MAKING OF THE GALILEO FLOW FIELD ARTIFACTS. T. S. Balint, Innovation Design Engineering, Royal College of Art, Kensington Gore, London, SW7 2EU, United Kingdom,
[email protected] Abstract: Today’s paradigm of the aerospace sector is dominated by engineering, technology, and management practices. Over the decades the language used to communicate between subject matter experts became specialized and evolved into a highly effective shorthand. This also led to a rigid worldview, which is hard to penetrate with novel ideas. It is reflected even in the program structure of the International Planetary Probe Workshop (IPPW), where the alignment and mapping of this paper against the specialized session topics was not obvious. Acting within a paradigm introduces barriers and bounds to innovation. [1] It forces organizations to operate under the principles of first-order cybernetics. [2] In this observed system the rules are set, and new developments are limited to incremental advancements. In turn, novel ideas with outside components broaden the paradigm and introduce new options to the discourse. In this observing system new requirements are created, introduced and enforced to broaden the paradigm, in line with second-order cybernetics. [3] Language and dialogs between the various stakeholders are key to introduce new disciplines and to converge towards shared novel languages, which can lead to new opportunities and preferred outcomes. [4] These dialogs can be facilitated through boundary objects, as focal points to reach common understanding between disciplines. Boundary objects can range from keystone graphics and models to mockups and artifacts. These boundary objects are created in the intersection of disciplines, which can include science, engineering, and management, from the current paradigm, but could also incorporate outside disciplines, such as human centered design and art. In this paper I will discuss the making of four boundary objects. [5] The first two artifacts are titled “Galileo Flow Field.” The walnut version was used in this year’s IPPW poster. It was the first time an artistic representation in the form of a physical object has been used for these posters. The making of the artifacts involved flow science, engineering simulation of the flow field, design and art based modeling and making of the artifact for the walnut version, and subsequent artistic work at the foundry of RCA’s Sculpture department for the bronze version. The creation of the artifacts involved iterative sense-giving and sense-making cycles by the designer. Subsequent dialogs between the designer and the workshop committee helped to refine the concept. The final dialog occurred between the workshop organizers and the probe community, who were informed about the event through the official workshop poster. I will introduce the key steps of the
making of these boundary objects and illustrate how the intersection between various disciplines and in a cybernetic sense the introduction of new disciplines into the discourse can add variety [6] to the option trades, and benefit the ideation process towards novel preferred outcomes. In addition to these two artifacts, I will also discuss the designing and making of two bronze medals. The theme of the first one illustrates the “Expanding Boundaries” of humanity from Galileo’s initial discovery of four Jovian moons named after him, to the in-situ exploration of Jupiter’s atmosphere 385 years later by a probe named after him. The other medal was designed as a commemorative object for the “Alvin Seiff Memorial Award,” which is handed out at IPPW each year. The examples in this paper are used to make a case for design dialogs, boundary objects, and the introduction of new disciplines into the discourse in order to remove innovation barriers and enable the emergence of transformational ideas within our community. Demonstrating the making steps of these artifacts could be also interesting to the technical community as it cross-pollinates the art of making between different disciplines. However, broadening or changing the paradigm will not happen from the ground up alone. There also has to be a forcing function from senior leadership that would overwrite the existing paradigm and mandate this type of second-order change with new rules and requirements. [7] Introduction: NASA’s innovation paradigm faces multiple challenges and barriers, including a risk-averse culture; low priority on innovation combined with short-term focus; instability, for example from funding uncertainties, project descopes and cancellations; lack of opportunities; process overload; communication challenges; and organizational inertia. [1] To understand these barriers through a new perspective, we could employ cybernetics [2], as it can provide new insights into ways to address them. For example, under NASA’s predominantly technology and management driven paradigm the organization operates under first-order cybernetics principles, where the requirements are well defined. This observed systems approach typically limits innovation to incremental developments. To broaden the paradigm, we need to introduce new ideas from new disciplines. This second-order approach allows us to develop an observing perspective, where we can overwrite or broaden existing requirements while recognizing our role in this action. Second-order cybernetics is discussed in [3]. Ideas are transferred
and exchanged through communications. Such circular communications may happen between people, groups, people and objects, and even between objects. While language provides the primary means for us to communicate, it can be enhanced through gestures and the use of objects, which I refer to as boundary objects. These boundary objects can be conceived in the intersection of various disciplines, and can be used to aid communications through these boundaries, created by discipline- or culture-specific specialized languages. By bridging this communication divide, novel meanings and languages can be developed between practitioners of various disciplines. Subsequently, the new shared meaning can broaden the variety of the group, in engineering terms increase the option space, which may lead to novel preferred outcomes. The planetary probe community is in a continuing quest to propose selectable mission concepts to stakeholders from the funding side, including agency managements at program and strategic levels, mission selection boards, and higher government level sources. Funding challenges also continually hamper technology development efforts. While the proposals are becoming increasingly sophisticated—which can be stated for proposals to all destinations—the proposing teams are repeatedly trying the same established routine, dominated by engineering, technology and management approaches, namely, using the same language, while expecting different outcomes, specifically, to be selected and funded for their proposed missions. To change this repeating cycle, we need to introduce something new to the system. In my example these are boundary objects in support of dialogs. In this paper I will provide a top level discussion on underlying concepts, such as communications, tacit knowledge and hierarchy, perception and cognition, cybernetics and design dialogs. I will introduce four boundary objects. All of them are related to the topic of the workshop, therefore, they can be used to facilitate dialogs between disciplines towards new shared meanings. I will describe the making of these
artifacts primarily from the perspective of a designerartist, and present it to a group of engineers, scientists, and managers at the IPPW workshop. This crossdisciplinary approach may provide insights for the workshop attendees and the readers of this paper, into other creative practices beyond their own. Underlying Concepts: before discussing the making of the four specific boundary objects, I find it important to introduce some of the foundational concepts about the circular and cyclical interactions between us, individuals, and our environment. Communications: Claude Shannon first introduced a general model of the communication process in 1948. [8] The model parses one-way communication into piecewise components, as shown in Figure 1. The shown eight parsed elements can be used to explain the process of communications, and can help to discuss associated challenges. These elements are the information source; the message; the transmitter; the signal; the carrier; the noise; the receiver; and the destination. Shannon’s model was created through the reduction of complex systems into a simple one. Such simplified models can’t capture all details of reality [9]. As George Box pointed it out, “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful” [10]. Shannon’s model can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, from engineering and computer science to cognitive sciences, design, and various means of interactions. However, beside the abstraction, the other shortcoming of this model is the treatment of information as free flowing property without accounting for the differences in personal knowledge and cognitive differences between the sender and the receiver of the message. While the message is formulated and transmitted by the sender, the meaning of that message is interpreted by the receiver, regardless of the intended meaning by the sender. This aspect is different from the required commonality between the encoding and decoding of the signal. Thus personal communications between humans are significantly more complex than data communications between electronic transmitters and receivers. To refine and develop a shared meaning
Figure 1: Shannon’s schematic diagram of a general communication system with its eight elements.[8]
between individuals, we need to include circular and iterative feedback loops. In other words, employing conversations and dialogs. Tacit Knowledge and Hierarchy: We have underlying unprocessed and interconnected pieces of information, which we may call intuition or gut feeling. Michael Polanyi introduced the term “tacit knowledge” as opposed to explicit knowledge [11], stating: “we can know more than we can tell.” Tacit knowing addresses hidden knowledge, which could account for a) a valid knowledge of a problem; b) the person’s capability to pursue it, guided by its sense to approaching its situation, and c) a valid anticipation of the yet indeterminate implication of the discovery arrived at, in the end. Tacit knowledge is unarticulated and intuitive, that can’t be communicated easily. It can be acquired only through experience within a relevant context. It is considered personal knowledge, but it can be transformed into explicit knowledge by codifying, articulating or specifying it. Connecting experiences with tacit knowledge can play an important role for the designer in the design process, where prototyping can result in new insights and the emergence from tacit to explicit knowledge. It can also play a role for the observer when interpreting the designed object. Polanyi also discussed the hierarchy and emergence of knowledge. Hierarchy is a differential construct of a perceived ranking order related to a given subject matter. It has relevance in cognitive model development, and can influence the order of actions. Unlike using a language, where we are forced to communicate in a sequence, and follow a logical order, tacit knowledge is non-sequential. It can emerge through a hierarchy where the various levels of interfaces build on the top of each other, the same way as sounds, words, sentences, and prose are structured. By appropriately assigned structuring and hierarchy, tacit knowledge may emerge into communicable personal knowledge. Perception and Cognition: Perceiving and interpreting our surroundings at varying scales, from an artifact to the universe, are highly influenced by our personal cognitive models. That is, to create cognitive models of the metaphysical world, we first need to perceive it through our sensory organs (i.e., eyes for vision, nose for smell, ears for hearing, tongue for taste, skin for touch, and vestibular sensors for balance and movement). The information input, in the form of energy from the environment, passes through these bodily sensors, and translates into perceptional experiences by cognitive processes. The steps of this incoming information flow seems obvious, yet explaining particular details of perception
and cognition occupied psychologists for a long time. The theory of cognition and human intelligence development was first constructed by Jean Piaget [12] [13]. Through a constructivist approach Piaget theorized that knowledge is developed gradually, in stages, and by constructing and understanding of the world through sensory experiences and interactions. Furthermore, alignments and discrepancies with building blocks of intelligent behavior and knowledge (schemata) influence interpretation and learning. Cognitive processes include perceiving, remembering, believing, reasoning. These steps may evoke emotions, which constantly intertwine with cognition. Interactions between the object and the observer are achieved through three complementary processes, namely assimilation, accommodation, and creating a new schema. In the case of assimilation, interaction with the object is approached through previous experiences of the observer, and if there is an alignment, then the new experience will become part of the existing schema. Accommodation requires revision of the old schema to fit the new experiences. When these two approaches do not work, the observer is required to create a new schema to interpret the new experience. One of the key considerations of perception and cognition is to identify if perception of our metaphysical world relies on a) information received directly through the bodily sensors, or b) if previous knowledge by the person and expectations also adds to the cognitive interpretation. James Gibson proposed a direct “bottom up” theory of perception [14]. This approach is data driven, and linearly unidirectional through visual processing. It initiates with the sensory stimulus. In comparison, Richard Gregory, proposed an indirect “top down” constructivist theory [15]. It combines sensory and contextual information to recognize patterns. For example, in a noisy environment we may understand a word when included in a sentence more than the word alone, as our cognition can provide the appropriate filtering and interpretation. This is also a guessing process through the formulation of a perceptual hypothesis between the sensory input and our knowledge, as a word may have many meanings. Thus a priori knowledge can be very influential in the cognitive processes. None of these two theories can explain all of the perceptional experiences under all circumstances. To resolve this impasse, Ulric Neisser proposed a model, he called it a “perceptual cycle,” where the top down and bottom up processes work in a circular way (see Figure 2) [16]. He pointed out that a purely data driven approach would make people mindless robots, while a purely prior knowledge driven approach would make them dreamers without physical grounding. Thus, in
Figure 2: Perceptual cycle of perception and cognition, based on [16]. a circular process our cognitive models (or schemata) provide expectations (hypothesis) for given contexts. If the sensory input disagrees with this hypothesis, then it does not fit an existing schema, and in line with Piaget’s approach the schema is either extended, or a new schema is created for a new experience. Neisser’s perceptual cycle model, shown in Figure 2, combines the cognitive psychology models of Gibson and Gregory. It plays and important role in understanding how we think, create, invent and innovate, and in general interact with the world. It also implies that the complexity and fidelity of our abstracted cognitive model of the world improves through circular dialogs with our environment. The guessing and interpreting phases of a broadened cognitive model may stimulate a larger number of innovative ideas, where designers and artists could translate them into novel real-world artifacts. Cybernetics: is a trans-disciplinary field, initially defined by Norbert Wiener in 1948, as the “Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” [2]. The origin of the word, cybernetics, traces back to the Greek word Kybernetike (κυβερνητική), in relations to governing, steering a ship, and navigating. Cyberneticians study—among others—a broad range of fields, including philosophy, epistemology, hierarchy, emergence, perception, cognition, learning, sociology, social interactions and control, communications, connectivity, mathematics, design, psychology, and even management. Many of these areas overlap with other disciplines, such as engineering, computer science, biology, and anthropology, but instead of point designs, cybernetics focuses on an abstracted context to find underlying dynamics and understanding. Many of today’s control and network systems associated disciplines, systems engineering, psychology and
biology fields find their roots in cybernetics, and often associated with first-order cybernetics, related to the observed system. Further advancements in cybernetics looked at the system that is observing the system, called second-order cybernetics. Within the field of cybernetics, the term “variety” was introduced by W. Ross Ashby [6], referring to the degrees of freedom of a system. For a stable system in dynamic equilibrium, its regulatory mechanism has to have greater or equal number of states than the environment or system it controls, as defined by the Law of Requisite Variety. Ashby states his Law as “variety absorbs variety, defines the minimum number of states necessary for a controller to control a system of a given number of states.” Cybernetic interactions can be discussed through three abstracted elements, which includes the system (or regulator); a process; and the environment. The system generates some change in its environment through the process. This change is then reflected through feedback that influences subsequent changes in the system. This circular causal interaction continues until a stopping criteria is reached. Hence cybernetics provides a way to look at things and focuses more on communications than control, but addresses them both in a circular way with forward and feedback loops. It considers language and related dialogs as basis of how we communicate. For example, as shown in Figure 3, when Actor A poses a question, Actor B is trying to understand its meaning. The answer is based on Actor B’s understanding of the question, which is subsequently interpreted by Actor B from the feedback. Environmental noise can interfere with the communication loops, and need to be filtered out by the actors. This circular dialog may continue until a constructed middle-ground understanding is reached between the two actors.
Figure 3: Shannon’s diagram expanded to a circular communication loop between two actors. Design Dialogs: A relevant model discussing design conversations is depicted in Paul Pangaro’s model of co-evolutionary design [17]. As shown in Figure 4, the model consists of four conversationally and circularly interconnected elements: • A conversation to agree on the goals; • A conversation to agree on the means; • A conversation to design the design (namely how to design a better design process); and • A conversation to create a new language.
These cybernetically circular conversations are the basis to reach agreements, which subsequently strengthen the teams and can lead to trust, and establish the ground for change. Change is a foundational requirement for innovation, but to think outside an established framework and its bound options, new languages are needed. Such new languages are created in these conversations. Therefore, the important part of a design framework is not to simply “dream up” a new language and present it as a given solution, but to introduce a new process that facilitates these Design Dialogs, leading to new languages, new discourses, and subsequently arriving to preferred outcomes. Adopting
Figure 4: Model of co-evolutionary design by Pangaro, with influences from Dubberly, von Foerster, and Geoghegan. [17]
Design Dialogs within the aerospace sector could open up the mission and technology design trades beyond today’s options, which are limited by and increasingly specialized language. These dialogs could be enhanced by using boundary objects, which will be discussed below. Design and Cybernetics Dialogs Through Boundary Objects: Boundary objects in the intersection of various disciplines help us to initiate dialogs, towards a shared understanding of our environment or the problem at hand. Dialogs may lead to novel languages and options. These dialogs could occur between team members, individuals or teams and their sponsors, institutions and the public, and others. Dialogs among the team members, team dynamics, and team makeup play pivotal roles in developing and accepting a new design language. Bringing scientists, subject matter experts, technologists, engineers, designers, and artists together could provide sufficient diversity, leading to the emergence of a new language with new options and potential outcomes, if the team is given the proper guidance. The team should be encouraged to move beyond concept assessments and build prototypes, as new ideas may evolve through building, iterations, and discussions. Mistakes and misunderstandings through the discussions or rapid prototyping can also lead to new ideas, as they can stimulate new questions and could point to new solutions. Figure 5 shows the circular iterative design process between the artifact and designer or artist (regulator),
who balances variety across the whole system through prototyping cycles. These personal dialogs with the artifact may create new ideas that advance the design towards a final outcome. For example, when we create a prototype, in a “sense giving” step, it represents our cognitive output at that given time. It becomes a representation of our ideas, translated into a real world object. Through the prototyping steps the artifact also contains additional information, which may come from manufacturing or material imperfections, and its interactions with the environment. When we revisit this artifact in a subsequent “sense making” iteration step, we may see it in a different light, which can provoke new ideas, thus broadening our own variety. This broadened variety from the perceptional feedback through subsequent iterations allows us to create new ideas and solutions, and reformulate our cognitive models or schema about the object. The circular dialog between the designer and the artifact or object continues until a stopping rule is applied during this convergence phase of the creative process. At this point the artifact/object is finalized. In a cybernetic sense, with the concluding artifact the artist, acting as a regulator, successfully balanced the variety and reached a perceived equilibrium between all elements of the system. These iterative dialogs are essential in the creative process. The second cybernetic design dialog takes place between the object or artifact and the observer or user, who now becomes the regulator of this system that includes also the environment in which they reside. The two cycles can be coupled when the designer and the observer or user carry out design dialogs through this boundary object,
Figure 5: Circular design process between the designer and the artifact, through circular and iterative cycles of sense giving and sense making.
and use it to aid the discourse towards a commonly constructed understanding between the designer of the object and the user, observer, or team member. Example Boundary Objects: Throughout my research I have created a number of boundary objects that I can use to exemplify the dialogs between me, as the designer, and the environment. In this paper I am introducing four boundary objects with subject matter that has relevance to the IPPW workshop. Galileo Flow Field Artifacts: At IPPW we have been using topical poster designs to bring attention to this annually reoccurring and highly successful workshop. I have been involved with IPPW for over a decade, as an organizer and participant, and designed the official posters nine times out of the 13 workshops. From these, Figure 6 shows four of the latest workshop posters I have created during my years at the Royal College of Art (RCA). The design brief for the posters are simple. It has to address the topic of the workshop in an eye-catching way, and include key information on the event, including the date, location, the title of the joint short course, and logos from the organizers and sponsors. It may also include pictures of the hosting location. As organizers, we are hoping to engage the community and the public with these boundary objects, which may lead to much needed advocacy, and stimulate the imagination of young people by expanding their horizons—broadening their variety—allowing them to dream, and choose from more possibilities, when deciding on their professional future. They also facilitate dialogs between the various groups. As the workshop participants are already familiar with the poster image, it is also used to brand the venue, by reusing the image for program covers, badges, projected slides in the conference rooms between presentations and during breaks. The posters are often posted around town for the public to see. For example, during last years IPPW12 conference in Cologne, Germany, the poster was incorporated into all handouts to the participants, and a flag with the poster’s image was flying outside the hotel throughout the workshop, advertising it to the public. These posters have been typically developed over several months, over multiple stages. In this process, the first dialog occurs between the designer and the image. This stage involves ideation on the topic and imagery, sense giving through sketching and 3D computer modeling and rendering, then sense making to assess the outcomes. This typically leads to multiple iterations and two or three versions. In the next stage the draft posters are presented to the workshop organizing committee for dialogs, with feedback to the designer. Knowing the
probe community and the subject matter are important considerations to select iconic imagery that resonates with this expert group, strongly routed in its paradigm. In this environment the artistic license is confronted by literal interpretations of scientific phenomena and engineering perspectives. For example, in the IPPW12 poster the representation of the flow field was brought into question, as it seemed to show a lower velocity flow regime than it happens during atmospheric entry events. These feedbacks are either incorporated into the final poster or resolved through dialogs. Regarding the technique, until last year I have been creating these IPPW posters with 3D rendered computer graphics. For this year’s IPPW13 poster I have initiated the “Galileo Flow Field” project to create a physical artifact, a different type of boundary object, as shown in Figure 5. The departure from computer graphics based posters was influenced by my experiences at RCA, the idea to introduce new disciplines to the engineering community (i.e., design and art), and the desire to learn new techniques and gain practical experiences in making. Regarding the theme of these artifacts I was inspired by the human desire to explore the world around us. Through circular constructivist dialogs with our environment we observe the world and create, then refine, our cognitive models about it. In the process, we expand our boundaries both cognitively and physically. In 1610, Galileo declared his discovery of the Jovian moons. His findings, documented in Sidereus Nuncius, changed our view on the solar system. In 1995, more than three centuries later a planetary probe, named after Galileo, entered Jupiter’s atmosphere and measured its composition. Its carrier spacecraft, also named after Galileo, mapped the Jovian system for 8 years, providing further knowledge about the Galilean moons, Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. These scientific measurements were enabled by incredible engineering feats. The Galileo Probe had to survive the atmospheric entry-heating at hypersonic velocities, the highest ever attempted, at about 46 km/s. The NASA designed heat shield was tested inside the Giant Planets Facility at the Ames Research Center, for this extreme entry condition, and further supported by computational analysis. Thus, the walnut version of the artifact (shown on the IPPW13 poster in Figure 5), and the bronze version (shown in Figure 6) depict the story of humanity’s expanding boundaries from initial observations to in-situ exploration. All the steps along the way provide feedback to refine our cognitive models and understanding of our universe. It also pays tribute to computational simulations, wind tunnel experiments—
Figure 6: Official IPPW posters by T. Balint, from 2013 to 2016. Bottom right: “Galileo Flow Field,” artifact, walnut version, H16cm x W11.5cm x D7cm.
represented by the column-like bounding edges—and the successful Galileo probe entry to Jupiter. The bronze model was exhibited at RCA’s 2016 Work In Progress Show (WIP-2016). Here the audience included designers, artists and the general public. The dimensions for these artifacts are H16cm x W11.5cm x D7cm for the walnut version, and H16cm x W11.5cm x D4.5cm for each of the four bronze versions. The weights for the bronze versions vary between 2.5kg and 3kg, depending on the wall thickness. Expanding Boundaries Artifact: I have further developed the Galileo flow field theme into a limited edition of six bronze patinated medals, titled: “Expanding Boundaries.” Their obverse side show the same Galileo flow field model as described above. The reverse side depicts a polar view of Jupiter, showing also the Great Red Spot, the year of Galileo’s discovery through his—then revolutionary, now rudimentary— telescope; notes from his diary of the observed moons; the Galileo spacecraft and probe; and the year when the probe entered Jupiter’s atmosphere (see Figure 7). As a boundary object, the medal links together artistic “Vitruvian delight”, exploration and epistemology.
This model was submitted to the British Art Medal Society’s (BAMS) Student Medal Project 2015-2016 competition, targeting the community of art medal collectors and the general public. It was selected for an exhibition of the medals in September 2016, hosted by the Carmarthen School of Art in Wales. The dimensions of these 0.2kg bronze medals are H7cm x W5.1cm x D1.4cm. Al Seiff Memorial Award Medal: I have designed and made a second medal for the “Alvin Seiff Memorial Award,” where the award is described as follows: • “The Alvin Seiff Memorial Award, presented annually at the International Planetary Probe Workshop, recognizes and honors a scientist, engineer, technologist, or mission planner for outstanding career contributions to the understanding of solar system atmospheres and/or planetary atmospheric flight utilizing probes and/or entry, descent and landed systems, and mentorship of the next generation of solar system explorers.” To date, the awardees received a printed and framed certificate with a description of the award, and a statement about their achievements, accompanied by
Figure 7: “Expanding Boundaries”, bronze, limited ed. (6), H7cm x W5.1cm x D1.4cm, by T. Balint, 2016.
Figure 6: “Galileo Flow Field,” patinated bronze, limited ed. (4), H16cm x W11.5cm x D4.5cm, by T. Balint, 2015.
Figure 8: “Alvin Seiff Memorial Award”, bronze, limited ed., H7cm x W5.1cm x D1.4cm, by T. Balint, 2016. a few images. As a member of the Award Committee, I have decided to create a medal, which would be handed out at the workshop, and would elevate the Award beyond a paper certificate. Its design is shown in Figure 8. On the obverse side it depicts four types of aeroshells (Hayabusa, Galileo, ARD, and Phoenix), representing the international exploration efforts of our solar system. On the reverse side it shows the award title, workshop name, and logo. This “Alvin Seiff Memorial Award” patinated bronze medal was created through the same process as the “Expanding Boundaries” medal, with the same H7cm x W5.1cm x D1.4cm dimensions, and 0.2kg weight. Making of the Galileo Flow Field Artifacts: is built on the opportunity that I had access to workshops at the Royal College of Art, including the Digital Aided Making (DAM) workshop with CNC machines to produce the wood artifacts, and access to the RCA Sculptures Foundry for bronze casting. The overall process for the four sculptures took, a full time equivalent of about 4-5 weeks, spread over a 10 weeks period. The key steps will be discussed and illustrated below:
These boundary objects were created in the intersection of art, science, engineering, design, and art, as shown in Figure 9. The figure also illustrates the circular dialogs between the designer, the object, and the observer. First, dialogs occur between the designer and the object through sense giving and sense making cycles. Second, are the dialogs between the observer and the object through sense making (viewing) and resampling cycles. These loops also connect the designer and the observer in a temporally and spatially decoupled way. Step 1—Artistic Ideation: involved the combination of all aspects of my skills, including art, design, science, engineering. I have gone through numerous iterations of sketching, modeling, and studying reference images. A sketch example is shown in Figure 10. From this, an idea emerged that involved flow simulation and visualization. Step 2—Science of Fluid Flow: to carry out the flow simulation, a scientific understanding of the flow phenomenon was required. Mathematical modeling of fluid flows (including air) has been covered by the fields of mathematics and fluid mechanics. This aligned with my familiarity with flow modeling, although I didn’t have to carry out actual mathematical calculations.
Figure 9: Intersections and cybernetic dialogs through a boundary object.
Figure 10: Artistic ideation example by T. Balint.
Figure 11: Flow simulation with Autodesk Flow Design by T. Balint. Step 3—Computational Flow Modeling: I have performed a number of flow simulations in a virtual wind tunnel, using the Autodesk Flow Design software. This step involved science and engineering disciplines. It should be noted that the software is limited to low velocity flow conditions. While these are not the same as the flow environment experienced by planetary probes, the simulation provided iconic imagery of the flow field , which is familiar to engineers and scientists. Step 4—Flow visualization: still staying with science and engineering, I have used the same Autodesk Flow Design software to visualize the flow field in a contour plot, as shown in Figure 11.
Step 5—Virtual prototyping and modeling: this step involved engineering and design disciplines, using the modeling and rendering software, Blender3d. With displacement modifiers I have created a 3D mesh and rendered it to assess the model’s potential for further making steps (see Figure 12). The model was exported into an STL file for CNC machining. Step 6—Making / CNC Machining: building on engineering and design, with the help of technicians at RCA’s Digital Aided Making (DAM) workshop, we have CNC machined two artifacts. The walnut version was used for the IPPW13 official poster, and a chemiwood version was subsequently used to make the silicone mold at the RCA Foundry. The CNC machining
Figure 12: Virtual prototyping and modeling in Blender3D by T. Balint.
filled barrel; • Melting the bronze in about an hour to a temperature of about 1140°C (Figure 19); hotter bronze would shrink more potentially impacting the quality of the artifact and introduce errors; • Pouring the bronze into the shells in full protection gear / safety first (Figure 20); • Chasing: removing the silica shells in a few hours (Figure 21); • Chasing: cutting off the runners and risers in a few hours (Figure 22); • Chasing: welding back the back wall (Figure 23); • Chasing: sandblasting the artifacts in about half an hour to remove discoloration (Figure 24); Figure 13: CNC machining of the walnut artifact. step for each model took over 8 hours with a 3 mm diameter tool, which also included a tool change from a larger to this smaller diameter tool (see Figure 13). Step 7—Making / Foundry Processes: the making of the four bronze sculptures using a lost wax casting technique was dominated by design and artistic considerations. This stage took over 6 weeks to complete. It involved: • Silicone mold making from the master chemiwood model, in 3 days (Figure 14); • Wax model making, with 5 mm thick walls, and a wax back wall, one per day, but could have been faster (Figure 15), this back wall was later on partially cut out and cast separately (...it was a painful experience to cut into a perfectly good, complete, and pristine wax model with a hot knife); • Building up a tree by adding wax runners and risers to the models, where the wax will be poured in the air is allowed to escape through thinner paths; • Building up 8 layers of fused silica coating / shelling over the wax models, with 3 coarseness of particles in a week (Figure 16–left); • Slowly melting out the wax in about half a day (Figure 16–right); the empty shell is shown in Figure 17; • Pre-casting preparations with fixing cracks on the hollow shells with cement, adding a final silica coat, and preheating it (Figure 18); at this stage the opening of the shell is covered with aluminum foil to prevent sand and contaminants to get inside, especially as the hot shells are immersed into a sand
• Chasing: grinding off the welding marks and edges in about a week (Figure 25); this can cause repetitive strain injury and nerve issues in the arms; • Chasing: patination in about a day where different types of chemicals, applied to a heated up surface result in different discolorations, which is then fixed with a wax coating and left overnight to stabilize. (Figure 26). All of these steps are stretched over a longer period of time based on the personal and foundry workloads. Step 8—Completed Bronze Artifacts: encapsulate all of the disciplines, namely art, design, science, and engineering. These are shown in Figures 6. Making of the “Expanding Boundaries” and “Al Seiff Award” medals: Similarly to the Galileo Flow Field artifacts, the design process for these medals included: flow field simulation, 3D modeling, CNC machining of the obverse side; image manipulations of NASA and 3D rendered spacecraft/probe images, using Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, laser engraving for the reverse side; and foundry processes, including silicone mold making, wax modeling, lost wax casting, chasing, and patination. While the CNC machined master model with a laser etched back resulted in a perfect geometry, the casting process introduced imperfections into the final medal. These are evident along the edges. While these could have been corrected during chasing, at the sense making phase I have decided to keep them uncorrected. Instead, for me, these imperfections represent the uncertainties when exploring the unknown. Conclusions: In this paper my goal was to highlight the importance of effective communications across the boundaries of creative disciplines. By creating boundary objects in the intersection of design, art, science,
and engineering, I was trying to demonstrate how these artifacts can aid dialogs between practitioners. The IPPW presentation provided an opportunity to real time dialogs, while this paper might be used to initiate dialogs between the readers and the author. By introducing creative processes and practices from design and art, I am hoping that the examples will enhance the knowledge of the IPPW audience and the readers. Coupled with subsequent dialogs, new ideas can be stimulated by combining something new and something known. In this case combining the existing knowledge of the observer with the hopefully new concepts of the presenter-author, through these artifacts. Such boundary objects can also be used for storytelling to sponsors and stakeholders, thus convey complex ideas through physical objects in a tangible way. Acknowledgements: I wish to thank the generous support of the International Planetary Probe Workshop Organizing Committee, the Supporting Organizations of this year’s IPPW, and the European Space Agency, for providing a student scholarship for me to attend the IPPW-13 conference. For the manufacturing and making support, I’d like to thank Steve Bunn, Neil Shepard, Alex Farnea, and Hollie Sandford from RCA Digital Aided Making—DAM; and Drew Cole and Richard Watkins from the Foundry of RCA Sculptures. I would also like to thank the REMET UK Ltd., for awarding me the REMET Student Casting Prize 2016 for the bronze version of the Galileo Flow Field artifacts. References: [1] Balint, T. (2013) Disruptive Innovation: A Comparison Between Government and Commercial Space. 64th International Astronautical Congress, IAC–13–D1.3.3. Beijing, China. October [2]
Wiener, N. (1948) CYBERNETICS or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Second ed. Quid Pro Books, New Orleans, Louisiana.(ISBN978-1-61027-1806(eBook))
[3]
Glanville, R. (2004) The purpose of second order cybernetics. Kybernetes, 33(9/10), pp. 1379– 1386, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0368492X, DOI 10.1108/03684920410556016
[4]
Dubberly, H. and Pangaro, P. (2010) Introduction to Cybernetics and the Design of Systems. Dubberly Design Office & Paul Pangaro, Website: http://www.pangaro.com/index.html, Viewed: August 2, 2015
[5]
Balint, T. (2016) Design Space for Space Design. PhD Thesis. RCA. London (in progress).
[6] Ashby, W. R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics.Chapman & Hall, London. Internet (1999): http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf [7]
Levy, A. (1986) Second-order planned change: Definition and conceptualisation. Organizational dynamics, 15(1), pp. 5-20
[8] Shannon, C. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Reprinted with corrections from The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656, July, October [9]
Weinberg, G.M. (1991).”The Simplification of Science and the Science of Simplification”,in G.J. Klir (ed) “Facets of Systems Science”, International Federation for Systems Research International Series on Systems Science and Engineering Vol.7, pp 501-5, Springer US, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_35
[10] Box, G.E.P. & Draper, N.R. (1987). “Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces”, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, ISBN-10: 0471810339 [11] Polanyi, M. (1966). “The Tacit Dimension”, University Of Chicago Press; Reissue edition (May 1, 2009), ISBN-13: 978-0226672984 [12] Piaget, J., 1952. “The origins of intelligence in children,” International Universities Press, New York [13] Singer, G.D., Revenson, T.A., 1996. “A Piaget Primer—How a Child Thinks,” Plume; Revised edition (July 1, 1996), ISBN-13: 978-0452275652 [14] Gibson, J. J., 1966. “The senses considered as perceptual systems,” Houghton Mifflin, Boston [15] Gregory, R.L., 1970. “The intelligent eye,” Littlehampton Book Services Ltd, UK [16] Neisser, U., 1976. “Cognition and reality: principles and implications of cognitive psychology,” W.H. Freeman, San Francisco [17] Dubberly, H., Esmonde, P., Geoghegan, M., Pangaro, P. (2014). “Notes on the role of leadership & language in regenerating organizations”, revised from its original publication in 2002 by Sun Microsystems and printed in Driving Desired Futures, ed. Shamiyeh, M., and Design Organization Media Laboratory (DOM), Linz (Germany), Website: http://pangaro.com/ littlegreybook-dom.pdf, Viewed on May 7, 2015
Figure 14: Silicone mold making steps, with 2 layers of coatings, and plaster cover for support.
Figure 15: Wax model making, front side (left), and back wall added (right).
Figure 16: Building up 8 layers of fused silica coatings (left), and melting out the wax (right).
Figure 17: Empty shell, after the wax is melted out.
Figure 19: Melting the bronze.
Figure 20: Pouring the bronze into the ceramic shells.
Figure 18: Preheating the shells before the pour.
Figure 21: Chasing: removing the silica shells
Figure 22: Chasing: removing the runners and risers.
Figure 23: Chasing: welding back the back wall
Figure 24: Chasing: sandblasting;
Figure 25: Chasing: grinding off the welding seams and edges.
Figure 26: Chasing: patination.
