any other international court such as the International Court of Justice – the highest judicial organ of the UN. Ken: Is lawmaking in front of technology, for once? Tanja: It's an interesting question, should law precede technology, or should technology evolve and law follow? I think they should follow each other closely. It doesn't make sense to make laws when we don't know how something will work. For example, we don't know if suborbital flights will have horizontal takeoff, vertical drop from a plane or something else. On the other hand, you must look ahead to preserve the future use of outer space. Having a dispute settlement mechanism can prevent disputes because parties are confident there's a way to settle it if something arises. Ken: Growing up with the space race, I don't think many thought about the environmental impact. It seems like laws are needed in that area now. Tanja: When the space era started, it really was a space race – neither side worried about what was going up. Scientists were excited just to be launching things into space. But space is getting polluted. There are also concerns about going to another celestial body and spoiling its pristine environment with bacteria. The Committee on Space Research has established a planetary protection protocol. There are rules about what level of protection you must apply depending on the mission and where you're going. The rules evolve as we gain knowledge. If there will be a sustained human presence, will we have a landfill on the Moon? Are we going to put garbage into orbit around the Moon? We'll have to find a solution to keep it sustainable, now that we're all super dependent on space. Ken: Is there a fundamental question, beyond nations and corporations, about our rights as a species to go into space? Some people feel passionately that we have no business on Mars because it's not our planet. Tanja: And some cultures have special connections with the Moon and other celestial bodies. It's important to respect that. But humankind is driven to push frontiers and to discover. I like the quote: We should go out and explore, but also show respect for other cultures and beliefs, and the environments of other planets. Ken: What is possible within the law to restrain corporate buccaneers from taking advantage of space? Tanja: There are some space cowboys out there doing things that may raise concerns in the community. Is that what we want? I think we should appreciate the good being done alongside the issues it raises. Elon Musk's company SpaceX now operates a third of all satellites, and that happened in a year. If SpaceX launches the planned 42,000 satellites, how will we deal with that? He also says he will provide broadband to places on Earth that don't have it, and that's good. And he's developed reusable rockets, so he's contributing to space sustainability. I think there needs to be a regulatory counterweight. The US authorities should ask those in Elon Musk's position to do environmental impact assessments and find ways to develop their plans without disrupting science and astronomy. It's give and take, but you have to appreciate what these people are doing – they have the money states never will. Ken: What's next in your space law work? Tanja: I've just started a big EU project researching the European position on space traffic management. We don't have rules on space traffic management nor space security and safety, like retrieving objects from outer space. We need these rules for sustainable space exploration. Ken: Is there money to be made in space salvage – bringing satellite components back to Earth? There must be some mineral wealth up there. Tanja: An analogy is salvaging wrecks on the sea. A ship owner can abandon a ship, and a salvage company can salvage it, selling the scrap metal. We have an extra problem in space because space object ownership is eternal – you can't abandon anything. We need to get a space debris-removal industry going, but they'll need approval for every piece they retrieve. The state that launched it will be eternally liable if something else is damaged during space salvage. We also need to make it possible to refuel or repair in space. It's hard to tighten a screw on a satellite without putting the satellite in jeopardy. So as well as space salvage, space sustainability may mean a new industry of in-orbit servicing. Ken: So there are wider benefits to a focus on sustainability in space. Thank you, Tanja, for filling us in on space law. Tanja: You're welcome. Listen to the full Fast Forward audio series for more interviews with featured experts.
fast forward

To succeed in tech innovation, take these lessons from the past

  • Leadership
  • min read
    • Inventor of the audiocassette Lou Ottens' death at age 94 in early 2021 gave the media and technology world a chance to stop and think. In the age of Musks and Zuckerbergs, it's easy to forget how much Ottens changed the game. The home and studio standard of the time, open-reel tape, didn't travel nearly so well. Reels and playback machines were heavy, bulky and easily damaged. Ottens started with the idea of something conveniently carried. He cut a piece of wood to the size of his pocket as a template. From the pocket to the world By the 1980s, we were connecting cassette players to early home computers and telephone answering machines. Before cassettes receded into obsolescence around the late 1990s, the penetration of Lou Ottens' innovation was total. But the audiocassette stayed influential beyond its popularity. Ottens also helped develop the Compact Disc, which stored more data and was more durable. But its use and distribution patterns followed those established by its predecessor, the cassette. Symbols on PlayStation, other game controllers and almost all audio-visual players mimic those introduced with the audiocassette. Past lessons invaluable for future success Frantic pace can distract us from learning from the past. The influence of Ottens' audiocassette beyond its seeming obsolescence is a case in point. New audio documentary series Fast Forward, presented by me for Tomorrow Unlocked by Kaspersky, is devoted to examining trends from the recent past shaping today's technology. It distills practical lessons that might otherwise have been lost in our rapid forward momentum. Clayton M. Christensen and Joseph Bower coined the term 'disruptive' to describe game-changing technologies in their 1995 article, Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Although 'disruptive' has since been overused, Bower and Christensen first identified the idea of disruptive technologies by taking the long view of innovation's history. Overuse tends to stretch meaning to the point where the original definition is all but lost. Disruptive technologies, often come from outside an existing system of established firms and products, create new markets that eventually displace that system. The concept can be crushed down to Mark Zuckerberg's infamous (former) motto for Facebook: Move fast and break things. Launching unfinished business The current rush to disrupt in tech industries condemns customers and producers to live in a 'beta' universe where bugs become features to be dealt with later. . But as entrepreneur Andy Budd observed in a recent blog post," Without a clear picture of what you're building, it's almost impossible to predict problems. We're encouraged to learn about the future not by thinking, imagining or researching outcomes, but by launching products and learning from the results." The law of unintended consequences tends to govern the 'beta' universe. Taking the long view can help swing those consequences from negative to positive. It's unlikely Lou Ottens foresaw the deep, long-term impact of the audiocassette while he cut that block of wood to fit in his pocket. Making time for failure a success Ottens was only five in 1926 when Thomas Edison died. Edison invented the phonograph, which made mechanical sound recording and playback possible for the first time. Edison first tried to market the phonograph by putting it inside a doll that recited nursery rhymes and wished its owner a happy Christmas. The doll was a dismal failure, withdrawn from shelves after most were unsold or returned by disturbed customers. Maybe his customers didn't want a talking doll, but they did want to hear a famous operatic tenor like Enrico Caruso in their parlors. "I have not failed," Edison said about his repeated setbacks while inventing the lightbulb. "I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Edison's profound commitment to try and try again shows, in times when 'ever beta' doesn't seem to equal 'ever better,' innovators and entrepreneurs may still find the long view offers the most useful lessons.
future as business narrative

Business has long imagined strange and wonderful futures, and it’s not done yet

  • Future tech
  • min read
    • "We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives," declared US celebrity psychic The Amazing Criswell, famous in the 1950s and 1960s for his wildly improbable predictions. In books, newspaper columns and TV appearances he informed the US that a craze for devouring human flesh would sweep the nation, the laws of gravity would cease functioning and the first humans on the Moon would be three pregnant female Soviet cosmonauts. In 1969 he also predicted television personalities would no longer be seen smoking, which doesn't seem so outrageous today. It's hard not to think about Criswell while contemplating what the future might hold after the disruptive events of 2020. Making predictions has always been risky, so why should we still do it? One reason might be because the future has become an important part of the business narrative over the past century. No matter what a company is selling, its best product is often a vision of the future. The customer's world would soon be one of ease and leisure, speed and convenience. The future gives meaning and direction to all those quarterly projections, strategy documents and planning sessions. The future is 14-lane highways and smoking robots A look back at how this message developed over the decades suggests we need it now more than ever. Take, for example, the General Motors 'Futurama' experience at 1939 New York World's Fair. 1939 General Motors Futurama ride at the New York World's Fair With the Great Depression finally over, the fair's opening pitch was 'dawn of a new day.' It was the first time the world of tomorrow had been used as the theme for an international exposition. General Motors offered its visitors a filmic 'ride' over a transport system for the year 1960. Laid out below them were fourteen-lane highways, self-driving cars and residential complexes with landing strips for private aircraft. It didn't matter that General Motors didn't make any of these things – the public flocked to Futurama, just as they packed Westinghouse's Hall of Electrical Living to marvel at Elektro, the Moto-Man: A walking, talking robot that smoked cigarettes. At the time, Westinghouse was best known for its toasters and radios, but these were now part of the promise of tomorrow. In fact, the company doubled down on this association, burying a time capsule at the fair's Flushing Meadows site, not to be unearthed until the year 6939, some five thousand years into the future. 'Cheap and reliable' can change the world One visitor to the 1939 World's Fair came away with a clear idea of where this was all heading. Vannevar Bush, head of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II, drew upon his impressions of the exposition when writing 'As we may think' in 1945. First published in The Atlantic, Bush's essay on the future of information technology would become a key text, influencing generations of engineers and designers. Recalling the typewriters and computing machines he'd seen back in 1939, Bush made an important discovery: The modern world, he declared, had "arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it." The prospect of sophisticated pieces of technology being both cheap and reliable would have far-reaching implications. They brought complex engineering into the home, connecting it directly with the world of tomorrow. Big science and big business came as part of the package. Popular Mechanics' December 1952 issue featured an article on playing safe with atomic rays alongside one on selecting your Christmas tree. The future can be both familiar and new The reliability of such devices had implications for new marketing concepts like brand management, increasing a product's perceived value with the customer's sense of reassurance. But reassurance can breed familiarity. The more a consumer takes a product for granted, the more its perceived value declines for them. The promise of tomorrow starts to wear thin. Or as future president Ronald Reagan put it in a 1950s sales pitch for General Electric, "Progress is our most important product. If you're sitting back at General Electric you're probably falling behind." The product should not appear too reliable or familiar. After all, who wants to buy a used future? "Suddenly it's 1960!" Chrysler proudly announced when marketing the '57 Plymouth as part of its 'forward look' campaign. Bringing out a new model car every year had become standard industry practice by then – marketing your latest design features as 'three years ahead of their time' was simply the next step. As chance would have it, 1960 was also the year Vance Packard's The Waste Makers was published – a book that introduced the term 'planned obsolescence.' Famous for his exposé on advertising techniques, The Hidden Persuaders, Packard argued companies were deliberately engineering products to limit their future usefulness, making it easier to replace them than repair them. Tomorrow became a malfunction waiting to happen: A point eloquently made with the opening of 1964 New York World's Fair. Built on the same Flushing Meadows site as the 1939 model, it was an update on the same message. General Motors opened another Futurama ride that "takes you into the future and makes you feel like you are there – in outer space, beneath the sea, in unbelievable places watching believable things happen." More ambitious than the 1939 version, if offered visitors a glimpse of what life would be like in the year 2024. 1964 General Motors Futurama ride New York World's Fair As the fair drew to a close, business insider Alvin Toffler published his essay 'The future as a way of life,' later expanded into the bestselling book Future Shock. Published in 1970, it argued society was psychologically incapable of responding effectively to rapid technological change. "I've always been careful never to predict anything that had not already happened," media guru Marshall McLuhan observed in a television interview that same year. "The future is not what it used to be. It is here." McLuhan spent most of the previous decade advising corporations how to survive in an age of rapid networked communications. Tomorrow gets darker In 1968 Stanley Kubrick's movie epic 2001: A Space Odyssey connected corporate America with the future by placing familiar brands in the 21st century. Those on display included IBM, Howard Johnson and Whirlpool. Some, however, had disappeared by the time 2001 came around. Pan American airlines, shown flying a shuttle service into low Earth orbit, folded in 1991. Kubrick's 2001 showed confidence about the future that had all but drained away by 1999. By then people were already asking where their jetpacks and videophones were – shouldn't the future be here by now? The paperless office of the future, first introduced in a 1975 Business week article, remained as far away as ever, despite assurances that "the use of paper in business […] should be declining by 1980." As an indication of how gloomy the business of the future had become by the mid-1980s, Apple Computers announced their Macintosh desktop in terms of a more dystopian world of tomorrow, promising viewers of their launch ad, "you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."" Apple Macintosh '1984' ad There was also the chance that on new year's eve 1999, every computer on the planet would cease functioning the second it recalibrated itself for the year 2000. The millennium (or Y2K) bug, as it was called, would cause planes to fall out of the sky and nuclear power plants to melt down. Thanks to engineers and programmers around the world working to ensure January 1 would indeed see the dawn of a new day, the new millennium began with few disruptions. The problem hadn't just been a technical one, however. Life in the year 2000 could never have matched its hype in advertising campaigns over the past fifty years. RCA, for example, marketed an advanced '2000' color TV "set of the future," appropriately priced at 2000 US dollars. In France there was a mania for adding the number 2000 to everything from beer to pet grooming salons to emphasize a connection with the bright promise of tomorrow. Death of the cultural and technological decade The one thing that truly stopped working from the start of the 21st century was our collective ability to map out technological and economic progress in decades. From the 1930s, this incremental ten-year unit became the steppingstone to the world of tomorrow. As each decade came into focus as the decade of the future, separating itself from what came before it, so too did the concept of associating them with a significant cultural, social or political change. To mention the 1960s, 70s or 80s was to call up a specific set of products and designs. It was what allowed Marshall McLuhan to advise business leaders that 'the future's future is the present,' a statement that could have applied to any decade in the latter half of the twentieth century. This perception became increasingly blurred once we entered the new millennium. In the twenty-first century it is no longer possible to identify progress through a decade's look, mood or direction. The only people to talk about 'the noughties' with any consistency were journalists, and even they didn't seem convinced. Upgrades as the new measure of time The old mode of reckoning didn't mesh with the new century. Cars today, for example, tend not to feature the year in which they were first rolled out as an added value. The upgrade has now become the new unit of measurement, whether it's an operating system, a platform or a device. Before the coronavirus pandemic, customers around the world had been known to queue all night outside Apple stores to buy the latest iteration of the iPhone. Apple has continued what the US car industry started in announcing a new model every year. Not surprisingly, the tech industry has also been accused of factoring new forms of planned obsolescence into their products. The contemporary term 'future-proofing' reflects a growing concern with anticipating the disadvantages brought by changes that have not yet been made. It's planned obsolescence 2.0 – the post-millennial version of Future Shock. Meanwhile, in a gesture that General Motors and Westinghouse would have appreciated back in 1939, Elon Musk fitted his own 'midnight cherry' Tesla Roadster to a Space-X rocket in 2018 and sent it on a rendezvous with Mars. It may be the first roadworthy vehicle in outer space, but it's still just a car. And that's the point about the future: It's a narrative that lets business communicate with its times. Has anyone received an Amazon delivery by drone since the idea was first announced in 2016? Narratives are useful for planning and communication, but we shouldn't let ourselves grow too comfortable with them. The future is a narrative meant to help us think more freely, not a foregone conclusion.
by Innovating leaders.
Innovative tech.
About Secure Futures

Secure Futures magazine is your go-to business guide for opinions, trends and insight into the world of technology and cybersecurity. We help your business to bring on the future. Brought to you by Kaspersky, the global cybersecurity experts.

  • For all other countries