From Earth Analogs to Space

bundet

Psychology of Space Exploration At that time, lack of diversity at NASA was not limited to the astronaut corps. In 1974, Congress held a hearing on NASA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Program. The chairman’s introductory remarks included the statement “It is clear that the NASA equal employment opportunity effort over the years has been inad - equate . . . .” 75 In the congressional report, NASA admitted that as of the end of scal year (FY) 1971, of all NASA employees, only 16.6 percent were women and 4.6 percent minorities. 76 Only 3 percent of the supervisors and 2.4 percent of the engineers were women. Kim McQuaid points out that many forces worked against increasing the pro - portion of women and blacks at NASA. 77 Nationally, efforts to increase diversity through new employment strategies began at about the same time as NASA our - ished in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Special hurdles at NASA included an organizational culture that was built on the white-male stereotypes of the time and demanded prior training and experience in science and engineering at a time when very few women or minorities were earning (or were allowed to earn) degrees in science and engineering. In 1973, then–NASA Administrator James Fletcher hired Ruth Bates Harris as a high-level deputy director to oversee NASA’s equal opportunity employment processes—but, when it turned out that she would be a fearless leader rather than a compliant bureaucrat, he red her and then, under pressure, attempted to rehire her at a lower level. This initiated bad press, conicts with Congress, and a series of internal struggles that brought about diversication. In the 1990s, Administrator Dan Goldin could complain that NASA was still too male, pale, and stale, although, two decades earlier, NASA had responded to new domestic political issues by changing from a civil rights sham to the beginnings of a demonstrably effective, if imperfect, afrmative action program. Aside from the 1965 selection cycle, when the National Academy of Sciences handled selection and allowed women to apply (none were accepted), it was not until the Shuttle era that women were added to the astronaut corps. On 16 January 75. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights, NASA’s Equal Opportunity Program , hearings before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, 93rd Congress, 2nd session, 13–14 March 1974, p. 1. 76. Ibid., p. 13. 77. Kim McQuaid, “Race, Gender and Space Exploration: A Chapter in the Social History of the Space Age,” Journal of American Studies 41, no. 2 (2007): 405–434. 40 Behavioral Health 1978, the rst female and black candidates were selected; only a few years later, in 1983, the public wildly acclaimed mission specialist Sally Ride’s orbital ight aboard Challenger. Some of the women who had participated in the informal wom - en’s astronaut selection program of the early 1960s felt vindicated in 1995, when they watched pilot Eileen Collins lift off, carrying their dreams with her. 78 Today, female astronauts routinely participate in Shuttle and Space Station missions in many different roles. Despite the long road that American women and minorities traveled to prove their worth, the U.S. experience has shown that talented women and minorities, given no special treatment because of gender or ethnicity, are as adept as their white, male colleagues in the world of space. PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT Initially, psychological support for astronauts came from helpful ight surgeons, ak-catchers who tried to minimize interference on the part of the media and the public, as well as cheering family and friends. By means of shortwave radio, astronauts on the ground encouraged astronauts in orbit. It is clear from Wolfe’s The Right Stuff that the astronauts’ wives provided strong support for one another, as well as for their husbands. 79 The larger community of astronauts and their families still provides psy - chological support for astronauts before, during, and after their ights. Professional psychological support for the astronauts and their families evolved over time and gained momentum in the early space station era. 80 Today, psycho - logical support is provided in three stages: preight, in-ight, and postight. 81 78. Weitekamp, Right Stuff, Wrong Sex , p. 188. 79. Wolfe, The Right Stuff . 80. E. Fiedler and F. E. Carpenter, “Evolution of the Behavioral Health Sciences Branch of the Space Medicine and Health Care Systems at the Johnson Space Center,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B31–B35; Flynn, “An Operational Approach to Long-Duration Mission Behavioral Health and Performance Factors”; N. Kanas and D. Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2003). 81. W. E. Sipes and E. Fiedler, “Current Psychological Support for US Astronauts on the International Space Station” (paper presented at “Tools for Psychological Support During Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon,” European Space Research and Technology Centre [ESTEC], Noordwijk, Netherlands, 26 March 2007). 41 Psychology of Space Exploration The NASA and Wyle Operational Psychology team, under the leadership of the Behavioral Health and Performance Group/Space Medicine, NASA, offers pre - ight training and briengs in such diverse areas as self-care, conict management and cultural awareness, and eld training. Family readiness is addressed in a brief - ing focused on the astronaut’s spouse to explain processes such as crew care pack - ages and private family conferences. Crew care packages are containers of personal items from family and friends that are sent via Russian Soyuz supply missions and U.S. Space Shuttle missions to astronauts residing on the ISS. Favorite foods, sur - prise gifts from the family, and holiday decorations are a few of the items that have been sent to the ISS in these shipments. During the ight stage, in addition to the crew care packages and private weekly videoconferences with families, psychological support services include extensive communication with people on the ground (including Mission Control person - nel, relatives, and friends), psychological support hardware and software, special events such as surprise calls from celebrities, and semimonthly videos with a behav - ioral health clinician. Astronauts in ight have e-mail accessibility and can use an Internet protocol phone on board the ISS to call back to Earth. As in the past, ham radio allows contact between the ISS and schools throughout the world. A month before their return to Earth, ISS astronauts are briefed on the stresses and joys of returning home following the deployment. Postight, there are a series of debriengs intended to benet the astronaut and ne-tune the psychological sup - port program. The astronaut’s spouse is given the opportunity to meet with opera - tional psychological support personnel to provide the latter with feedback on the psychological support provided during the mission. Of course, astronauts and their families can use counseling psychological support services at any time. While this briey covers the current state of the art of psychological support for astronauts on the ISS, psychological support for lunar and Mars missions may have greater con - straints and force a return to the mindset of earlier explorers and their families. CONCLUSION Spaceight is both demanding and rewarding, and for many years, psychol - ogists focused on the demanding environment and stressful effects. Throughout the history of spaceight, psychologists, psychiatrists, and many other professionals 42 Behavioral Health have expressed concern that the physical, psychological, and interpersonal stress - ors of spaceight could endanger a crew, undercut performance, and lower the qual - ity of life. Episodes in spaceight-analogous environments and a few incidents in space suggest that although no astronauts have been recalled to Earth on the basis of psychological and social challenges, adaptation must be taken into account. Astronaut participation in extended-duration missions, the prospects of a return to the Moon, continuing public enthusiasm for a mission to Mars, the reformula - tion of research questions following the publication of Safe Passage , and the coevo - lution of NASA’s Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap and the National Space Biomedical Research Institute initiated a new era for psychology. According to our analysis, since the dawn of the modern space station era, there has been an increase in both research and operational interest in spaceight behavioral health. Slowly, and perhaps painfully, psychology has gained greater recognition within the U.S. space program, and there is a growing convergence of interests to target research at operational problems. 82 Current NASA administration has mandated that human research be oper - ationally relevant. This is partly driven by funding shortages and partly by needs to meet NASA performance standards and requirements when astronauts once again venture beyond low-Earth orbit. The new Human Research Program docu - ments including the “Human Research Program Requirements Document” and the “Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan” are the bases for dening, documenting, and allocating human research program requirements as they have evolved from the older Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap and new NASA standards and requirements that emphasize future missions. As explained on the NASA Web site, “The Human Research Program (HRP) delivers human health and performance countermeasures, knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive human space exploration. This Integrated Research Plan (IRP) describes the program’s research activities that are intended to address the needs of human space exploration and serve IRP customers. The timescale of human space exploration is envisioned to take many decades. The IRP illus - 82. Albert A. Harrison, “Behavioral Health: Integrating Research and Application in Support of Exploration Missions,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B3–B12. 43 Psychology of Space Exploration trates the program’s research plan through the timescale of early lunar missions of extended duration.” 83 We can see the preliminary outlines of a comprehensive and continuing pro - gram in spaceight behavioral health. A comprehensive program in spaceight behavioral health will have to be broad-based; be interdisciplinary; and address issues at the individual, small-group, and organizational levels. It will require mul - tiple, convergent methods including archival research, eld observations, and both eld and laboratory experiments. Research falling under this umbrella must meet high scientic standards, achieve ight certication, and be palatable to astronauts. Only with continued interest and support from NASA—and from psychologists— will spaceight behavioral health ourish. Long-term success will require accessi - ble, peer-reviewed publications and efforts to target young investigators to replace those who retire. An ongoing behavioral database could prove very useful. For over 15 years, David Musson, Robert Helmreich, and their associates have been devel - oping a database that includes astronauts as well as professionals who work in other demanding environments. 84 As they point out, this kind of database provides many opportunities for studies in such areas as the effectiveness of recruiting and selec - tion procedures, performance changes over time, and attrition. Psychology is in a better position to be of help. Many of the theories and tools that are proving useful today were not available at the dawn of the Space Age. New (relative to 1960) resources include cognitive models, which emphasize our information processing power, and humanistic or “positive psychology” models that stress people’s positive, striving nature. 85 These new models have allowed psychol - ogists a fresh take on many important issues. Human factors psychologists bene - t from modern computer modeling technologies and increasing evidence of the importance of taking the person into account when developing a human or human- robotic system. 83. NASA Johnson Space Center, Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan, Supplement A1, Behavioral Health and Performance , 2008, available at http://humanresearch.jsc. nasa.gov/elements/smo/docs/bhp_irp_supplemental_v1.pdf (accessed 21 May 2010). 84. D. M. Musson and R. L. Helmreich, “ Long-Term Personality Data Collection in Support of Spaceight Analogue Research,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (2005): B119–B125. 85. Suedfeld, “Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration.” 44 Behavioral Health Research technology has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and the new technology has also been useful for increasing psychology’s contributions to NASA. These changes are evident wherever we look, from questionnaire construc - tion to data analysis. Today, miniaturization and computer technology enable psy - chological assessments and evidence-based countermeasures that would have been impossible in the 1960s. Minimally intrusive techniques are particularly useful, and one of these is based on nonintrusive computer monitoring of facial expression. 86 Another approach is mon - itoring cognitive functioning through computer analysis of speech. 87 Encouraging astronauts to monitor their own behavior reduces the threat that performance lapses could lead to ight disqualication. This self-monitoring has been accomplished by means of computers and personal digital assistants (PDAs) that are programmed to measure several dimensions of cognitive functioning (attention, information pro - cessing, and recall). Astronauts may use the results of these tests to gauge their own preparedness to engage in a particular activity. 88 While we see evidence of an expanding role, our profession’s future in space - ight is by no means assured. NASA’s resistance to psychology is by no means fully overcome. NASA Administrators must still concern themselves with public rela - tions. Project managers and engineers must still get on with their tasks within the real constraints of cost and practicality. Astronauts remain sensitive to possible threats to ight assignments and careers. The focusing events of Mir and the ISS were less than two decades ago, and it is too early to tell if the new interest and infrastructure can withstand the vagaries of funding variations or national and orga - nizational politics. 86. D. F. Dinges, R. L. Rider, J. Dorrian, E. L. McGlinchey, N. L. Rogers, Z. Cizman, S.K. Goldenstein, C. Vogler, S. Venkartamarian, and D. N. Metaxas, “Optical Computer Recognition of Facial Expressions Associated with Stress Induced by Performance Demands,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B172–182. 87. P. Lieberman, A. Morey, J. Hochstadt, M. Larson, and S. Mather, “Mount Everest: A Space Analogue for Speech Monitoring of Cognitive Decits and Stress,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B198–B207. 88. J. M. Shephard and S. M. Kosslyn, “The MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery: A ‘Blood Pressure Cuff’ for the Mind,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76, no. 6, sect. II (June 2005): B192–B197. 45 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Chapter 3 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here Sheryl L. Bishop Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health and School of Nursing University of Texas Medical Branch ABSTRACT The need to nd relevant terrestrial substitutes, that is, analogs, for teams oper - ating in extraterrestrial and microgravity environments is driven by extraordinary demands for mission success. Unlike past frontiers where failure on the part of vari - ous groups to succeed represented far more limited implications for continued prog - ress within these environments, accidents like Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003 underscored the magnied cost of failure for space missions. Where past human frontiers were characterized by centralized decisions to engage in exploration and development largely under the dictates of authoritarian governments or individual sponsors, the exploration of space has been signicantly inuenced by the general public’s perception of “acceptable risk” and scal worthiness. To date, space mis - sions have failed due to technological deciencies. However, history is replete with examples of exploration and colonization that failed due to human frailties, includ - ing those that reect failures of the group. Both historical literature and research on teams operating within extreme environments, including space, have clearly indi - cated that psychological and sociocultural factors are components critical for indi - vidual and group success. Given the limited access to the space frontier and the investment in collective effort and resources, our ability to study individual and group functioning in the actual space environment has been, and will continue to be, severely limited. Thus, studying groups in terrestrial extreme environments as analogs has been sought to provide predictive insight into the many factors that impact group performance, health, and well-being in challenging environments. This chapter provides an overview of the evolution of research utilizing ter - restrial analogs and addresses the challenges for selecting, training, and sup - porting teams for long-duration space missions. An examination of how analog 47 Psychology of Space Exploration environments can contribute to our knowledge of factors affecting functioning and well-being at both the physiological and the psychological levels will help dene the focus for future research. INTRODUCTION Humans have long speculated about, studied, and striven to explore the heav - ens. Many of our earliest myths, such as the ight of Daedalus and Icarus too close to the Sun on wings made of wax, expressed our desire to explore beyond the bound - aries of Earth as well as our willingness to push current technology to its limits. Considerations by the earliest philosophers and scientists, including Archimedes, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Percival Lowell, eventually generated a whole new genre of ctional literature built upon scientic extrapolations, dubbed “science ction,” and gave voice to their speculations about the nature of extraterrestrial environ - ments. Modern scientists and pioneers led by the Wright brothers, Robert Goddard, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev, Yuri Gagarin, and Neil Armstrong pushed the boundaries of knowledge about ight and extended human inquiry beyond our terrestrial boundaries into our local and extended galactic neighborhood. For serious considerations of how humans will fare in space, we have had to extrapolate from human experience on Earth in envi - ronments that challenge us in, ideally, similar ways. However, the search for space analog environments in which to systematically study individual and group adap - tation has had to grapple with some signicant limitations, i.e., the impossibility of a substitute for a microgravity or reduced-gravity environment or environments that holistically mimic radiation proles and their inherent danger for those beyond Earth’s magnetic eld. Since there is no direct equivalent for space, all analog envi - ronments are simulations of greater or lesser delity along varying dimensions of interest. Some analog environments provide extremely good characterizations of expected challenges in testing equipment or hardware, e.g., environmental cham - bers such as the Space Shuttle mock-ups of the various decks or the cargo bay in NASA’s Weightless Environmental Training Facility (WET-F), but lack any rel - evance to assessing how human operators will fare psychologically or as a team. Others, like chamber studies, address important components of human adaptation, 48 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here e.g., connement, but fail utterly to incorporate true environmental threats. Others allow for the impact of true dangerous, unpredictable environments but lack any way to systematically compare across specic environments. The spectrum of del - ity to space among terrestrial analogs ranges from laboratory studies where the impact of environmental threat and physical hardship, as well as true isolation and connement, are limited and, even, sometimes absent, to real teams in real, extreme environments characterized by very little control over extraneous variables. This, then, is the challenge. Unlike the testing of hardware, where various components can be reliably evaluated separately, the study of humans, and teams in particular, is a dynamic endeavor requiring in situ study of the collective. To develop reliable protocols based on empirical evidence to select, monitor, and sup - port teams effectively in space necessarily involves the demand to study teams in analog environments that replicate a wide range of physiological, psychological, and psychosocial factors interacting both with the environment and within the team. The high degree of reliance on technology for life support, task performance, and communication must be integrated with new measurement methodologies to overcome heretofore intrusive measurement modalities. The growing frequency of multinational and multicultural teams and the demand for longer-duration mis - sions both further compound the complexity of the challenge. While the primary goal has been the insurance of human health and well-being, the expectation has been that such priorities will naturally lead to improved chances for performance and mission success. Yet achieving this goal depends largely on how well our ana - logs prepare us for living and working in space. Analogs for human individual and group performance in space has involved two basic approaches: 1) constructing an environment within a laboratory setting with maximum control over extraneous variables and utilizing volunteer research subjects or 2) studying naturally occurring real-world groups in real environments characterized by a number of confounds. 1 Each comes with its own limitations and strengths. In any evaluation of the value of the analog, the pros and cons of each environment need to 1. W. Haythorn and I. Altman, “Personality Factors in Isolated Environments,” in Psychological Stress: Issues in Research , ed. M. Trumbull (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966); J. P. Zubek, Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1969). 49 Psychology of Space Exploration be kept in mind. This is especially true when assessing the generalizability of insight of psychosocial factors from substitute environments for space. Before we began deliberately constructing controlled laboratory environments, there were the records of early expeditionary explorations into various places on Earth. 2 The tradition of publishing personal diaries and mission recounts has been similarly observed by the earliest explorers of space. 3 Secondary analyses of his - torical expeditions have become increasingly popular in recent years. 4 The very character of natural environments typically guarantees that there will be at least some, if not substantial, periods of inaccessibility, lack of communication or con - tact, little accessibility of real-time support, and great demands on individuals and groups to engage in autonomous decision-making, problem-solving, conict reso - lution, self-monitoring, and self-regulation. These demands inherently build in the potential for conict with external mission support personnel and researchers who nd adherence to mission schedules and timelines far easier to maintain than do those actually on the mission. Shared perspective between these groups becomes increasingly difcult to promote as mission duration, distance, and environmental demands play larger roles in daily decisions of the teams than do seemingly arbi - trary mission schedules. Measurement of these factors is compromised as teams become preoccupied with dealing with the environment, become antagonistic to external evaluation, become noncompliant with schedules that become unimportant to participants, and engage in a general reprioritization of activities that emphasizes near-term, more salient goals (e.g., personal comfort, leisure) over and above long-term mission goals (e.g., study data). Such difculties have raised questions about the worth of studying groups in real-world environments. In actuality, these conditions are exactly what is needed to simulate space missions that have grown in duration, 2. A. Greely, Three Years of Arctic Service: An Account of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition of 1881–1884, and the Attainment of the Farthest North (New York: Scribner, 1886); V.Stefansson, The Adventure of Wrangel Island (New York: MacMillan Company, 1925); R.Pearce, “Marooned in the Arctic: Diary of the Dominion Explorers’ Expedition to the Arctic, August to December 1929,” Northern Miner (Winnipeg, MB, 1930). 3. V. Lebedev, Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space (College Station, TX: Phytoresource Research, Inc., 1988); J. Lovell and J. Kluger, Apollo 13 [Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13] (New York: Pocket Books, 1994). 4. J. Stuster, Bold Endeavors (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996). 50 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here distance from Earth, complexity, and challenge. However, space missions will also be, at least for the foreseeable future, characterized by an extraordinary degree of control, from selecting who goes to establishing the daily details of mission tasks and schedules—elements that are far more variable in real-world groups, such as those in Antarctica or part of polar or mountaineering expeditions. In real-world groups that have higher degrees of structure and control, such as military teams, the command and control structure is distinctly different from the current scientist- astronaut organizational structure of space missions. Fundamental differences in group structures, such as leadership and authority, represent signicant elements in whether ndings from terrestrial analogs translate to future space crews. The need for control over the inherent chaos of real-world environments in order to denitively identify critical factors that affect individual and group perfor - mance was the driver behind the development of constructed environments of vari - ous complexities. Useful data from such articial environments depend on whether participants are truly immersed in the ction of a simulation and are responding in the same way they would if the environment were real. This is the paradox researchers in analog environments face: In laboratory studies, the very attributes of the environment that have the greatest impact on performance are removed (e.g., real danger, uncontrolled events, situational ambiguity, uncertainty, or the inter - action with the extreme environment itself). If these features are compromised, as many have argued, then is there value in conducting such laboratory studies? 5 On the pro side, laboratory chamber studies have provided opportunities to evaluate methods of monitoring psychological and interpersonal parameters for subsequent application during real ights and have identied issues that might cause psycho - logical and interpersonal problems in space. They have also provided empirical evi - dence for a number of behavioral issues anecdotally reported from space, e.g., the tendency of crews to direct aggression toward personnel at Mission Control. 6 They 5. L. A. Palinkas, “On the ICE: Individual and Group Adaptation in Antarctica,” 2003, available at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/Palinkas_On_The_Ice.pdf (accessed 12 June 2007); P. Suedfeld, “What Can Abnormal Environments Tell Us About Normal People? Polar Stations as Natural Psychological Laboratories,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998): 95. 6. N. Kanas, V. Salnitskiy, E. M. Grund, et al., “Social and Cultural Issues During Shuttle/ Mir Space Missions,” Acta Astronautica 47 (2000): 647; G. M. Sandal, R. Vaernes, and H.Ursin, “Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space Missions,” Aviation, Space, and 51 Psychology of Space Exploration are well suited to rst-line inquiry when there is a need to investigate the charac - teristics of a particular phenomenon suspected of being present. However, com - plexity is a key dening trait of stressed operational environments. Total reliance on laboratory studies and the presumption of broad generalizability, particularly for research on high-stress, high-risk environments, is highly likely to lead to dissoci - ation between actual operational ndings and laboratory and experimental stud - ies. 7 Conversely, data on real-world groups situated in extreme environments has provided insight into a host of factors that impact group performance, health, and well-being emergent from the interaction between the individual, the team, and the environment. The differences found between studies conducted in experimen - tally controlled chambers and those conducted in messy, noisy, in situ real environ - ments appears to be due to the critical presence of real environmental threat and physical hardship, as well as true isolation and connement, which have proven to be key factors in individual and group coping. Additionally, when comparing extreme environments with non-extreme natural environments in which people normally operate, the level, intensity, rate of change, and diversity of physical and social stimuli, as well as behavior settings and possible behaviors within an extreme environment, are far more restricted. 8 Thus, real teams in extreme environments have validated or corrected ndings from chamber studies where critical environmental factors are typically absent or blunted. Real extreme environments allow us to examine various aspects of the psy - chophysiological relationship that are essential to fully understanding the adaptation Environmental Medicine 66 (1995): 617; V. I. Gushin, V. A. Kolintchenko, V. A. Emov, and C.Davies, “Psychological Evaluation and Support During EXEMSI,” in Advances in Space Biology and Medicine , ed. S. Bonting (London: JAI Press, Inc., 1996), p. 283; V. I. Gushin, T.B. Zaprisa, V.A. Kolintchenko, A. Emov, T. M. Smirnova, A.G. Vinokhodova, and N.Kanas, “Content Analysis of the Crew Communication with External Communicants Under Prolonged Isolation,” Aviation , Space, and Environmental Medicine 12 (1997): 1093. 7. A. D. Baddeley, “Selecting Attention and Performance in Dangerous Environments,” British Journal of Psychology 63 (1972): 537; G. W. McCarthy, “Operational Relevance of Aeromedical Laboratory Research,” abstract no. 24 (paper presented as part of the Aerospace Medical Association’s 69th Annual Scientic Meeting, Seattle, WA, 17–21 May 1988), p. 57; J.D. Mears and P. J. Cleary, “Anxiety as a Factor in Underwater Performance,” Ergonomics 23, no. 6 (1980): 549; G. Wilson, J. Skelly, and B. Purvis, “Reactions to Emergency Situations in Actual and Simulated Flight” (presented as a paper at the Aerospace Medical Panel Symposium, The Hague, Netherlands, 1989). 8. Suedfeld, “What Can Abnormal Environments Tell Us About Normal People?”: 95. 52 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here of humans to the stresses of these environments and, ultimately, to space. Space, of course, will be the nal testing ground for our accumulated knowledge. But are we stuck with choosing between chamber studies and naturally occurring opportunistic teams in real extreme environments? A more recent, hybrid approach of situating research facilities within extreme environments offers a good compromise between the articial conditions of the laboratory and the open-ended, full access of an expe - ditionary mission. When teams or individuals operate in extreme environments, their responses are more purely a product of either situational drivers or internal per - sonal characteristics. To the extent that an extreme environment is well character - ized and known, it gains in delity and allows more accurate inferences about key phenomena to be drawn. For these very reasons, Palinkas has strongly argued that the cumulative experience with year-round presence in Antarctica makes it an ideal laboratory for investigating the impact of seasonal variation on behavior, gaining understanding about how biological mechanisms and psychological processes inter - act, and allowing us to look at a variety of health and adaptation effects. 9 PSYCHOLOGY AND SPACE One important fact, which has emerged during decades of research, is that in the study of capsule environments there are few main effect variables. Almost every outcome is due to an interaction among a host of physical and social environmental variables and personality factors. Thus, although we conceptually deconstruct the situation into particular sources of variance, we must remem - ber that how people experience an environment is more impor - tant than the objective characteristics of the environment. 10 Investigations into psychological and psychosocial adaptation to extreme envi - ronments as substitutes for space are recent phenomena. Expeditions and forays 9. Palinkas, “On the ICE.” 10. P. Suedfeld and G. D. Steel, “The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats,” Annual Review of Psychology 51 (2000): 230. 53 Psychology of Space Exploration into these environments have historically been for the purposes of exploration, and the primary metric of successful adaptation was survival. One could argue that chronicles such as the Iliad and the Odyssey were early examples of more recent dia - ries such as those that recounted the historic race to reach the South Pole between modern polar expeditions lead by Roald Amundsen, who reached the South Pole in 1911, and Robert F. Scott, who reached the South Pole in 1912. Humans have been periodically living and working in Antarctica, one of the most challenging envi - ronments on Earth, for over a hundred years. The rst winter-over in Antarctica occurred during 1898–99 on board an icebound ship, the Belgica , on which Amundsen served as a second mate. A continuous presence on our furthermost southern continent has only been in place since the International Geophysical Year of 1956–57. Systematic research on isolated, conned environments can arguably be dated as beginning as recently as the late 1950s by the military, and much of the early work focused on purely physiological parameters. In their seminal collection of papers dealing with isolated environments from Antarctica to outer space, A.A. Harrison et al. pointed out that early work on psychological factors in extreme envi - ronments is often recounted as beginning with C.S. Mullin’s research on states of consciousness; E.K.E. Gunderson and colleagues’ comprehensive work on adapta - tion to Antarctica; and classic laboratory studies on group dynamics conducted by I.Altman, W.W. Haythorn, and associates. 11 Regardless of which analog is used to understand what helps or hinders individ - uals and groups in functioning well under extreme environmental challenges, it is necessary to characterize what we need to know for space. Although specic condi - tions of the setting vary, most extreme environments share common characteristics: 1)a high reliance on technology for life support and task performance; 2)nota - ble degrees of physical and social isolation and connement; 3)inherent high risks 11. A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay, From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991); C. S. Mullin, “Some Psychological Aspects of Isolated Antarctic Living,” American Journal of Psychiatry 111 (1960): 323; E. K. E. Gunderson, “Individual Behavior in Conned or Isolated Groups,” in Man in Isolation and Connement , ed. J. Rasmussen (Chicago: Aldine, 1973), p. 145; E.K.E.Gunderson, “Psychological Studies in Antarctica,” in Human Adaptability to Antarctic Conditions , ed. E.K.E. Gunderson (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1974), p. 115; I. Altman, “An Ecological Approach to the Functioning of Isolated and Conned Groups,” in Man in Isolation and Connement , ed. Rasmussen, p. 241; W.W. Haythorn, “The Miniworld of Isolation: Laboratory Studies,” in Man in Isolation and Connement , ed. Rasmussen, p. 219. 54 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here and associated costs of failure; 4)high physical/physiological, psychological, psy - chosocial, and cognitive demands; 5)multiple critical interfaces (human-human, human-technology, and human-environment); and 6)critical requirements for team coordination, cooperation, and communication. 12 This last is not insignicant. The accumulated knowledge to date is still fairly rudimentary, given the short histor - ical emergence of the “Space Age.” Drawing on research from a number of elds (e.g., social psychology, human factors, military science, management, anthropol - ogy, and sociology), researchers easily identied a number of factors that need further investigation. As early as the 1980s, psychological and sociocultural issues had been acknowledged by the National Commission on Space (1986), the National Science Board (1987), and the Space Science Board (1987) to be critical components to mis - sion success, as robust evidence from Antarctica clearly showed psychological issues to impact human behavior and performance signicantly in most challenging envi - ronments, especially those characterized by isolation and connement. 13 Studies in a variety of analog environments, e.g., Antarctica, underwater capsules, submarines, caving and polar expeditions, and chamber studies, have conrmed that mission parameters have a signicant inuence upon the type of “best-t” crew needed and have isolated a number of psychosocial issues that may negatively affect crewmem - bers during multinational space missions. 14 These issues include 1)tension resulting 12. S. L. Bishop, “Psychological and Psychosocial Health and Well-Being at Pole Station,” in Project Boreas: A Station for the Martian Geographic North Pole , ed. Charles S. Cockell (London: British Interplanetary Society, 2006), p. 160. 13. National Science Board, The Role of the National Science Foundation in Polar Regions (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1987); Space Science Board, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987); National Commission on Space, Pioneering the Space Frontier (New York: Bantam Books, 1986). 14. L. A. Palinkas, E. K. E. Gunderson, and R. Burr, “Social, Psychological, and Environmental Inuences on Health and Well-Being of Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel,” Antarctic Journal of the United States 24 (1989): 207; L. A. Palinkas, “Sociocultural Inuences on Psychosocial Adjustment in Antarctica,” Medical Anthropology 10 (1989): 235; L. A. Palinkas, “Psychosocial Effects of Adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for Long-Duration Spaceight,” Journal of Spacecraft 27, no. 5 (1990): 471; L. A. Palinkas, “Effects of Physical and Social Environments on the Health and Well Being of Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel,” Environment 23 (1991): 782; C.Anderson, “Polar Psychology—Coping With It All,” Nature 350, no. 6316 (28 March 1991): 290; H.Ursin, “Psychobiological Studies of Individuals in Small Isolated Groups in the Antarctic and Space Analogue,” Environment and Behavior 6 (23 November 1991): 766; L.Palinkas, E.K.E. Gunderson, and A.W. Holland, “Predictors of Behavior and Performance in Extreme Environments: The Antarctic Space Analogue Program,” Aviation, Space, and 55 Psychology of Space Exploration from external stress, 2)factors related to crew heterogeneity (e.g., differences in per - sonality, gender, and career motivation); 3)variability in the cohesion of the crew; 4)improper use of leadership role (e.g., task/instrumental versus emotional/ support - ive); 5)cultural differences; and 6)language differences. Of particular uniqueness to challenging environments is the fact that successful performance requires com - petent team interaction, including coordination, communication, and cooperation. The functioning of the operational team often determines the success or failure of the mission. Experience in spaceight, aviation, polar, and other domains indicates that the stressors present in extreme environments, such as fatigue, physical dan - ger, interpersonal conict, automation complexity, risk, and confusion, often chal - lenge team processes. The contribution of interpersonal and intrapersonal factors is substantial. For instance, a robust body of evidence from both civilian and mili - tary aviation identies the majority of aircraft accidents as due to human and crew- related performance factors. 15 Analyses of critical incidents in medical operating Environmental Medicine 71 (2000): 619; S.L. Bishop and L.Primeau, “Assessment of Group Dynamics, Psychological and Physiological Parameters During Polar Winter-Over” (paper presented as part of the Human Systems Conference, Nassau Bay, TX, 20–22 June 2001); L.Palinkas, “The Psychology of Isolated and Conned Environments: Understanding Human Behavior in Antarctica,” American Psychologist 58, no. 5 (2003): 353; R.H. Gilluly, “Tektite: Unique Observations of Men Under Stress,” Science News 94 (1970): 400; J.L. Sexner, “An Experience in Submarine Psychiatry,” American Journal of Psychiatry 1 (1968): 25; G.M. Sandal, I.M. Endresen, R.Vaernes, and H.Ursin, “Personality and Coping Strategies During Submarine Missions,” Military Psychology 11 (1999): 381; S. L. Bishop, P. A. Santy, and D.Faulk, “Team Dynamics Analysis of the Huautla Cave Diving Expedition: A Case Study,” Human Performance and Extreme Environments 1, no. 3 (September 1998): 34; G. M. Sandal, R.Vaernes, P.T. Bergan, M.Warncke, and H.Ursin, “Psychological Reactions During Polar Expeditions and Isolation in Hyperbaric Chambers,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 67, no. 3 (1996): 227; S. L. Bishop, L. C. Grobler, and O.SchjØll, “Relationship of Psychological and Physiological Parameters During an Arctic Ski Expedition,” Acta Astronautica 49 (2001): 261; N.Kanas, “Psychosocial Factors Affecting Simulated and Actual Space Missions,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 56 (1985):806. 15. The Boeing Company, “Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents: Worldwide Operations, 1959–1993,” in Boeing Airplane Safety Engineering Report B-210B (Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1994); M. W. Raymond and R.Moser, “Aviators at Risk,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 66, no. 1 (1995): 35; D.S. Ricketson, W. R. Brown, and K. N. Graham, “3W Approach to the Investigation, Analysis, and Prevention of Human-Error Aircraft Accidents,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 51 (1980): 1036; B. L. Weiner, B. O. Kanki, and R. L. Helmreich, Cockpit Resource Management (New York: Academic Press, 1993); D.A. Wiegmann and S.A. Shappel, “Human Factors Analysis of Postaccident Data: Applying Theoretical Taxonomies of Human 56 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here rooms indicate that 70 to 80 percent of medical mishaps are due to team and inter - personal interactions among the operating room team. 16 From pilot to surgeon, re - ghter, polar expeditioner or astronaut, we need to know if the characteristics that dene adaptable and functional individuals and teams have commonalities across various environments. It is therefore critical that teamwork in these environments be examined and understood. A fundamental need to enable these investigations is developing reliable, minimally intrusive and valid methodologies for assessing individual and group responses to these stressors and identifying dysfunctional and functional coping responses. The use of extreme environments with characteristics relevant to those inherent in space travel and habitation will play a crucial role in preparing humans for egress from planet Earth. Given the disparate nature of these various environments, Peter Suedfeld has proposed ve key principles that may be useful guides in assessing the relevance of various extreme environments as viable analogs for space or providing the basis for cross-comparisons: Principle 1: Researchers should think in terms of experiences within environ - ments rather than of environmental characteristics; Principle 2: Researchers should study differences and similarities between experiences, which are not the same as those between environments; Principle 3: Analogies should be based on similarities of experience, not nec - essarily of environment; Principle 4: Research should look at systematic links between personality fac - tors and experience; and Principle 5: Experience is continuous and integrated. 17 Error,” International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7 (1997): 67; D.W. Yacovone, “Mishap Trends and Cause Factors in Naval Aviation: A Review of Naval Safety Center Data, 1986– 1990,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1993): 392. 16. B. Sexton, S. Marsch, R. Helmreich, D. Betzendoerfer, T. Kocher, and D.Scheidegger, “Jumpseating in the Operating Room,” Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 1, no. 2 (1996): 36; J. A. Williamson, R. K. Webb, A. Sellen, W. B. Runciman, and J.H. van der Walt, “Human Failure: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Report,” Anesthesia Intensive Care 21 (1993): 678. 17. P. Suedfeld, “Groups in Isolation and Connement: Environments and Experiences,” in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement , ed. A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991), p. 135. 57 Psychology of Space Exploration CRITICAL PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES FOR SPACE The research on teams has, to date, focused on and identied needs for further research under four broad categories. The intent here is not to recite the spectrum of ndings across analogs within these areas, but to articulate how analog environ - ments can address these areas. • Selection issues deal with the evaluation of existing ability, trainability, and adapt - ability of prospective team members. It is not merely a matter of selecting-out pathological tendencies, but, as importantly, selecting-in desirable characteris - tics. How can analog environments allow us to investigate the impact of vari - ous individual and group characteristics upon individual and group performance? • The impact of isolation and connement has been shown to be signicantly impacted by various moderator variables, e.g., the difculty of rescue. While an emergency on the International Space Station certainly poses difculties regarding time to rescue, one can argue that the difculties inherent in a Mars mission or even here on Earth from the Antarctic in midwinter, where weather conditions may absolutely make rescue impossible for long periods, carry a qual - itatively different psychological impact. An emergency on a mission to Mars will preclude any chance of rescue and necessitate a high degree of autonomy for the crew in making decisions without any real-time mission support. The degree to which such factors magnify the negative effects of isolation and con - nement is critical to assess. • Group interaction and group processes are not a simple sum of the individuals that make up the group. Complex interactions can reinforce, undermine, or create new behaviors in the individuals involved. Identication of group fusion (fac - tors that encourage group cohesion) and ssion (factors that contribute to group conict) variables are elementary to creating habitats and work schedules, com - posing groups, and a myriad of other factors that will enable groups to function effectively and ensure individual and group well-being. For instance, in a study of Antarctic winter-over personnel, Palinkas found that personnel at Palmer (a small station) spent 60 percent of their waking hours alone and retreated to their bedrooms extensively for privacy. These behaviors could be considered s - sion factors as they promote withdrawal, social isolation, and distancing from one’s teammates. On the other hand, if the use of privacy served to control the amount of contact and decreased tensions and group conict, they would be 58 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here considered fusion factors. He also found that intermittent communication was a major source of conict and misunderstanding between crews and external sup - port personnel, a clear source of ssion inuence. Examples of fusion factors for this group were effective leadership styles, which played a signicant role in sta - tion and crew functioning, as well as the ability to move furniture and decorate both common and private areas, which facilitated adaptation and adjustment. 18 • Individual and crew performance is perhaps the clearest, most frequently studied outcome. Yet there are challenges in dening what constitutes acceptable out - comes at both the individual and group levels. They are not always the same thing, as investigations into missions that failed to meet expectations have repeatedly conrmed. It is a mistake to try to assess and maximize performance without understanding group dynamics, the effects of isolation and connement or the environment in general on inhabitants. Given that our selection crite - ria have been little more than ruling out pathology and matching task require - ments with technical prociency within individuals, it is of little surprise that our efforts to implement performance improvements have been only modestly suc - cessful and fraught with inconsistent results. It is necessary to take the next steps to identify which individual and group characteristics are maximally associated with adaptation and functioning in these high-challengeenvironments. TERRESTRIAL ANALOGS FOR SPACE There are surprising similarities and differences found across environments. G.M. Sandal et al. found that coping strategies during connement on polar expe - ditions were different from those in hyperbaric chambers. 19 Whereas polar teams evidenced a delay interval with a marked drop in aggression until after the rst quarter, with concomitant increase in homesickness, chamber teams displayed a steady gradual increase in coping over time. A number of researchers have noted that it is not the site that seems to matter, but rather it is the differences in the mis - 18. Palinkas, “Psychosocial Effects of Adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for Long-Duration Spaceight”: 471. 19. Sandal, Vaernes, Bergan, Warncke, and Ursin, “Psychological Reactions During Polar Expeditions and Isolation in Hyperbaric Chambers”: 227. 59 Psychology of Space Exploration sion proles, e.g., tasks (daily achievement of a distance goal versus stationkeeping) or duration (short versus long). In fact, studies addressing Suedfeld’s Principle 4 investigating personality char - acteristics have produced supporting evidence for a focus on the experience as the dening factor rather than the environment per se. The most persistently investigated personality assessment for the last 15 years has been the NEO-PI by P.T. Costa and R.R. McCrae. 20 This instrument assesses ve global dimensions of personality: neu - roticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These dimensions have been found to be associated with the previous personality “right stuff/wrong stuff/no stuff” proles identied by Helmreich et al. in longitudi - nal studies of American astronaut candidate performance. 21 Additionally, measures of achievement motivation, interpersonal orientation, Type A, stress, and coping have been frequently evaluated. Recent studies have found evidence that agreeableness and conscientiousness seem to better predict performance at the global level, along with specic facets of extraversion. 22 Conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeable - ness have been found to be related more strongly to constructive change-oriented communication and cooperative behavior than to task performance. Cognitive ability appears to be related more strongly to task performance than to constructive change- oriented communication or cooperative behavior. Results also demonstrate contrast - ing relationships for agreeableness (positive with cooperative behavior and negative with constructive change-oriented communication). 23 However, another personal - 20. P. T. Costa, Jr., and R. R. McCrae, NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 1978, 1985, 1989, 1991). 21. T. J. McFadden, R. Helmreich, R. M. Rose, and L. F. Fogg, “Predicting Astronaut Effectiveness: A Multivariate Approach,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 65 (1994): 904. 22. P. Suedfeld and G. D. Steel, “The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats,” Annual Review of Psychology 51 (2000): 227; R. M. Rose, R. L. Helmreich, L. F. Fogg, and T.McFadden, “Psychological Predictors of Astronaut Effectiveness,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 64 (1994): 910; R. R. McCrae and J. Allik, The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002). 23. M. R. Barrick, G. L. Stewart, M. J. Neubert, and M. K. Mount, “Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness,” Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (1998): 377; L. Ferguson, D. James, F. O’Hehir, and A. Sanders, “Pilot Study of the Roles of Personality, References, and Personal Statements in Relation to Performance over the Five Years of a Medical Degree,” British Medical Journal 326, no. 7386 (22 February 2003): 429; J.A. LePine, “Team Adaptation and Postchange Performance: Effects of 60 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here ity cluster has been identied in studies of successful polar trekking groups that is dis - tinctly different from the “right stuff” prole in which factors indicative of individuals who are loners seem to be supportive of adaptation, i.e., happier alone than depen - dent on others, highly autonomous, independent, uncomfortable about and relatively uninterested in accommodating others in a group, task-oriented and somewhat com - petitive. 24 Since we do not have enough data to reliably draw inferences about these individuals, it is mere speculation at this time that perhaps the intense task focus of a polar trek, in which each individual is highly autonomous and individually self- reliant during the long travel each day, situated in an environment that precludes group interaction except for fundamental coordination of locomotion across the ter - rain, selects for individuals that are distinctly different from those who would occupy a habitat or conned environment for long durations. In other words, only individ - uals with this inward, self-focused personality would nd such challenges rewarding and be successful at these tasks. Similarly, an apparently adaptive personality prole has emerged from winter-overers that is characterized by low levels of neuroticism, desire for affection, boredom, and need for order, as well as a high tolerance for lack of achievement, which would t well in an environment where isolation and conne - ment prevented accomplishments and the participants experienced frequent short - ages and problems. 25 Those that would best adapt would be those who could more quickly adjust their expectations to the immediate situation and tolerate such obsta - cles. If this hypothesis is substantiated, then we must carefully match the character - istics of the individual to the environment as well as the group in order to maximize successful adaptation and performance. Psychological research to date seems to support two general ndings: 1)there do seem to be consistencies in the personality prole of functional and dysfunctional teams, and 2)characteristics of the mission may dene very different personality Team Composition in Terms of Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 1 (February 2003): 27; T. A. Judge and R. Ilies, “Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 4 (August 2002): 797. 24. E. Rosnet, C. Le Scanff, and M. Sagal, “How Self-Image and Personality Affect Performance in an Isolated Environment,” Environmental Behavior 32 (2000): 18. 25. L. Palinkas, E. K. E. Gunderson, and A. W. Holland, “Predictors of Behavior and Performance in Extreme Environments: The Antarctic Space Analogue Program,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 71 (2000): 619. 61 Psychology of Space Exploration proles as best t. Insomuch as it is possible to select for hardier and better-t per - sonalities by ltering individuals and teams through environmental challenges, selecting analogs with highly salient and relevant characteristics that match space mission proles (e.g., long versus short duration, stationkeeping versus expedition proles) will be important. The Expeditionary Analog Expeditions, by denition, revolve around movement. Expeditionary ana - logs (e.g., oceanic, polar, desert, caving, mountaineering) include various explor - atory goals that are characterized by moving from one place to another rather than inhibiting a locale. Historical exploratory expeditions typically involved long dura - tions (i.e., months to years) characterized by signicant known and unknown risks, broad goals, a high degree of situationally driven contingency decision-making, and expectations of autonomy and self-sufciency. Modern expeditions, in contrast, are typically of short duration (i.e., two weeks to three months), utilize the advantages of technology to minimize risks (e.g., weather forecasts to take advantage of the best weather of a region and satellite communications to maintain contact), are more narrowly goal-oriented and task-focused, and involve members with special - ized roles and skills. In both expeditionary scenarios, teams were/are formed around appropriate skill sets and availability and a notable lack of any attempt to screen individuals psychologically except for medical factors. Research on team function - ing is often secondary to expedition goals, personal goals, schedules, and contingen - cies. The expedition may be intended to recreate experiences of earlier explorers, such as the Polynesian Kon-Tiki oceanic traverse; set records or discover new terri - tory, e.g., discover a route to India or explore a cave system; achieve personal chal - lenges, such as climbing mountains or skiing to the North Pole; conduct scientic research, e.g., by means of oceangoing research vessels or polar ice drilling teams; or conduct commercial exploration, such as mineral and oil exploration. 26 26. Bishop, Santy, and Faulk, “Team Dynamics Analysis of the Huautla Cave Diving Expedition”; Bishop, Grobler, and SchjØll, “Relationship of Psychological and Physiological Parameters During an Arctic Ski Expedition”: 261; T. Heyerdahl, Kon-Tiki (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1950); H. R. Bernard and P. Killworth, “On the Social Structure of an Ocean Going Research 62 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here Ben Finney, Professor Emeritus in Anthropology at the University of Hawai’i and noted for his work on applying anthropological perspectives to humankind’s expansion into space, has argued that from the earliest voyages to have scientic goals, “cultural” differences between scientists and seamen have led to conict and that this inherent conict of cultures is similarly reected in our space program’s structural differentiation between pilots and astronaut-scientists. 27 Voyages of scien - tic discovery began in the late 18th century, an age, Finney points out, that many have argued foreshadowed the space race of the 1960s. 28 The rst exploratory voy - age to include scientists as crew and mission goals with explicit scientic objec - tives instead of commercial goals that serendipitously collected science data was the three-year-long English expedition of the Endeavour to Tahiti, 1768–71, led by Captain James Cook. The on-board scientists were tasked to observe the transit of Venus across the face of the Sun to provide data needed to calculate the distance between Earth and the Sun. The success of the Endeavour ’s expediti

bundet

on led to a sec - ond expedition, which sailed with a number of scientists, two astronomers, and a naturalist, an expedition that, in contrast to the rst expedition, was rife with con - tentious relationships between the seamen and the scientists. Subsequent voyages with scientists on board were similarly plagued by conicts between those pursu - ing scientic goals and those tasked with the piloting and maintenance of the ship. Historically, the English naval command eventually imposed an unofcial mora - torium on the inclusion of non-naval scientists on board and pursued a policy of assigning any scientic duties to members of the crew. Not until a hundred years after Cook, in 1872, would the Royal Navy’s Challenger , a three-masted, square- rigged, wooden vessel with a steam engine, sail around the world with six marine scientists and a crew and captain who were totally dedicated to the research. 29 Vessel,” Social Science Research 2 (1973): 145; H. R. Bernard and P.Killworth, “Scientist at Sea: A Case Study in Communications at Sea,” Report BK-103-74, Code 452, Contract N00014-73- 4-0417-0001, prepared for the Ofce of Naval Research (Springeld, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1974); M.M. Mallis and C.W.DeRoshia, “Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Performance in Space,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): B94. 27. B. Finney, “Scientists and Seamen,” in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement , ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 89. 28. W. H. Goetzmann, New Lands, New Men (New York: Viking, 1986); J. Dunmore, French Explorers of the Pacic , vol. 2 (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1969). 29. E. Linklater, The Voyage of the Challenger (London: John Murray, 1972). 63 Psychology of Space Exploration Such troubles were not limited to the English. The French followed a sim - ilar pattern, beginning in 1766 and continuing through 1800, when scientists sailed with numerous expeditions that were summarily characterized by conict and contention between the crews and scientists. 30 Finney further notes that such complaints are found in journals of early Russian scientists, as well as American sci - entists on the four-year-long United States Exploring Expedition that sailed from Norfolk in 1838 with a contingent of 12 scientists. 31 Modern development of specialized ships complete with laboratories and equipment dedicated to oceanographic research has been primarily organized and maintained by universities and oceanographic institutes. Yet even aboard these dedicated oating research vessels, conict between the ship’s crew and the scien - tists whom they serve has not been eliminated. A dissertation study conducted by a resident at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography during 1973 concluded that ten - sion between the two groups was inevitable because they formed two essentially separate and distinct subcultures with different values and goals, as well as different educational backgrounds and class memberships. 32 Finney argues that the same subcultures have become evident in the space pro - gram with the development of the role of payload specialists, who are considered visiting scientists rather than part of the elite astronaut corps. Tensions between payload specialists in pursuit of the scientic goals and the crew in pursuit of mis - sion completion have routinely been in evidence. Finney eloquently states: f space research were to be made as routine to the extent that ocean research now is, subcultural differences, and hence ten - sions, between scientist and those pilots, stationkeepers, and oth - ers whose job it will be to enable researchers to carry out their tasks in space may become critical considerations. If so, space analogues of the mechanisms that have evolved to accommodate differences 30. J. Dunmore, French Explorers of the Pacic , vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). 31. A. von Chamisso, Reise um die Welt mit der Romanofschen Entdeckungs Expedition in den Jahren 1815–1818 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1856); W. Stanton, The Great United States Exploring Expedition of 1838–1842 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975). 32. Bernard and Killworth, “On the Social Structure of an Ocean Going Research Vessel”: 145; Bernard and Killworth, “Scientist at Sea: A Case Study in Communications at Sea.” 64 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here between scientists and seamen aboard oceanographic ships may have to be developed. 33 The number and variety of expeditions examined for relevance to space is ever increasing as both modern expeditions and analyses of historical expeditions are scrutinized. An example of how examination of the records from past expedi - tions contributes to the current state of knowledge and provides the impetus for future studies in space can be seen in a metastudy by M.Dudley-Rowley et al. that examines written records from a sample of space missions and polar expeditions for similarities and differences in conicts and perceptions of subjective duration of the mission. Ten missions were compared across a number of dimensions. 34 The metastudy included three space missions that represented both long- and short- duration mission proles: Apollo 11 (1969) and Apollo 13 (1970), ranging from six to eight days apiece, and Salyut 7 (1982), which lasted over two hundred days. Four Antarctic expeditions were included: the western party eld trip of the Terra Nova Expedition (1913, 48 days), an International Geophysical Year (IGY) tra - verse (1957–58, 88 days), the Frozen Sea expedition (1982–84, 480 days), and the International Trans-Antarctic expedition (1990, 224 days). Finally, three early Arctic expeditions were also included: the Lady Franklin Bay (1881–84, 1,080days), Wrangel Island (1921–23, 720 days), and Dominion Explorers’ (1929, 72 days). Seven factors emerged that seemed to coincide with the subjectivization of time and the differentiation of situational reality for the crews from baseline: 1. increasing distance from rescue in case of emergency (lessening chances of “returnability”); 2. increasing proximity to unknown or little-understood phenomena (which could include increasing distance from Earth); 3. increasing reliance on a limited, contained environment (where a breach of environmental seals means death or where a re inside could rapidly replace atmosphere with toxins); 33. Finney, “Scientists and Seamen,” p. 100. 34. M. Dudley-Rowley, S. Whitney, S. Bishop, B. Caldwell, and P. D. Nolan, “Crew Size, Composition and Time: Implications for Habitat and Workplace Design in Extreme Environments” (paper presented at the SAE 30th International Conference on Environmental Systems, 10–13 July 2000). 65 Psychology of Space Exploration 4. increasing difculties in communicating with Ground or Base; 5. increasing reliance on a group of companions who come to compose a micro - society as time, connement, and distance leave the larger society behind, in a situation where innovative norms may emerge in response to the new socio - physical environment; 6. increasing autonomy from Ground’s or Base’s technological aid or advice; and 7. diminishing available resources needed for life and the enjoyment of life. The missions and expeditions were ranked by prevalence of the seven factors that might correspond with the differentiation in the subjectivization of the pas - sage of time and in the situational reality for the crews from baseline. From high - est to lowest in compromising factors, the rankings fell in the following order: Lady Franklin Bay (7); Wrangel Island, Apollo 13 (6); Salyut 7 (5); Terra Nova, Apollo 11 (4); Dominion Explorers’ (3); Frozen Sea (2); IGY (1); International Trans- Antarctic Expedition (0). The Lady Franklin Bay Expedition suffered 18 deaths of its complement of 25, and the rest were starving when found. The Wrangel Island expedition suffered four deaths out of its crew of ve. Apollo 13 was a catastrophe that was remarkable in its recovery of the crew intact. The Salyut 7 mission, the Terra Nova western eld party, and the Apollo 11 mission all had high degrees of risk. The later polar expeditions rank below these missions. Both the space missions and the earliest polar expeditions are above or hover just below the median (3.5). Although the authors correctly note that the sam - ple is too small to draw conclusions, the presence of similar factors in space and early polar exploration that contributed to perceptions of mission/expedition dura - tion or of how their situational reality deviates from baseline is important to note. These results suggest that as control over their environment decreases, team mem - bers’ subjective experiences of time and the situation increasingly differ from their baselines. The strong parallel between early expeditions and modern space missions lends support for historical analogs as viable substitutes for space. Chamber Studies Early evaluations for astronaut selection drew upon a history of sensory depri - vation research initially begun by the military throughout the 1950s and 1960s to address performance concerns about two-person crews conned to armored vehicles 66 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here for long durations and continued most notably through the series of studies con - ducted by J.P. Zubek. 35 Initially, it was believed that space would represent a sig - nicant loss of normal sensory stimulation due to isolation from people, reduction in physical stimulation, and restricted mobility. Thus, sensory deprivation cham - bers were argued to be good analogs for astronauts. 36 Selection procedures, there - fore, included stints in dark, small, enclosed spaces for several hours to observe how potential astronauts handled the connement and loss of perceptual cues. As Dr. Bernard Harris, the rst African American to walk in space, recounts, “They put me in this little box where I couldn’t move or see or hear anything. As I recall, I fell asleep after a while until the test ended.” 37 The rst systematic attempts to investigate psychological adaptation factors to isolation and connement in simulated operational environments were conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s by putting volunteers in closed rooms for several days, subjecting them to sleep deprivation and/or various levels of task demands by hav - ing them complete repetitive research tasks to evaluate various aspects of perfor - mance decrements. 38 Chamber research, as it was to become known, encompassed a variety of articial, constructed environments whose raison d’être was control over all factors not specically under study. Later, specially constructed conne - ment laboratories such as the facility at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine or simulators at Marshall Space Fight Center in Huntsville, Alabama; the McDonnell Douglas Corporation in Huntington Beach, California; or Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California, housed small groups of three to six individuals in programmed environments for weeks to months of continuous res - idence to address a variety of space-science-related human biobehavioral issues related to group dynamics (e.g., cohesion, motivation, effects of joining and leav - 35. J. P. Zubek, Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1969); R. Honingfeld, “Group Behavior in Connement: Review and Annotated Bibliography,” Report AD0640161, prepared for the Human Engineering Lab (MD: Aberdeen Proving Ground, October 1965), p. 117. 36. B. E. Flaherty, ed., Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961). 37. B. Harris, personal communication, thesis committee member (1995–96). 38. Haythorn and Altman, “Personality Factors in Isolated Environments”; Altman, “An Ecological Approach to the Functioning of Isolated and Conned Groups,” p. 241. 67 Psychology of Space Exploration ing established groups), performance and work productivity, communication pat - terns, team cooperation, and social habitability factors. The epitome example of chamber research may be the series of four hyperbaric- chamber studies, sponsored by the European Space Agency and designed to investi - gate psychosocial functioning, in which groups were conned for periods lasting from 28 to 240 days. 39 Full mission protocols specifying all medical, technical, and opera - tional parameters approximating expected living conditions of astronauts on a space station were used. The studies were intended to evaluate the efcacy of various psy - chosocial monitoring and assessment techniques for implementation on real space missions, as well as to investigate persistent occurrences of communication and inter - action breakdowns between on-orbit teams and Mission Control anecdotally reported from space. 40 A number of opportunities and advances came from these studies, e.g., evaluating the efcacy of communication training for space teams or the opportunity to examine factors involved in an unplanned meltdown between crews precipitated by differences in cultural attitudes and norms about genders, authority, and control. 41 However, skepticism regarding the verisimilitude of studies in which discontented members can simply quit has continued to raise real concerns as to how generalizable the ndings from chamber studies are to spacemissions. The Middle Ground: Capsule Habitats in Extreme Unusual Environments Occupying the middle ground between traditional expeditionary missions with moving trajectories and the articiality of laboratory spaces designated as space 39. G. M. Sandal, R. Vaernes, and H. Ursin, “Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space Missions,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 66 (1995): 617; G. M. Sandal, “Culture and Crew Tension During an International Space Station Simulation: Results From SFINCSS’99,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75 (2004): 44. 40. Kanas, Salnitskiy, Grund, et al., “Social and Cultural Issues During Shuttle/Mir Space Missions”: 647; Sandal, Vaernes, and Ursin, “Interpersonal Relations During Simulated Space Missions”: 617; Gushin, Kolintchenko, Emov, and Davies, “Psychological Evaluation and Support During EXEMSI”: 283. 41. Sandal, “Culture and Crew Tension During an International Space Station Simulation”: 44; D. Manzey, ed., Space Psychology: Textbook for Basic Psychological Training of Astronauts (Cologne, Germany: AM-BMT-DLR-98-009, ESA/EAC, 1998). 68 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here station habitats are capsule habitats, sharing the controlled, dened enclosure of the laboratory situated within an extreme unusual environment (EUE). 42 Characterized by a controlled, highly technological habitat that provides protection and life sup - port from an environment that is harsh, dangerous, and life-threatening, capsule habitats occupy a wide range of environments. Some are true operational bases with missions in which biobehavioral research is only secondary. Others run the gamut from fundamental “tuna can” habitats with spartan support capabilities situated in locations of varying access to a full-delity Antarctic base constructed solely for the purposes of biobehavioral space analog research. Submersible Habitats Due to their high military relevance, the best-studied of capsule habitats are sub - marines. As an analog for space, submarines share a number of common characteristics: pressurization concerns (hyperpressurization for submarines and loss of pressurization for space), catastrophic outcomes for loss of power (e.g., the inability to return to the sur - face for submarines and degraded orbits for space), dependence on atmosphere revital - ization and decontamination, radiation effects, and severe space restrictions. Prenuclear submarine environments were limited in the duration of submersions (72 hours), crew size (9 ofcers and 64 enlisted men), and deployment periods without restocking of fuel and supplies. Structurally, these short-duration mission parameters mimicked those of the early years of space, albeit with vastly larger crews. With the launch of the nuclear- powered Nautilus in 1954, the verisimilitude of the submersible environment as an analog for long-duration space missions was vastly improved. With the nuclear subma - rine, mission durations were extended to 60 to 90 days, crews were increased to 16 of - cers and 148 enlisted men, and resupply could be delayed for months. 43 Generalizing from submarine research to space regarding psychological and human factors related to adjustment and well-being, researchers have identied several salient issues: 42. Suedfeld and Steel, “The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats”: 227. 43. B. B. Weybrew, “Three Decades of Nuclear Submarine Research: Implications for Space and Antarctic Research,” in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement , ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 103. 69 Psychology of Space Exploration • atmospheric revitalization and contamination control; • development and validation of procedures for the medical and psychological screening of recruits; • identication of techniques for initiating and sustaining individual motivation and group morale; and • identication of stressors, assessment of the severity of patterns of stress reac - tivity, and development of effective stress coping strategies. 44 An extension of the submersible operational environment of a military subma - rine is the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations program (NEEMO) being conducted in the Aquarius underwater habitat situated off Key Largo, Florida—the only undersea research laboratory in the world. Owned by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and operated by the National Undersea Research Center (NURC) of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington on behalf of NOAA, Aquarius is the submerged analog to NOAA oceanic research vessels. First deployed in 1988 in the U.S. Virgin Islands and relocated to Key Largo in 1992, the underwater facility has hosted more than 80 missions and 13 crews of astronauts and space researchers since 2001. Aquarius provides a capsule habitat uniquely situated within an environment that replicates many of the closed-loop constraints of the vacuum of space, a hostile, alien envi - ronment that requires total dependency on life support; poses signicant restric - tions to escape or access to immediate help; and is dened by limited, conned habitable space and physical isolation. The complexity of NEEMO missions further parallels space missions in their mission architecture, with similar requirements for extensive planning, training, control, and monitoring via an external mission con - trol entity. However, it has only been the most recent NEEMO missions in which stress, fatigue, and cognitive tness, as well as individual and intrapersonal mood and interaction, have been the focus of study. 44. B. B. Weybrew, R. L. Helmreich, and N. Howard, “Psychobiological and Psychosocial Issues in Space Station Planning and Design: Inferences from Analogous Environments and Conditions” (unpublished report prepared for NASA, 1986). 70 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here Polar Stations First and foremost, Antarctica springs to mind when polar space analogs are raised. While there are other polar bases in the Arctic and subarctic, the bulk of sus - tained psychological research has been conducted in Antarctica. 45 G.M. Sandal et al. conducted a recent, extensive review of the literature on psychosocial adaptation by polar work groups, expedition teams, Antarctic bases, simulation, and space crews. 46 There are 47 stations throughout the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions, operated by 20 different nations, with populations running from 14 to 1,100 men and women in the summer to 10 to 250 during the winter months. The base populations vary from mixed-gendered crews to male-only crews, from intact families (Chile) to unattached singletons, for assignments that last from a few months to threeyears. In 1958, after the IGY (1956–57) produced the rst permanent bases in Antarctica, C.S. Mullin, H.Connery, and F.Wouters conducted the rst system - atic psychological study of 85 men wintering over in Antarctica. 47 Their study was the rst of many to identify the Antarctic fugue state later dubbed the “big-eye,” characterized by pronounced absentmindedness, wandering of attention, and dete - rioration in situational awareness that surfaced after only a few months in iso - lation. The majority of subsequent studies up through the 1980s focused on the physiological changes evidenced in winter-over adaptation. Those that did address psychosocial factors tended to focus on the negative or pathological problems of psychological adjustment to Antarctic isolation and connement, with persis - tent ndings of depression, hostility, sleep disturbance, and impaired cognition, which quickly came to be classied as the “winter-over syndrome.” 48 Sprinkled 45. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement . 46. G. M. Sandal, G. R. Leon, and L. Palinkas, “Human Challenges in Polar and Space Environments,” Review Environmental Science and Biotechnology 5, nos. 2–3 (2006), doi:10.1007/ s11157-006-9000-8. 47. C. S. Mullin, H. Connery, and F. Wouters, “A Psychological-Psychiatric Study of an IGY Station in Antarctica” (report prepared for the U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Neuropsychiatric Division, 1958). 48. E. K. E. Gunderson, “Individual Behavior in Conned or Isolated Groups,” in Man in Isolation and Connement , ed. Rasmussen, p. 145; Gunderson, “Psychological Studies in Antarctica,” p. 115; R. Strange and W. Klein, “Emotional and Social Adjustment of Recent U.S. Winter-Over Parties in Isolated Antarctic Station,” in Polar Human Biology: The Proceedings of the 71 Psychology of Space Exploration among Antarctic research have been ndings that also report positive, or saluto - genic, aspects of the winter-over experience in which winter-overers have reported enhanced self-growth, positive impacts to careers, and opportunities for reection and self-improvement. 49 One of Antarctica’s most prolic researchers, Dr. Larry Palinkas has analyzed 1,100 Americans who wintered over between 1963 and 2003 over four decades of research in Antarctica and proposed four distinct characteristics to psychosocial adaptation to isolation, connement, and the extreme environment: 1. Adaptation follows a seasonal or cyclical pattern that seems to be associated with the altered diurnal cycle and psychological segmentation of the mission. 2. Adaptation is highly situational. Because of unique features of the station’s social and physical environment and the lack of resources typically used to cope, baseline psychological measures are not as good predictors of depressed mood and performance evaluations as are concurrent psychological measures. 3. Adaptation is social. The structure of the group directly impacts individual well-being. Crews with clique structures report signicantly more depression, anxiety, anger, fatigue, and confusion than crews with core-periphery structures. 4. Adaptation can also be “salutogenic,” i.e., having a positive effect for individ - uals seeking challenging experiences in extreme environments. 50 Palinkas found that a depressed mood was inversely associated with the severity of station physical environments—that is, the better the environment, the worse the depression—and that the winter-over experience was associated with reduced SCAR/IUPS/IUBS Symposium on Human Biology and Medicine in the Antarctic , ed. O.G. Edholm and E.K.E. Gunderson (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publications, 1974), p. 410. 49. Mullin, “Some Psychological Aspects of Isolated Antarctic Living”: 323; A.J.W. Taylor and J. T. Shurley, “Some Antarctic Troglodytes,” International Review of Applied Psychology 20 (1971): 143–148; O. Wilson, “Human Adaptation to Life in Antarctica,” in Biogeography and Ecology in Antarctica , ed. J. Van Meigheim, P. van Oue, and J. Schell, Monographiae Biologicae, vol. 15 (The Hague: W. Junk, 1965), p. 690; L. A. Palinkas, “Health and Performance of Antarctic Winter-Over Personnel: A Follow-Up Study,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 57 (1986): 954–959; D. Oliver, “Psychological Effects of Isolation and Connement of a Winter-Over Group at McMurdo Station, Antarctica,” in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement , ed. Harrison, Clearwater, and McKay, p. 217; P. Suedfeld, “Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration: Four Phases of Space Psychology,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76 (2005): B61. 50. Palinkas, “On the ICE.” 72 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here subsequent rates of hospital admissions. 51 He and others have speculated that the experience of adapting to the isolation and connement, in general, improved an individual’s self-efcacy and self-reliance and engendered coping skills that they used in other areas of life to buffer subsequent stress and resultant illnesses. 52 Concordia In 1992, France initiated plans for a new Antarctic station on the Antarctic Plateau and was later joined by Italy. In 1996, the rst French-Italian team estab - lished a summer camp at Dome C to provide logistical support for the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) and begin the construction of the permanent research station. Concordia Station became operational in 2005; the rst winter-over took place in February 2005 with a staff of 13. The station consists of three buildings, which are interlinked by enclosed walkways. Two large, cylin - drical three-story buildings provide the station’s main living and working quarters, while the third building houses technical equipment, like the electrical power plant and boiler room. The station can accommodate 16 people during the winter and 32 people during the summer season. The typical winter population consists of four technicians for the station maintenance, nine scientists or technicians for the sci - ence projects, a chief, a cook, and a medical doctor. Dome C is one of the coldest places on Earth, with temperatures hardly rising above –25°C in summer and falling below –80°C in winter. Situated on top of the Antarctic plateau, the world’s largest desert, it is extraordinarily dry and supports no animals or plants. The rst summer campaign lasted 96 days, from 5November 2005 until 8 February 2006, with 95 persons participating. The 2006 season included seven crewmembers with two medical experiments and the rst two psychological exper - iments sponsored by the European Space Agency for which the crew acted as sub - jects during their stay. The two experiments investigated psychological adaptation to the environment and the process of developing group identity, issues that will also be important factors for humans traveling to Mars. For this research, the crew completed 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid.; Suedfeld, “Invulnerability, Coping, Salutogenesis, Integration”: B61. 73 Psychology of Space Exploration questionnaires at regular intervals throughout their stay. The ESA’s Mistacoba experi - ment to prole how microbes spread and evolve in the station—an isolated and con - ned environment—over time started in the 2005 season, when the rst crew started living at the station, and has also continued with subsequent crews. Starting from a newly built clean environment, those conducting the study took samples from xed locations in the base as well as from crewmembers themselves. 53 Haughton-Mars Project One of the rst of dedicated research hybrid facilities was the Haughton-Mars Project (HMP), initiated in 1996 when the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and NASA Ames Research Center sponsored a post - doctoral proposal to study the Haughton Crater on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic as a potential analog for Mars. The program has expanded from a four-member team in 1997 to a permanent habitat that hosts eight-week arctic summer eld seasons with 50 to 90 participants, multiple teams, and research projects that run from instru - ment testing and development to biomedical and psychological evaluation. HMP routinely supports participation by NASA; the Canadian Space Agency (CSA); the Russian Institute for Space Research (IKI); various research institutions and univer - sities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom; and the U.S. Marine Corps. It has been the subject of various documentaries made by such groups as the National Geographic Society and Discovery Channel Canada. 54 Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station In 2000, a second dedicated research facility was deployed on Devon Island, jointly sponsored by the Haughton-Mars Project and the Mars Society: the Flashline 53. European Space Agency, “The Concordia Station,” http://www.concordiastation.org/ (accessed 25 May 2010); ESA Research News , http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEMBZA8A9HE_ research_0.html#subhead1 (accessed 18 June 2007). 54. The Mars Institute, “NASA Haughton-Mars Project History,” available at http://www. marsonearth.org/about/history.html (accessed 14 June 2007). 74 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS). Running concurrently with HMP, the FMARS facility was the rst of four proposed analog research facilities to be built by the Mars Society, supporting smaller six-person crews for typically two- to eight- week seasons. In summer 2007, the rst four-month-long FMARS mission was suc - cessfully completed with a crew of seven and a full complement of research studies covering technology, human factors, medicine, psychology, and communications. Mars Desert Research Station The second Mars Society station, the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), came online in December 2001 and is situated in the Utah desert in the American Southwest. Because of its ease of access, the American station is considered well suited as a test bed for equipment that will later be sent to more remote and unfor - giving locations. For the same reason, the American station has been the focus of short-duration isolation and connement studies since its inception. A wide range of psychological studies investigating crew factors in short-duration missions has been in place since 2002. However, beyond preliminary descriptive results pre - sented at conferences, the small sample size of crews has necessitated waiting until enough teams have rotated through the facility to allow meta-analyses. 55 Several international teams have also used the MDRS for studies investigating comparisons between homogeneous-gendered teams, comparisons between mission teams and backup crews, and international cultural factors, among others. 56 55. S. L. Bishop, S. Dawson, N. Rawat, K. Reynolds, and R. Eggins, “Expedition One: Assessing Group Dynamics in a Desert Mars Simulation” (paper presented as part of the 55th International Astronautics Conference, Vancouver, BC, 4–7 October 2004); S.L. Bishop, S. Dawson, N. Rawat, K. Reynolds, R. Eggins, and K. Bunzelek, “Assessing Teams in Mars Simulation Habitats: Lessons Learned from 2002–2004,” in Mars Analog Research , ed. J.D.Clarke, American Astronautical Society Science and Technology Series, vol. 111 (San Diego: Univelt, 2006), p. 177. 56. S. L. Bishop, A. Sundaresan, A. Pacros, R. Patricio, and R. Annes, “A Comparison of Homogeneous Male and Female Teams in a Mars Simulation” (paper presented as part of the 56th International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, October 2005); S.L. Bishop, “Assessing Group Dynamics in a Mars Simulation: AustroMars Crew 48” (paper presented as part of the Mars2030: Interdisciplinary Workshop on Mars Analogue Research and AustroMars Science Workshop, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria, 24–26 September 2006). 75 Psychology of Space Exploration The Mars Society plans additional facilities in Iceland and Australia that will capitalize on geological features that present opportunities to practice Mars exobi - ology eld work. The Mars Society’s Mars Analog Research Station Project envi - sions three prime goals to be served by these habitats: 57 • The stations will serve as effective test beds for eld operations studies in prep - aration for human missions to Mars. They will facilitate the development and testing of key habitat design features, eld exploration strategies, tools, tech - nologies, and crew selection protocols that will enable and help optimize the productive exploration of Mars by humans. In order to achieve this goal, each station must be a realistic and adaptable habitat. • The stations will serve as useful eld research facilities at selected Mars analog sites on Earth and will help further understanding of the geology, biology, and environmental conditions on Earth and on Mars. In order to achieve this objec - tive, each station must provide safe shelter and be an effective eldlaboratory. • The stations will generate public support for sending humans to Mars. They will inform and inspire audiences around the world. As the Mars Society’s ag - ship program, the Mars Analog Research project will serve as the foundation of a series of bold steps that will pave the way to the eventual human explora - tion of Mars. CONCLUSION The use of analogs for space is an emergent eld whose very short track record examining team dynamics and psychosocial factors impacting individual and group functioning vigorously supports the real value of these environments and general - izability to space environments. Unlike laboratory studies, where the threat of real danger is usually absent, teams operating within real extreme environments have unknown situational and environmental challenges to face. Even in circumstances in which death or injury occurs, there will always be questions regarding the ability to avoid negative outcomes. While postmission analyses of behavior and performance 57. The Mars Society, “Mars Desert Research Station Project Goals,” available at http://www. marssociety.org/MDRS/mdrs01b.asp (accessed 14 June 2007). 76 From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here add insight into contributing factors, it is seriously doubtful whether we will ever be able to accurately predict the entire range and complexity of interaction between the human-environment factors and the human-human factors. Risk is inherent in human exploration. Even so, the value of analog experiences cannot be underesti - mated, regardless of whether they help us grapple with dening our levels of adequate preparation in the face of ideally predened levels of “acceptable risk” or even “accept - able losses” (a concept familiar to those who perform military riskassessments). One key methodological and validity issue is the added value of utilizing con - sistent measures across various analogs, allowing more accurate comparisons of indi - viduals and teams across environments, including space. The necessity to validate multicultural questionnaires and methodologies that are relevant, reliable, and valid for international teams is of paramount importance as our reliance on these multi - national teams will only increase in the future. To that extent, the various research endeavors in analog environments have contributed signicantly to validating such assessment instruments in a variety of teams. Findings from analogs have clearly identied three major intervention points to affect group functioning outcomes: • Selection: the development of reliable and valid methods of choosing the best t at both the individual and the group levels. • Training: improving the tness of the group by prepping skills needed for interpersonal group dynamics as well as high-functioning self-monitoring and appropriateadaptation. • Support: taking the form of prevention rst, then early, proactive intervention second. To be successful, research to date strongly suggests that the support must include the group, the family, and all external participants (e.g., Mission Control) as partners. A large portion of the current research represents opportunities to examine team dynamics and factors that impact team function in real-world groups that have been brought together for particular purposes that have little to do with research, e.g., geo - logical eld teams. Similarly, examinations of historical sources of past expeditions will continue to inform and provide additional insight into factors that have contributed to the success or failure of previous efforts. However, we need larger, more systematic studies in which the composition of the team is one of the driving factors under inves - tigation instead of simply an extraneous variable. Our greatest hope lies with the new research facilities now available and coming online dedicated to such research. 77 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Chapter 4 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS—Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? Julie A. Robinson Ofce of the ISS Program Scientist National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Kelley J. Slack Behavioral Health and Performance Research Wyle Laboratories Valerie A. Olson Department of Anthropology Rice University Michael H. Trenchard Image Science and Analysis Laboratory Engineering and Science Contract Group (ESCG) NASA JSC Kimberly J. Willis Image Science and Analysis Laboratory ESCG NASA JSC Pamela J. Baskin Behavioral Health and Performance Research Wyle Laboratories Jennifer E. Boyd Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco; and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center 79 Psychology of Space Exploration ABSTRACT To provide for crewmember well-being on future exploration missions, under - standing coping strategies that International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers adopt to mitigate the inherent stress of long-duration connement is important. A recent retrospective survey of own astronauts found that the most commonly reported psychologically enriching aspects of spaceight had to do with their per - ceptions of Earth. ISS crewmembers photograph Earth both volitionally and in response to requests from Crew Earth Observations (CEO) scientists. Automatically recorded data from the camera can be used to test hypotheses about factors corre - lated with self-initiated crewmember photography. The present study used these objective in-ight data to investigate the nature of voluntary photographic activity. We examined the distribution of photographs with respect to time, crew, and sub - ject matter. We determined whether the frequency uctuated in conjunction with major mission events such as vehicle dockings and extravehicular activities (EVAs, or spacewalks), relative to the norm for the relevant crew. We also examined the inuence of geographic and temporal patterns on frequency of Earth photography activities. We tested the hypotheses that there would be peak photography inten - sity over locations of personal interest, as well as on weekends. Of nearly 200,000 photographs taken on eight ISS expeditions, 84.5 percent were crew-initiated. Once a crewmember went to the window for a CEO request, he or she was more likely to take photographs for his or her own interest. Fewer self-initiated images were taken during and immediately preceding major station events. Crewmembers were more likely to take self-initiated images during peri - ods when they had more free time. Analysis indicated some phasing in patterns of photography during the course of a mission, although it did not suggest that psy - chological functioning was lower during the third quarter of connement (i.e., no third-quarter effect was found). Earth photography is a self-initiated positive activ - ity of possible importance for salutogenesis (increase in well-being) of astronauts on long-duration missions. Scientic requests for photography through CEO play an important role in facilitating crew-initiated photography. Consideration should be given to developing substitute activities for crewmembers in future exploration missions where there will not be the opportunity to look at Earth, such as on long- duration transits to Mars. 80 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS— Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? BACKGROUND Earth Observation Throughout Human Spaceight John Glenn, the rst U.S. astronaut in orbit, talked NASA into letting him carry a camera on Friendship 7 on 20 February 1962. 1 On reaching orbit, Glenn told capsule communicator Alan Shepard over the radio, “Oh, that view is tremen - dous.” Glenn proceeded to describe each of the three sunrises and sunsets he saw during the ight, and he continues to recount that experience in interviews today. 2 A number of the astronauts who have followed have verbally recounted emo - tional experiences related to seeing and photographing Earth, and several astro - nauts have documented in written form their responses to views of Earth linked to their photography activities while in space. Space Shuttle astronaut Kathryn D. Sullivan wrote in an article documented with her Earth photography, “It’s hard to explain how amazing and magical this experience is. First of all, there’s the astound - ing beauty and diversity of the planet itself, scrolling across your view at what appears to be a smooth, stately pace . . . I’m happy to report that no amount of prior study or training can fully prepare anybody for the awe and wonder this inspires.” 3 Observations of familiar places on Earth can also have strong emotional connec - tions. NASA- Mir astronaut Jerry Linenger recorded photographing his hometown in Michigan in his crew notebook, “Great View—Michigan + Great Lakes cloud - free—ready to go home, now!” 4 From Apollo to the current ISS, scientists have assisted astronauts with crew- initiated and science-specic photography of Earth. All the imagery is archived in a searchable online database maintained by the descendant of the previous pro - 1. Jay Apt, Justin Wilkinson, and Michael Helfert, Orbit: NASA Astronauts Photograph the Earth (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society), pp. 11–13. 2. Bryan Ethier, “John Glenn: First American to Orbit the Earth,” American History , October 1997, available at http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3030096.html (accessed 7 June 2010). 3. Kathryn D. Sullivan, “An Astronaut’s View of Earth,” Update (newsletter of the National Geographic Society’s Geography Education Program) (fall 1991): 1, 12–14, available at http:// eol.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/uft/uft1.htm (accessed 7 June 2010). 4. Kamlesh P. Lulla, Lev V. Dessinov, Cynthia A. Evans, Patricia W. Dickerson, and Julie A. Robinson, Dynamic Earth Environments: Remote Sensing Observations from Shuttle– Mir Missions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000). 81 Psychology of Space Exploration grams on the International Space Station, CEO, which provided statistics summa - rized here. Over 2,500 photographs of Earth were taken by Mercury and Gemini astronauts. Apollo astronauts photographed both Earth and Moon views, with over 11,000 photographs taken, and have been credited with initiating the interest in Earth observations from space. 5 Handheld photography of Earth by astronauts on Skylab accompanied the extensive imagery obtained by an automated multispectral camera system. 6 Over the three Skylab missions, crewmembers took around 2,400 images of Earth, and the automated camera systems an additional 38,000 photo - graphs with specialized lms. Building from this experience and the growing interest in Earth observa - tions from space, a program called the Space Shuttle Earth Observations Project (SSEOP) was established in 1982 to support the acquisition and scientic use of Earth photography from Space Shuttle ights. Located at the center of astronaut training, Johnson Space Center, SSEOP scientists were assigned to each Shuttle crew. Astronauts were trained in geology, geography, meteorology, oceanography, and environmental change for a total of approximately 12 instructional hours prior to ight. Also before ight, about 20 to 30 sites were chosen for the crew to photo - graph while on orbit. The mission-specic sites were chosen from a list of previously identied environmentally dynamic terrestrial areas visible from the Space Shuttle. Each crew was given a preight manual consisting of their unique sites that included photographs and scientic information. The decision on when to take photographs was at the astronauts’ discretion. A list of targets was sent to the Shuttle crew on a daily basis during the ight. The main camera used for Earth observation was the 70-millimeter Hasselblad with the 50-, 100-, 110-, and 250-millimeter lenses com - monly used, and both color and infrared lm was made available per crew prefer - ence. 7 After each ight, the Earth-viewing lm was cataloged and entered into a database. Paper catalogs were also mailed to a subscriber list of interested scientists 5. Paul D. Lowman, Jr., “Landsat and Apollo: The Forgotten Legacy,” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65 (1999): 1143–1147. 6. NASA, Skylab Earth Resources Data Catalog , JSC-09016 (Houston, TX: Johnson Space Center, 1974); V. R. Wilmarth, J. L. Kaltenbach, and W. B. Lenoir, eds., Skylab Explores the Earth (Washington, DC: NASA SP-380, 1977), pp. 1–35. 7. Julie A. Robinson, David L. Amsbury, Donn A. Liddle, and Cynthia A. Evans, “Astronaut-Acquired Orbital Photographs as Digital Data for Remote Sensing: Spatial Resolution,” International Journal of Remote Sensing 23 (2002): 4403–4438. 82 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS— Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? and educational and government users. To date, Shuttle crewmembers have cap - tured over 287,000 images of Earth. From March 1996 through June 1998, the scientists of SSEOP supported Earth photography by crewmembers spending longer durations in space as part of the NASA- Mir program. U.S. investigators collaborated with the Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, in developing Earth observation objec - tives for astronauts on board Mir. 8 The documentation of dynamic environmental changes on Earth’s surface was a primary objective for both SSEOP and the Russian Institute of Geography. Another objective was to develop scientic approaches and procedures that could later be applied to the same kinds of dynamic observations from the ISS. With the advent of Shuttle- Mir and the ISS, the focus of SSEOP changed from short-term observation to long-term observation. The cameras used on Shuttle- Mir were the same as on the Shuttle, with the 70-millimeter Hasselblad (lm) as the main camera, but the Nikon F3 35-millimeter camera was also available. A joint list of sites was chosen by U.S. and Russian sci - entists for Shuttle- Mir . Earth observation target sites were sent to the Shuttle- Mir crews weekly. Training was modied from the typical Shuttle briengs to enable the Shuttle- Mir crews to document unanticipated dynamic events as well as targets of opportunity that would be encountered more often on long-term missions. Another benet of long-term Earth observing missions was the ability to document seasonal change and long-term climatic effects. Approximately 22,500 photographs were taken during the seven Shuttle- Mir missions. Crew Earth Observations began as a formal ISS research activity (“payload”) on the rst mission, Expedition 1, in October 2000. Training for ISS crews evolved from experiences gained in the Shuttle and Shuttle- Mir programs. Rather than discipline-specic training, ISS crews were trained on science topics such as coral reefs, global urban systems, deltas, and glaciers. The emphasis was more on observ - ing Earth as a system than on documenting independent events. An overall science plan tied together the target sites and crew training and is still used and updated by increment for ISS crews today. Due to the extensive training ISS astronauts receive regarding all aspects of their missions, CEO training is limited to 4 hours. Typically this training occurs during the early part of the training cycle. Since an 8. Lulla, Dessinov, Evans, Dickerson, and Robinson, Dynamic Earth Environments . 83 Psychology of Space Exploration ISS mission is longer than a Shuttle mission, the number of targets per increment varies from approximately 140 to 160 sites, and they are updated with the change of each ISS increment. The digital camera, a Kodak 460 DSC, was introduced on STS-73; however, the Hasselblad lm camera remained the favorite of the Shuttle crews, most likely because of their experience with that camera. Improvements in digital technology coincided with the change in focus of the Shuttle program to the assembly of the International Space Station. Following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003, NASA’s support of Earth observations by crewmembers has been focused on the ISS. Although SSEOP was dissolved, individual Shuttle crewmembers on mis - sions to the ISS could still use the on-board cameras to take images of Earth, but without scientic support. Earth Observation in Human Spaceight Today The digital camera was favored by ISS crews over the lm cameras because it allowed them to review their imagery while on orbit. The immediate review of their imagery enabled the crews to view and improve their photographic techniques. Digital images could also be down-linked to the CEO scientists for review, and the scientists in turn could provide feedback to the crew. The issue of lm versus digital cameras was settled in 2003 when mission length was extended to about six months. The extension of crew time on orbit made lm more susceptible to radiation “fog - ging.” While digital cameras are not immune to radiation, they are better able to cope with longer exposures to the space environment, and eliminating the need to return lm to Earth was also an important improvement. With the use of the 400-millimeter lens and 2× extender available for the dig - ital camera, ISS crews have been able to document dynamic events at a higher resolution than was possible from the Shuttle with the 250-millimeter lens. 9 The 400- and 800- millimeter lens options are clearly the favorites of ISS crews. An additional benet of the camera is the automatic logging of the time as well as 9. Julie A. Robinson and Cynthia A. Evans, “Space Station Allows Remote Sensing of Earth to Within Six Meters,” Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83 (2002): 185, 188. 84 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS— Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? the date the image was acquired, along with other camera settings. Currently, the Kodak 760 DSC is used for CEO; however, this camera was upgraded with the higher resolution Nikon D2x in the latter part of 2008. In addition to watching Earth, ISS crewmembers photograph Earth through the windows of the ISS and are able to share those images with the world. The CEO activity provides a venue to transmit requests for photographs of areas of sci - entic or public interest to the astronauts each day and to distribute the acquired photographs to scientists and the public. Crewmembers take photographs of the targets during their free or unscheduled time; Earth photography is never a sched - uled crew activity. A list of candidate targets is sent to them on a daily basis, and crewmembers can make attempts to photograph those targets, choose to take no images, or, on their own initiative, photograph Earth at any time. These self-initiated images would seem to be of special importance to crewmembers since the taking of these images is purely volitional. Whether requested by scientists or self-initiated, images of Earth taken from the ISS are identied and distributed via the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site. 10 Earth Observation and Behavioral Health in Human Spaceight While NASA has always engaged in space exploration research, The Vision for Space Exploration and subsequent denitions of specic exploration mission archi - tectures have required a much more focused use of the ISS. 11 In particular, the ISS is to be used for research on human health on long-duration space missions, as well as for technology development and testing. 12 Behavioral health and performance has been identied as a discipline with additional research needs requiring the ISS. 13 10. NASA, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site, http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov . 11. NASA, The Vision for Space Exploration (Washington, DC: NASA NP-2004-01-334-HQ, 2004), pp. 15–17. 12. NASA, “The NASA Research and Utilization Plan for the International Space Station (ISS), A Report to the Committee on Science of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate, NASA Headquarters” (Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters, 2006), pp. 1–20. 13. NASA, Bioastronautics Roadmap: A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Space Exploration (Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center SP-2004-6113, 2005), p. 5; John R. Ball and 85 Psychology of Space Exploration Maximizing psychological well-being and performance of the crew, while in a con - ned space with interpersonal interactions limited to a small number of people, is important for the success of ongoing ISS missions. Knowledge about behavioral health gained from ISS missions is also important for the success of future missions to a lunar base and provides key data for a four- to six-month Mars transit. A par - ticular concern is maintaining crew psychological well-being for the duration of a round-trip mission to Mars that could last as long as three years. 14 Positive (or “salutogenic”) experiences while in space may promote psycholog - ical well-being by enhancing personal growth and may be important for offsetting the challenges of living and working in a conned and isolated environment. 15 In a survey of own astronauts aimed at identifying the positive or salutogenic effects of spaceight, Eva Ihle and colleagues identied positive changes in perceptions of Earth as the most important change experienced by astronauts. 16 If viewing Earth is an important component of positive experiences in space - ight, then having Earth “out of view” may be an important challenge for crews going to Mars because it could increase the sense of isolation. 17 To the extent that observing Earth is a positive experience for ISS crewmembers, replacement activi - ties or new psychological countermeasures may be needed to ensure the well-being of crewmembers on a Mars mission. Charles H. Evans, Jr., eds., Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions (Washington, DC: Committee on Creating a Vision for Space Medicine During Travel Beyond Earth Orbit, Board on Health Sciences Policy, National Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 136–171. 14. NASA, Bioastronautics Roadmap , p. 12. 15. Peter Suedfeld, “Applying Positive Psychology in the Study of Extreme Environments,” Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 6 (2001): 21–25; Peter Suedfeld and Tara Weiszbeck, “The Impact of Outer Space on Inner Space,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 7, supplement (2004): C6–C9. 16. Eva C. Ihle, Jennifer Boyd Ritsher, and Nick Kanas, “Positive Psychological Outcomes of Spaceight: An Empirical Study,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 77 (2006): 93–101. 17. Nick Kanas and Dietrich Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), p. 186. 86 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS— Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? Objectives In this paper, we mine the dataset of Earth observation photography to see whether additional information could be gleaned about the importance to crew - members of the positive experience of viewing Earth. Our rst objective was to quantify the extent to which photography of Earth was self-initiated. A second objective was to identify patterns in photography, or conditions under which crew - members were more likely to take self-initiated images. From this we hoped to gain quantitative (although correlative) insight into whether Earth observation activ - ities are important to long-duration crewmembers on the ISS and use this to infer whether Earth observation activities might play a role in maintaining the psycho - logical well-being of at least some of these crewmembers. Hypotheses Prior to analyzing the photographic incidence data, we generated the follow - ing hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Fewer self-initiated images are expected to be taken during periods of, and preparation for, extraordinary activities. Daily activities on the Station can be very crudely dichotomized into regular daily activities and extraor - dinary activities. Extraordinary activities include EVAs as well as docking and undocking (i.e., of Space Shuttle, Soyuz, and Progress spacecraft). Further, these extraordinary activities require substantial focus and preparation leading up to the event. These extraordinary activities generally consume more time than regular daily activities, leaving less time for volitional activities such as taking images. In the mission timelines, extensive EVA and docking preparation ramps up prior to an event, with restrictions on the ability to schedule other, noncritical activities beginning one week prior to the EVA, so we considered one week prior as our prep - aration period. Hypothesis 2: More self-initiated images are expected to be taken during weekends or other light-duty times. Typically, crewmembers have fewer set tasks to accomplish on weekends, so they have increased periods of time in which they can choose their activities. Given the volitional nature of self-initiated images coupled with the enjoyment crews have stated that they receive from viewing 87 Psychology of Space Exploration Earth, we expected crewmembers to take more Earth photographs during periods of decreased workload. Hypothesis 3: More self-initiated images are expected to be taken of geo - graphic areas of personal interest to crewmembers. Past crews have placed great importance on viewing Earth, 18 and most Shuttle and ISS crewmembers have requested support in photographing their hometowns and other places of personal interest. If such interest provides an indirect linkage of crewmembers in space to the people and place they have left behind, the photographing of places that hold spe - cial meaning for crewmembers, such as their childhood home or their alma mater, might be expected to be of particular relevance. Hypothesis 4a: Phasing occurs such that differing numbers of self-initiated images will be taken over the course of a mission. Hypothesis 4b: During the third quarter of the mission, increased numbers of self-initiated images will be taken. Previous research, both in space and in analog environments such as the Antarctic, has found mixed results regarding the existence of either phasing or a third-quarter effect. 19 The term phasing suggests that isolated individuals experience a cycle of ups and downs in psychological well-being during their time in conne - ment. While the term phasing is more general, the term third-quarter effect speci - cally refers to a period of lowered psychological well-being during the third quarter of an extended connement. Thus, we looked for several possible temporal patterns in the incidence of self-initiated photography. 18. Ihle et al., “Positive Psychological Outcomes of Spaceight”: 93–101. 19. Robert B. Bechtel and Amy Berning, “The Third-Quarter Phenomenon: Do People Experience Discomfort After Stress Has Passed?” in From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Connement , ed. Albert A. Harrison, Yvonne A. Clearwater, and Christopher P. McKay (New York: Springer Verlag, 1991), pp. 261–266; Mary M. Connors, AlbertA. Harrison, and Faren R. Akins, Living Aloft: Human Requirements for Extended Spaceight (Washington, DC: NASA SP-483, 1985); Nick Kanas, Daniel S. Weiss, and CharlesR. Marmar, “Crew Member Interactions During a Mir Space Station Simulation,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 67 (1996), 969–975; Gro M. Sandal, “Coping in Antarctica: Is It Possible to Generalize Results Across Settings?” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 71, no. 9, supplement (2000): A37–A43; Jack W. Stuster, Claude Bachelard, and Peter Suedfeld, “The Relative Importance of Behavioral Issues During Long-Duration ICE Missions,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 71, no. 9, supplem

bundet

ent (2000): A17–A25. 88 Patterns in Crew-Initiated Photography of Earth from the ISS— Is Earth Observation a Salutogenic Experience? METHODS Participants Images taken by up to 19 ISS crewmembers, beginning with ISS Expedition 4 (December 2001, when the full capability of the digital camera began to be used) and continuing through Expedition 11 (October 2005), were included in this study. Ten were astronauts with NASA, and nine were Russian cosmonauts. The expe - ditions consisted of three crewmembers through Expedition 6, when the number of crewmembers on the Station dropped to two, one Russian and one American. Gender of the crew for Expeditions 4 through 11 was predominantly male with only one female astronaut. It is not known whether every individual on board the ISS actually used the camera, nor which individuals took which images. Data and Analyses Digital photographs are taken on orbit and downlinked to the ground during the course of the mission. These are separated by content (Earth, hardware, peo - ple). All Earth images become part of the Database of Astronaut Photography of Earth, which was used for these analyses and is available online. 20 We analyzed the Earth photography patterns using the digital data recorded on the back of the digital cameras used on the ISS. The cameras automatically record the date and time when the photograph was taken, as well as specic photographic parameters. The data do not identify the individuals using the camera, as any crew - member may pick up any camera to take pictures, and individuals often stop briey at a window to take pictures throughout the day. Crews are cross-trained in the use of the imagery equipment. Some crews share the responsibility of taking images of Earth; in other crews, one member might have more interest and thus be the pri - mary photographer. Regardless, crewmembers report photographing areas known to be of interest to fellow crewmembers. 20. NASA, Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth Web site, http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov (accessed 9 December 2010). 89