Anticipatory Design for Critical Products

Content including text and images © Aditya Mohan. All Rights Reserved. Robometircs, Amelia, Living Interface and Skive it are trademarks of Skive it, Inc. The content is meant for human readers only under 17 U.S. Code § 106. Access, learning, analysis or reproduction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) of any form directly or indirectly, including but not limited to AI Agents, LLMs, Foundation Models, content scrapers is prohibited.

The importance of thoughtful product design is evident when examining the contrasting outcomes of the Mercury 8 mission and the Apollo 1 Command Module fire. On July 21, 1961, during the Mercury 8 mission, astronaut Gus Grissom experienced a premature activation of the outward-opening hatch upon water landing, leading to the spacecraft's rapid flooding and sinking. Grissom's capsule, Liberty Bell 7, sank after the successful splashdown in the Atlantic, and Grissom came close to drowning. This incident prompted a design change to an inward-opening hatch to prevent similar occurrences.

This design decision was made for several reasons, including:

Pressure Integrity: The inward-opening hatch was intended to enhance the pressure integrity of the Command Module. In space, the higher internal pressure would push the hatch against its seals, creating a more secure closure to prevent accidental opening.
Structural Strength: An inward-opening hatch design was believed to provide greater structural strength against the pressure differential encountered in space.

However, on January 27, 1967, this inward-opening design contributed to the tragic deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee during the Apollo 1 Command Module fire. The inward-opening hatch could not be opened quickly due to increased cabin pressure from the fire, trapping the crew inside. This tragedy led to the adoption of an outward-opening, quick-release hatch in subsequent Apollo missions.

From a design principle perspective, this oversight could have been averted by adhering to anticipatory design methodology that anticipates potential failure modes and prioritizes user safety under all conditions when considering a redesign of the hatch after the Mercury 8 capsule, Liberty Bell 7 mishap that prompted moving from outward-opening hatch to an inward-opening hatch.

October 18,. 1966. The Apollo 1 prime crew members for the first manned Apollo Mission (204) prepare to enter their spacecraft inside the altitude chamber at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Entering the hatch is astronaut Virgil I. Grissom, commander; behind him is astronaut Roger B. Chaffee, lunar module pilot; standing at the left with chamber technicians is astronaut Edward H. White II, command module pilot.

Anticipatory design is a proactive approach that aims to foresee and address potential challenges and user needs before they arise, ensuring products are safe, functional, and user-friendly. Several specific techniques and principles from the literature can guide this approach:

Systematic Risk Management: Identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks early in the design process is crucial. This involves thorough risk assessments and considering potential failure modes and their impacts. By recognizing these risks early, designers can implement controls or redesign aspects to manage or eliminate them.
TRIZ Methodology: The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) is a systematic approach that helps designers anticipate potential issues by analyzing patterns of problems and solutions across different fields. This method encourages looking at the broader context of a problem to identify innovative solutions that have been effective elsewhere (ResearchGate) .
Human-Centered Design: Incorporating ergonomic and user experience considerations ensures that designs align with human capabilities and expectations. This involves understanding how users interact with products and designing for ease of use, comfort, and safety. Techniques such as user research, usability testing, and iterative feedback loops are vital in this process.
Collaborative Design Efforts: Effective anticipatory design often involves collaboration between designers, engineers, safety experts, and end-users. This multidisciplinary approach ensures that all potential risks and user needs are considered from various perspectives, leading to more comprehensive and robust designs.
Lifecycle Consideration: Safe design principles emphasize considering the entire lifecycle of a product, from concept to disposal. This includes planning for maintenance, repairs, and potential end-of-life scenarios, ensuring that the product remains safe and functional throughout its lifespan.
Scenario Planning and Design Fiction: These techniques involve creating detailed scenarios or fictional narratives to explore how a product might be used in various future contexts. This helps designers identify and address potential challenges that might not be immediately obvious.

By integrating these principles and techniques, designers can create products that not only meet current needs but are also resilient and adaptable to future challenges. This proactive approach helps prevent reactive measures after issues arise, ultimately leading to safer and more reliable products.

Conclusion

Incorporating human factors engineering, rigorous testing under emergency scenarios in all environments, and iterative feedback loops could have revealed the critical flaw in the inward-opening hatch design when it was proposed for Apollo 1. By ensuring that product designs are robust and versatile enough to handle unexpected situations, designers can create safer and more reliable systems, thereby preventing reactive measures after a disaster. This principle is crucial not only in aerospace engineering but in all fields where human safety is important.

Further read

LLM, Us and Neuroplasticity

"Are you sure?": Unveiling the Quest for Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

Designers, creativity and AI

A LLM as a reflection of our inner most desires

Should AGI be a she, he, or a it?