Space Psychology and Psychiatry (PDFDrive) PDF
Space Psychology and Psychiatry (PDFDrive) PDF
Space Psychology and Psychiatry (PDFDrive) PDF
Published jointly by
Microcosm Press
El Segundo, California
123
Library of Congress Control Number: 2008924173
Published jointly by
Microcosm Press
401 Coral Circle, El Segundo, CA 90245-4622 U.S.A.
and
Springer,
P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
www.springer.com
Cover Photo of Earth from Space: View of Africa and the Indian Ocean taken in Dec. 1972,
by Apollo 17, the last of the Apollo missions to explore the Moon. Photo Courtesy of NASA.
1. Introduction 1
v
vi Space Psychology and Psychiatry
3. Human Performance 49
4. Human Interactions 89
Index 237
The International Space Station is the most complex construction project ever
attempted. It will ensure humankind’s permanent presence in space for
decades to come. “Backdropped by the blackness of space, this full view of the
International Space Station (ISS) was photographed by a crewmember on board the
Space Shuttle Atlantis following the undocking of the two spacecraft. Atlantis
pulled away from the complex at 8:13 a.m. (CDT) on October 16, 2002.” (Photo
and quoted description courtesy of NASA)
Preface (1st Edition)
With the construction of the International Space Station, and with plans being
considered for manned missions to Mars and beyond, it is time to take an objective
look at what is known about the psychological and psychiatric impact of long-
duration space missions. During previous space flights, there have been occasions
when the psychological stresses of living and working in space have created
difficulties that have negatively affected the performance of crewmembers and their
ability to relate with personnel in mission control. It is important to examine these
psychosocial issues scientifically so that countermeasures can be developed for
dealing with them promptly and effectively.
Up until now, books that have addressed psychological and psychiatric factors
related to space travel have referred to anecdotal reports or studies from space
analog environments on Earth, such as the Antarctic, submarines, and confined
chambers. However, recent evidence suggests that none of these environments gives
a complete picture of the psychosocial issues relevant to human space flight. For
this reason, our book emphasizes psychological and interpersonal findings from
studies conducted during actual space missions. Both of us have directed such
studies in the past 10 years, but our findings have been restricted to scientific
meeting proceedings and journal publications. In this book, our research results will
be presented in a non-technical format that will be understandable to a wider non-
professional audience. These findings will be integrated with the work of others
around major topic areas in the field of space psychology and psychiatry, including
individual adaptation and performance, human interactions, psychiatric issues,
selection and training, and monitoring and support. Our hope is that this book will
be used as a textbook for students as well as a reference for psychologically-
oriented professionals and the general public who wish to know more about how
people function in the exotic environment of space.
People who may especially find this book to be of value include: psychology and
social science students and professors in universities; medical students and residents
in psychiatry and aerospace medicine; human factors workers in space and aviation
professions; individuals involved with Earth-bound isolated and confined
environments, such as the Antarctic and submarines; and members of the general
public who are interested in the human side of long-duration space missions. Since
this book is co-authored by an American and a German who are involved in both
academic and space-related activities, we hope that it will have wide readership in
both countries, as well as in places that have active involvement with the
International Space Station (e.g., member countries of the European Space Agency
[ESA], Russia, Japan, the United States, and Canada).
In terms of the organization of this book, Chapter 1 will introduce the reader to
the issues and basic assumptions that underlie the remaining chapters. Chapter 2
will consider important issues of adaptation that a person needs to make during
space missions. Chapter 3 will deal with human performance and how it is affected
xi
xii Space Psychology and Psychiatry
by the space environment. Chapter 4 will consider psychosocial issues at the group
level in terms of crewmembers and their relationship with each other and with
people on the ground. Chapter 5 will deal with psychiatric problems that can occur
during long-duration space missions. Chapter 6 will consider countermeasures for
coping with psychological and psychiatric issues before, during, and after the
mission. Finally, Chapter 7 will deal with the challenges of space missions beyond
Earth orbit.
As mentioned above, a special feature of this book is its emphasis on research
actually conducted in the space environment that relates to psychological and
psychiatric issues. Studies that have been done in this exotic setting will be placed
in special sections labeled: “Empirical findings from space…”. These sections are
highlighted with underlines in the Table of Contents for those who wish to focus on
such studies. Much of this information has never before been published in book
form, and it represents the cutting edge of what has been done in space in the field
of space psychology and psychiatry.
Photographs of astronauts and cosmonauts will be used to illustrate key ideas.
All of these will come from missions to the Mir or International Space Station. It
should be noted that individuals shown in the photographs may or may not have
participated in our studies, and activities they are undertaking may or may not have
been related to our areas of research. All space photographs have been provided
courtesy of NASA. In addition, two chapters have been introduced by photographs
of prints from antiquarian star atlases. Besides being beautiful works of art, these
pieces illustrate an important theme related to the following chapter. These two
contributions are from the Nick and Carolynn Kanas collection of antiquarian
celestial books and prints.
This book could not have been written without the help and support of a number
of people. Our Senior Publishing Editor at Kluwer, Dr. Harry Blom, and his Senior
Assistant, Ms. Sonja Japenga, have been helpful in guiding us through the
publishing process. Ms. Leena Tomi of the Canadian Space Agency and Mr. Oliver
Angerer of the European Space Agency have provided helpful comments to a draft
of this book, as did others mentioned below.
Dr. Kanas would especially like to thank Dr. Bill Feddersen, Dr. Craig Van
Dyke, and Mr. Alan Kelly for helping him get his start in space-related activities.
He also would like to thank his Shuttle/Mir and International Space Station research
colleagues at the University of California and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in San Francisco (Drs. Charles Marmar, Daniel Weiss, Jennifer Ritsher, and Alan
Bostrom, and Mr. Philip Petit and Ms. Ellen Grund) and at the Institute for
Biomedical Problems in Moscow (Drs. Vyacheslav Salnitskiy, Vadim Gushin, Olga
Kozerenko, and Alexander Sled). Critical in supporting his research at the Veterans
Affairs Medical Center have been Dr. Diana Nicoll and Director Sheila Cullen.
Helpful at administering his grants at the Northern California Institute for Research
and Education have been Ms. Pamela Redmayne, Mr. Stewart Goldberg, and Mr.
Jack Nagan, J.D. Drs. Millie Hughes-Fulford and Rudolf Moos have provided
important consultations. Critical in supporting his research at NASA Headquarters
have been Drs. Joan Vernikos, Mary Ann Frey, Marc Shepanek, Victor Schneider,
David Tomko, and Guy Fogleman. Critical in supporting his research at Johnson
Preface xiii
Space Center have been Ms. Cindy Haven, Ms. Dea Taylor, Ms. Lisa Lubin, Mr.
Tim Snyder, Mr. Christian Maender, and Ms. Margaret Klee. Also at JSC, Drs. John
Uri, Charles Sawin, Christopher Flynn, Ellen Baker, Scott Smith, Lak Putcha, Mike
Greenisen, Vic Cooley, John Charles, and Patrick McGinnis have provided great
support. At Marshall Space Center, Ms. Barbara Tepper has been an important and
enthusiastic liaison. Dr. Kanas also would like to thank the astronauts, cosmonauts,
and members of mission control at Johnson and Marshall Space Centers in the
United States and TsUP in Moscow who graciously have volunteered to participate
as subjects. Last but not least, he would like to thank his wife Carolynn and his sons
Andrew and Peter for their patience and support over the years as he wrote research
manuscripts, prepared drafts of this book, and traveled hither and yon to various
conferences.
Dr. Manzey would especially like to thank Dr. Bernd Lorenz, Albrecht Schiewe,
Dr. Christoph Fassbender and Georg Finell who have shared his interest in
psychological issues of space flight and contributed to the research presented in this
book. In particular, Bernd’s creativity, competence, and support are acknowledged.
Numerous people are needed to support research during space missions from the
operational side. Thanks also are due to Loredana Bessone, Hans Bolender,
Sigmund Jähn, and Andreas Schön (ESA); Beate Fischer, Petra Mittler, Berthold
Schiewe, and Doris Wilke (German Aerospace Center); and Vladimir Nalishiti and
Yuri Shpatenko (Russian Cosmonaut Training Center): in different functions, all
have provided excellent operational support for the research Dr. Manzey has
conducted during several Mir missions. Important consultations during these
projects have been provided by Alexander Gundel and Jürgen Drescher, whose
contributions are gratefully acknowledged. What is psychological research without
human subjects? Dr. Manzey thanks all astronauts and cosmonauts who have
participated in his research, either in space or as back-up crewmembers on the
ground. Without their cooperative spirit and openness to psychology, his research
would not have been possible. Finally and perhaps most important, Dr. Manzey is
grateful to his wife Bettina, his sons, Max, Paul and Carl, and his parents, not only
for their patience, continuous encouragement and emotional support while writing
this book, but also for their great understanding of his numerous “up and downs”
while conducting research in a field as difficult as space flight.
Preface (2nd Edition)
It has been 5 years since the appearance of the 1st Edition of Space Psychology and
Psychiatry. The book reached a fairly broad audience, including astronauts and
cosmonauts, space agency officials, members of the scientific community,
undergraduate and graduate students, and the general public. Much has happened in
the field since then, with many advances in psychological space research. As a
result, it seemed timely to cover these advances in a new edition of the book.
The 2nd Edition of Space Psychology and Psychiatry contains 45 new pages of
text, a 23% increase over the 1st Edition. It also picked up a new publisher, as
Kluwer Academic Publishers merged with Springer, a happy event for us and for
the people involved with Kluwer who found themselves members of the Springer
family. The basic structure and chapter orientations have not changed, but the text
of every chapter has been reviewed and updated to reflect new realities. This is
especially true of Chapters 2 and 6, which have been greatly revised and expanded.
Several sections have been added describing new research with astronauts and
cosmonauts, including operational challenges affecting junior and senior mission
control personnel; human interactions involving crewmembers and mission
controllers working with the International Space Station (comparing the findings
with those from the Shuttle/Mir Program, reported in the 1st Edition); issues dealing
with positive psychological aspects of space missions; surveys reporting cultural
challenges involving international crews and cosmonaut views of an expedition to
Mars; and results related to physiological, sleep/circadian, and performance issues
in space. In addition, there is a new section on space tourism, which is a growing
and exciting new industry. We have tried to preserve the spirit and structure of the
previous edition, while at the same time adding new material to bring the content
up to date.
We hope that these changes will enrich the experience of readers of the 1st
Edition and encourage new people to read the book. We have enjoyed the process of
writing the 2nd Edition and of being a part of the human exploration of space.
xv
Real danger exists in space. Note the damage to the Mir space station and its
solar panels (on the right) following its collision with a Progress resupply
spacecraft during docking on June 25, 1997. “Russia's Mir space station is
backdropped over the blue and white planet Earth in this medium range photograph
recorded during the final fly-around of the members of the fleet of NASA's
shuttles…” (Photo and quoted description courtesy of NASA)
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
2 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
situations, and prevent the accomplishment of mission goals. Issues related to these
four kinds of stress will be dealt with in great detail in Chapters 2–5.
1.3.2.1. Settings
A second source of information consists of analog and simulation studies conducted
on Earth. These settings have many features in common with those that are
characteristic of space. Analog studies are more naturalistic, where variables are not
strongly controlled, whereas in simulation studies one tries to alter the environment to
make it as relevant as possible to the issues in space that are being studied. Examples
of different kinds of analog and simulation settings are listed in Table 1.4.
Space agency documents [Belew, 1977; Connors et al., 1985; Kanas and
Feddersen, 1971; Morgan, 2001]
Surveys of people who have flown in space [Kelly and Kanas, 1992, 1993, 1994;
Santy et al., 1993]
Books written by space travelers [Aldrin, 1973; Linenger, 2000; Pogue, 1985]
Books written by people who have never traveled into space [Burrough, 1989;
Cooper, 1976; Freeman, 2000; Harland, 1997; Harris, 1996; Harrison, 2001;
Oberg, 1981; Santy, 1994; Stuster, 1996]
4 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Table 1.4. Examples of Analog and Simulation Settings on Earth of Relevance to Human
Space Missions.
study what happens to people in space is to study people in space! With these
caveats in mind, however, there still is reason to conduct space-related analog and
simulation studies on Earth. Space missions are expensive, high-danger,
complicated enterprises involving a handful of people. Some research areas are
early in their development, and piloting them on the ground is a more economical
and safer way to try out new ideas. Also, more variables can be controlled in
simulators than in space, where mission-related operational considerations usually
are given precedence over research. Many studies depend on large sample sizes to
statistically test effects, and these can be achieved more easily in ground-based
settings. Kanas [1997] has discussed ways in which analog and simulation
environments could contribute to the study of a number of psychosocial issues, such
as social and cultural factors, career motivation, monotony and reduced activity,
leadership and authority, and the relationship between crewmembers and ground
personnel.
Table 1.5. Advantages of the ISS for Psychological and Psychiatric Research.
Crewmembers are on-board for months at a time, allowing for studies of long-duration
effects.
Space Shuttle and Soyuz missions to the ISS will occur, allowing for studies of short-
duration effects.
Since the ISS orbits close to Earth, research supplies can be sent up or down easily.
ISS crews interact with mission control personnel, allowing for studies of the relationship
between these groups.
The ISS can serve as a platform to test issues and countermeasures being considered for
expedition-type missions, such as a trip to Mars.
6 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
their differences over time, heterogeneity may enrich the interpersonal environment,
and this may help counter boredom and monotony. Much depends on how diversity
is viewed by the crew: as a negative irritant or as a positive feature that adds spice to
the mission.
because additional stressors come into being (e.g., monotony that occurs once the
novelty of being in space has worn off, personality conflicts due to the
magnification of minor interpersonal irritants).
In addition, there is evidence that groups of people living and working in
isolated and confined environments go through stages that are time-dependent.
Some people believe that psychosocial changes occur after the halfway point of a
mission, especially the third quarter [Bechtel and Berning, 1991; Gushin et al.,
1993, 1997; Palinkas et al., 2000; Sandal, 2000; Sandal et al., 1995; Stuster et al.,
2000], when people realize that they still have half of the mission to go before they
can return home. Others conceive of changes occurring in terms of three sequential
phases of the mission: initial anxiety, mid-mission boredom, and terminal euphoria
[Chaikin, 1985; Grigoriev et al., 1987; Rohrer, 1961]. However, not all space analog
studies have found such stages [Kanas et al., 1996; Steel and Suedfeld, 1991; Wood
et al., 1999, 2005], and as we shall see in Chapters 2 and 4, empirical findings from
space also question the existence of group stages on-orbit.
the psychological capabilities and needs of humans. These include different aspects
of habitability and ergonomics, as well as organizational factors related to work
design and appropriate work-rest scheduling. A second set of countermeasures
focuses on adapting individuals to the psychological vicissitudes of space missions.
This can be achieved by selecting astronauts whose personalities are most suitable
to meet the demands of space missions; by composing space crews of individuals
who are compatible with one another; by giving relevant psychological and
interpersonal pre-flight training that prepares astronauts for their life and work in
space; and by providing psychological support to individual astronauts and entire
crews while they are on-orbit [Manzey et al., 1995]. Such actions can contribute to
the success and safety of human space missions. This long has been recognized in
the Russian (formerly Soviet) space program, where psychological countermeasures
have been an important element since the beginning of long-duration space missions
[Garshnek, 1989; Kanas, 1991]. Similar countermeasures also are being used in
current ISS operations, and they will be an indispensable factor during future
expeditionary space missions that go beyond Earth’s orbit.
1.5. Summary
• There are four kinds of stressors encountered during human space missions:
physical, habitability, psychological, and interpersonal.
• There are four kinds of stress encountered during human space missions:
physiological, performance, interpersonal, and psychiatric.
• There are three sources of information that educate us about important
psychological and psychiatric issues affecting human space missions: anecdotal
reports, space analog and simulation studies on Earth, and research conducted
during actual missions.
• Although anecdotal reports and analog and simulation studies offer several
advantages, the ideal way to study what happens to people in space is to study
people in space!
• The International Space Station is an excellent facility for conducting human
research related to psychological and psychiatric issues in space.
• Maintaining human performance in space will be a challenge, particularly
during long-term missions.
• Psychological and psychiatric issues become most relevant during space
missions that are long-duration and consist of heterogeneous crews composed
of people with different cultural backgrounds.
• The relationship between crewmembers and people on the ground is very
important for maintaining crew performance and morale and for enhancing the
success of the mission.
• Countermeasures need to be developed and applied that will help astronauts
and cosmonauts deal with the stressors that are encountered during human
space missions.
10 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
References
Aldrin, E.E. 1973. Return to Earth. New York: Random House.
Associated Press. 1995. Astronaut tells of stresses in space. Marin Independent
Journal, July 3, p. A6.
Baranov, V.M. 2001. Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems.
Moscow: Firm Slovo.
Bechtel, R.B. and Berning, A. 1991. The third-quarter phenomenon: do people
experience discomfort after stress has passed? In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A.
Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York:
Springer- Verlag.
Belew, L.F. 1977. Skylab, Our First Space Station. NASA SP-400. Washington,
D.C.: NASA.
Benson, J. 1996. Conversations with Norman Thagard. Aerospace America.
January:12–14.
Burrough, B. 1989. Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir. New York:
Harper Collins.
Carpenter, D. 1997. Are blunders on Mir signs the stress is too great? San Francisco
Examiner, July 18, p. A1.
Chaikin, A. 1985. The loneliness of the long-distance astronaut. Discover1985.
February:20–31.
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine. Space Studies Board. Commission On
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Application. National Research Council.
1998. A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New
Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Connors, M.M., Harrison, A.A., and Atkins, F.R. 1985. Living Aloft: Human
Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. NASA SP-483. Washington DC:
NASA.
Cooper, H.S.F., Jr. 1976. A House in Space. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Ellis, S.R. 2000. Collision in space. Ergonomics in Design. 8:4–9.
Freeman, M. 2000. Challenges of Human Space Exploration. Chichester, UK:
Springer-Praxis.
Garshnek, V. 1989. Soviet space flight: the human element. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 60:695–705.
Grigoriev, A.I., Kozerenko, O.P., and Myasnikov, V.I. 1987. Selected problems of
psychological support of prolonged space flights. Paper presented at the 38th
Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gushin, V.I., Kholin, S.F., and Ivanovsky, Y.R. 1993. Soviet psychophysiological
investigations of simulated isolation: some results and prospects. In: S.L
Bonting, ed. Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, vol. 3. London: JAI
Press.
Gushin, V.I., Zaprisa, N.S., Kolinitchenko, T.B., Efimov, V.A., Smirnova, T.M.,
Vinokhodova, A.G., and Kanas, N. 1997. Content analysis of the crew
communication under prolonged isolation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 68:1093–1098.
Introduction 11
Harland, D.M. 1997. The Mir Space Station: A Precursor to Space Colonization.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Harris, P.R. 1996. Living and Working in Space: Human Behavior, Culture and
Organization, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Harrison, A.A. 2001. Spacefaring: The Human Dimension. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Harrison, A.A., Clearwater, Y.A., and McKay, C.P., eds. 1991. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Helmreich, R.L. 2000. Culture and error in space: implications from analog
environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):
A133–A139.
Kanas, N. 1985. Psychological factors affecting simulated and actual space missions.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 56:806–811.
Kanas, N. 1987. Psychological and interpersonal issues in space. American Journal
of Psychiatry. 144:703–709.
Kanas, N. 1990. Psychological, psychiatric, and interpersonal aspects of long- duration
space missions. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (AIAA). 27:457–463.
Kanas, N. 1991. Psychological support for cosmonauts. Aviation , Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 62:353–355.
Kanas, N. 1997. Psychosocial value of space simulation for extended spaceflight.
In: S.L. Bonting, ed. Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, vol. 6. London:
JAI Press.
Kanas, N. and Feddersen, W.E. 1971. Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Sociological
Problems of Long-duration Space Missions. NASA TM X-58067. Houston,
TX: JSC/NASA.
Kanas, N., Weiss, D.S., and Marmar, C.R. 1996. Crew member interactions during a
Mir space station simulation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
67:969–975.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1992. Crewmember communication in space: a survey of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
63:721–726.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1993. Communication between space crews and ground
personnel: a survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 64:795–800.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1994. Leisure time activities in space: a survey of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Acta Astronautica. 32:451–457.
Lebedev, V. 1988. Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space. College Station, TX:
Phytoresource Research Information Service.
Linenger, J.M. 2000. Off the Planet: Surviving Five Perilous Months Aboard the
Space Station Mir. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lugg, D.J. 2005. Behavioral health in Antarctica: implications for long-duration
space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):
B74–77.
Manzey, D., Schiewe, A., and Fassbender, C. 1995. Psychological countermeasures
for extended manned space flights. Acta Astronautica. 35:339–361.
12 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Morgan, C. 2001. Shuttle-Mir: The United States and Russia Share History’s
Highest Stage. NASA SP-2001-4225. Houston, TX: JSC/NASA.
Morphew, E., Balmer, D.V., and Khoury, G.J. 2001. Human performance in space.
Ergonomics in Design. 9:6–11.
Oberg, J.E. 1981. Red Star in Orbit. New York: Random House.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K.E., Johnson, J.C., and Holland, A.W. 2000.
Behavior and performance on long-duration spaceflights: evidence from
analogue environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
71(9, Suppl.):A29–A36.
Pogue, W.R. 1985. How Do You Go to the Bathroom in Space? New York: Tom
Doherty Associates.
Rohrer, J.H. 1961. Interpersonal relationships in isolated small groups. In: B.E.
Flaherty, ed. Symposium on Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Sandal, G.M. 2000. Coping in Antarctica: is it possible to generalize results across
settings? Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):A37–A43.
Sandal, G.M., Vaernes, R., and Ursin, H. 1995. Interpersonal relations during
simulated space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
66:617–624.
Sandal, G.M., Vaernes, R., Bergan, T., Warncke, M., and Ursin, H. 1996.
Psychological reactions during polar expeditions and isolation in hyperbaric
chambers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 67:227–234.
Santy, P.A. 1983. The journey out and in: psychiatry and space exploration.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 140:519–527.
Santy, P.A. 1994. Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of
Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Westport, CT: Praeger Scientific.
Santy, P.A., Holland, A.W., Looper, L., and Marcondes-North, R. 1993.
Multicultural factors in the space environment: results of an international shuttle
crew debrief. Aviation, Space and Envionmental. Medicine. 64:196–200.
Sells, S.B. 1966. A model for the social system for the multiman extended duration
space ship. Aerospace Medicine. 37:1130–1135.
Steel, G.D. and Suedfeld, P. 1991. Temporal patterns of affect in an isolated group.
Environment and Behavior. 23:749–765
Stuster, J. 1996. Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Stuster, J. 2005. Analogue prototypes for lunar and Mars exploration. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B78–B83.
Stuster, J., Bachelard, C., and Suedfeld, P. 2000. The relative importance of
behavioral issues during long-duration ICE missions. Aviation, Space and
Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):A17–A25.
Suedfeld, P. 1991. Groups in isolation and confinement: environments and
experiences. In: A. A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds . From
Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Vaernes, R.J. 1993. EXEMSI’92 Executive Summary. NUTEC Report 16-03. Paris:
European Space Agency Long Term Programme Office.
Wolfe, T. 1979. The Right Stuff. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Introduction 13
Wood, J., Lugg, D.J., Hysong, S.J., and Harm, D.L. 1999. Psychologial changes in
hundred-day remote Antarctic field. Environment and Behavior. 31:299–337.
Wood, J., Schmidt, L., Lugg, D., Ayton, J., Phillips, T., and Shepanek, M. 2005.
Life, survival, and behavioral health in small closed communities: 10 years of
studying isolated Antarctic groups. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B89–B93.
14 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
15
16 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
stressors present during space flight. These result from the harsh living conditions in
a space habitat, the restricted range of environmental cues, the specific workload
imposed on astronauts, and the psychosocial situation that is often characterized by
a lack of privacy, enforced social contacts with other crew members, and separation
from the usual social network of family and friends. Most of these factors
are not specific for space flight conditions but are universal for confined and
isolated environments [Suedfeld and Steel, 2000]. Yet they represent important
aspects of the extreme living and working conditions in space, particularly during
long-duration space flight. Similar to the unique physical conditions of the space
environment, they represent stressors which astronauts have to adapt to in order to
maintain a high level of individual and crew efficiency.
The psychological effects of the extreme conditions of space flight on individual
well-being and performance, and on crew interactions represent the major focus of
this book. As a starting point, this chapter addresses some of the more basic issues
related to human adaptation to space flight. In particular, it will provide information
about (1) selected issues of physiological adaptation to space, (2) issues of sleep and
circadian rhythms during space flight, and (3) general aspects of human adaptation
to confinement and isolation during long-duration space missions.
found in the classical book edited by Nicogossian et al. [1994], as well more recent
books by Buckey [2006] and Clément [2005].
Figure 2.1. Illustration of the Effects of Body Fluid Shift in Space. Shown is the relative
distribution of body fluids in different parts of the human body: (A) pre-flight on
Earth, (B) early in-flight, (C) in-inflight after primary adaptation, and (D) early post-
flight after return from space to Earth. (Source: Clément, 2005; reprinted with
permission).
by the duration of time a given level of work can be performed up to the level of
maximum oxygen consumption, does not seem to be significantly affected in space.
However, the main cost of this adaptation is a de-conditioning of cardiovascular
functions compared to Earth standards. Without effective countermeasures, this de-
conditioning leads to a loss of orthostatic tolerance, which in turn may become a
serious issue for astronauts returning to Earth (see Section 2.2.4). For example, the
loss of overall blood volume in space may result in low blood pressure and a
reflexive increase of heart rate in upright astronauts immediate after landing. This is
related to the fact that under Earth’s gravitational conditions, a considerable amount
of blood re-shifts to the legs, which given the reduced overall volume, produces a
state of hypotension in the head (Figure 2.1D). Dependent on the duration of the
space mission, this might make it impossible for astronauts to leave the spacecraft in
an upright position after landing. In addition, the function of the baroreceptor reflex
can become impaired in space and might need to be “re-trained” after return to
Earth. This results from the microgravity-induced lack of a hydrostatic pressure
gradient within the circulatory system. Because of this, the body no longer needs to
compensate for pressure differences associated with changes of body orientation
(e.g., from supine to upright position) in order to maintain a stable blood pressure.
As a consequence, this adaptive function will not be used in space. Dependent on
the duration of the mission, this can result in reduced effectivity of the baroreceptor
reflex and contribute to cardiovascular problems during re-adaptation to Earth
conditions [Clément, 2005].
remain only sensitive to linear accelerations of the body. This alteration has
important consequences, which require complex adaptive processes and which can
affect the well-being and performance of astronauts during their adaptation to the
space environment
The first consequence regards the coordination of body posture and movement.
This coordination represents an autonomous process that is based on complex
sensory-motor programs which coordinate the activity of muscles in the trunk and
limbs with incoming (afferent) signals from the eyes, the vestibular organs, and
proprioceptors in ankles, joints and muscles. On Earth, this system has been
optimized with respect to postural control and body movements under gravity. The
nearly absent gravitational force in space challenges this system to a considerable
degree by changing the usual pattern of afferent sensory information. For example,
this directly affects vestibulo-spinal reflexes as well as other mechanisms of
postural control, which show characteristic changes immediately after return from a
space flight compared to pre-flight assessments [Reschke et al., 1998]. The lack of
gravity not only alters afferent sensory information, but it also affects the
mechanical conditions under which postural control and movements must be
performed. Astronauts need to learn how to move without using their legs in a 3-
dimensional environment that has negligible frictional forces. This requires new
strategies of sensory-motor coordination and the acquisition of new locomotion
skills. Normally, this learning process develops very quickly, and the necessary
skills to move smoothly under microgravity conditions are acquired within the first
4 weeks in space. The effects of this adaptation can be studied by comparing
movement patterns of astronauts pre-flight and post-flight. Most astronauts exhibit
some kind of postural and gait instability after they return from a space mission,
which suggests that they have developed specific sensory-motor programs for
control of movements in space that are different from those needed for moving on
Earth.
Even more important consequences of the alteration of vestibular signals in
space involve the distortion of the visuo-ocular reflexes, indicated by disturbances
of eye-movements and gaze stability [André-Deshays et al., 1993; Clarke et al.,
2000; Clément, 1998], as well as a loss of the usual congruence between visual,
vestibular and proprioceptive signals. The latter induces sensory conflicts which, on
the one hand, lead to disturbances of spatial orientation and several visual illusions,
which will be described in more detail in Chapter 3. However, the most severe
consequence of these conflicts seems to be the development of space motion
sickness (SMS), which can considerably degrade the well-being and fitness of
astronauts during the first days in space [Lackner and DiZio, 2006; Reschke et al.,
1994, 1998].
The main characteristics of SMS are summarized in Table 2.1. In general, the
symptoms of SMS resemble those of terrestrial motion sickness, including enhanced
malaise, loss of appetite, lack of initiative, stomach awareness, brief and sudden
vomiting, nausea, and drowsiness. The only notable exception is that pallor usually
is not present, which can easily be explained by the excessive blood volume in the
head resulting from the fluid shift effect [Lackner and DiZio, 2006].
Basic Issues of Adaptation 21
Table 2.1. Main Characteristics of Space Motion Sickness. Sources: Davies et al. [1988];
Lackner and DiZio [2006]; Matsnev et al. [1983]; Reschke et al. [1994, 1998].
Symptoms Malaise
Loss of appetite
Stomach awareness
Nausea
Lack of initiative
Impaired concentration
Drowsiness
Most of the symptoms of SMS occur within the first hours after exposure to
microgravity and last for up to 4 days in affected astronauts. Interestingly, none of
these symptoms were observed in the first US astronauts traveling in Mercury and
Gemini capsules, where the room to move was very limited. This points to another
important characteristic of SMS: its sensitivity to fast head and body movements.
Both anecdotal reports from astronauts and cosmonauts, as well as systematic
observations during space flight, suggest that such movements evoke or exacerbate
the symptoms of SMS [Lackner and DiZio, 2006].
22 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
The incidence rates of SMS are quite high. According to Russian and American
sources, 44%–67% of space travelers develop SMS to some degree, and this rate
can increase to 85% for non-career individuals such as scientists, who are less well
trained [Davis et al., 1988; Matsnev, et al., 1983]. Given this high incidence and the
impact of SMS on an astronaut’s general fitness, SMS has to be regarded as one of
the most important issues of primary physiological adaptation to the weightless
conditions in space. Corresponding problems can also occur after re-entry and
landing, particularly if astronauts return from long-duration space missions.
However, only a few reports are available of this “mal débarquement”, and
systematic research is still lacking [Clément, 2005; Lackner and DiZio, 2006].
Several theories have been proposed to account for the underlying factors
causing SMS. The most commonly accepted one today is the “sensory conflict
theory” [Lackner and DiZio, 2006]. According to this theory, any kind of motion
sickness develops if sensory signals from different receptors provide incongruent
information about an ongoing movement of the body, or if the afferent signals
associated with a movement do not fit expectations. In space, this kind of conflict
particularly arises between visual and vestibular inputs, at least until the astronaut
has become used to the microgravity-related changes in otolith functions. In
addition, initially unfamiliar patterns of proprioceptive input from muscles, ankles
and joints during voluntary movements under weightless conditions may contribute
to sensory confusions during the first days in space. The fact that head and body
movements have been found to be highly-provoking factors for symptoms of SMS
is consistent with this explanation, although the detailed physiological mechanisms
are as yet largely unknown. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the
development of SMS might closely be related to increases in intracranial and
vestibular pressures induced by the headward shift of body fluids described in
Section 2.2.1. However, the empirical support for this “fluid shift hypothesis” has
been limited and not very convincing [Lackner and DiZio, 2006].
The fact that 77% of astronauts who have been found susceptible to SMS during
their first flight also develop symptoms on following flights [Davis et al., 1988]
suggests that stable individual characteristics might contribute to this susceptibility.
Accordingly, attempts have been made to identify individual predictors for SMS-
proneness and ability to adapt to microgravity in astronauts. These attempts have
included studies of individual personality characteristics, personal history of motion
sickness events assessed by specific motion sickness questionnaires, and perform-
ance in specific susceptibility tests on the ground. As yet, none of these approaches
has been successful predicting likelihood of SMS [Lackner and DiZio, 2006].
Different countermeasures for SMS have been proposed, both pre-launch and
during the mission. Pre-flight countermeasures include training to familiarize
astronauts with the kinds of complex vestibular stimulation and sensory conflict to
be expected in space [Reschke et al., 1994]. One example of this approach is the
NASA Pre-Flight Adaptation Trainer, which confronts astronauts with sensory
conflicts between visual and vestibular stimulation similar to those occurring during
space flight. According to Clément [2005], first experiences with this kind of
training reveal it to be a promising approach for reducing the severity of SMS
symptoms in space. In fact, it seems to be more efficient than other kinds of
Basic Issues of Adaptation 23
vestibular training (e.g., rotating chairs), which usually are highly demanding for
astronauts.
In-flight countermeasures include pharmacological treatment, which is either
applied preventively or after the first symptoms of SMS have developed. Anti-
motion sickness drugs used for this purpose have included combinations of
scopolamine and dexedrine, as well as (even more commonly) promethazine
[Lackner and DiZio, 2006]. The main disadvantage of these drugs is their side
effects, which can considerably degrade cognitive and psychomotor performance
functioning. Possible alternatives to pharmacological treatment of SMS are
behavioral techniques such as biofeedback or autogenic feedback training [Cowings
and Tosacano, 1982]. Such training works by training the astronaut to effectively
control her/his autonomic responses to sensory conflicts in space, thus reducing
their adverse effects. However, the effectiveness of these behavioural techniques
relative to pharmacological treatment is a matter of dispute [Cowings and Toscano,
2000; Lackner and DiZio, 2006], and more work needs to be done to evaluate their
usefulness in space.
The cycle ergometer (CVIS1) can be driven by hand or foot and is mainly used
for maintaining cardiovascular functions and endurance of leg muscles. In addition,
specific arm training and pre-breathe exercises are performed on this device as
preparation for extra-vehicular activities (EVA). The device supports exercising in
the supine or sitting position, and it can be operated in a manual or electronic mode
with a maximum load of 350 W. Optional waist straps and back support are
available to fix the position of the astronaut in weightlessness.
The treadmill allows for walking and running exercises, as well as deep knee
bends and resistive training (i.e., training against an induced force). Two spring-
loaded cords attached to a harness around the astronaut’s waist keep him or her in a
stable position. For resistive training, the treadmill can be equipped with a
subjective loading device (see below). This device induces loads on the astronaut of
up to 100% of his body weight in order to simulate the impact of 1-g forces while
exercising. Exercising on the treadmill is used as a countermeasure for impairments
of cardiovascular functions, decrements of muscle endurance, and loss of bone
mass. In addition, it provides training of neurophysiological pathways and reflexes
needed to walk under the impact of gravity when the astronaut returns home.
The multi-purpose resistive exercise device (RED) is specifically designed to
support exercises preserving bone density and muscle strength, particularly in the
lower part of the body, which is most affected by the detrimental effects of micro-
gravity. It consists of a pair of crank canisters connected to a shoulder harness
which are used to passively exert a selectable load on the astronaut. Typical
exercises on the RED include squats, heel raises, or deadlifts. In addition, the RED
can be combined with the treadmill for resistive training.
The duration of exercise on the different devices is dependent on the length of
the mission and the individual characteristics of the astronaut. During typical short-
term missions lasting up to 2 weeks, astronauts usually exercise for about 30 min
per day. During long-term missions, this time is considerably prolonged. For ISS
crews, flight surgeons commonly recommend daily exercise sessions of about 2–2.5 h
in order to counter the detrimental effects of de-conditioning. The results of these
exercise programs are evaluated on a regular basis by specific fitness tests while the
astronauts are in space. Based on the results of these tests, the details of the exercise
programs are adapted and tailored to the individual needs of astronauts. These
general characteristics of exercise programs in space are essentially the same for
astronauts and cosmonauts. However, Russian countermeasures for cosmonauts also
involve the wearing of so called Penguin loading suits, which make it necessary to
perform movements against some opposing force [Bogomolov et al., 2007].
In addition to the general in-flight exercise program, more specific counter-
measures are applied before astronauts return to Earth from a long-term mission.
These countermeasures include “lower body negative pressure”(LBNP) training and
fluid loading by intake of a water-salt additive. LBNP training is done by using a
device that makes it possible to establish low-pressure conditions in the lower part
1
The acronym stands for “Cycle Ergometer with Vibration, Isolation and Stabilization”. Vibration,
isolation and stabilization refer to specific elements that prevent vibration of the space station that might
result from astronauts who are working out. Vibration needs to be avoided because it is annoying and
because it might disturb ongoing scientific experiments.
26 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
of the body, as compared to the ambient pressure. The astronaut dons a “trouser”-
like device that completely encloses the legs and lower abdomen and can be pro-
gressively de-pressurized down to a pressure difference of -60 mmHg with respect
to ambient conditions. This induces conditions in the lower part of the body that are
similar to those experienced by an upright individual on Earth. The immediate
consequence is a pooling of body fluids in the legs. This in turn challenges the
cardiovascular system to increase the blood pressure and the muscle tone in the leg
vessels in order to maintain the return of blood to the heart. Because this procedure
involves the risk that the astronaut may become dizzy or unconscious if the
depressurization is performed too fast, a close monitoring of heart rate and blood
pressure is required during LBNP training.
Fluid loading with a saline solution may compensate to a certain degree for the
general loss of body fluid volume in space. This can further contribute to a
reduction of problems associated with low blood pressure and increased heart rate
after re-entry and landing.
The foregoing description should have made it clear how much effort is needed
and invested to counteract the problems of de-conditioning in space. However, even
this effort is by no means sufficient to completely maintain all bodily functions and
the physical fitness needed for life on Earth. While astronauts returning from long-
duration space missions might be able to walk short distances on their own after
landing, this capability usually is limited, and it usually takes several weeks of post-
return rehabilitation until the former maximum exercise capacity has returned. This
might not present too big problem for astronauts returning home from missions
lasting a few weeks or month, but it would be of much more concern with respect to
future expeditionary missions to other planets. For example, astronauts traveling to
Mars will be exposed to several months of microgravity before finally arriving at
the Red Planet, and then they would have to cope with gravitational force again
(albeit reduced compared to Earth). Because intensive “post-flight” rehabilitation
programs like the those employed after return to Earth would probably not be
available, the need to avoid de-conditioning effects during the long transfer phase
from Earth to Mars will be even greater during these missions. This has led to ideas
of applying some kind of “artificial gravity” to astronauts during such expeditionary
missions [Young, 1999].
Despite the expense and engineering challenges, artificial gravity would have
the advantage of reducing the detrimental effects of microgravity in all relevant
physiological systems simultaneously. Principally, two options could be considered.
The first involves the provision of artificial gravity on a permanent basis. This could
be achieved, for example, if the whole spacecraft was slowly rotated while moving
through space. The extent of g-forces that might be induced by this approach
depends on the frequency of the rotation and the distance from the center of rotation
(i.e., the radius of rotation). Technological options to establish permanent artificial
gravity on a mission to Mars have been discussed by Zubrin [1997] and, more
recently involving the Space Shuttle, by Bukley et al. [2007]. However, beside its
technological complexity, such a solution would create problems related to
vestibular functioning (e.g., coriolis and other effects), which may be a limiting
factor to this approach [Clément, 2005]. As a possible alternative, intermittent
Basic Issues of Adaptation 27
exposures to artificial gravity have been discussed that might be applied by means
of short-arm centrifuges available onboard the spacecraft. Such devices have been
used for research in space, but they have not been operationally applied for
countermeasure purposes during actual space missions [Clément et al., 2001, 2004].
However, with respect to extremely long missions such as a trip to Mars, the part-
time provision of artificial gravity may represent the best “integrated
countermeasure” [Bukley et al., 2007] for de-conditioning effects, and it is hoped
that research and suitability studies addressing artificial gravity will become more
important in the future.
Table 2.2. Average Sleep [Hours] of American Astronauts During Single-Shift and Dual-
Shift Shuttle Missions. For comparison: average sleep of an astronaut control
group on the ground: 7.9 h. Source: Santy et al. [1988].
Mission Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[n=36]
[n=22]
of about 6 h. Many of the astronauts involved in this study reported that they had
less than 4 h of sleep at least once in-flight, and one astronaut even reported having
less than 5 h of sleep every night in space. Furthermore, 50% of the astronauts on
dual-shift flights, and 19.4% of single-shift crewmembers, acknowledged using
sleep medications at least once during the mission to get an appropriate amount of
sleep on-orbit. This is in good accordance with recently published data, which show
that hypnotics are the second most used medications during space flight, surpassed
only by drugs for space motion sickness [Putcha et al., 1999].
These subjective reports of astronauts coincide remarkably well with results of
sleep monitoring studies during space flight based on polysomnography; i.e.,
monitoring of brain electrical activity during sleep by means of EEG-recordings,
[Frost et al., 1976; Gundel et al., 1993, 1997, 2001; Monk et al., 1998; Dijk et al.,
2001]. All of these studies provide objective evidence for reduced sleep quantity
and more disturbed sleep during the first 30 days of a space mission. In addition,
they point to changes of sleep structure in space. Normal sleep consists of several
cycles of two different phases referred to as REM sleep (characterized by
comparatively shallow sleep associated with rapid eye movements) and non-REM
sleep. Each of these cycles lasts approximately 90 min, with non-REM sleep
followed by initially short phases of REM sleep, which become progressively
longer during the course of the night. Within non-REM phases, four different stages
of sleep can be distinguished, with stages of deep sleep characterized by increased
portions of slow “delta” activity in the EEG signal (i.e., brain electrical activity of
comparatively low frequency, < 4 Hz, and high amplitude). Accordingly, these
stages of sleep are also referred to as “slow wave” sleep. During space flight, some
subtle but significant alterations of this sleep architecture have been found. Gundel
et al. [1997] investigated the sleep of four astronauts on short-duration and long-
duration flights to the former Russian space station Mir. Whereas overall sleep
efficiency was maintained in space, the duration of the initial non-REM sleep was
shortened (i.e., the first episode of REM sleep occurred earlier), and the amount of
slow wave sleep was found to be increased in the second non-REM phase compared
to sleep on the ground. In contrast to the reductions of sleep duration that were only
observed during the first 30 days on-orbit, none of the above other effects showed
an adaptation throughout the mission. For one cosmonaut, they remained visible
Basic Issues of Adaptation 29
even after more than 400 days in space [Gundel et al., 2001]. Monk et al. [1998]
analyzed the sleep of four astronauts on a U.S. Shuttle mission. In these astronauts,
no alterations of REM sleep were found, but there was a general decrease of slow
wave sleep that indicated that sleep in space became shallower than on Earth. Other
studies did not observe comparable alterations of in-flight sleep [Frost et al., 1976;
Dijk et al., 2001]. However, they found a considerable increase of REM sleep and a
reduction of REM latency during the first week after return to Earth, which they
assumed might be related to the transfer back from microgravity to a normal gravity
environment. Even though these different results lack consistency with respect to
the specific pattern of alterations of sleep architecture and point to considerable
inter-individual differences, they all suggest that space flight is associated with a
general reduction of sleep duration, increased sleep disturbances, and specific
changes of sleep regulation processes.
certain period [Wever, 1979]. In this case, the temperature rhythm and the sleep-
wake cycle start to “free run” with different periods. Second, it can result from an
internal dissociation of circadian phase relationships; i.e., where both rhythms are
kept entrained to a 24-h schedule but show a constant difference between their
circadian phases, resulting from a phase advance or delay of the sleep-wake cycle
relative to an unchanged temperature rhythm or vice versa. Such alterations of
circadian phase relationships are typical for single episodes of night work, or for the
first days after traveling across different time zones on Earth (“jet-lag”). In addition,
such shifts also have been found in environments where the strength of the natural
zeitgeber is weakened. For example, Gander et al. [1991] analyzed changes in the
circadian system of three participants of an expedition to Antarctica during the polar
summer when photic zeitgebers are absent due to permanent daylight. In these
individuals, the temperature rhythms showed a phase delay of about 2 h (i.e., the
minimum of body temperature occurred 2 h later than usual). Because bedtimes
remained unchanged, this led to a shift of the circadian phase relationship between
temperature rhythm and sleep-wake cycle, leading to an elevated temperature during
sleep associated with difficulties falling asleep, increased sleep disturbances, and
feelings of poor sleep quality.
Space habitats also share the issue of absent, or at least weakened, photic time
cues. Given the speed of an orbiting space craft, each complete cycle of sunrise and
sunset takes about 90 min, and the level of indoor lighting usually is too low to
compensate fully for this lack of natural daylight time cues. Moreover, operational
demands often make it necessary to advance or delay the work-rest schedule, or
even to shorten its period to less than 24 h during space flight [Dijk et al., 2001]. As
a consequence, disturbances of circadian rhythms, particularly an internal
dissociation of temperature period and sleep-wake cycle, might be expected to arise
during space flight and to contribute to sleep disturbances in space. Only a few
studies have addressed this issue [Gundel et al., 1997; Monk et al., 1998; Dijk et al.,
2001]. No study has revealed any indication of a complete “free run” of the
circadian temperature rhythm in space. Obviously, the strict organization of diurnal
routines, including a regular schedule of wake-up times and meals, combined with
alterations of indoor illumination aboard a space habitat, are sufficient to entrain the
human circadian system to a more or less stable 24-h rhythm in space. However, it
does not seem to be sufficient to keep the internal circadian rhythm completely
aligned with the sleep-wake schedule or to prevent changes in the waveform of
rhythms. Similar to the results reported from Antarctica, phase delays of the
temperature or cortisol rhythms relative to the sleep-wake cycle have been found in
some astronauts [Gundel et al., 1997; Dijk et al., 2001]. Others showed a reduced
circadian amplitude and altered waveform of body temperature rhythm [Dijk et al.,
2001]. All of these effects seem to be related to the weakened strength and altered
structure of zeitgebers in space and may contribute to sleep disturbances, increased
fatigue, and impairments of well-being during space flight.
arise from chronically restricted sleep times in space. The studies described above
provide consistent evidence for reduced sleep in astronauts, at least during the first
2–4 weeks of a space mission, with an average sleep duration of slightly more than
6 h. Thus, the sleep of astronauts in space is decreased by 1–2 h, as compared
with their optimum sleep time of 7–8 h. In addition, the report of an average sleep
time of 6 h implies that there are a number of sleep episodes where astronauts sleep
even less than this amount [Santy et al., 1988].
The possible effects of sleep restriction on wake-time cognitive performance,
wake-time sleepiness, and sleep physiology have been addressed in a number of
recent studies [Belenky et al., 2003; Dinges et al., 1997; van Dongen et al., 2003].
The results of these studies suggest that mild to moderate restrictions of sleep to less
than 6 h per night result in cognitive performance decrements after two consecutive
nights. These decrements include increased response times and number of lapses in
simple reaction time tasks, slowing of performance in mental arithmetic tasks, or
impaired working memory functions. If the sleep restrictions persists for a longer
time, performance impairments accumulate over time until opportunities for
recovery sleep are provided. The strength of these effects are directly related to the
amount of sleep restriction; i.e., they display a sleep dose-dependent effect. After 14
consecutive nights of sleep limited to 4–6 h, the accumulated performance decre-
ments correspond to those found under conditions of one or two nights of complete
sleep loss [van Dongen et al., 2003]. A complete recovery from performance decre-
ments accumulated across several nights of sleep restriction can take longer than
might suspected. The data of Belenky et al. [2003] suggest that even three nights of
unrestricted recovery sleep are not sufficient to return performance to a normal level
after seven consecutive nights of moderately restricted sleep (< 7 h). Similar, albeit
weaker, effects are observed in subjective ratings of sleepiness. These ratings
usually indicate a sleep dose-dependent increment of sleepiness after the first night
of limited sleep, but they do not show the same strong tendency for accumulation
over time.
Overall, these results provide evidence that sleep restrictions as those usually
observed during short-term spaceflights represent a serious issue that can affect the
wake-time performance and sleepiness of astronauts. Therefore, every provision
should be made to improve the conditions for an undisturbed and recuperative sleep
of sufficient duration on-orbit. Such provisions can include improvements of
habitability, like private and comfortable crew rest quarters with adequate shielding
against noise and light, as well as comfortable sleeping bags or restraints according
to the individual preferences of crewmembers [Gundel et al., 1997; Santy et al.,
1988]. A particular problem relates to a better management of ambient temperature
during sleep. This factor has often been complained about in recent subjective
reports [Monk et al., 1998].
However, the most important countermeasure for inappropriate sleep in space
represents a work-rest schedule that takes into account the sleep needs of astronauts.
This involves the avoidance of prolonged work shifts that restrict the time allocated
for rest and sleep. Realistic planning and organization of time lines for astronauts
are required, along with a strict adherence to defined crew schedule constraints that
have been included to protect rest and sleep times in space (see Chapter 6). In those
Basic Issues of Adaptation 33
cases where sleep restrictions cannot be avoided for some reason, it must be ensured
that they do not persist for longer than two consecutive nights, and that they are
compensated for within a short time. The most effective compensation is prolonged
time for sleep during the following night(s). Alternatively, the provision of
opportunities for short sleep episodes (“naps”) during the work day prior to or
following a night of restricted sleep might represent a sufficient compensation. The
latter is suggested by empirical findings that show that the total duration of sleep
obtained within a 24-h period is the most important factor for ensuring the
restorative functions of sleep, regardless of whether the sleep is provided within one
uninterrupted nocturnal episode or by splitting it between an anchor sleep period at
night and additional diurnal naps [Mollicone et al., 2007].
A second set of operational consequences can be derived from the observed
alterations of circadian rhythms in space. These are usually smaller than have been
expected. None of the studies conducted so far have found any indication of a “free
run” of circadian rhythms in space. However, findings of phase delays and lowered
amplitude of the temperature rhythm, which can lead to an internal dissociation of
temperature and sleep-wake cycle, point to effects of the weakened structure of
zeitgebers on the circadian rhythms of astronauts. This might present a problem,
specifically for the in-flight circadian shifting of work-rest schedules required by
operational demands. For example, on the ISS a shift of sleeping times of space
crews often is necessary to match the work-rest schedules of the station crew with
those of a visiting Space Shuttle crew, or to support docking maneuvers of an
arriving re-supply Progress capsule. Each of these shifts represents a “stressor” for
the circadian system, and it remains to be shown whether the weakened zeitgebers
in space are still strong enough to keep the circadian system entrained, even after
several such events during a long-duration mission. As a consequence, the planning
of sleep shifts and the strategy of implementation of such shifts should be
considered very carefully.
Although it has been recommended to implement sleep shifting in space by a
step-by-step approach, operational reality often shows that shifts are implemented
abruptly with advance or delay periods of several hours introduced in one step
(“slam shifting”). From a circadian system point of view, such a shifting strategy
runs the risk of alertness and performance problems, as well as impairments of well-
being. Most problematic in this respect are shift advances (e.g., a change of sleep
time from 2200 to 1800 h, which shortens the working day during the shifting
period). Given that the natural circadian rhythm is a bit longer than a usual 24-h
day, the shortening of days is less well tolerated than a prolongation. The best
strategy of shift-advancing a work-rest schedule remains a matter of debate. A
recent set of empirical studies have investigated different alternatives in introducing
a 6-h shift advance in space [Monk et al., 2004, 2006]. The results suggested that a
shifting schedule involving small 30-min advances across 12 days was less
disturbing on the circadian system and the entrainment of the internal clock and
work-rest schedule than nine 2-h shift delays. Thus, the duration of steps of shifting
might represent a more important feature for an effective change in bedtimes than its
direction.
34 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Houseal, 2000]. However, aggressive outbursts and conflicts with other crew
members also occurred, along with tendencies to withdraw, and crewmembers
invested much effort and resources in order to cope. This eventually led to a
depletion of resources characteristic of a third stage of adaptation, the “exhaustion
stage”. During this period, the affected crewmembers became more fatalistic and
accepted that they could not change their environmental and psychological
conditions.
The most influential adaptation stage model is that proposed by Bechtel and
Berning [1991]. This model states that the third quarter of a mission in an isolated
condition is the most critical psychological phase, where emotional and
interpersonal problems start to increase significantly (“third quarter phenomenon”).
On the one hand, crewmembers have the feeling that they already have passed the
halfway point of their time under the extreme conditions of isolation and separation
from family and friends. On the other hand, they realize that the other half of the
mission is yet to come before they can return home. Interestingly, it is assumed that
this effect emerges independent of the absolute duration of a specific mission (i.e., it
can be observed during short-term missions of several weeks, as well as long-term
missions of several months or even years). Because of its simplicity and high
plausibility, this model has become very popular for an understanding of human
adaptation to extreme environments.
showed that the time course of adaptive reactions were different for the four
categories. A clear third-quarter-phenomenon only emerged with respect to mood
changes (thymic reactions). As expected, mood was more or less constant during the
first six month in Antarctica, but it became significantly more negative after the
halfway point of the mission. However, other time courses emerged for other
categories of behavior. For example, the number of negative social reactions
increased over the course of the mission, with a transient reduction in the second
half; somatic reactions displayed a decrease during the first half of the mission and
remained constant thereafter; and no significant variations over time were observed
for occupational reactions.
Other studies suggest that specific characteristics of the physical and
psychosocial environment may produce a moderating effect on the time course of
adaptive responses. For example, Palinkas and Houseal [2000] investigated mood
changes of polar expeditioners who participated in an over-wintering at polar
stations with different physical (e.g., altitude) and psychosocial (e.g., crew size)
characteristics. Different profiles of mood change over time were found for the
different stations.
All in all, these data from Antarctica and other analog environments suggest that
the basic assumption of a “third-quarter-phenomenon” should not be over-
generalized. Even though most of the data show that the time course of adaptation to
extreme environment does not represent a linear process and might be described
more appropriately as a sequence of stages, the detailed structure and number of
stages seem to be dependent on not only the kind of reactions studied, but also the
specific features of the environmental conditions.
Table 2.3. Stages of Adaptation of a Russian Space Crew During a 5-month Space
Mission. Source: Gushin et al. [1993].
3 Sleep disturbances
Narrowed sphere of interest
Decreased activity
Irritability, fatigue fixation
Period of asthenic state of nervous system
4 Excitation, agitation
Lack of self control, euphoria
monotony within a small crew. According to Grigoriev et al. [1987], this adaptation
occurs by 6 weeks into a mission, and this time coincides with the estimations of the
time needed for sufficient physiological adaptation to microgravity (see above
Section 2.2).
The most critical stage, according to Russian experiences [Grigoriev et al., 1987;
Gushin et al., 1993], starts sometime between the 6th and 12th week of the mission,
when the crewmembers settle into the routine of work in space. This stage can last
until just before the end of the mission and show similarities to the “third-quarter-
phenomenon” observed in analogue environments. Significant psychological changes
can take place during this stage, mainly in mood, in response to the monotony and
boredom that result from low workload, hypo-stimulation, and restricted social
contacts due to separation from family and friends. Observed behavioral reactions
include emotional lability and hypersensitivity, increased irritability, and a con-
siderable decline of vigor and motivation. Also, more subtle psychological changes
have been reported to develop, and there are some indications that perceptual
sensitivities may be altered during long-duration space missions. For example,
Grigoriev et al. [1988] noted that during Salyut 6 and 7 missions, some cosmonauts
experienced increased sensitivity to loud sounds after 3–5 months in space. Similar
perceptual hypersensitivity was reported by Kelly and Kanas [1992] in their survey
of astronauts and cosmonauts who had flown in space. Other observations point to a
change in preference for certain types of acoustic stimulation. For example it was
observed that cosmonauts started to prefer stimulating music after several weeks in
space or even expressed the wish to hear some Earthbound sounds or noise
[Grigoriev et al., 1987]. Finally, psychiatric developments have been reported from
this stage of the flight. In particular, a syndrome referred to as “asthenia” by
Russian space psychologists has been described. This syndrome is associated with
feelings of exhaustion, hypo-activity, low motivation, low appetite, and sleep
disturbances. It might eventually be followed by states of euphoria, depression, and
38 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
"Emotional Balance/Alertness"
4
3
2
Factor Score
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
4
"Sadness"
3
2
Factor Score
1
0
-1
-2
-3
1st month 2nd-4th 7th-9th 11th-14th
-4
- 87
- 34
- 3
- 2
4
5
6
11
12
19
20
27
34
41
48
68
69
96
97
185
186
193
199
208
216
244
326
348
363
398
413
420
427
+11
+12
+168
+168
+4
+4
+5
+6
Mission Day
Figure 2.2. Variations of Subjective Mood and Alertness During a Long-Duration Space
Flight. The data represent factor scores derived from a principal component
analysis of subjective mood ratings of one cosmonaut before, during, and after a
438 day space flight in the Russian orbital station Mir.
Basic Issues of Adaptation 39
Mood was assessed by 16 bipolar rating scales at 29 different time points during a
438-day Mir mission. Factor analyses of these data revealed two different factors of
mood reflecting “emotional balance and alertness” and feelings of “sadness”,
respectively. The time course of mood changes across pre-flight, in-flight, and post
flight periods as reflected in the factor scores is shown in Figure 2.2. As becomes
evident, the first factor reflected a primary adaptation period that lasted during the
first 3–4 weeks of the mission and was marked by considerable drops of perceived
emotional balance and alertness compared to pre-flight ratings. However, after this
adaptation period, there was little indication to support the kinds of stage models
that were described above. Only slightly elevated scores for the “sadness” factor
between flight days 185 and 244 might point to a possible deterioration of mood
around the midterm of the mission. A statistical evaluation was not possible, and the
relatively low frequency of mood assessments might have masked some effects in
this study.
Other research from space has addressed individual adaptation issues with
particular focus on time-related changes of crew interactions and crew-ground
communication [Kanas et al., 2001]. Although there is some evidence for crew
adaptation to space early on in the mission, there was little indication of group
stages during the mission itself. These studies will be described in detail in
Chapter 4.
Thus, the current empirical basis for a stage model of adaptation in space is
rather small and inconsistent. Given this inconsistency of empirical results, it
remains an open question whether such a model really provides an appropriate
framework for a description of general aspects of individual psychological
adaptation to the specific conditions of long-duration space flight. However, at least
the basic differentiation between a first stage of primary adaptation, which lasts
about 2–6 weeks, and a second one that includes most of the remaining time of a
mission seems to be suggested by the presently available data base.
2.5. Summary
• The space environment is an extreme living and working environment to which
humans are not naturally suited and which demands complex processes of
psychological and physiological adaptation.
• The main challenge for physiological adaptation in space is the lack of the usual
gravitational force. In particular, microgravity-related effects on the
cardiovascular and the vestibular system can considerably degrade well-being
and fitness during an early flight period. These effects include sensory conflicts
due to changes in the vestibular system that can lead to space motion sickness,
and a shift of body fluid into the upper part of the body that can be associated
with headache.
• Long-term physiological effects related to microgravity can be observed in the
musculo-skeletal system. These effects are directly dependent on the duration
of a space mission and are mainly reflected in a progressive atrophy of those
40 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
References
Achermann, P., A.A. 2004. The two-process of sleep regulation revisited. Aviation,
Space and Environmental Medicine. 75(Suppl.):A37–A43.
Akerstedt, T., Folkard, S. and Portin, C. 2004. Predictions of the three-process
model of alertness. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 75(Suppl.):
A75–A83.
André-Deshays, C., Israel, I., Charade, O., Berthoz, A., Popov, K. and Lipshits, M.
1993. Gaze control in microgravity:1. Saccades, pursuit, eye-head coordination.
Journal of Vestibular Research. 3:331–343.
Bechtel R.B. and Berning, A. 1991. The third-quarter phenomenon: do people
experience discomfort after stress has passed? In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater,
and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Belenky, G., Wesensten, N., Thorne, D.R., Thomas, M.L., Sing, H.C., Redmond,
D.P., Russo, M.B., and Balikn, T.J. 2003. Patterns of performance degradation
and restoration during sleep restriction and subsequent recovery: a sleep dose-
response study. Journal of Sleep Research. 12:1–12.
Basic Issues of Adaptation 41
Bogomolov, V.V., Grigoriev, A.I., and Kozlovskaya, I.B. 2007. The Russian
experience in medical care and health maintenance of the International Space
Station crews. Acta Astronautica. 60:237–246.
Borbély, A.A. 1982. A two process model of sleep regulation. Human
Neurobiology. 1:195–204.
Buckey, J.C. 2006. Space Physiology. London: Oxford University Press.
Bukley, A., Lawrence, D., and Clément, G. 2007. Generating artificial gravity
onboard the Space Shuttle. Acta Astronautica. 60:472–478.
Cazes, G., Rivolier, J., Taylor, A.J.W., and McCormick, I.A. 1989. The quantitative
and qualitative use of the adaptability questionnaire (ADQ). Artic Medical
Research. 48:185–194.
Charles, J.B., Bungo, M.W. and Fortner, G.W. 1994. Cardiopulmonary function. In:
A.E. Nicogossian, C. Leach Huntoon and S.L. Pool, eds. Space Physiology and
Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Clarke, A.H., Grigull, J., Müller, R., and Scherer, H. 2000. The three-dimensional
vestibulo-ocular reflex during prolonged microgravity. Experimental Brain
Research. 134:322–334.
Clément, G. 1998. Alterations of eye movements and motion perception in
microgravity. Brain Research Reviews. 28:161–172.
Clément, G. 2005. Fundamentals of Space Medicine. Dordrecht: Springer.
Clément, G. and Pavy-Le Traon, A. 2004. Centrifugation as a countermeasure
during actual and simulated microgravity: a review. European Journal of
Applied Physiology. 92:235–248.
Clément, G., Moore, S., Raphan, T., and Cohen, B. 2001. Perception of tilt
(somatogravic illusion) in response to sustained linear acceleration during
spaceflight. Experimental Brain Research. 138:410–418.
Cohen, M.M. 2000. Perception of facial features and face-to-face communications
in space. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:A51–57.
Cowings. I.S. and Toscano, W.B. 1982. The relationship of motion sickness
susceptibility to learned autonomic control for symptom suppression. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 53:570–575.
Cowings. I.S. and Toscano, W.B. 2000. Autogenic-feedback training exercise is
superior to promethazine for control of motion sickness. Journal of Clinical
Pharmacology. 40:1154–1165.
Czeisler, C.A., Weitzman, E.D., Moore-Ede, M.C., Zimmerman, J.C., and Knauer, R.S.
1980. Human sleep: its duration and organization depend on its circadian phase.
Science. 210:1264–1267.
Czeisler, C.A., Duffy, J.F., Shanahan, T.L., Brown, E.N., Mitchell, J.F., Rimmer, D.W.,
Ronda, J.M., Silva, E.J., Allan, J.S., Emens, J.S., Dijk, D.-J., and Kronauer,
R.E. 1999. Stability, precision and the near 24-hr period of the human circadian
pacemaker. Science. 284:2177–2181.
Davis, J.R., Vanderploeg, J.M., Santy, P.A., Jennings, R.T. and Stewart, D.F. 1988.
Space motion sickness during 24 flights of the space shuttle. Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine. 59:1185–1189.
42 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Howard, I.P. 1986a. The vestibular system. In: K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and
J.P. Thomas, eds. Handbook of Perception and Performance. Vol I: Sensory
Processes and Perception. New York: Wiley.
Howard, I.P. 1986b. The perception of posture, self-motion, and the subjective
vertical. In: K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J.P. Thomas, eds. Handbook of
Perception and Performance, Vol I: Sensory Processes and Perception. New York:
Wiley.
Jaweed, M.M. 1994. Muscle structure and function. In: A.E. Nicogossian, C. Leach
Huntoon, and S.L. Pool, eds. Space Physiology and Medicine. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Kanas, N., Slanitskiy, V., Weiss, D.S., Grund, E.M., Gushin, V., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., Bostrom, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2001. Crewmember and ground
personnel interactions over time during Shuttle/Mir space missions. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 72:453–461.
Kanas, N., Weiss, D.S., and Marmar, C.R. 1996. Crewmember interactions during a
Mir space station simulation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 67:
969–975.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1992. Crewmember communication in space: a survey of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
63:721–726.
Kozlovskaya, I.B., Grigoriev, A.I., and Stepantzov, V.I. 1995. Countermeasures for
the negative effects of weightlessness on physiological systems on long-term
space flight. Acta Astronautica. 36:661–668.
Lackner, J.R. and DiZio, P. 2006. Space motion sickness. Experimental Brain
Research. 175:377–399.
Lebedev, V. 1988. Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space. College Station:
Phytoresource Research Information Service.
Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., and Polyakov, V. 1998. Mental performance in extreme
environments: results from a performance monitoring study during a 438-day
spaceflight. Ergonomics. 41:537–559.
Mallis, M.M. and DeRoshia, C.W. 2005. Circadian rhythms, sleep and performance
in space. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 76(Suppl.):B94–107.
Matsnev, E.I., Yakovleva, I.Y., Tarasov, I.K., Alekseev, V.N., Kornilova, L.N.,
Mateev, A.D., and Gorgiladze, G.I. 1983. Space motion sickness: phenomeno-
logy, countermeasures, and mechanisms. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 54:312–317.
Mollicone, D.J., van Dongen, H.P.A., and Dinges, D.F. 2007. Optimizing
sleep/wake schedules in space: sleep during chronic nocturnal sleep restriction
with an without diurnal naps. Acta Astronautica. 60:354–361.
Monk, T.H. and Moline, M.L. 1989. The timing of bedtime and waketime decisions
in free-running subjects. Psychophysiology. 26:304–310.
Monk, T.H., Buysse, D.J., Billy, B.D., Kennedy, K.S., and Willrich, L.M. 1998.
Sleep and circadian rhythms in four orbiting astronauts. Journal of Biological
Rhythms. 13:188–201.
44 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Monk, T.H., Kennedy, K.A., Rose, L.R., and Linenger, G. 2001. Decreased human
circadian pacemaker influence after 100 days in space: a case study.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 63:881–885.
Monk, T.H., Buysse, D.J., Billy, B.T., and DeGrazia, J.M. 2004. Using nine 2 h
delays to achieve a 6-h advance disrupts sleep, alertness, and circadian rhythm.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 75:1049–1057.
Monk, T.H., Buysse, D.J., and Billy, B.T. 2006. Using daily 30-min phase advances
to achieve a 6-hour advance: circadian rhythm, sleep and alertness. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 77:677–686.
Moore, T.P. and Thornton, W.E. 1987. Space shuttle in-flight and post-flight fluid
shifts measured by leg volume changes. Aviation, Space and Environmental
Medicine. 58:A91–A96.
Myasnikov, V.I. and Zamaletdinov, I.S. 1998. Psychological states and group
interactions of crew members in flight (Reprint). Human Performance in
Extreme Environments. 3:44–56.
Nechaev, A.P. 2001. Work and rest planning as a way of crew member error
management. Acta Astronautica. 49:271–278.
Nicogossian, A.E. and Robbins, D.E. 1994. Characteristics of the space environ-
ment. In: Nicogossian, A.E., Leach Huntoon, C., and Pool, S.L. eds. Space
Physiology and Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Nicogossian, A.E., Leach Huntoon, C., and Pool, S.L. eds. 1994. Space Physiology
and Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Palinkas, L.A. and Houseal, M. 2000. Stages of change in mood and behavior
during a winter in Antarctica. Environment and Behavior. 32:128–141.
Palinkas, L.A., Johnson, J.C., Boster, J.S., and Houseal, M. 1998. Longitudinal
studies of behavior and performance during a winter at south pole. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 69:73–77.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K.E., Johnson, J.C., and Holland, A.W. 2000.
Behavior and performance on long-duration spaceflights: evidence from ana-
logue environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:A29–36.
Putcha, L., Berens, K.L., Marshburn, T.H., Ortega, H.J., and Billica, R.D. 1999.
Pharmaceutical use by U.S. astronauts on space shuttle missions. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 70:705–708.
Reschke, M.F., Harm, D.L., Parker, D.E., Sandoz, G.R., Homick, J.L., and
Vanderploeg, J.M. 1994. Neurophysiologic aspects: space motion sickness. In:
A.E. Nicogossian, C. Leach Huntoon, and S.L. Pool, eds. Space Physiology and
Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Reschke, M.F., Bloomberg, J.J., Harm, D.L., Paloski, W.H., Layne, C., and
McDonald, V. 1998. Posture, locomotion, spatial orientation, and motion
sickness as a function of space flight. Brain Research Reviews. 28:102–117.
Rivolier, J. 1992. Facteurs humain et situations extremés [Human factors and
extreme situations]. Paris : Masson.
Rivolier, J., Cazes, G., and McCormick, I. 1991. The International Biomedical
Expedition to the Antarctic: psychological evaluations of the field party. In:
A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Basic Issues of Adaptation 45
Human Performance
recognition [Glasauer and Mittelstaedt, 1998; Leone et al., 1995b, 1998; McIntyre
et al., 2001].
Another class of direct effects of microgravity on neurophysiological functions
regards processes of motor control (i.e., processes involved in programming and
executing voluntary movements). Planning and control of coordinated movements
involve a combination of both central motor programs responsible for generating the
efferent control signals to the peripheral system of muscles, as well as mechanisms
of control and adjustment of ongoing movements based on the processing of
afferent feedback [Cruse et al., 1990]. Central motor programs can be considered as
memory representations of the basic characteristics of different classes of move-
ments that are acquired by training [Summers, 1989]. Technically speaking, they are
conceived as prototypical force-time curves of certain movements (e.g., representa-
tions of the motor pattern defining a goal-directed movement with arm and hand to
reach and grasp a distant object). From these programs, muscle commands are
derived that then produce the intended movement. However, during movement
execution, afferent feedback signals need to be processed in order to monitor the
appropriateness of movements and to initiate on-line adjustments if necessary.
These afferent feedback signals usually include visual signals from observations of
the movement and proprioceptive signals from joints, muscles, and skin.
The effectiveness of both of these elements of motor control – central pro-
gramming of movements and processing of feedback signals during movement
execution – can become degraded under changed gravitational forces [Bock et al.,
1992, 1996]. For example, many central motor programs established on Earth have
incorporated gravity as an important factor [Pozzo et al., 1998]. Accordingly, these
programs represent force-time curves that have been adapted to the specific
mechanical constraints given by the gravitational force (e.g., upward movements of
a limb have to be performed against gravity whereas downward movements are
supported by gravity). Yet under microgravity, these mechanical constraints are
substantially altered. Consequently, if central motor programs acquired on Earth are
applied in space, they can lead to movements that are no longer appropriate without
correction. In addition, proprioception from joints, muscles and skin seems to be
altered and more variable in space. Support for this assumption is provided, for
example, by impairments of awareness of limb position under simulated micro-
gravity conditions [Bock, 1994]. This can considerably disturb the execution of
movements in space, given the fact that distortions of proprioceptive feedback
usually entail more adverse effects on movements than a complete elimination of
these feedback signals [Cruse et al., 1990].
Generally, the microgravity-induced changes in the sensory-motor system have
been described as inducing a state of sensory-motor discordance, which is
characterized by a disruption of the usual relationships among efferent and afferent
signals during the execution of movements [Bock, 1998]. This discordance degrades
the usual efficiency of motor planning and control and has to be compensated for by
complex adaptive mechanisms, including a re-weighting of afferent signals, an
adjustment of central motor programs, and/or more effortful cognitive or visual
control processes during movement execution. Even though these mechanisms are
usually very effective, it is likely that the performance of perceptual-motor tasks
52 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
(i.e., tasks involving the transformation of visual input into appropriate motor
responses) suffers in space, at least during primary adaptation to the conditions of
space flight, where a full adjustment to microgravity has not yet been achieved.
A thorough review of this latter research has been provided by Hockey [1986].
According to this review, human performance under stress usually suffers from
impairments of attentional and/or central cognitive processes. The specific pattern
of impairment can be described by considering five different indicator variables: (1)
general alertness, (2) attentional selectivity, (3) speed of cognitive processes, (4)
accuracy of cognitive processes, and (5) working memory capacity. Among these
different indicator variables, alertness does not strictly reflect a change in a specific
cognitive function but is an indicator of the overall effect of a stressor on the
attentional state, which can also be perceived subjectively. Considering the other
indicators, attentional selectivity is one of the most sensitive ones. It has been
defined as a reduced range of cues that can be attended to simultaneously, and it can
be reflected in a reduced capability to divide attention between different input
signals or to work on concurrent tasks at the same time.
Another issue that has to be taken into account in considering the possible
effects of stress on human performance pertains to the active coping processes of
individuals. That is, even though single performance functions may become
impaired under the impact of stressors, this may not necessarily lead to overt
performance decrements in complex tasks. Instead, the individual can take actions
to compensate for these stress effects and protect overall performance. One way to
achieve this involves mobilizing some extra effort (i.e., trying harder to achieve task
goals). For example, astronauts under time stress might try to perform a given
operational or scientific task more rapidly than usual. Alternatively, subjects under
stress might choose to apply less effortful performance strategies in order to
compensate for impairments of attentional and cognitive functions. An example
would be a pilot focusing on the flying task but neglecting the monitoring of
technical systems in states of stress, or an astronaut relying more than usual on
written standard procedures in order to lower the memory demands of a task.
However, even though these strategies might be adaptive to protect performance in
the main task, they also contain some risks. For example, the astronaut working
more rapidly on a task may be less careful in controlling different actions or may
feel more exhausted and fatigued after task completion. Additionally, the pilot
neglecting monitoring tasks may miss some important malfunction, which later
might add to the stress already present. In cases such as these, stress effects may not
lead to overt performance decrements but nevertheless may affect performance in a
more subtle and concealed way.
This is the essence of the compensatory control model of stress and performance
proposed by Hockey [1993; 1997]. According to this theory, the effects of stress on
task performance are often masked because subjects apply some kind of
performance protection strategy. In particular, this can be expected in operational
work contexts, where commitment to task goals and motivation is high, and where
the tasks are sufficiently complex to provide options for adjusting performance
strategies [Hockey, 1993]. As a consequence, stress-related effects in such tasks are
often only reflected in latent performance decrements that are somewhat difficult to
detect. As has been illustrated by the examples above, such latent effects can
include impairments of performance in subsidiary components of a task, indications
of higher effort invested in task performance, indications of strategic shifts, or
54 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Table 3.1. Possible Types of Performance Decrements under Stress. Partially adopted
from Hockey [1993, 1997].
strategies. In this case, overall mission task performance does not represent a valid
indicator of the current performance capability of an astronaut. As a consequence,
early signs of stress-induced performance decrements may be found in specific
probe tasks that are particularly sensitive to stress effects [Bittner et al., 1986]. They
also may be reflected in more subtle (latent) performance changes in mission
activities (including raised psychophysiological costs of performance) that can only
be detected by sophisticated analyses of task performance.
spatial relationship between one’s own body and the external space. This requires
that a frame of reference be available that provides a stable coordinate system for
defining one’s own position, orientation and motion. On Earth, spatial orientation is
usually achieved by taking gravity as such a frame of reference. The orientation of
the gravitational force provides a reliable cue for determining the subjective
perception of verticality and any deviation of body orientation from an upright
position. In addition, visual cues from the environment (e.g., orientation of houses,
trees, other people) are highly significant for the perception of spatial orientation. In
fact, the influence of visual information can be so strong that it partially or even
completely overrides the signals provided from otolith organs and other proprio-
ceptive receptor systems [Howard et al., 2000]. In this case, distortions of spatial
orientation may occur. Examples from Earth include well-known illusions of
orientation or self-motion. Some spectacular kinds of such illusions are feelings of
falling or other displacements through space induced in cinerama movies or
illusions of orientation induced by completely furnished rooms that are tilted around
a stationary subject [Howard et al., 2000]. Other examples are known from
everyday experience (e.g., sitting in a stationary train but getting the feeling of self-
motion by viewing a slowly accelerating train on an adjacent track). In both cases,
visual cues are in conflict with vestibular and somatosensory ones, and it requires
extra effort to maintain correct spatial orientation under these circumstances.
However, if visual information is lacking (e.g., with eyes closed or in complete
darkness), the afferent information from the vestibular system and the other receptor
systems are usually sufficient to maintain a more or less accurate picture of one’s
own orientation and movement.
In space, where gravity as a frame of reference is lost, the influence of visual
impressions is reinforced, and spatial orientation becomes significantly disturbed. In
a survey of 104 Russian cosmonauts [Kornilova, 1997; Kornilova et al., 1995], 98%
reported states of partial or complete disorientation and the occurrence of spatial
illusions, particularly in darkness or with eyes closed. Lacking a clear visual
reference, astronauts may not be able to correctly identify their own position,
orientation, or motion with respect to the spacecraft. Direct empirical evidence for
such an effect has been provided in an experiment by Glasauer and Mittelstaedt
[1998]. In this experiment, blindfolded astronauts were passively turned around and
were not able to identify accurately their position during or after the turn. The effect
is further supported by results suggesting that astronauts have considerably more
difficulty in space than on Earth in maintaining an accurate spatial map of their
surroundings without vision [Watt, 1997; Young et al., 1993].
Even with eyes open, several disturbances of spatial orientation may occur,
mainly related to three types of spatial illusions [Kornilova, 1997]. The first
includes the perception of surrounding movements associated with movements of
the head. For example, moving the head while looking at a control panel may induce
the perception of a displacement of instruments. These effects are related to the
disturbances of vestibulo-ocular reflexes and gaze-control after entering weight-
lessness. A second type of illusion consists of erroneous perceptions of self-motion
comparable to those known on Earth in situations when visual impressions override
the input of the vestibular system. These can include a variety of different illusions
Human Performance 57
are ambiguous visual arrangements consisting of vertical and horizontal lines that
include misleading depth cues for a spatial (i.e. three-dimensional) interpretation of
the arrangements. This in turn leads to false judgements about the relative size of
the different lines. Under microgravity, the proneness to these illusions is
significantly reduced for most people, and some individuals are able to perceive
these figures as what they really are: two-dimensional drawings. Villard et al.
[2005] take this as an indication of the significance of gravitation for the perception
and interpretation of visual stimuli from the environment. In particular, they assume
that gravitational and somatosensory cues usually represent an integral element of
visual information processing, which supports a spatial (i.e. three-dimensional)
interpretation of visual stimuli. The lack of graviceptive input in space seems to
remove this tendency, at least to a certain extent.
Schonen et al. [1998]. In this experiment, astronauts learned photographed faces and
had to recognize them afterwards when they were shown together with new ones.
The results suggested that astronauts had considerably more difficulty recognizing
previously learned faces if shown in inverted position, and this effect turned out to
be independent of whether the faces were learned on the ground or during the first
few days in microgravity.
This effect and the results from the mental rotation experiments give us a better
understanding of the cognitive representation of complex forms and objects. The
mental representation of such objects remains orientation-dependent (i.e., they are
mentally represented in an upright position) even in the absence of gravity, which is
of theoretical relevance for the field of visual cognition [Leone, 1998]. However,
the finding of a persistent “face inversion” effect in space also has some
psychological significance for the face-to-face communication between astronauts.
In particular, it suggests that astronauts should assume the same orientation during
face-to-face communication in order to avoid the disturbances and misunderstand-
ings that arise from difficulties in correctly perceiving and interpreting facial
expressions (which provide important non-verbal cues for interpersonal
communication) [Cohen, 2000]. Interestingly, the same idea is suggested by the
finding of egocentric frames of reference for perceiving verticality and making
spatial assignments. Only astronauts who communicate with each other in the same
body orientation will use the same frame of reference in talking about spatial
relationships between objects in their surroundings.
additional findings from tracking tasks where speed must be maintained, and
accuracy often has been found to be impaired during space flight or parabolic flight
[Bock et al., 2001, 2003; Manzey and Lorenz, 1998a]. Yet this explanation appears
to be too general to account for the specific alterations of kinematics found in the
study by Sangals et al. [1999].
More likely, these latter effects can be explained by what has been referred to as
the “re-interpretation hypothesis” [Bock et al., 1996]. According to this hypothesis,
gravity-related changes in the weight of objects (including one’s own extremities)
can easily be misinterpreted by the human motor system as changes of mass instead
of changes of gravitational force. This seems to be obvious given the “natural” rela-
tionship between weight and mass on Earth, where the weight of an object (resulting
from gravity) usually provides a direct and reliable clue to its mass. In the
“weightless” environment in space, this direct relationship does not apply. As a
consequence, the motor control system might erroneously underestimate the mass of
extremities to be moved, which then results in specifying incorrect force-time
characteristics for movements of arm, hand, or fingers which need to be corrected
during movement execution [Sangals et al., 1999]. Depending on how fast such a
correction can be performed, movement times may be prolonged to varying degrees.
To sum up, there are some consistent findings that aimed voluntary movements
slow down in space, at least if there is no task-inherent force to maintain a certain
work pace. This effect seems to emerge for a variety of different movements,
ranging from movements of the whole arm to delicate movements of hand and
fingers, and it is in line with earlier observations of a slowing of working speed in
space that also has been attributed to disturbances of movements [Kubis et al.,
1977]. The specific sources of this slowing still are under investigation. Neverthe-
less, the currently available data from space flight suggest that this effect is related
to microgravity-induced changes in the sensorimotor system, which impairs the
efficiency of motor programs acquired on Earth, and which have to be compensated
for by enhanced control processes during movement execution in space.
during the course of a space mission, independent of the specific stressors that cause
these effects. Thus, the variety of information processing functions that are assessed
are increased and include not only functions that might be expected to suffer from
microgravity but also those that have been found to react to environmental stressors
in general (e.g., attention, memory, reaction time). In typical studies of this kind,
performance assessment is done by using short-term laboratory tasks that are based
on sound theoretical models and have been shown by ground-based research to
probe some defined processing functions. Second, the time course of effects is
considered in more detail. That is, performance assessments usually are conducted
repeatedly throughout a space flight in order to describe possible variations in
performance efficiency, which are dependent on time.
Below, results from performance monitoring studies during short-duration and
long-duration space missions will be described in some detail. Particular emphasis
will be placed on the results of a research program that included three studies during
different space missions to the former Russian space station Mir, including the only
available quantitative study of astronaut performance during an extraordinary long-
duration space mission [Manzey, 2000a,b]. A list of all the different performance
functions probed and tasks used in space flight performance monitoring studies
conducted during the last 15 years is provided in Table 3.2.
workload at the end of the space mission and the burden of reentry. Yet the effect
was small, and the comparison to pre-flight performance became statistically
significant only for the first assessment back on Earth immediately after landing.
Only minor changes in cognitive processing also were reported from a second
performance monitoring study involving one cosmonaut during a 6-day Mir flight
[Benke et al., 1993]. In this study, a test battery was used consisting of two kinds of
tasks: The first one including “classical” cognitive tasks (simple reaction time,
choice reaction time, Stroop-like interference task) and the second one including
several visuospatial tasks (e.g. spatial perception, spatial memory). Whereas the
former were used in order to assess non-specific stress effects on speed and accu-
racy of fundamental cognitive functions, the latter set was used to monitor specific
effects of microgravity on spatial processing functions. However, none of these
tasks revealed any significant performance decrements during the flight compared to
the pre-flight baselines.
Table 3.2. Summary of Performance Functions Probed and Tasks Used for Performance
Assessment in Performance Monitoring Studies during Space Flight.
Performance usually has been assessed by speed and/or accuracy measures.
(Continued)
66 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Attention
Attention Switching Performance of two randomly Eddy et al., 1998 ; Schiflett
alternating tasks (Mathematical et al., 1995
Processing and Manikin)
Dual-Task Simultaneous performance of two Manzey et al., 1993, 1995,
tasks (memory search and unstable 1998; Eddy et al., 1998;
tracking) Schiflett et al., 1995
Psychomotor Performance
Unstable Tracking Compensation of deviations of a Eddy et al., 1998; Manzey
randomly moving cursor from target et al., 1993, 1995, 1998,
position by means of joystick 2000; Schiflett et al., 1995
movements
Fittsberg Task Positioning of a cursor on targets of Newman and Lathan, 1999
varying distance and size by means
of input device (e.g., joystick,
trackball)
Others
Interference Task Response to congruent and Benke et al., 1993
incongruent stimulus configurations
(cognitive processes of response
inhibition and selection)
Time Estimation Task Estimation of time intervals of Kelly et al., 2005; Ratino
2s–16s (internal time processing) et al., 1988
Acquisition of response Learning of specified 10-response Kelly et al., 2005
sequences sequences (e.g. 3-7-7-1-9-1-3-9-3)
on a keypad across repeated trials
(memory for response sequences)
Digit-Symbol Complex stimulus-response Kelly et al., 2005
Substitution mapping (combination of visual
search, visual encoding, and
memory)
In line with this general pattern of results are the results of the recent study that was
conducted with four astronauts during a 10-day Shuttle mission [Kelly et al., 2005]. In
this study, four different performance tasks were used, including a time-estimation
task, a Sternberg memory task with memory load differing between one and six digits,
a digit symbol substitution tasks probing a combination of visual search, memory and
response functions, and a response acquisition task. The latter represented an
interesting expansion of tasks as compared to earlier studies by involving aspects of
sequence learning. But even this study did not reveal any clear performance effects
during spaceflight. There were only a few indications of performance decrements
found, which suggested that memory load might affect performance to a larger extent
in space than on Earth. But these effects were small and not easy to explain.
Human Performance 67
All in all, the results of these three studies suggest that the extreme conditions of
spaceflight do not lead to obvious performance decrements in basic cognitive
functions. However, one main limitation of this set of studies can be seen in the
selection of tasks used for performance monitoring. Although all of these tasks were
well-chosen with respect to their psychometric properties and validity, they did not
probe some of the functions that may be most sensitive to direct and indirect effects
of spaceflight-related stressors, such as divided attention and complex psychomotor
functions (see Section 3.2.2).
These latter functions were included in a second set of performance monitoring
studies [Eddy et al., 1998; Manzey et al., 1993, 1995; Newman & Latham, 1999;
Schiflett et al., 1995]. Manzey et al. monitored the performance of one cosmonaut
during an 8-day mission to the Mir station. All tasks used for performance assessment
were chosen from the Standardized Tests for Research with Environmental Stressors
(STRES) [AGARD, 1989]. Specifically, the following tasks were used (see Manzey
et al., 1993, 1995 for a detailed description of these tasks): (1) Grammatical Reasoning,
(2) Memory Search (two different levels of memory load), (3) Unstable Tracking, and
(4) a dual-task involving concurrent performance of tracking and memory search. The
reasoning behind this task selection was to probe information processing functions,
which are known to react sensitively to adverse effects of environmental stressors or
which might become impaired by direct effects of microgravity on sensory-motor
processes. More specifically, the Grammatical Reasoning task and the Memory Search
task were used to monitor speed and accuracy of cognitive functions involving
working memory under varied memory load. The dual-task was chosen to capture
possible attentional selectivity effects, and the Unstable Tracking task was selected to
monitor perceptual-motor functions by a task cognitively more complex than those
usually analyzed in neuroscience research (e.g., aimed arm movements). A total of 13
performance assessments were conducted during the first seven days of the mission.
Results were compared to pre-flight and post-flight data that were obtained during the
week before launch and after landing, respectively. The main results of the study are
presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
In accordance with the results of Ratino et al. [1988], Benke et al. [1993], and
Kelly et al. [2005], no impairments of speed and accuracy of basic cognitive
functions were found during the flight. With one exception (a significant slowing of
grammatical reasoning speed at mission day 4), neither grammatical reasoning nor
memory search performance declined significantly during the stay in space (Figure
3.1). Instead, significant improvements in performance were observed during some
single sessions in space and at several post-flight sessions. However, as expected
clear disturbances of tracking and dual-task performance emerged, which provided
evidence for the impact of space flight-related stressors on perceptual-motor and
attentional functions (Figure 3.2). Tracking performance decrements exhibited a
striking triphasic time course. Compared to the pre-flight baseline, tracking errors
significantly increased during the first three days in space, showed a brief
intermediate recovery to baseline performance, and increased again significantly in
68 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
the last three days of the space mission (Figure 3.2, upper graph). Dual-task
performance decrements apparently emerged independent of the difficulty of the
memory search task during the entire stay in space and were indicated by increased
single-to-dual performance decrements in tracking and/or memory search, compared
with pre-flight baseline performance. Figure 3.2 (lower graph) illustrates this effect
20
10 50
Error%
25
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L 1 2 3 4 5 67
150
120
90
50
Error%
60
25
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L 1 2 3 4 5 67
Session
Mission Day
Pre-Flight Soyuz MIR-Station Post-Flight
Figure 3.1. Performance effects during 8-day spaceflight. Mean response rates (lines) and
error rates (bars) as a function of experimental sessions for (a) grammatical
reasoning and (b) memory-search. Memory-search data are presented separately
for both levels of memory load: two-letter search (dark circles/bars) and four-letter
search (light circles/bars). The horizontal lines in the graphs correspond to the
upper and lower confidence limits defining average pre-flight performance as the
reference for pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni contrasts) with performance at
each subsequent session. Adapted from Manzey et al. [1993, 1995].
Human Performance 69
Unstable Tracking
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L 1 2 3 4 5 67
10 Single-Task
Tracking Error (RMSE)
Dual-Task
8
**
6 **
* *
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Session
Mission Day
Pre-Flight Soyuz MIR-Station Post-Flight
Figure 3.2. Tracking Performance Effects during 8-day Space Flight. Upper graph: Single-
task tracking error as a function of experimental session. Lower graph: Contrast of
single-task tracking error and dual-task tracking error. Since dual-task tracking
performance was not affected by the difficulty of the memory search tasks, it has
been pooled across memory load conditions. The horizontal lines in the upper
graph correspond to the upper and lower confidence limits, defining average pre-
flight performance as the reference for paired comparisons (Bonferroni contrasts)
with performance at each subsequent session. The asterix’ in the lower graph
indicate significant increments of single-to-dual performance differences compared
to pre- and post-flight baseline. Adapted from Manzey et al. [1995].
70 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
for the tracking task. During both pre-flight and post-flight sessions, tracking
performance remained almost unaffected by concurrent memory search (i.e., only
slight performance differences emerged between the single-task and both dual-task
conditions). However, in space significant single-to-dual performance decrements
were observed that occurred independent of the induced memory load.
Although these results were obtained from a single astronaut, they seem to
represent replicable effects. This is suggested by very similar patterns of effects that
have been reported from two performance-monitoring studies conducted during
American Shuttle flights [Newman and Lathan, 1999; Schiflett et al., 1995].
Newman and Lathan [1999] probed the performance of four astronauts by means of
complex tasks combining memory search and a psychomotor task that required
subjects to superimpose a cursor with a defined target position as fast as possible
(“Fittsberg” task). Similar to the results above, they did not find any performance
decrements in the memory search task, but they found significant disturbances of
positioning movements in space that were reflected in a significant slowing of
movement times across different input devices (joystick, trackball). Schiflett et al.
[1995] assessed the performance of three astronauts during a 13-day space flight.
Three of the performance tasks used in this study were similar to those used by
Manzey et al. [1993, 1995] (i.e., memory search, unstable tracking, and dual-task).
The other probe tasks included another memory task (continuous recognition) and
an attention switching task, where two tasks, involving spatial orientation (“Manikin”)
and mental arithmetic (“mathematical processing”), had to be performed in randomly
alternating order. Comparisons of daily in-flight assessments with performance
predicted on the basis of pre-flight learning curves revealed significant degradations of
tracking, dual-task, and attention-switching performance in two of the three subjects.
Even more interesting, these performance decrements – similar to the results of
Manzey et al. [1993, 1995] – emerged most clearly at the beginning and the end of the
space mission, with the latter related to subjective reports of raised fatigue. In contrast,
all other tasks showed a somewhat inconsistent pattern of effect, with some
degradation in two subjects and considerable improvements in the third.
Altogether, these different studies from short-duration space flights provide a
fairly consistent pattern of effects. Whereas elementary cognitive functions like
memory, reasoning, sequence learning or spatial processing remained more or less
unimpaired in space, or even improved in some subjects [Benke et al., 1993; Kelly
et al., 2005; Manzey et al., 1993; Newman and Lathan, 1999; Schiflett et al., 1995],
performance decrements were consistently observed in psychomotor tasks and tasks
demanding higher attentional functions [Manzey et al., 1993, 1995; Newman and
Lathan, 1999; Schiflett et al., 1995]. In addition, simple and choice reaction times
seem to slow down only in periods of acute space motion sickness [Ratino et al.,
1988].
In contrast, Eddy, Schiflett, Schlegel, and Shehab [1998] failed to find impair-
ments of tracking and dual-task performance in four astronauts during a 18-day
space flight but reported some performance decrements in a mathematical pro-
cessing task. They also found a considerably reduced flexibility in attention switch-
ing in two of the subjects. However, in this study persistent learning effects and a
conservative statistical approach, which only allowed for an overall testing of
Human Performance 71
performance effects across all in-flight sessions, might have masked subtle
performance changes in single sessions. Learning effects were most pronounced in
one astronaut who showed a sudden improvement of tracking performance shortly
before launch and in space, which the authors attributed to the detection of a more
efficient tracking strategy [Eddy et al., 1998, p. 202]. However, a re-analysis of the
data by applying a more sophisticated single-case statistical approach [Shehab and
Schlegel, 2000] suggests that also in this study significant decrements of tracking
performance occurred in two of the four subjects during the first performance
assessment in flight [Shehab, personal communication].
Error %
30
9
20
6
3 10
0 0
10
Tracking Error (RMSE)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
1st month 2nd -14th month
- 87
- 34
- 3
+11
+12
- 2
4
5
6
11
12
19
20
27
34
41
48
68
69
96
97
+4
+4
+5
+6
185
186
193
199
208
216
244
326
348
363
398
413
420
427
+168
+168
Mission Day
Figure 3.3. Performance Effects during Long-term Space Flight. (a) Grammatical reasoning
performance (mean response and error rates) as a function of experimental session.
(b) Root mean squared tracking error (RMSE) as a function of experimental session.
(c) Factor scores of mood factor "Emotional Balance/Alertness" as a function of
experimental sessions. The horizontal lines in the graphs “a” and “b” correspond to
the upper and lower confidence limits defining average pre-flight performance at
mission days –87 and –34 as the reference for paired comparisons (Bonferroni
contrasts) with performance at each subsequent session. Adapted from Manzey
et al. [1998].
Human Performance 73
represent a transient phenomenon, however. After the first three weeks in space,
tracking performance was back to pre-flight baseline levels and remained stable
at this level throughout all of the remaining in-flight sessions. However, clear
disturbances of tracking performance reappeared during the first two assessments
after the flight when the subject was forced to re-adapt to Earth conditions. Again, a
recovery of performance was observed across post-flight assessments, and
impairments of tracking were not seen any more at the follow-up sessions. Further
performance decrements were observed in the dual-task, indicating increased
difficulties in dividing attention between tracking and memory search in space.
Even though these effects were less pronounced than those found during the short-
duration space flight, it was striking that they also occurred during the first two to
four weeks in space and again emerged independent of the memory load [Manzey et
al., 1998]. Comparisons of the time course of performance effects and subjective
mood and workload ratings revealed that the impairments of performance were
closely associated with alterations in perceived mood and workload. Changes of
mood emerged for a mood factor mainly representing ratings of "emotional balance"
and "alertness" (Figure 3.3c). These changes indicated that during the first three
weeks in space and the first two weeks after return to Earth, alertness and emotional
balance were perceived as low, compared to pre-flight and most other in-flight
sessions. This would be expected to have an impact on performance. Correlation
analyses revealed a significant relationship between the reported changes of mood
and both tracking and dual-task performance. In addition, doing the different
performance tasks was perceived as more effortful during these periods.
What can be learned from these results? First, the findings for the two elemen-
tary cognitive tasks (grammatical reasoning, memory search) provide more empiri-
cal support for the conclusions drawn from studies during short-duration space
flight that impairments of basic cognitive processes are not to be expected in space
or, at least, can be fully compensated for by increased efforts of the astronaut. In
addition, they prove the generalizability of this assumption to prolonged space
missions.
Second, the findings of tracking performance decrements and increased dual-
task interference effects during the first in-flight phase support the previous findings
of disturbed visuo-motor and attentional processes during space flight. Beyond that,
they suggest that these phenomena represent only transient effects that disappear
within the first month in space. This period seems to represent a critical adaptational
phase that is associated with impairments in subjective mood and well-being.
Furthermore, the effort to accomplish pre-trained tasks may be perceived as being
greater in space during this period than on Earth. This agrees well with a 2-stage
model of human adaptation to long-duration space flight, with the first stage of
primary adaptation to space lasting up to 6 weeks (see Chapter 2). It is further in
line with early reports from Skylab astronauts, where work speed was observed to
slow down during the first week in space [Kubis et al., 1977; see below Section 3.5],
and it coincides with the novelty effect reported by Kanas and his colleagues [2001]
that seemed to affect the emotional and interpersonal state of American astronauts
during their first few weeks on-orbit on the Mir space station (see Section 4.8.2).
74 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Third, the full recovery from performance and mood disturbance in space, and
the stability of mood and performance during more than 400 days, suggest that it is
possible (after successful adaptation to the space environment) to maintain
performance efficiency on a comparatively high level, even during long-duration
space missions.
Finally, the post-flight effects observed during the first two weeks after landing
suggest that during re-adaptation to Earth conditions after a long-duration space
mission, similar performance and mood-related effects are to be expected as during
adaptation to the space environment. However, the results of follow-up assessments
half a year after the mission reveal that even extremely long stays in space do not
lead to long-lasting performance disturbances after returning to Earth.
between tracking error and subjective fatigue or mood ratings in some studies
[Manzey et al., 1998; Schiflett et al., 1995]. It further is supported by findings of
similar (though weaker) disturbances of tracking performance in Earth-bound
simulations of space flight, which obviously cannot result from any stressor specific
to the space environment but seem to arise from confinement and/or the decreased
quality of the ambient atmosphere [Lorenz et al., 1996; Manzey and Lorenz,
1998b].
On the other hand, the degradations of tracking performance found during the
first assessment(s) in space [Manzey et al., 1993, 1998; Schiflett et al., 1995] and
after return to Earth from long-duration space missions [Manzey et al., 1998] sug-
gest that the well-known effects of microgravity on motor control processes might
have contributed to these performance deficits as well. These considerations have
led to a two-factor hypothesis of tracking performance in space [Manzey, 2000a;
Manzey and Lorenz, 1998a; Manzey et al., 1998]. According to this hypothesis,
impairments of tracking performance during space flight are related both to
microgravity-induced changes in the sensory-motor system as well as impairments
of attention due to non-specific effects of workload and fatigue. It is assumed that
the first factor disturbs tracking performance early in flight, whereas the second
primarily is responsible for tracking performance decrements after some time into
the mission.
This hypothesis has been addressed in a space flight study involving one
cosmonaut on a 20-day space mission to Mir [Manzey et al., 2000]. In this study,
the same unstable tracking task was used as in the studies before. Tracking perform-
ance was assessed repeatedly at 6 pre-flight, 6 in-flight, and 7 post-flight sessions.
The results provided empirical evidence for the two-factor hypothesis. In accord-
ance with the results from the earlier research, a comparison of pre-flight and in-
flight performance revealed significant tracking performance decrements in space.
These emerged at the first attempt to perform the task after exposure to microgravity
and re-appeared after an intermediate recovery during the second and third week of
the mission (Figure 3.4a). In addition, tracking errors increased during the first post-
flight week. Analyses of subjective data suggested some correspondence between
the tracking performance decrements that occurred later in-flight and the post-flight
sessions, with increases of workload or decreases of alertness (Figure 3.4b).
In contrast, only subtle changes of alertness and workload were observed early
in-flight. Fine-grained analyses of tracking performance based on control-theoretical
models of tracking behavior revealed a qualitative difference between tracking
impairments at the early and late flight phases, which is in keeping with the two-
factor hypothesis. In particular, the performance decrements observed early in-flight
were almost exclusively related to an increase of the effective time delay during
tracking; i.e., a prolongation of the time needed to transform the visually perceived
tracking signal into appropriate control movements. Such an effect was not found
during any assessments on Earth and appears to result from microgravity-related
disturbances of the internal processing of the tracking signal or of the generation of
control movements in space, similar to those responsible for the slowing observed in
other voluntary movements (see Section 3.3.5). However, the tracking impairments
76 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
0
4
5
7
10
16
18
-7
+1
+2
+ 4
- 10
0
+ 10
+ 12
+ 72
73
- 2e
s
+
Ba
4 Workload
Difference Score
Alertness
2
-2
-4
-6
4
5
7
10
16
+8
-7
+1
+2
+ 4
- 10
0
+ 10
+ 12
+ 72
73
- 2e
1
s
Ba
Mission Day
Figure 3.4. Tracking Performance and Subjective Ratings of Workload and Alertness
during 20-day Space Flight. (a) Root mean squared tracking error (RMSE) as a
function of experimental session. The error bar represents the standard deviation
of performance across the three sessions that have been pooled to derive the
baseline value. Significant increments of tracking error revealed by paired
Bonferroni comparisons of baseline tracking performance with performance in all
other experimental sessions are marked by an asterisk. (b) Subjective alertness
and workload ratings. Shown are difference scores with respect to baseline
ratings. Adapted from Manzey et al. [2000].
Human Performance 77
3.6. Summary
• Human performance in space can suffer from both microgravity effects involv-
ing vestibular and sensorimotor processes as well as non-specific stress effects
related to workload, sleep disturbances, and other factors of the extreme living
and working conditions in space.
• Important effects of microgravity include disturbances of spatial orientation,
alterations of spatial perception, reduced sensitivity of mass discrimination, and
a slowing or loss of precision of voluntary movements. Most of these effects
Human Performance 81
persist for a comparatively short time and diminish in the course of adjustment
or the establishment of effective compensatory mechanisms.
• A loss of a sense of verticality seldom has been reported from astronauts.
Instead, they usually keep some kind of subjective verticality with respect to an
egocentric frame of reference (e.g., “up” is where the head is). Similarly, spatial
assignments to external objects usually are made with reference to the
coordinates of the visual field. As a consequence, unambiguous
communications about spatial relationships between two astronauts seem to be
possible only if the orientations of both are aligned.
• The “face inversion” effect persists in space. That is, communication of
astronauts whose orientation is inverted to each other can be severely disturbed
by difficulties in perceiving and interpreting non-verbal cues correctly.
• Performance monitoring studies during space flight have revealed that tracking
and dual-task performance are prone to disturbance effects during short-
duration space missions. Impairments of tracking performance seem to reflect
the effects of both microgravity as well as non-specific effects of workload and
fatigue. Microgravity-related decrements occur only during the first trials under
altered gravity conditions and can be compensated for later unless workload
and fatigue are high. Impairments of dual-task performance seem to result
primarily from non-specific stress effects on attentional processes.
• Little is known about the effects of long-duration space missions on cognitive
functions. A first performance monitoring study suggests that the first two to
four weeks of long-duration space flight, and the first two weeks after return to
Earth, represent a critical period where fine motor control and attentional
processes may be impaired. After successful adaptation to the space
environment, cognitive performance can be maintained on a comparatively high
level, even during long-duration space missions.
• Complex cognitive skills seem to remain intact during space missions and
periods of long-term confinement and isolation. But analyses of crew errors
during Russian Mir missions suggest a close relationship between the
occurrence of errors in mission tasks and disturbances of work-rest schedules,
periods of high workload, and physical discomfort.
• Even though several studies of cognitive performance have been conducted
during short-duration and long-duration space missions, and during ground-
based simulations, the currently available database still is small, and further
research is needed in this area.
References
AGARD. 1989. Human performance assessment methods (AGARDograph 308).
Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: AGARD.
Benke, T., Koserenko, O., Watson, N.V., and Gerstenbrand, F. 1993. Space and
cognition: The measurement of behavioral functions during a 6-day space
mission. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 64:376–79.
82 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Berger, M., Mescheriakov, S., Molokanova, E., Lechner-Steinleitner, S., Seguer, N.,
and Kozlovskaya, V. 1997. Pointing arm movements in short- and long-term
spaceflight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 68:781–787.
Bittner, A.C., Carter, R.C., Kennedy, R.S., Harbeson, M.M., and Krause, M. 1986.
Performance evaluation tests for environmental research (PETER).: Evaluation
of 114 measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 63:683–708.
Bock, O. 1998. Problems of sensorimotor coordination in weightlessness. Brain
Research Reviews. 28:155–160.
Bock, O. 1994. Joint position sense in simulated changed-gravity environments.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 65:621–626.
Bock, O., Abeele, S., and Eversheim, U. 2003. Sensorimotor performance and
computational demand during short-term exposure to microgravity. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 74: 1256–1262,
Bock, O., Arnold, K.E., and Cheung, B.S.K. 1996. Performance of a simple aiming
task in hypergravity: II. Detailed response characteristics. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 67:133–138.
Bock, O., Fowler, B., and Comfort, D. 2001. Human sensorimotor coordination
during spaceflight: An analysis of pointing and tracking responses during the
“Neurolab” space shuttle mission. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 72:877–883.
Bock, O., Howard, I.P., Money, K.E., and Arnold, K.E. 1992. Accuracy of aimed
arm movements in changed gravity. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 63:994–998.
Casler, J.G. and Cook, J.R. 1999. Cognitive performance in space and analogous
environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. 3:351–372.
Christensen, J.M. and Talbot, J.M. 1986. A review of psychological aspects of
space flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 57:203–212.
Clément, G., Berthoz, A., and Lestienne, F. 1987. Adaptive changes in perception
of body orientation and mental image rotation in microgravity. Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine. 58:A159–A163.
Cohen, M.M. 2000. Perception of facial features and face-to-face communications
in space. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:A51–A57.
Cooper, L.A. and Shepard, R.N. 1973. Chronometric studies of the rotation of
mental images. In: Visual Information Processing. Chase, W.G. ed. New York:
Academic Press.
Cruse, H., Dean, J., Heuer, H., and Schmidt, R.A. 1990. Utilization of sensory
information for motor control. In: Relationships Between Perception and
Action. Neumann, O. and Prinz, W. eds. Heidelberg: Springer.
de Schonen, S., Leone, G., and Lipshits, M. 1998. The face inversion effect in
microgravity: is gravity used as a spatial reference for complex object
recognition? Acta Astronautica. 42:287–301.
Easterbrook, J.A. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Psychological Review. 66:183–201.
Eddy, D., Schiflett, S., Schlegel, R., and Shehab, R. 1998. Cognitive performance
aboard the life and microgravity spacelab. Acta Astronautica. 43:193–210.
Human Performance 83
Fowler, B., Bock, O., and Comfort, D. 2000a. Is dual-task performance necessarily
impaired in space ? Human Factors. 42:318–326.
Fowler, B., Comfort, D., and Bock, O. 2000b. A review of cognitive and
perceptual–motor performance in space. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 71:A66–A68.
Friederici, A.D. and Levelt, W.J.M. 1987. Resolving perceptual conflicts: The
cognitive mechanism of spatial orientation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 58:A164–A169.
Friederici, A.D. and Levelt, W.J.M. 1990. Spatial reference in weightlessness:
perceptual factors and mental representations. Perception and Psychophysics.
47:253–266.
Garriott, O.K. and Doerre, G.L. 1977. Crew efficiency on first exposure to zero-
gravity. In: Biomedical results from Skylab (NASA-SP377). Johnston, R.S. and
Dietlein, L.F. eds. Washington: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Gerathewohl, S.J., Strughold, H., and Stallings, H.D. 1957. Sensomotor performance
during weightlessness. Journal of Aviation Medicine. 28:7–12.
Glasauer, S. and Mittelstaedt, H. 1998. Perception of spatial orientation in
microgravity. Brain Research Reviews. 28:185–193.
Harrison, A.A. and Connors, M.M. 1984. Groups in exotic environments. Advances
in Experimental Psychology. 18:49–87.
Heuer, H., Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., and Sangals, J. 2003. Impairments of manual
tracking performance during spaceflight are associated with specific effects of
microgravity on visuomotor transformations. Ergonomics. 46:920–934.
Hockey, G.R.J. 1986. Changes in operator efficiency as a function of environmental
stree, fatigue, and circadian rhythms. In: Handbook of Perception and
Performance. Vol II: Cognitive Processes and Performance. Boff, K.R.,
Kaufman, L., and Thomas, J.P. eds. New York: Wiley.
Hockey; G.R.J. 1993. Cognitive-energetical control mechanisms in the management
of work demands and psychological health. In: Attention: Selection, Awareness
and Control. Baddeley, A. and Weiskrantz, L. eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hockey, G.R.J. 1997. Compensatory control in the regulation of human
performance under stress and high workload: a cognitive-energetical
framework. Biological Psychology. 45:73–93.
Hockey, G.R.J. and Hamilton, P. 1983. The cognitive patterning of stress states. In:
Stress and Fatigue in Human Performance. Hockey, G.R.J. ed. Chichester:
Wiley.
Hockey, G.R.J. and Sauer, J. 1996. Cognitive fatigue and complex decision-making
under prolonged isolation and confinement. In: Advances in Space Biology and
Medicine. Vol. 5. Bonting, S.L. ed. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hockey, G.R.J. and Wiethoff, M. 1993. Cognitive fatigue in complex decision-
making. In: Advances in Space Biology and Medicine. Vol. 3. Bonting, S.L. ed.
Greenwich: JAI Press.
Howard, I.P, Jenkin, H.L., and Hu, G. 2000. Visually-induced reorientation illu-
sions as a function of age. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:
A87–A91.
84 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E.M., Weiss, D.S., Gushin, V., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2001. Human interactions in space: results from
Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica. 49:243–260.
Kelly, T.H., Hienz, R.D., Zarcone, T.J., Wurster, R.M., and Brady, J.V. 2005.
Crewmember performance before, during, and after spaceflight. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 84:227–241.
Kornilova, L.N. 1997. Orientation illusions in space flight. Journal of Vestibular
Research. 7:429–439.
Kornilova, L.N., Mueller, C., and Chernobyl’skii, L.M. 1995. Phenomenology of
spatial illusory reactions under conditions of weightlessness. Human
Physiology. 21:344–351.
Kubis, J.F., McLaughlin, E.J., Jackson, J.M., Rusnak, R., McBride, G.H., and
Saxon, S.V. 1977. Task and work performance on Skylab missions 2, 3,and 4:
time and motion study – experiment M151. In: Biomedical results from Skylab
(NASA-SP377). Johnston, R.S. and Dietlein, L.F. eds. Washington: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Lackner, J.R. and DiZio, P. 1993. Multisensory, cognitive, and motor influences on
human spatial orientation in weightlessness. Journal of Vestibular Research. 3:
361–372.
Leone, G. 1998. The effect of gravity on human recognition of disoriented objects.
Brain Research Reviews. 28:203–214.
Leone, G., de Schonen, S., and Lipshits, M. 1998. Prolonged weightlessness, refer-
ence frames and visual symmetry detection. Acta Astronautica. 42:281–286.
Leone, G., Lipshits, M., Gurfinkel, V., and Berthoz, A. 1995a. Influence of
graviceptive cues at different levels of visual information processing: The
effects of prolonged weightlessness. Acta Astronautica. 36:743–751.
Leone, G., Lipshits, M., Gurfinkel, V., and Berthoz, A. 1995b. Is there an effect of
weightlessness on mental rotation of three-dimensional objects? Cognitive
Brain Research. 2:255–267.
Leonov, A.A. and Lebedev, V.I. 1975. Psychological problems of interplanetary
space flight. NASA Technical Translation. NASA TT F-16536.
Lorenz, B., Lorenz, J. and Manzey, D. 1996. Performance and brain electrical
activity during prolonged confinement. In: Advances in Space Biology and
Medicine. Vol. 5. Bonting, S.L. ed. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Manzey, D. 2000a. Monitoring of mental performance during spaceflight. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:A69–A75.
Manzey, D. 2000b. Psychological aspects of human spaceflight: effects on human
cognitive, psychomotor, and attentional performance DLR-Mitteilung 2000-2.
Cologne: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt.
Manzey D. and Lorenz B. 1998a. Mental performance during short-term and long-
term spaceflight. Brain Research Reviews. 28:215–221.
Manzey, D. and Lorenz, B. 1998b. Effects of chronically elevated CO2 on mental
performance during 26 days of confinement. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 69:506–514.
Human Performance 85
Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., Heuer, H., and Sangals, J. 2000. Impairments of manual
tracking performance in space: More converging evidence from a 20-day space
mission. Ergonomics. 43:589–609.
Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., and Polyakov, V.V. 1998. Mental performance in extreme
environments: Results from a performance monitoring study during a 438-day
space mission. Ergonomics. 41:537–559.
Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., Schiewe, A., Finell, G., and Thiele, G. 1993. Behavioral
aspects of human adaptation to space: Analyses of cognitive and psychomotor
performance during an 8-days space mission. Clinical Investigator. 71:725–731.
Manzey, D., Lorenz, B., Schiewe, A., Finell, G., and Thiele, G. 1995. Dual-task
performance in space: Results from a single-case study during a short-term
space mission. Human Factors. 37:667–681.
McIntyre, J., Lipshits, M., Zaoui, M., Berthoz, A., and Gurfinkel, V. 2001. Internal
reference frames for representation and storage of visual information: the role
of gravity. Acta Astronautica. 49:111–121.
Mittelstaedt, H. and Glasauer, S. 1993. Crucial effects of weightlessness on human
orientation. Journal of Vestibular Research. 3:307–314.
Nechaev, A.P. 2001. Work and rest planning as a way of crew member error
management. Acta Astronautica. 49:271–278.
Newberg, A.B. 1994. Changes in the central nervous system and their clinical
correlates during long-term space flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 65:562–572.
Newman, D.J. and Lathan, C.E. 1999. Memory processes and motor control in
extreme environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics:
Part C: Applications and Reviews. 29:387–394.
Pavy-Le Traon, A., Rous de Feneyrols, A., Cornac, A., Abdeseelam, R., N’uygen,
D., Lazerges, M., Güell, A., and Bes, A. 1994. Psychomotor performance
during a 28 day head-down tilt with and without lower body negative pressure.
Acta Astronautica. 32:319–330.
Pozzo, T., Papaxanthis, C., Stapley, P., and Berthoz, A. 1998. The sensorimotor and
cognitive integration of gravity. Brain Research Reviews. 28:92–101.
Pribram, K. and McGuinness, D. 1975 Arousal, activitation, and effort in the control
of attention. Psychological Review. 82:116–149.
Ratino, D.A., Repperger, D.W., Goodyear, C., Potor, G., and Rodriguez, L.E. 1988.
Quantification of reaction time and time perception during Space Shuttle
operations. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 59:220–24
Reschke, M.F., Bloomberg, J.J., Paloski, W.H., Harm, D.L., and Parker, D.E.
1994a. Neurophysiologic aspects: Sensory and sensory-motor function. In:
Space Physiology and Medicine. 3rd ed. Nicogossian, A.E., Leach Huntoon, C.,
and Pool, S.L. eds. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Reschke, M.F., Harm, D.L., Parker, D.E., Sandoz, G.R., Homick, J.L., and
Vanderploeg, J.M. 1994b. Neurophysiologic aspects: Space motion sickness.
In: Space Physiology and Medicine. 3rd ed. Nicogossian, A.E., Leach Huntoon,
C. and Pool, S.L. eds. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
86 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Rock, I. 1986. The description and analysis of object and event perception. In:
Handbook of Perception and Performance. Vol II: Cognitive Processes and
Performance. Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., and Thomas, J.P. eds. New York: Wiley.
Ross, H.E. 1991. Motor skills under varied gravitoinertial force in parabolic flight.
Acta Astronautica. 23:85–95.
Ross, H.E., Brodie, E.E., and Benson, A.J. 1986. Mass discrimination in weight-
lessness and readaptation to Earth’s gravity. Experimental Brain Research.
64:358–366.
Ross, H.E., Schwartz, E., and Emmerson, P. 1987. The nature of sensorimotor
adaptation to altered G-levels: Evidence from mass discrimination. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 58:A148–A152.
Sanders, A.F. 1983. Towards a model of stress and performance. Acta Psychologica.
53:61–97.
Sangals, J., Heuer, H., Manzey, D., and Lorenz, B. 1999. Changed visuomotor
transformations during and after spaceflight. Experimental Brain Research.
129:378–390.
Sauer, J., Hockey, G.R.J., and Wastell, D.G. 1999a. Performance evaluation in
analogue space environments: adaptation during an 8-month Antarctic
wintering-over expedition. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
70:230–235.
Sauer, J., Hockey, G.R.J., and Wastell, D.G. 1999b. Maintenance of complex
performance during a 135-day spaceflight simulation. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 70:236–244.
Sauer, J., Wastell, D.G., and Hockey, G.R.J. 1999c. Multiple-task performance on a
computer-simulated life support system during a space mission simulation. Acta
Astronautica. 44:43–52.
Schiflett, S., Eddy, D., Schlegel, R.E., French, J., and Shehab, R. 1995. Performance
Assessment Workstation (PAWS). Unpublished Final Science Report to NASA.
Shehab, R.L. and Schlegel, R.E. 2000. Applying quality control charts to the
analysis of single-subject data sequences. Human Factors. 42:604–616.
Shehab, R.L., Schlegel, R.E., Schiflett, S., and Eddy, D. 1998. The NASA-
Performance Assessment Workstation: Cognitive performance during head-down
bed rest. Acta Astronautica. 43:223–233.
Summers, J.J. 1989. Motor programs. In: Human skills 2nd. ed. Holding, D.H. ed.
Chichester: Wiley.
Tafforin, C. and Lambin, M. 1993. Preliminary analysis of sensory disturbances and
behavioral modifications of astronauts in space. Aviation, Space, and Environ-
mental Medicine. 64:146–152.
Taylor, A.J.W. 1989. Behavioural science and outer space research. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 60:815–816.
Vaernes, R.J., Bergan, T., Lindrup, A., Hammerborg, D., and Warncke, M. 1993.
Mental performance. In: Advances in Space Biology and Medicine. Vol. 3.
Bonting, S.L. ed. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Valentine, T. 1988. Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon
face recognition. British Journal of Psychology. 79:471–491.
Human Performance 87
Villard, E., Grarcia-Moreno, F.T., Peter, N., and Clément, G. 2005. Geometric visual
illusions in microgravity during parabolic flight. Neuroeport. 16: 1395–1398.
Watt, D.G.D. 1997. Pointing at memorized targets during prolonged microgravity.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 68:99–103.
Weybrew, B.B. 1963. Psychological problems of prolonged marine submergence.
In: UnusualEenvironments and Human Behavior. Physiological and Psycho-
logical Problems of Man in Space. Burns, N.M, Chambers, R.M., and Hendler, E.
eds. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Whiteside, T.C.D. 1961. Hand-eye coordination in weightlessness. Aerospace
Medicine. 32:719–725.
Wickens, C.D. and Gopher, D. 1977. Control theory measures of tracking as indices
of attention allocation strategies. Human Factors. 19:349–3765.
Wickens, C.D. and Hollands, J.G. 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human
Performance. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Yerkes, R.M. and Dodson, J.D. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity
of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 18:
459–482.
Young, L.R. 2000. Vestibular reactions to space flight: Human factors issues.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:A100–A104.
Young, L.R., Oman, C.M., Merfeld, D., Watt, D., Roy, S., DeLuca, C., Balkwill, D.,
Christie, J., Groleau, N., Jackson, D.K., Law, G., Modestino, S., and Mayer, W.
1993. Spatial orientation and posture during and following weightlessness:
Human experiments on spacelab Life Sciences 1. Journal of Vestibular Research.
3:231–239.
Young, L.R. and Shelhamer, M. 1990. Microgravity enhances the relative contri-
bution of visually-induced motion sensation. Aviation, Space, and Environ-
mental Medicine. 61:525–530.
88 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Human Interactions
89
90 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Table 4.2. Important Interpersonal Issues and Their Sequelae During Long-Duration
Space Missions.
A number of interpersonal issues may be identified that have relevance for long-
duration space crews [Kanas, 2005]. These generally are by-products of small group
interactions and can be found in social and work groups on Earth. Given the unique
stressors of space, these issues may lead to problematic behavior that can produce
intrapsychic and interpersonal stress and can affect the ability of crewmembers to
accomplish mission goals. The various issues and their sequelae will be discussed
below and are summarized in Table 4.2. Note that in the table, specific sequelae are
listed that are most identified with the issue being described. However, there can be
overlap in a given situation. For example, personality differences between
crewmembers can not only lead to tension and scapegoating, as shown in the table,
but the resulting interpersonal conflicts can cause crew miscommunication,
leadership role confusion, and cohesion disruptions leading to withdrawal and
subgrouping.
4.2.1. Gender
Mixed-gender crews have flown in space for over 2 decades, and women have
performed on a par with their male colleagues. Historically, most mixed-gender
missions have been short in duration, but in 1996 an American female astronaut,
Shannon Lucid, completed a successful 6-month mission with two male Russian
cosmonauts on board the Mir space station, showing that men and women from
different cultures can interact in space for long periods of time. This trend has
continued in missions involving the International Space Station. As of mid-2007,
there have been three missions to the ISS where an American woman has lived and
worked in space for over 5 months with at lest two men (both Americans and
Russians). Anecdotal reports have indicated that the crewmembers got along and
that primary mission goals were achieved.
Studies on Earth have demonstrated that women perform well in space
simulation environments. For example, on a Tektite submersible mission, the
performance of a crew of five women was judged to be equal to or better than that
of all-male crews participating in the project [Miller et al., 1971]. Kahn and Leon
[1994] evaluated an expedition team composed of four women that spent 67 days in
the Antarctic. They concluded that this team performed on a par with male or
mixed-gender teams and may have been more sensitive to interpersonal concerns.
Bishop [2004] reviewed all-female and all-male desert survival teams and
concluded that the former were sensitive to interpersonal issues and team member
welfare, whereas the latter were focused on task objectives, sometimes to the
detriment of an individual member. Similarly, based on her review, Leon [2005]
concluded that all-male expedition teams showed patterns of strong competitiveness
and little sharing of personal concerns, whereas women in mixed-gender and all-
female groups exhibited considerable concerns about the welfare of their team-
mates. Wood and her colleagues [2005] also found that women in Antarctic stations
were more sensitive than men to decrements in crew cohesion. In a European Space
Agency space simulation study called EXEMSI (Experimental Campaign for the
European Manned Space Infrastrucutre), three men and one woman were secluded
for 60 days in a hyperbaric chamber. During periods of interpersonal strife, the
female crewmember was seen as being a peacemaker, playing an important role in
lowering the overall tension in the group [Vaernes, 1993]. This finding was echoed
by Leon [2005] in her review. Rosnet and her colleagues [2004] concluded that the
presence of women during the wintering-over period at a French polar station had
positive effects on the crew by reducing rude behavior in the male members.
However, there are some indications that interpersonal tensions may occur in
male-female crews working under isolated and confined conditions. For example,
sexual stereotyping was found during the 211-day Salyut 7 mission, when newly
arriving cosmonaut Svetlana Savitskaya was greeted with flowers and a blue floral
print apron and was asked to prepare the meals shortly after beginning her eight day
visit on-board the space station [Lebedev, 1988]. Similar stereotyping also was
noted during the 61-day joint Soviet-American Bering Bridge expedition from
92 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Siberia to Alaska, and Leon and her colleagues [1994] concluded that the Soviet
men were more chauvinistic than their American counterparts toward the female
expedition members. Rosnet and colleagues [2004] found the presence of seduction
behavior, rivalry, and sexual harassment in their polar station when the women were
about the same age as the men. Finally, in a review of U.S. naval officers and
enlisted personnel working at sea, women were viewed as performing well, but
gender conflicts and stereotyping still occurred [Boeing Aerospace Company,
1983]. Thus, attitudinal issues may affect male-female relationships during isolated
and confined conditions, even though intellectual or performance differences are
negligible. But the personalities of the participants may play a role in ameliorating
gender differences. Personality issues are discussed below in Section 4.2.4.
The possibility of pairing and sexual contact also needs to be considered during
long-duration space missions. Will such activities lead to jealousies and problems in
crew cohesion? In a recent space simulation project conducted in Moscow that
involved several multinational teams of isolated and confined individuals (called
SFINCSS, or Simulation of a Flight of International Crew on Space Station), a
female participant reported unwanted sexual advances (including kissing) from a
male participant. This resulted in a breakdown of cohesion and group rancor that
affected not only the isolated teams but also the participating agencies [Inoue et al.,
2004; Kass and Kass, 2001; Sandal, 2004]. Stuster [1996] has pointed out that
similar unwanted sexual attention has occurred during Antarctic missions, and that
disruptions in cohesion have taken place as a result of male-female pairings. He also
stated that if a woman chooses to have a relationship during her stay in the
Antarctic, it often is with one man, with a preference for senior over junior
personnel. Although the other men usually accept the situation, disruptions may
occur if the relationship involves the station leader, who is seen as having an unfair
advantage. Along these lines, it is interesting that in the days of the polar explorers,
the commanding officer of the ship or the expedition leader was permitted the
luxury of taking his wife or mistress with him on the long voyage [Stuster, 1996].
Buckey [2006] has reviewed a number of the sexual and non-sexual tensions that
might occur in a mixed-gender crew going to Mars. He suggests that the crew-
members could be observed under isolated and confined conditions during training
to see how they come together as a team in reference to possible problems with
harassment, flirtatiousness, or jealousy. Should such problems occur, further
training or even replacement of offending crewmembers might be necessary for the
actual mission.
One might argue that future crews should consist of married couples or stable
male-female pairs in order to minimize competition and conflict. However, there is
no reason to expect that such a crew composition would prevent secret liaisons and
jealousies, since infidelity and extra-marital relations occur on Earth in less stressful
interpersonal environments. Enforced platonic relationships and sexual abstinence
also is a possibility, but it is difficult to imagine this as a realistic scenario for
healthy energetic people who are confined together for long periods of time.
Perhaps novel social systems and customs will evolve in space that are similar to
those found in communes, where pairings and unpairings will be tolerated with a
minimum of conflict and animosity.
Human Interactions 93
Table 4.3. Key Cultural and Interpersonal Communication Factors that Affect Crew
Operations and Interactions in Multicultural Crews. Source: Lozano and Wong
[1996].
Language
Nonverbal communication styles
Assertiveness
Interpersonal interest
Sense of humor
Bluth [1984] has described a number of cultural traits that could create problems
in space, many of which are subtle. For example, she has written that people from
Arab and Japanese cultures accept physical closeness better than Americans, and
they might tolerate the cramped quarters of a space station better than their Western
counterparts. Pollis [1965] has pointed out that there is no word for “privacy“ in
Greek, possibly reflecting the notion that existence apart from family and friends is
foreign to Greek cultural norms. Consequently, a Greek astronaut might perceive a
fellow crewmember’s need for privacy as a personal affront rather than as a desire
to get a little time alone.
Along these lines, Raybeck [1991] has written about a number of national and
cultural traits which affect one’s concept of privacy. He states that in some cultures,
people who prefer to be alone are regarded with suspicion or are seen as being
deviant and non-conforming to the group norms. Such attitudes may influence the
conception of one’s self and one’s relationship with others. He warns that such
issues need to be addressed in planning for missions involving people working in
confined environments for prolonged periods of time, such as in space stations.
Finally, a recent review on cultural issues during space missions has been
provided by Kring [2001]. In partial overlap with the earlier results from the
McDonnel Douglas study, he identified ten areas related to space missions that are
influenced by the national culture of the participants. These are: communication;
cognition and decision making; technology interfacing; interpersonal interactions;
Human Interactions 95
work, management, and leadership style; personal hygiene and clothing; food
preparation and meals; religion and holidays; recreation; and habitat aesthetics.
Based in his analysis, Kring proposed a multicultural training approach for both
crewmembers and mission control personnel that involves six steps: (1) providing
all trainees with a brief overview of each person’s cultural background, (2)
describing the ten areas mentioned above in terms of their importance for the
mission, (3) allowing the trainees to record their own mission preferences with
regard to the ten areas, (4) facilitating a group discussion regarding the rationale for
these preferences, (5) collectively agreeing on behaviors acceptable to everyone
during the mission, and (6) recording a final set of guidelines. Training issues
involving space missions will be considered further in Chapter 6.
Table 4.4. Emotional Problems from Beginning to End of the Wintering-Over Period at
Five U.S. Antarctic Stations. Abstracted from Gunderson [1968].
Also, conflicts between scientists and non-scientists can lead to open hostilities.
In one case involving a scientific expedition at sea, where the scientists kept
extending the mission in order to collect more data samples, angry members of the
homesick crew snuck into the refrigerator room one night and tossed laboriously
collected study samples overboard [Finney, 1991]. It is important for groups of
people with different work backgrounds and motivations to respect each other’s
roles and to cooperate; otherwise, mission objectives may be compromised.
4.2.4. Personality
The selection of crewmembers who are psychologically compatible will minimize
miscommunication and maximize their ability to get along during long-duration
space missions. Currently, psychological issues are most emphasized at the time that
candidates are evaluated to be astronauts, when formal testing is made as part of an
attempt to select-out less desirable applicants. Formal psychological tests to select-
in for compatibility have not been used historically by NASA to compose crews for
space missions, although psychological assessment methods have been used for
crew selection in the Russian (Soviet) program for some time. Traditionally, these
methods have emphasized compatibility in psychophysiological reactions and
individual stress resistance, as measured by responses to stressful events such as
parachute jumps [Garshnek, 1989; Gazenko, 1980].
Interpersonally-oriented psychological tests have been used for crew selection in
space simulation studies. Examples include the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) test and sociometric questionnaires [Dunlap, 1965;
Ferguson, 1970; Haythorn and Altman, 1963] and the Personality Characteristics
Inventory (PCI) [Chidester et al., 1991]. In addition, Manzey, Schiewe and Fassbender
[1995] described the use of behavioral exercises as part of an “assessment center” to
select compatible crewmembers for the 60-day ESA-sponsored EXEMSI project.
Based on the anticipated task demands of this mission, exercises that were related to
social and leadership competence were constructed and used to observe potential
crewmembers for psychological compatibility. The results of these observations
assisted with the final selection of the 4-person crew. The use of such selection
methods are described in more detail in Chapter 6.
Personality differences and complementarities have been shown to be important
in space analog environments in addressing how people relate with one another. For
example, in one ground-based study measuring the effects of isolation and confine-
ment, 36 sailors were given psychological tests and then were paired according to
different conditions of compatibility [Haythorn and Altman, 1963]. Some pairs were
isolated for 10 days in cabins and given tasks to do. Others did the same tasks but
were allowed to go home in the evening. Both groups were observed through a one-
way mirror and rated on factors such as territoriality, disclosure, performance, and
interactions. In the isolated condition, four pairs of men experienced a great deal of
interpersonal conflict (e.g., arguing, fighting) and withdrawal from each other, and
analysis of the individuals in these conditions revealed that three pairs had members
who were both high in dominance on the Edwards Personal Preference Scale. In
contrast, matched pairs in the non-isolated control condition performed well and
experienced no arguments. In another study using the four-person School of
Human Interactions 97
groups were at times intense. Similar subgrouping occurred in the four-person crew
involved with the 60-day EXEMSI isolation mission [Vaernes, 1993]. Palinkas et al.
[2000] described a pattern of subgrouping in the Antarctic where crewmembers
formed cliques based upon where in the station they spent most of their leisure time.
They termed these the “biomed”, “library”, and “bar” subgroups. Interestingly,
crews characterized by such a clique structure exhibited higher levels of tension-
anxiety, depression, and anger-hostility on the Profile of Mood States than crews
whose members identified more with the whole group. Subgrouping is a common
phenomenon, and if the subgroups do not interact with one another at least part of
the time, it sets up the potential for misunderstandings and miscommunication that
can negatively affect the mission.
In contrast, cohesion sometimes improves over time as people adjust to one
another, and anticipation of the mission can be worse than the mission itself. In a
study of seven men and women participating in a 3 week Arctic scientific expedi-
tion, Palinkas and his colleagues [1995] reported significantly higher tension levels
prior to the start of the mission than during the mission itself, where the crew-
members seemed to adapt to their situation. Similarly, in their 135-day Mir space
station simulation study, Kanas and his colleagues [1996] found significantly less
tension during the last half of the isolation than during the first half, and there was
significantly more tension in the group prior to entering the isolation chamber than
after the mission began. What distinguishes groups that do better over time from
those that do worse is unclear. In the Mir simulation study, subjects received
replacement computer parts, favorite foods, and letters from home during a mid-
mission resupply, and perhaps this positive event improved morale and cohesion. In
addition, this mission did not involve much danger, and there was the impression
that the crew learned to relax over time and enjoy the positive aspects of being
isolated away from the cares and woes of everyday life. More research needs to be
done in this area of group stages and what makes an isolated and confined
experience positive versus negative for the participants.
project [Gushin and Pustinnikova, 2001]. Although English was the official
language, it was not native for some of the participants. The lack of pre-mission
language training, along with differences in communication styles, interfered with
effective communication between one of the groups and outside monitors [Gushin
et al., 2001].
In their survey of 54 astronauts and cosmonauts who had flown in space, Kelly
and Kanas [1992] found that all of the respondents acknowledged that it was
important for space crewmembers to be fluent in a common language, and 63%
believed that it was very important. International astronauts participating in U.S.
missions rated the importance of speaking a common dialect significantly lower
than their American and Russian counterparts. This may have been due to the fact
that most of the internationals were European and may have been exposed to more
languages in their lifetime. Crew communication was judged to be enhanced by a
sense the respondents had of undergoing a shared common experience during their
space missions.
Peeters and Sciacovelli [1996] have pointed out that native language is not the
only linguistic issue related to space missions. Astronauts and cosmonauts also must
be familiar with the specialized space terminology that is used during a mission.
NASA space terminology is derived from basic English and includes a set of
synonyms, acronyms, and neologisms related to this language. In contrast, Russian
space terminology has a different set of linguistic parameters, and so on for other
languages. It is possible that a common, unique space language will evolve over
time that will transcend the peculiarities of any single national language, especially
as a result of multinational space missions.
in his diary cosmonaut Lebedev described interpersonal strains that he and his
fellow cosmonaut experienced as the mission wore on, which resulted in silences
and withdrawal [Lebedev, 1988]. Second, three-person crews can be very unstable
due to shifting alliances and a tendency of one person to be scapegoated or put in a
minority position. Although the three-man Apollo missions generally were
successful, they were highly structured and relatively short-term. But during the
longer-term three-person Shuttle/Mir missions, some of the American astronauts
reported a sense of social isolation, possibly due to the fact that they were a true
minority in their crew in many ways: only American, only native English-speaker,
only person not in the operational chain of command (Russian mission control was
responsible for the Mir, and the commander and engineer for all of the flights were
Russian cosmonauts). However, although groups of three seem to have dis-
advantages, they are to be preferred to groups of two. This is suggested in the
results of a study by Smith and Haythorn [1972], which showed that groups con-
sisting of three people work better under conditions of isolation and confinement
than two-person groups. Third, the larger the group, the greater the tendency for
leader-follower relationships to form, and the greater the stability. In odd-numbered
groups, there is less likelihood for deadlocking subgroups to form in situations
where non-leader directed activities are involved. Since future ISS or expeditionary
class space missions may involve crews consisting of six to eight individuals, one
might predict that on the basis of number alone, a crew of seven would be ideal
since this would be the largest odd-numbered crew size.
4.7.2. Displacement
Sometimes other factors disrupt the relationship between isolated individuals and
people on the outside. For example, there have been reports from space analog
studies that isolated individuals have become irrationally angry at people monitoring
their behavior, especially during tense times when anger is not expressed between
the confined crewmembers themselves [Dunlap, 1965; Jackson et al., 1972;
McDonnell Douglas, 1968]. This suggests that what is happening is a displacement
or transfer of intra-crew tension and negative dysphoric emotions to safer, more
remote individuals on the outside, an idea proposed by Kanas and Feddersen [1971]
106 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
zones, the schedules are demanding, and both junior and senior personnel must
interact together with a minimum of psychosocial training. For the safety of the
missions and optimal crew-ground interactions, it is important to understand how
people on the ground view these operational challenges, especially those with
relatively little experience. This was the goal of a study conducted by Clement and
his colleagues [Clement and Ritsher, 2005; Clement et al., 2007a, 2007b]. The
purpose was to identify and evaluate the major cultural and leadership challenges
faced by ISS flight controllers and to highlight the approaches found effective in
surmounting these challenges.
4.8.1. Procedures
A semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted on 14 senior and 12 junior
flight control personnel who were involved in various aspects of mission planning
and day-to-day operations of the ISS at the Johnson Space Center in Houston,
Texas. The interview questions addressed various leadership and cultural issues and
challenges as well as further training that the subjects felt they needed [Clement and
Ritsher, 2005]. The senior sample consisted of 13 men and 1 woman who were
mostly in their 40s and had worked as mission controllers in several programs,
including early Space Shuttle flights, Shuttle missions to the Mir Space Station, and
the ISS program. The junior sample consisted of 6 men and 6 women who were
mostly in their 20s and had worked primarily in the ISS program. Written and
verbal responses to the study questions were collected and categorized into
emergent themes by a consensus of the research team. Significant differences
between the senior and junior subjects were looked for in terms of the frequency
in types of responses.
4.8.2. Results
Significantly more senior than junior controllers stated that maintaining team morale
and motivation in the mission control environment was an important leadership
challenge, and they also perceived change as a factor affecting their work. They
were more likely than their junior colleagues to be concerned that the current two-
country (U.S. and Russian) solutions may not be effective in future multinational
situations. Although not statistically significant, there was a stronger trend for
junior controllers to see language differences as a major cultural challenge,
and to acknowledge the importance of expandng cultural awareness as a solution
to operational challenges. Both groups strongly saw cultural differences,
organizational differences, and the dispersion of team members across time zones as
important challenges. Both groups also viewed effective communications, robust
interpersonal relationships (particularly with their Russian counterparts), and open-
mindedness as important solutions to the various challenges in their work.
4.8.3. Conclusions
These results suggest that the day-to-day operational tasks involved with managing
on-orbit space missions are full of many leadership and cultural challenges. How
these challenges are viewed and dealt with depend in part on the experience level of
the mission control personnel. Senior controllers who have been involved with
108 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
several different space programs are more likely to be sensitive to changes in team
morale that result from programmatic changes and complexities. In contrast, their
less experienced and younger colleagues, who have primarily worked in one
program, tended to be more concerned with language differences and cultural
sensitivities, although both groups acknowledged cultural and organizational
differences and the need for everyone to communicate effectively as being
important.
Certainly, being aware of operational challenges is important, and a way to
heighten awareness is through improved training in psychosocial and cultural issues.
However, trainers need to be aware of attitudinal differences between senior and
junior controllers in order to more effectively meet the needs of both groups. In
addition, managers need to pay careful attention to the importance of cultural,
language, and organizational differences, and they need to minimize the negative
impact of distance and inflexible interpersonal interactions on team morale and
communications. Since more countries will be involved with ISS missions in the
future, it is important to obtain feedback from their controllers as well and to
consider training packages where they can be trained jointly with counterparts from
other nations. In this way, many of the challenges cited above can be exposed and
dealt with before they can compromise mission safety and success.
1
The international investigative team was from the University of California and the Veterans Affairs
Medical Center in San Francisco (Nick Kanas, M.D., Principal Investigator; Charles Marmar, M.D.;
Daniel Weiss, Ph.D.; Alan Bostrom, Ph.D.; Ellen Grund, M.S.; and Philip Petit, M.S.), and the Institute for
Biomedical Problems in Moscow (Vyacheslav Salnitskiy, Ph.D.; Vadim Gushin, M.D.; Olga Kozerenko,
M.D.; and Alexander Sled, M.S.). The study was supported by NASA Contract #NAS9-19411.
Human Interactions 109
worked the same shift, and time was set aside for them to eat together. Leisure time
activities included television downlinks and e-mail with family and friends on Earth.
Breakdowns of vital equipment on the Mir (e.g., oxygen generator, coolant system)
and two life-threatening accidents (an on-board fire and a collision with a Progress
resupply spacecraft) led to stressful periods of time. But these issues were resolved,
and mission goals generally were accomplished.
Due to the interest in examining displacement and the crew-ground relationship,
both crewmembers and mission control personnel were involved with the study. The
formal hypotheses dealt with a number of important interpersonal issues and are
listed in Table 4.5. Participation in the study was voluntary, and all enrolled
subjects signed informed consent. The final study sample consisted of five U.S.
astronauts, eight Russian cosmonauts, and 42 U.S. and 16 Russian mission control
personnel (that included flight surgeons, operations leads, engineers, mission
scientists, spacecraft communicators, hardware specialists, and psychological
support personnel). Crewmembers were on-board the Mir for periods of time
ranging from 4 to 7 months.
The emotional state and interpersonal relationships of the subjects were assessed
through the completion of a study questionnaire that consisted of items from three
well-known and standardized instruments: the seven subscales from the Profile of
Mood States (POMS) [McNair et al., 1992], the ten subscales from the Group
Environment Scale [Moos, 1994a], and four relevant subscales from the Work
Environment Scale [Moos, 1994b]. The subscales that were used in the study are
listed in Table 4.6. A Critical Incident Log also was included that asked subjects to
describe and rate important events that had occurred in the past week. Four times
pre-mission, weekly during the mission, and twice post-mission, subjects completed
the study questionnaire, which took 15–20 min. While on the Mir space station,
crew subjects completed a computerized version of the questionnaire and saved
their data to an optical disk for later return to Earth. The mission control subjects
preferred to use hardcopy versions that were mailed to the study center in San
Francisco. There were a total of 212 observations from the crewmembers and 1,088
observations from the mission control personnel. Data were analyzed using
Table 4.6. Subscales Used During the Shuttle/Mir Human Interactions Study.
Tension-Anxiety Fatigue-Inertia
Depression-Dejection Confusion-Bewilderment
Vigor-Activity
4.9.2. Results
Using a piecewise linear regression analysis, none of the subscales used to test for
second half score decrements as predicted by hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 resulted in
significant findings. However, one of the two subscales used to test hypothesis 3,
Leader Support in crewmembers, showed the predicted significant decrease in scores
during the second half [Kanas et al., 2001c].
Time effects other than first half/second half also were tested for crewmembers
using regression techniques. Neither a high-low-high “U-shaped” pattern nor an
overall linear increase or decrease in the scores over time throughout the missions
was found on any subscale for all crewmembers or for Russians alone. However, for
the Americans alone, the subscale for Order & Organization showed a significant
Human Interactions 111
triphasic U-shaped pattern, indicating higher scores at the beginning and the end of
the missions. In addition, for the Americans alone, there was a significant linear
decline in Cohesion as the mission progressed, and significant non-linear declines in
Task Orientation and Self Discovery during the middle and end of the missions
[Kanas et al., 2001b]. These findings suggested that a novelty effect occurred for the
Americans, where they exhibited high scores on several measures in the first few
weeks that then dropped as the mission progressed and the astronauts became more
familiar with their tasks and the on-orbit environment.
Using one-way ANOVAs, scores also were examined for the 21 subscales
across the four quarters of the missions to look for the third quarter phenomenon
(see above, Section 4.3.1) and to see if any single quarter gave unique scores. There
were no significant quarter differences for all crewmembers or for Russians alone
[Kanas et al., 2001a, 2001c]. American crewmembers gave significantly higher
mean scores in the earlier versus later quarters for Task Orientation and Self
Discovery, a pattern reminiscent of the linear trends described above in the
regression analysis.
Using one-way ANOVAs, crewmember responses for the 21 subscales during
the on-orbit phase of the missions were compared to their pre-launch baseline scores
and to their post-return scores. There were no significant differences in the mood
subscales among the on-orbit and pre- and post-mission periods for all
crewmembers combined or for U.S. and Russian subjects taken separately [Kanas
et al., 2001b]. However, the crewmembers reported higher levels of Self Discovery
and Innovation prior to launch, and higher levels of Work Pressure during the
missions [Ritsher et al., 2007].
Strong support was found for the presence of displacement effects (hypotheses 5
and 6) using a regression analysis [Kanas et al., 2001c]. Based on previous space
simulation work [Kanas et al., 1996], displacement was defined operationally as
occurring when there were significantly lower levels of perceived support from
outside supervisors on the Supervisor Support subscale during periods of higher
intra-group tension and dysphoria, as measured by the following six subscales:
Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Total Mood Disturbance,
Anger & Aggression, and Work Pressure. Predicted significant negative
relationships were found between all of these subscales and Supervisor Support
when all subjects were analyzed together. Table 4.7 shows that there were no
differences between crew and ground subjects except for Work Pressure, where the
predicted negative relationship reached significance for crewmembers alone but not
for the mission control subjects, although there was a non-significant trend in the
predicted direction.
Overall differences in response between Americans and Russians and between
crew and ground subjects were examined using a two-way ANOVA [Kanas et al.,
2000a, 2000b]. In terms of nationality, the U.S. subjects seemed less satisfied with
their interpersonal and work environments than the Russians. As seen in Table 4.8
(see Section 4.10.2), Americans reported significantly higher scores on the
subscales measuring Work Pressure and Vigor-Activity, and Russians scored higher
on measures of Task Orientation, Managerial Control, Leader Support, Self
Discovery, and Physical Comfort. In terms of location (Table 4.9, Section 4.10.2),
112 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Table 4.7. Subscales Showing Significant* Negative Relationships with Outside Supervisor
Support (Suggesting the Presence of Displacement).
* p-values were less than the adjusted significance level threshold of p = .05
[Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995].
There were a number of differences between the Shuttle/Mir and ISS studies.
First, in the former, American and Russian mission control subjects all were located
at TsUP in Moscow, but in the latter there were two additional mission control
centers in the United States: one at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas
(responsible for operations) and one at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Alabama (responsible for science and other payloads). Now, all ground
subjects could be studied in their more familiar home countries. Second, the ISS
crewmembers in a given mission all launched and returned together rather than
being staggered in time, as had been the case in the Shuttle/Mir study. Interpersonal
dynamics could now be examined in a closed group of people who were together
throughout the mission. Third, the 3-person ISS crews varied in national
representation, some having two Russian cosmonauts and one American astronaut,
and others having two American astronauts and one Russian cosmonaut. In contrast,
the 3-person Shuttle/Mir crews all consisted of two Russians and one American.
The impact of nationality versus minority status during on-orbit missions could now
be unconfounded, which was not possible in the Shuttle/Mir study. Fourth, some
ISS missions had a Russian commander and some had an American commander,
whereas in Shuttle/Mir the commander was always a Russian. Fifth, due to the
disruption of the Space Shuttle launches stemming from the Columbia accident, the
smaller Russian Soyuz was used temporarily to transport crewmembers into orbit.
Due to space limitations, only two crewmembers could be launched. Consequently,
some of the ISS missions that were studied had only two crewmembers (one
American and one Russian), whereas others (prior to the accident) had three crew-
members. Finally, the ISS missions had a major American operational influence,
whereas the Shuttle/Mir missions were largely under Russian control. Given these
differences between the Shuttle/Mir and ISS mission profiles, if the results were
similar across these two studies, then it could be inferred that they would be
applicable to future on-orbit missions as well. If the results were different, then the
impact of program-specific characteristics needed to be examined more closely.
Like in the Shuttle/Mir study, the ISS missions were 4–7 months in duration and
contained crews that included at least one American and one Russian. Due to the
Columbia accident and other delays, which impacted on the construction schedule,
missions could not be studied that involved non-U.S. and non-Russian participants
who were in space for longer than one month duration, which was the minimum
time for a crewmember to be included in the study protocol. Eight ISS crews were
given an informed consent briefing related to the study, and seven agreed to
participate. The final study sample consisted of four missions with 3-person crews
and three missions with 2-person crews. One person chose not to participate, but
data were collected from the rest of that crew. Crewmembers were in their 30s–50s,
as is typical of the population of active astronauts and cosmonauts. In all, the
subject sample included 17 crewmembers (8 Americans and 9 Russians; 15 men and
2 women) and 108 American and 20 Russian mission control personnel.
As in the Shuttle/Mir study, the ISS crewmembers and mission control subjects
rated their emotional state and social climate weekly using elements from three
scales: the Profile of Mood States or POMS [McNair et al., 1992], the Group
Environment Scale or GES [Moos, 1994a], and the Work Environment Scale or
Human Interactions 115
WES [Moos, 1994b]. The same subscales were tested as are shown in Table 4.6,
with the exception of Physical Comfort, which was deleted in the ISS study due to
debriefing opinions expressed from some of the Shuttle/Mir subjects that the
questions in this subscale were irrelevant for on-orbit space station environments.
Scores on the remaining 20 subscales were used to test ISS study hypotheses. The
questionnaire for both crew and ground subjects was completed every Wednesday
for 4 weeks prior to launch, during the mission, and 2 weeks after return to Earth.
During the missions, the overall compliance rate for completion by the crew-
members was 82%.
Second half time effects, displacement, cultural differences, and leadership role
were analyzed using methods similar to those used in the Shuttle/Mir study. None of
the ISS variables required transformation because the residuals from mixed model
analyses were considered normally distributed. Corrections to reduce the risk of
Type I errors were employed using the procedure recommended by Benjamini and
Hochberg [1995].
4.10.2. Results
Using a mixed-model linear regression analysis, there were no changes in the slopes
of the subscales used to measure crewmember cohesion, tension, or leader support
in either the 1st or 2nd halves of the missions; that is to say, none of the slopes
showed a significant deviation from a horizontal line with a slope of zero [Kanas
et al., 2007]. These results suggested the absence of 2nd half (and 1st half) decrements
during the course of the missions. In further analyses using ANOVAs, there were
likewise no differences in mean crewmember scores in any of the 20 subscales
across the four quarters of the missions. In comparing the 3rd quarter means against
the means for the other three quarters pooled together, there again were no
significant differences, except for the Independence subscale, which was higher in
the 3rd quarter. However, this finding was in the opposite direction from what
would be predicted to test for a negative third quarter phenomenon. The failure to
find time dependent findings essentially replicated the time results from the
Shuttle/Mir study.
Unlike the Shuttle/Mir study, there was no evidence to suggest the presence of a
novelty effect in our ISS study for the American (or Russian) crewmembers. They
seemed to adapt to the ISS environment and showed no significant subscale
differences in the first few weeks versus the rest of the mission.
Also unlike the Shuttle/Mir study, the ISS crewmembers were more positive in
their mood states during the mission than before launch (i.e., they had lower scores
in Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Fatigue-Inertia,
Confusion-Bewilderment, and Total Mood Disturbance), and they did not score
Work Pressure as being higher during the missions. Like the Shuttle/Mir
crewmembers, their Self Discovery and Innovation scores were higher prior to
launch, although their levels of Managerial Control were higher during the missions
[Ritsher et al., 2007].
Exploratory analyses were conducted to look for a potential relationship
between individual mean scale scores and mission duration. Pearson correlations
indicated that there was no significant relationship between the length of the
116 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
missions (within the 4–7 month range in the study sample) and average scores on
the 20 subscale measures. Descriptively, none of the corresponding scatter plots
showed signs of any meaningful relationships. Taken together, these analyses
suggested that it was unlikely that differential time effects existed between the
longer and shorter missions that were included in the study.
As in the Shuttle/Mir study, the ISS results found evidence to support the
displacement construct [Kanas et al., 2007]. All six of the relationships between
variables measuring tension/negative moods and perceived support from outside
supervisors were in the predicted negative direction, after correcting for possible
Type I errors. In a secondary set of analyses to evaluate whether these relationships
might be different for crewmembers versus mission control personnel, the results
showed a statistically significant interaction for four of the six relationships
(Tension-Anxiety, Anger-Hostility, Total Mood Disturbance, and Work Pressure),
each of which showed a stronger effect among crewmembers than among mission
control personnel. Estimates for crew and ground subjects analyzed separately
showed that for all of these variables, the effect was in the predicted direction and
statistically different from zero, except for the relationship between Tension-
Anxiety and Supervisor Support among mission control personnel, which was in the
predicted direction but not statistically significant. Taken together, these findings
suggest that the displacement effect was present in both crewmembers and mission
control personnel, but that it was stronger for the former than the latter.
Using ANOVA methods, Russian-American and crew-ground differences were
tested for all of the subscales. In terms of a main effect for Country, there were
similarities between the Shuttle/Mir and ISS studies that suggested the presence of
cultural differences between the American and Russian subjects. The two-study
Table 4.8. Subscales Showing Significant Mean Score Differences Between American
and Russian Subjects. Subscales that showed significant mean score differences
in the Shuttle/Mir and ISS studies. Bold indicates that the higher pair score is
significant, after applying the correction to reduce the possibility of Type I error
[Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995]. Adapted from Kanas et al. [2006].
The Shuttle/Mir findings were replicated in the ISS study for leadership role.
Using mixed-model regression techniques, it was found that for all crewmembers,
Leader Support, but not Leader Control, was significantly related to Cohesion. This
pattern of results also was found for American astronauts alone and for Russian
cosmonauts alone. For all mission control subjects, both Leader Support and Leader
Control were significantly related to Cohesion; this was also the case for Americans
alone and Russians alone who worked in mission control environments.
Two raters analyzed the log entries from the ISS crewmember subjects and
coded their content into any of 17 categories. Eight subjects from both countries
provided 37 log entries, with one accounting for 22 entries. The content from the
log entries was broken down into a total of 92 ratings coded across all categories.
Coded ratings were re-categorized as having a reference to positive/negative/neutral
attributes or were related to expected onboard events. From the 92 critical incident
ratings, 21% contained positive attributes (e.g., holiday celebrations, actions that
bonded the crewmembers closer together), 17% contained reference to expected on-
board events (e.g., dockings, EVAs), 55% contained incidents having negative
attributes (e.g., interpersonal or psychological problems), and the remaining 7%
contained either neutral ratings or not enough information to analyze. Of those logs
containing incidents with negative attributes, 47% referred to interpersonal
problems (intra-crew, crew-ground, or with management), and 18% dealt with
psychological problems (e.g., tension, depression). In response to a question asking
how much the incident affected their personal level of tension, the crewmember
scores averaged between ratings of “no change” and “increased a little”. The results
were similar for a question asking how much the incident affected their group’s
level of tension. Because 53% of the subjects did not report a critical incident, and
because one subject accounted for 59% of the responses, one must be cautious in
interpreting these findings. Nevertheless, the responses suggested that both negative
and positive incidents occurred, causing both personal and group tension to fall or
rise on-board, and that interpersonal incidents were more common than
psychological or other negative incidents.
about ISS partner countries, had visited other countries, and had foreign language
skills. These subscales were summed to produce an overall score measuring
“cultural sophistication”. Not included in this score were the responses to the four
Kelly and Kanas “language flexibility” questions, which were analyzed separately.
On average, the crewmembers had higher cultural sophistication scores than
mission control personnel, with Russians scoring higher than Americans. These
differences were mainly due to the lower average score of the American mission
control respondents. In examining the associations between cultural sophistication
scores and the 20 mood and social climate variables, there was only one significant
finding: a negative association between the mean cultural sophistication score and
Supervisor Support for crewmembers.
In terms of language flexibility, the results showed that Americans scored
significantly higher than Russians on a question about the importance of mission
controllers having the same dialect of a common language. They also felt more
strongly that the crew should speak the same dialect of a common language.
missions. These activities may have helped to blunt the effects of monotony and
homesickness on-orbit. In contrast, this intensity of support has been difficult to
maintain during some space analog missions on Earth, such as the winter-over
period in the Antarctic where communications and resupply opportunities are
limited by the harsh weather.
A final explanation for the lack of time effects during the on-orbit phase of the
missions may be related to the stringent selection criteria and intensive training that
astronauts and cosmonauts undergo prior to launch. These are people who are used
to dealing with stress in an emotionally calm and positive manner, reacting with less
lability than other people. In fact, they generally score lower on the negative
subscales (and higher on the positive subscales) than normative samples of people
in other work settings on Earth [Kanas et al., 2001a]. Furthermore, analyses of their
pre-flight versus in-flight emotions showed that for the ISS crewmembers, their
moods were more positive during the missions than before launch, where their
mood scores were similar to those of mission control personnel [Ritsher et al.,
2007]. Thus, it is possible that due to personality and training factors, space
crewmembers do not on average experience the extremes of homesickness and other
negative emotions during the course of a long mission as compared with participants
in space analog environments on the Earth, such as in submarines or polar bases. In
fact, they seem to thrive in the space environment.
American crewmembers experienced a novelty effect during the Shuttle/Mir
missions, which probably reflected the lack of experience that Americans had at the
time with space station missions. This effect was not present during the ISS
missions, as both Americans and Russians had by then gained more familiarity in
being on-orbit together for long periods of time. In fact, the higher Self Discovery
and Innovation scores reported by crewmembers prior to both Shuttle/Mir and ISS
missions suggest that more new learning occurred during pre-launch training than
during the time on-orbit. Although Work Pressure scores were higher post- rather
than pre-launch during Shuttle/Mir, this difference was not found during ISS,
perhaps due to the high level of Managerial Control. In addition, there were fewer
accidents and equipment breakdowns during the ISS program than during
Shuttle/Mir.
4.11.2. Displacement
As with the Shuttle/Mir study, the ISS results found evidence of displacement in
both crewmembers and mission control personnel. This effect appeared to be
stronger with the more isolated crewmember group. People use displacement to deal
with tension and other unpleasant feelings by blaming others for their own problems
and perceiving others as feeling negative toward them. Although providing
temporary relief, in the long run this strategy can cause additional interpersonal
problems with people who are being blamed, and it does not address the source of
the original conflict.
It would be better if people involved with space missions could learn to identify
the causes of intra-psychic and intra-group stress and learn strategies of coping with
these stressors directly. Countermeasures to reduce displacement need to be taught
pre-launch in sessions that involve both crewmembers and representatives from
Human Interactions 121
their mission control support team. Each of these groups need time during the
course of the mission to self-monitor their emotions and group interactions and clear
the air of psychological and interpersonal stressors.
It is possible that crewmembers in space were in fact less supported by people in
mission control during the times that they were experiencing tension amongst
themselves. However, there was little evidence for this in the critical incident logs
that our subjects completed, in the daily reports generated by mission control
personnel, or in the post-mission debriefings. Consequently, the predicted negative
relationship between measures of tension and negative affect in space and perceived
lack of support from the ground was most likely due to the displacement construct
than to real events that occurred during the missions.
addition, people in mission control received less psychological support than the on-
orbit crewmembers. Finally, the astronauts and cosmonauts may have experienced
more elation and job satisfaction due to the thrill of being on-orbit and fulfilling
their dream of being in space, as compared with people on the ground whose work
was less novel and exciting by comparison. The opportunity to work on a new space
construction project may have accounted for the relatively high vigor and
innovation scores among the ISS crewmembers. But despite these differences from
one another, crewmembers and mission control personnel still scored lower on most
dysphoric subscales than samples of people on Earth who work in non-space related
activities.
environments to conduct research related to future missions to Mars and other deep
space locations. First, the ISS is an excellent location to study psychological and
interpersonal issues with reference to the microgravity outbound and return phases
of an interplanetary mission. Second, a lunar base is a good setting to study
psychosocial issues with reference to a partial-gravity, ground-based environment,
such as a distant planetary surface. Such studies will allow us to further define
important psychosocial issues and to develop countermeasures to deal with them
before they become problematic during future expeditionary missions to Mars or
beyond.
4.12.1. Procedures
A total of 75 astronauts and cosmonauts and 106 ground support personnel were
surveyed between 2003 and 2006. All but 20 of the astronaut/cosmonaut sample had
flight experience. The study subjects were from a variety of ISS partner agencies
and organizations, including the Canadian Space Agency, NASA, the European
Space Agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the Russian Institute for
Biomedical Problems, the Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation, and the Gagarin
Cosmonaut Training Center. The subjects were asked a variety of multiple-choice
and open-ended questions concerning their views and ideas on cross-cultural issues
and training needs.
4.12.2. Results
Both crew and ground subjects rated coordination problems and/or mistrust among
member organizations responsible for operating the missions as the greatest
problem, followed by communication difficulties due to misunderstandings. Other
common problems related to differences in language and work management styles,
and miscommunication or mistrust among ground control and support teams.
Astronauts rated cultural isolation experienced by a minority crewmember as a
problem, whereas ground subjects rated mistrust of motives and behaviors from
team members from other cultures as a major issue. Crewmembers and mission
control subjects both considered cross-cultural training of astronauts and mission
support personnel to be the most important countermeasure. Over 83% of the
respondents thought that crew and key mission control personnel for a given
mission should receive some training together, thus encouraging team-building.
Highly rated content material included managing conflicts due to intercultural
differences, understanding culture-based differences in management and teamwork
Human Interactions 125
activities, building trust among team members, understanding the role of culture and
other challenges in working as a part of a small confined multicultural team, and
identifying specific communication skills. Learning by evaluating case studies and
critical incidents were highly rated training methods. There was surprising
unanimity in response among the subjects, although there were also some
differences in ratings among members from different agencies.
4.12.3. Conclusions
These results echoed some of the findings from the human interactions studies
reported earlier. Both national and organizational cultural differences were
identified. Nearly all of the respondents acknowledged that cross-cultural training
was important in preparing for multinational space missions. It was felt that both
crew and mission control personnel should be trained, and key members of a
mission should receive some of this training together. Conflict management and
team building were important aspects of this training. The subjects were in
agreement about the importance of understanding cultural differences and learning
ways of coping with them during the mission.
4.13. Summary
• Psychosocial stressors have more of an impact on long-duration space missions
lasting longer than 6 weeks than on short-duration space missions.
• Important interpersonal issues affecting space crews include: crew
heterogeneity (due to gender, cultural differences, career motivation and
experiences, and personality), changes in cohesion, language and dialect
variations, crew size, leadership roles, and crew-ground interactions.
• The interactions between crewmembers and mission control personnel are
complex and can result in lack of empathy, over-scheduling, growing crew
autonomy, psychological closing, and displacement of tension and unpleasant
dysphoric emotions to others.
• Negative sequelae from psychosocial stressors affecting space crews may
include: intra-crew tension, scapegoating and the long-eye phenomenon,
withdrawal and territorial behavior, subgrouping, minority isolation in small
numbered crews, inability to achieve consensus based on crew size, leadership
role confusion and inappropriate status leveling, crew-ground miscommuni-
cation, perceived lack of support from the ground, failure to deal with intra-
crew problems, and information filtration.
• Junior and senior American mission controllers perceive a number of
operational and cultural challenges to their work, but not necessary the same
ones. Training programs need to take this difference into account.
• The results of two human interactions studies conducted during the Shuttle/Mir
and the ISS programs demonstrate that psychosocial research can be done on-
orbit during actual space missions. Pertinent findings were:
126 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
References
Bales, R.F. and Borgotta, E.F. 1966. Size of group as a factor in the interaction-
profile. In: A.P. Hare, E.F. Borgotta, and R.F. Bales, eds. Small Groups, Rev.
New York: Knopf and Company.
Bechtel, R.B. and Berning, A. 1991. The third-quarter phenomenon: do people
experience discomfort after stress has passed? In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater,
and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. NewYork: Springer-
Verlag.
Belew, L.F. 1977. Skylab, Our First Space Station. Washington, D.C.: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA SP-400.
Bell, L. 1981. Designing a village in space. Futurist. October:36–46.
Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a
practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. 57:289–300.
Benson, J. 1996. Conversations with Norman Thagard. Aerospace America. January:
12–14.
Bishop, S. 2004. Evaluating teams in extreme environments: from issues to answers.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 75(7, Suppl.):C14–C21.
Bluth, B.J. 1984. The benefits and dilemmas of an international space station. Acta
Astronautica. 11:149–153.
Boeing Aerospace Company 1983. Space Station Nuclear Submarine Analogs.
CC0271. Grenada Hills, CA: National Behavior Systems.
Buckey, J.C., Jr. 2006. Space Physiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chaikin, A. 1985. The loneliness of the long-distance astronaut. Discover 1985.
February:20–31.
Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, E., and Geis, C.E. 1991. Pilot persona-
lity and crew coordination: implications for training and selection. International
Journal of Aviation Psychology. 1:25–44.
Clement, J.L. and Ritsher, J.B. 2005. Operating the ISS: cultural and leadership
challenges. Proceedings, 56th International Astronautical Congress. IAC-05-
A1.5.05. Fukuoka, Japan, October 17–21.
Clement, J.L., Boyd, J.E., Kanas, N., and Saylor, S. 2007a. Leadership challenges in
ISS operations: lessons learned from junior and senior mission control
personnel. Acta Astronautica. 61:2–7.
Clement, J.L., Boyd, J.E., Kanas, N., and Saylor, S. 2007b. Contrasting perspectives
of junior vs. senior NASA ISS flight controllers on leadership and cultural
issues. Proceedings, 78th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Asso-
ciation, New Orleans, LA., May 13–17.
Committee on Space Biology and Medicine. Space Studies Board. Commission on
Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Application. National Research Council.
1998. A Strategy for Research in Space Bilogy and Medicine in the New
Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Cooper, H.S.F., Jr. 1976. A House in Space. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
128 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Delucchi, K. and Bostrom, A. 1999. Small sample longitudinal clinical trial with
missing data: a comparison of analytic methods. Psychological Methods. 4:
158–172.
Dunlap, R.D. 1965. The Selection and Training of Crewmen for an Isolation and
Confinement Study in the Douglas Space Cabin Simulator. No. 3446. Santa
Monica, CA: Douglas Aircraft Co., pp. 1–52.
Ferguson, M.J. 1970. Use of the Ben Franklin Submersible as a Space Station
Analog, Vol. II: Psychology and Physiology. OSR-70-5. Bethpage NY: Grumman.
Finney, B. 1991. Scientists and seamen. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and
C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Garshnek, V. 1989. Soviet space flight: the human element. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 60:695–705.
Gazenko, O.G. 1980. Psychological compatibility on Earth and in outer space.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 51:622–623.
Grigoriev, A.I., Kozerenko, O.P., and Myasnikov, V.I. 1987. Selected problems of
psychological support of prolonged space flights. Paper presented at the 38th
Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gunderson, E.K.E. 1968. Mental health problems in Antarctica. Archives of
Environmental Health. 17:558–564.
Gunderson, E.K.E. and Nelson, P.D. 1963. Adaptation of small groups to extreme
enviroments. Aerospace Medicine. 34:1111–1115.
Gushin, V.I., Kholin, S.F., and Ivanovsky, Y.R. 1993. Soviet psychophysiological
investigations of simulated isolation: some results and prospects. In: S.L
Bonting, ed. Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, vol. 3. London: JAI
Press.
Gushin, V.I. and Pustinnikova, J.M. 2001. Mutual perception in national and
international groups under prolonged isolation. In: V.M. Baranov, ed. Simu-
lation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Moscow: Firm Slovo.
Gushin, V.I., Zaprisa, N.S., Kolinitchenko, T.B., Efimov, V.A., Smirnova, T.M.,
Vinokhodova, A.G., and Kanas, N. 1997. Content analysis of the crewcom-
munication with external communicants under prolonged isolation. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 68:1093–1098.
Gushin, V.I., Efimov, V.A., Smirnova, T.M., Vinokhodova, A.G., and Kanas, N.
1998. Subject’s perceptions of the crew interaction dynamics under prolonged
isolation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 69:556–561.
Gushin, V.I., Zaprisa, N.S., Pustinnikova, J.M., Smirnova, T.M., and Popova, I.I.
2001. Characteristics of Russian and non-Russian crew members’ communi-
cation with external parties under prolonged isolation. In: V.M. Baranov, ed.
Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Moscow: Firm
Slovo.
Hartman, B.C. and Flinn, D.E. 1964. Crew structure in future space missions.
Lectures in Aerospace Medicine. Brooks AFB, February 3–7.
Haythorn, W.W. and Altman, I. 1963. Alone Together. Research Task MR022-01-03-
1002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, U. S. Navy Department.
Human Interactions 129
Musson, D.M. and Helmreich, R.L. 2005. Long-term personality data collection in
support of spaceflight and analogue research. Aviation, Space, and Environ-
mental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B119–B125.
Nelson, P.D. 1964. Similarities and differences among leaders and followers.
Journal of Social Psychology. 63:161–167.
Nicholas, J.M. and Penwell, L.W. 1995. A proposed profile of the effective leader
in human spaceflight based on findings from analog environments. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 66:63–72.
Oberg, J.E. 1981. Red Star in Orbit. New York: Random House.
Palinkas, L.A., Suedfeld, P., and Steel, G.D. 1995. Psychological functioning
among members of a small polar expedition. Aviation, Space and
Environmental Medicine. 66:943–950.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K.E., Johnson, J.C., and Holland, A.W. 2000.
Behavior and performance on long-duration spaceflights: evidence from ana-
logue environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 71(9, Suppl.):
A29–A36.
Peeters, W. and Sciacovelli, S. 1996. Communication related aspects in multi-
national missions: Euromir 94. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.
49:113–120.
Pollis, A. 1965. Political implications of the modern Greek concept of self. British
Journal of Sociology. 16:29–47.
Raybeck, D. 1991. Proxemics and privacy: managing the problems of life in
confined enfironments. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay,
eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ritsher, J.B. 2005. Cultural factors and the International Space Station. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B135–B144.
Ritsher, J.B., Kanas, N.A., Ihle, E.C., and Saylor, S.A. 2007. Psychological
adaptation and salutogenesis in space: lessons from a series of studies. Acta
Astronautica. 60:336–340.
Rivolier, J., Cazes, G., and McCormick, I. 1991. The International Biomedical
Expedition to the Antarctic: Psychological evaluations of the field party. In:
A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rohrer, J.H. 1958. Some Impressions of Psychic Adjustment for Polar Isolation.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, U. S. Navy Department.
Rohrer, J.H. 1961. Interpersonal relationships in isolated small groups. In: B.E.
Flaherty, ed. Symposium on Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Rosnet, E., Jurion, S., Cazes, G., and Bachelard, C. 2004. Mixed-gender groups:
coping strategies and factors of psychological adaptation in a polar
environment. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 75(7, Suppl.):
C10–C13.
Sandal, G.M. 2000. Coping in Antarctica: is it possible to generalize results across
settings? Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):A37–A43.
132 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Sandal, G.M. 2004. Culture and tension during an International Space Station
simulation: results from SFINCSS’99. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 75(7, Suppl.):C44–C51.
Sandal, G.M., Vaernes, R., and Ursin, H. 1995. Interpersonal relations during
simulated space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 66:
617–624.
Santy, P.A., Holland, A.W., Looper, L., and Marcondes-North, R. 1993.
Multicultural factors in the space environment: results of an international shuttle
crew debrief. Aviation, Space and Envionmental Medicine. 64:196–200.
Smith, S. and Haythorn, W.W. 1972. Effects of compatibility, crowding, group size,
and leadership seniority on stress, anxiety, hostility, and annoyance in isolated
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22:67–79.
Steel, G.D. and Suedfeld, P. 1991. Temporal patterns of affect in an isolated group.
Environment and Behavior. 23:749–765
Stuster, J. 1996. Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Stuster, J., Bachelard, C., and Suedfeld, P. 2000. The relative importance of
behavioral issues during long-duration ICE missions. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):A17–A25.
Taylor, A.J.W. 1991. The research program of the International Biomedical
Expedition to the Antarctic (IBEA) and its implications for research in outer
space. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From
Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tomi, L. 2001. The role of cross-cultural factors in long-duration international
space missions: lessons from the SFINCSS study. In: V.M. Baranov, ed.
Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Moscow: Firm
Slovo.
Tomi, L., Kealey, D., Lange, M., Stefanowska, P., and Doyle, V. 2007. Cross-
cultural training requirements for long-duration space missions: results of a
survey of International Space Station astronauts and ground support personnel.
Paper delivered at the Human Interactions in Space Symposium, May 21, 2007,
Beijing, China.
Uri, J.J. and Lebedev, O.N. 2000. Phase 1 research program overview. Paper #IAF-
00-T.6.02. 51st International Astronautical Congress, October 2–6, 2000, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. Paris: International Astronautical Federation.
Vaernes, R.J. 1993. EXEMSI ‘92 Executive Summary. NUTEC Report 16-03. Paris:
European Space Agency Long Term Programme Office.
Walford, R.L., Bechtel, R., MacCallum, T., Paglia, D.E., and Weber, L.J. 1996.
“Biospheric medicine” as viewed from the two-year first closure of Biosphere
2. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 67:609–617.
Wood, J., Lugg, D.J., Hysong, S.J., and Harm, D.L. 1999. Psychologial changes in
hundred-day remote Antarctic field. Environment and Behavior. 31:299–337.
Wood, J., Schmidt, L., Lugg, D., Ayton, J., Phillips, T., and Shepanek, M. 2005.
Life, survival, and behavioral health in small closed communities: 10 years of
studying isolated Antarctic groups. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B89–B93.
134 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Space travel can produce a sense of isolation and separation from family and
friends. One can feel insignificant in space, with resultant anxiety, depression,
and homesickness. This plate is from the first great star atlas, Uranometria by
Johannes Bayer, which was first published in 1603. It depicts Perseus holding the
head of Medusa. The ancient Greeks placed him in the Heavens, and in a sense he
became one of the first “astronauts”. (Courtesy of the Nick and Carolynn Kanas
collection).
Chapter 5
Psychiatric Issues
135
136 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
5.2.1. Procedures
In an attempt to further examine the positive aspects of space flight, Ihle and her
colleagues [2006] conducted a questionnaire study involving astronauts and cosmo-
nauts who had participated in at least one space mission. Subjects were recruited
anonymously from two sources: the Association of Space Explorers (ASE) and the
current NASA astronaut corps at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). The final sample
consisted of 39 respondents: 10 from the ASE and 29 from JSC. There were no
significant differences in response means between these two groups. Not all of the
participants fully completed the demographics section of the questionnaire, but of
those who did, most were American (34 of 37 completing this item), male (32 of
37), and had been on more than one mission (24 of 36) but spent less than 30 total
days in space (20 of 36).
Respondents completed the Positive Effects of Being in Space (PEBS) question-
naire, which is a 36-item questionnaire developed by the experimenters to assess
areas of personal growth that were likely to be positively influenced by being in
space. Many of the items were taken with permission from the Post-Traumatic
Growth Inventory (PTGI), developed by Tedeschi and Calhoun [1996]. Additional
items were added that were specifically related to space travel from themes found in
the anecdotal literature The questionnaire was designed to measure change as a
result of being in space, and the items were scored by the subjects using a 6-point
Likert scale ranging from 0 [“I did not experience this change”] to 3 [“a moderate
degree”] to 5 [“a very great degree”]. Open-ended free-response questions were
included at the end to offer participants an opportunity to provide subjective
comments about their experiences. The internal validity and reliability of the
resultant questionnaire was excellent [see Ihle et al., 2006].
5.2.2. Results
Every respondent reported at least some positive change as a result of flying in
space. As shown in Table 5.1, the average amount of change reported by the
Psychiatric Issues 137
Table 5.1. PEBS Subscales and Mean Scores. Adapted from Ihle et al. [2006]
39 respondents was 1.72, or between a “very small” and a “small” degree of change
as measured on the 0–5 Likert scale. The greatest change registered among the eight
PEBS subscales was in the Perceptions of Earth items (mean change = 2.94, or
“moderate”). A general linear model multivariate analysis showed that there was at
least one significant difference between the subscale scores shown in Table 5.1, and
a set of seven ordered t-tests (with Bonferroni correction) revealed that Perceptions
of Earth was the only subscale to be significantly different from the others.
Ten of the respondents indicated that they were reporting no change in at least
one item because no further shift was possible (i.e., the described experience was
already optimal for them and could not be enhanced by being in space). The item
most frequently designated as unchangeable was “I became more excited about
space exploration”, followed by “I have a better understanding of spiritual matters”
and “I have a stronger religious faith.” Since the last two items were part of the
Spiritual Change subscale, this contributed to the relatively low change score for
this subscale.
By consensus of the study team, items of the questionnaire were categorized as
an “attitude” if they represented an internal experience (thought or feeling state) or
as a “behavior” if they represented an external process or activity. This different-
tiation resulted in 26 “attitude” items and 10 “behavior” items. Prior to the start of
the study, the experimenters predicted that five changes in attitude would be asso-
ciated with five changes in behavior, and four of these predictions came true. Three
of these items (“I realized how much I treasure the Earth,” “I learned to appreciate
the fragility of the Earth,” and “I gained a stronger appreciation of the Earth’s
beauty”) were significantly associated with the behavior item “I increased my
involvement in environmental causes”. The fourth item, “I gained a stronger under-
standing of the unity of humankind,” was also associated with the predicted “My
138 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
relationship with my family grew stronger”. However, the last prediction was not
borne out: the “unity of humankind” attitude was not associated with the behavior
item “I increased my involvement in political activities”.
There were no statistically significant differences in any of the above results
between gender, national culture, number of missions flown, or days spent in space.
However, a cluster analysis of the scores revealed that the respondents fell into two
categories. Using t-tests, a “high change” group scored significantly higher than a
“low change” group on the total score, all eight subscale scores, and most of the
individual item scores. Furthermore, after the Perceptions of Earth subscale, which
was the highest in both groups, the two groups differed in their subscale rankings.
For example, the more reactive respondents ranked Perceptions of Space as second,
whereas the less reactive respondents ranked Appreciation of Life as second.
5.2.3. Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that space travel is a meaningful experience for the
participants. Every respondent had a positive reaction to being in space. The items
that were endorsed most frequently, and with the greatest amount of change, were
those in the Perceptions of Earth subscale. One of these items, “I gained a stronger
appreciation of the Earth’s beauty”, had the highest mean score, with the average
rating indicating a “great degree” of change. This implied that people working in
space developed a new view of their home planet, gaining a stronger appreciation
for its beauty and fragility. This was reinforced by some of the qualitative responses
on the questionnaire, which suggested that the view of Earth inspired a sense of awe
and wonder rather than a spiritual awakening (which was also reinforced by the low
ranking of the Spiritual Change items). Perhaps this reflected an appreciation and
longing for the familiar comfort of a natural environment from a space habitat that
may have been perceived as confining and sterile. Although respondents endorsed
positive changes in all of the seven other subscales, these changes were rated on
average as between “very small” and “small” and did not make such a great
impression.
Most of the predictions about the relationship between attitudes and behaviors
were supported by the findings. Specifically, an enhanced appreciation for the
beauty and fragility of the Earth brought with it a greater enthusiasm for environ-
mental causes. Although the study did not track post-return activities to see if the
subjects indeed followed through on their intended behaviors, these results still
suggested a link between attitude change in space and the subjects’ claims that they
acted on these changes after coming home. Perhaps a willingness to enact change
brought about by positive experiences could help maintain the morale of long-
duration crewmembers and help with their post-flight re-adjustment to society.
Although no statistically significant differences could be found in the res-
pondents along demographic lines, cluster analysis revealed that the subjects segre-
gated into high and low change groups. This difference may be due to differences in
personality or cognitive styles and needs to be explored further, since it may affect
coping styles and become important in a proposed mission to Mars, when the
Earth’s beauty is no longer appreciable (see Chapter 7). Perhaps the more reactive
high change group might find more solace from general perceptions of the space
Psychiatric Issues 139
environment than the less reactive low change group, since the former rated changes
in this factor as being second in importance to their perceptions of Earth. In
contrast, the vastness of the cosmos might not be the same source of inspiration for
the less reactive group, who might benefit more from activites that are inner-focused
and directed toward appreciating the little things of life. By optimizing and
individualizing the positive experiences for crewmembers on long-duration space
missions, crew morale can be enhanced, with resulting benefits to their psyche and
increased chances for mission success.
Table 5.3. Clinical Characteristics of Adjustment Disorders. Abstracted from the DSM-IV
[APA, 1994].
Symptoms develop within three months after the onset of the stressor(s).
The symptoms usually resolve within six months of the termination of the stressor(s) or with
treatment.
Psychiatric Issues 141
Table 5.4. Clinical Characteristics of Somatoform Disorders. Abstracted from the DSM-IV
[APA, 1994].
The symptoms are not intentional or under voluntary control (i.e., they are
not due to malingering).
Table 5.5. Clinical Characteristics of Mood Disorders. Abstracted from the DSM-IV [APA,
1994].
disorders, and Table 5.6 lists some of the features of schizophrenia and other
psychotic thought disorders.
The low frequency of such problems in space probably is due to the fact that
many of these disorders have genetic and constitutional etiologies and may appear
relatively early in adult life. Since astronaut candidates are carefully screened psy-
chiatrically to rule out such problems before they enter the corps, one would not
expect to find many people vulnerable for these conditions in the astronaut pool. In
the U.S. program, sophisticated psychological testing and psychiatric interviewing
techniques are used to select-out individuals who have predispositions or histories of
mental health problems that might negatively influence their ability to function in
space [Santy, 1994]. Santy [1997] reported that the incidence of psychiatric disorders
in a study of 223 astronaut applicants was 9%. Of these 20 affected individuals, five
primarily had family problems, four had a personality disorder, three had a life
circumstance problem, and two each suffered from bereavement, anxiety disorder,
adjustment disorder, or major depression. None of these people had schizophrenia.
Other psychiatric problems that can produce mood alterations or psychotic
thinking, such as alcohol or drug abuse, are not present in space due to the
unavailability of the offending substance. Psychoses based on an underlying
medical illness also are unlikely due to the careful physical screening astronauts and
cosmonauts receive pre-launch.
Severe emotional problems have occurred in the less carefully screened
populations participating in space analog studies. In a study of men wintering-over
at five U.S. Antarctic stations, behavioral problems were related to the length of stay
[Rasmussen and Haythorn, 1963]. Findings at one of these stations are shown in
Table 5.7. Gunderson [1968] reported that 3% of naval personnel stationed in the
Table 5.7. Emotional Problems During One Year at a U.S. Antarctic Base. Abstracted
from Rasmussen and Haythorn [1963].
Anxious 3 8 19
Suspicious 0 7 16
Uncooperative 1 2 13
5.4. Asthenia
5.4.1. A common space syndrome?
[Burrough, 1998; Freeman, 2000; Harris, 1996]. However, neither asthenia nor
neurasthenia appear as diagnostic entities in the American Psychiatric Association
DSM-IV, so American mental health professionals cannot diagnose this syndrome in
their patients using this manual. In the United States, many of the symptoms of
asthenia are included under such diagnoses as adjustment, dysthymic, or major
depressive disorders, or chronic fatigue syndrome.
This is ironic because the roots of neurasthenia can be traced back to an
American physician, George Beard, who lived from 1839 to 1883 [Beard, 1905/1971;
Kanas et al., 2001b]. He observed that many of his patients complained of vague
symptoms, such as exhaustion, morbid fears and anxieties, hopelessness, mental
irritability, concentration difficulties, forgetfulness, headaches, insomnia, bad
dreams, pains, and sexual problems. He believed that an underlying physiological
disorder was responsible for this plethora of symptoms, which he characterized as
nervous exhaustion or neurasthenia. He viewed neurasthenia as a peculiarly
American disease that especially affected the upper classes. He outlined many
treatments for neurasthenia that included diets and herbs, medications, rest,
massage, and local applications of electricity. The concept of neurasthenia gradually
took hold and spread to Europe, Russia, and Asia [Carlson, 1991]. After World War
I, the popularity of this syndrome declined in the United States, although it
continued to be identified in other countries, where it persists today.
This creates a dilemma for flight surgeons and psychologists who are involved
in supporting crews participating in long-duration space missions. Is there a fatigue-
like syndrome that commonly occurs which is conceptualized one way by users of
the DSM-IV and another way by users of the ICD-10? Or are there cultural
variations taking place, whereby psychological reactions to being in space are
expressed differently by people with different cultural and national backgrounds?
The resolution of this issue needs further empirical study (see Section 5.4.3).
146 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Hypoactivity
Emotional lability
5.4.2. Empirical findings from space: asthenia and the Shuttle/Mir program
5.4.2.1. Procedures
The above clinical and operational information suggests that asthenia may occur in
the space environment. To explore whether or not there was empirical evidence for
this syndrome during actual space missions, data from the 4½-year Shuttle/Mir
Human Interactions study (described fully in Chapter 4) were retrospectively
examined [Kanas et al., 2001b]. This study was not designed to specifically assess
asthenia, so to evaluate its presence in space among crewmembers, the data from
one of the questionnaire measures, the Profile of Mood States or POMS [McNair
et al., 1992], were re-analyzed. Three of the study investigators independently exa-
mined the POMS to identify items characteristic of the first stage of asthenia. Since
symptoms of this condition in space would trigger a number of countermeasures
from psychological support staff on the ground, characteristics of more advance
stages of asthenia were not expected to be present. Eight items identified by all three
raters were selected as being characteristic of stage 1 asthenia: On Edge and
Restless (tension items); Resentful and Annoyed (irritability items); Forgetful and
Unable to Concentrate (cognition items); and Weary and Fatigued (low energy
items). The weekly on-orbit data from the 13 crewmembers on these eight items
were subjected to analysis for asthenia.
Six Russian space experts, who were familiar with the characteristics of asthenia
and who had worked directly with cosmonauts for 10 years or more, were instructed
to complete a Russian translation of the POMS as if they were cosmonauts suffering
from stage 1 asthenia. The POMS results from the astronauts and cosmonauts were
compared with the clinically meaningful prototype scores from the experts to
examine if this would yield evidence to support the existence of the asthenic
syndrome in space.
For all of the POMS “asthenia” items, t-tests were utilized to assess for dif-
ferences between the mean scores of crewmembers and Russian experts and to
assess for differences between the mean scores of Russian and U.S. crewmembers.
148 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
To control for the inflated Type I error rate associated with multiple significance
tests, the false discovery rate procedure developed by Benjamini and Hochberg
[1995] was utilized in all of the analyses.
5.4.2.2. Results
Table 5.10 shows the mean on-orbit scores for the eight asthenia items from the
crewmembers versus the mean scores from the six experts. Using t-tests,
crewmember scores were significantly lower than the expert rating scores on seven
of the eight items; only Restless yielded a non-significant result. The crewmember
mean scores all were less than 1, putting them in the “not at all” to “a little” range of
the POMS, while the mean scores for the expert prototype were in the “a little” to
“quite a bit” range. T-tests also were used to compare the crewmember scores in
space with comparable scores obtained during four weeks of pre-launch training on
Earth, and there were no significant differences on any of the eight POMS items. To
look for possible time effects, the mean scores for each quarter of the missions were
calculated for each subject on each of the eight items. Using an analysis of variance
for each item, none of the resulting F-values was found to be significant. Finally,
t-tests were used to compare American and Russian crewmember scores for all eight
items, and there were no significant differences between these two groups.
5.4.2.3. Conclusions
These findings do not support the presence of asthenia when the crewmember on-
orbit scores were compared with scores from a prototype of asthenia constructed by
Russian space experts or with the pre-launch scores obtained during training.
However, it should be noted that the POMS could only evaluate parts of the
Table 5.10. Mean Crewmember versus Russian Space Expert Scores on POMS
“Asthenia“ Items. Adapted from Kanas et al. [2001b].
*p-value less that the adjusted significance level threshold of p = .044 [Benjamini
and Hochberg, 1995].
Psychiatric Issues 149
syndrome since it primarily is a measure that assesses emotional states but not
physiological status (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, sleep characteristics) or somatic
complaints that are part of the asthenic syndrome. Also, the operational definition of
asthenia depended on eight POMS items, and perhaps these were not sensitive
enough to identify aspects of the syndrome.
In absolute terms, the crewmembers rated the asthenia items in the “not at all” to
“a little” range, suggesting that they were not experiencing the intensity of the
asthenia items to any appreciable extent. However, as reported elsewhere [Kanas
et al., 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001c], the crewmembers generally scored toward the
positive end of the subscales in the measures (including the POMS), and their
responses were more adaptive than those from normative samples on Earth. Thus,
they seemed to perceive their emotions and their interpersonal environment more
optimistically than people in other groups on the ground. For the eight asthenia
items, these issues were applicable to both Russian and American crewmembers,
since they tended to score in a similar manner.
Despite the negative findings, the concept of asthenia warrants further study.
The syndrome should be better defined, and measures specific to asthenia need to be
developed and validated in both clinical and astronaut populations. If further study
identifies the presence of the asthenic syndrome in space, then pre-launch training
programs and in-flight countermeasures to deal with its sequelae should be expan-
ded in order to improve the well-being of space travelers participating in future
long-duration space missions.
between depression and fatigue was not. In both groups, depression scores were
associated with a measure of anger, and for the Americans, it was associated with
confusion. No other tested relationships were significant.
These results confirmed the predictions that Russian crewmembers experience
depression in the context of fatigue, which is consistent with early asthenization. In
contrast, Americans experience depression in the context of anxiety, which supports
a culture-bound pattern of mood that is consistent with the American model of
neurotic depression. Both groups associated depression with anger, which makes
sense since irritability is a common feature of both cultures’ models of distress. The
covarying of confusion with depression also would make sense since difficulty
concerntrating is another common feature of both the American and Russian models
of distress, but this link was only significant for the American subjects. These
findings suggest that patterns of mood states in crewmembers may reflect national
cultural norms, and further work in this interesting area needs to be done.
due to microgravity and other effects of space may change the pharmacokinetic
characteristics of psychoactive medications, influencing both their dosage and route
of administration [Saivin et al., 1997]. Some of these physiological effects are listed
in Table 5.12. In microgravity, blood flow increases in the upper part of the body
and decreases in the lower part. Relative disuse of muscle groups can cause atrophic
changes as well. As a result of these two effects, the blood available and the amount
of atrophy that has taken place at the injection site will influence the bioavailability
of medication from an intra-muscular injection. For example, intra-muscular
promethazine is usually given in the arm rather than in the hip in space, and it has
been found to be useful for space motion sickness, with no appreciable side effects
reported (e.g., sedation, dizziness, decrements in psychomotor performance) [Pavy-Le
Traon et al., 1997].
Other physiological changes also may affect medication absorption and meta-
bolism. For example, the movement of oral medications out of the stomach may be
decreased by the weightlessness of the gastric contents in space. Consequently, the
availability of these agents to the intestine may be decreased. Intestinal absorption
rates also may be reduced by blood and other fluid shifts to other areas of the body.
Medications especially expected to be affected are those observed to be variably
absorbed in studies on Earth, such as chlorpromazine, flurazepam, and morphine.
Fluid shifts also may affect the bioavailability of medications sensitive to the first
pass effect in the liver (where metabolism occurs), such as desipramine, imipramine,
morphine, nortriptyline, and propranolol [Saivin et al., 1997]. Protein binding in the
blood and renal excretion rates also may be influenced by microgravity. Thus, the
effectiveness and side effects of many psychoactive medications may be affected by
the conditions of space. More empirical work needs to be done to fully characterize
the influences of these physiological effects, both in space and in microgravity
simulations on Earth such as bedrest and water immersion [Cintron and Putcha,
1996].
Table 5.12. Physiological Effects of Microgravity That May Influence the Absorption and
Pharmcokinetics of Psychoactive Medications.
In considering future long-duration space missions, Santy [1987] has written that
a reasonable psychiatric formulary should consist of several examples from each of
the major psychoactive drug classes: antianxiety agents, antidepressants, anti-
psychotics, sleeping pills, and medications to counter mania and other mood swings.
The use of psychoactive medications should be monitored carefully, since a number
of them have a potential for abuse and since novel effects may emerge in the space
environment. On one Russian space mission, for example, the commander was
suffering from insomnia and took too many sleeping pills without informing
physicians in mission control. He subsequently developed a number of problems
attributable to this action [Aleksandrovskiy and Novikov, 1996]. Thus, supervision
of psychoactive drug usage in space by experts on the ground or medically-trained
crewmembers in space is important.
5.7. Summary
• Many space travelers find their experiences in space to be rewarding and
salutogenic, or growth-enhancing.
• Astronauts and cosmonauts typically have a positive reaction to being in
space, especially seeing the Earth and recognizing its beauty and fragility.
Changes in attitudes sometime translate into changes in behaviors after the
return home. Space travelers appear to cluster into two groups based on the
intensity of their reported changes.
• Adjustment and somatoform disorders have been reported to affect
crewmembers in space. Mood and thought disorders are comparatively rare.
• Post-mission personality changes and marital problems also have affected
returning space travelers and their families.
• Russian space experts view asthenia (a mild form of neurasthenia) as a
common problem in space. However, neurasthenia is not recognized in the
American psychiatric diagnostic nomenclature as a well-defined syndrome.
The question remains open as to whether or not asthenia occurs and if so
whether or not its manifestations are affected by cultural factors.
• The results of the Shuttle/Mir study did not support the existence of asthenia
in space. However, the measure used (the Profile of Mood States) could only
evaluate the emotional aspects of the syndrome, not the physiological and
somatic aspects. Also, the crewmembers generally tended to score toward the
positive end of the subscales of this measure.
• However, when the Shuttle/Mir and ISS data sets were combined, there was
evidence for culture-bound mood patterns, with Russians linking depression
with fatigue (predicted by the asthenia model) and Americans linking
depression with anxiety (prediced by American diagnostic models of neurotic
depression).
• Crewmembers should be prepared to deal with psychiatric problems during
long-duration space missions using methods such as counseling,
psychotherapy, seclusion and restraint, and psychoactive medications.
• The physiological effects of microgravity may alter the absorption and
pharmacokinetics of psychoactive medication.
• Research needs to be done to evaluate psychiatric issues under space
conditions, such as during missions to the International Space Station.
References
Aldrin, E.E. 1973. Return to Earth. New York: Random House.
Aleksandrovskiy, Y.A. 1976. States of Psychic Deadaptation and their Compensa-
tion. Moscow: Nauka Press (In Russian).
Aleksandrovskiy, Y.A. and Novikov, M.A. 1996. Psychological prophylaxis and
treatments for space crews. In: A.E. Nicogossian, S.R. Mohler, O.G. Gazenko,
and A.I. Grigoriev, eds. Space Biology and Medicine III: Humans in Space-
flight. Book 2. Reston,Va: AIAA.
Psychiatric Issues 155
Isay, R.A. 1968. The submariners’ wives syndrome. Psychiatric Quarterly. 42:
647–652.
Kanas, N. 1990. Psychological, psychiatric, and interpersonal aspects of long-
duration space missions. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (AIAA). 27:
457–463.
Kanas, N. 1991. Psychological support for cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 62:353–355.
Kanas, N. 1998. Psychosocial training for physicians on board the space station.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 59:456–457.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E.M., Gushin, V., Weiss, D.S., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2000a. Social and cultural issues during Shuttle/Mir
space missions. Acta Astronautica. 47:647–655.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E.M., Gushin, V., Weiss, D.S., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2000b. Interpersonal and cultural issues involving
crews and ground personnel during Shuttle/Mir space missions. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71(9, Suppl.):A11–A16.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E.M., Weiss, D.S., Gushin, V., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A. and Marmar, C.R. 2001a. Human interactions in space: results from
Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica. 49:243–260.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Gushin, V., Weiss, D.S., Grund, E.M., Flynn, C.,
Kozerenko, O., Sled, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2001b. Asthenia: does it exist in
Space? Psychosomatic Medicine. 63:874–880.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Weiss, D.S., Grund, E.M., Gushin, V., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., Bostrom, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2001c. Crewmember and ground
personnel interactions over time during Shuttle/Mir space missions. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 72:453–461.
Kanas, N., Weiss, D.S., and Marmar, C.R. 1996. Crew member interactions during a
Mir space station simulation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
67:969–975.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1992. Crewmember communication in space: A survey
of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
63:721–726.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1993. Communication between space crews and ground
personnel: A survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 64:779–800.
Lebedev, V. 1988. Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space. College Station, TX:
Phytoresource Research Information Service.
Lugg, D.J. 1991. Current international human factors research in Antarctica. In:
A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
McNair, D.M., Lorr, M., and Droppleman, L.F. 1992. Profile of Mood States
Manual (Rev.). San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Myasnikov, V.I., Stepanova, S.I., Salnitskiy, V.P., Kozerenko, O.P., and Nechaev, A.P.
2000. Problems of Psychic Asthenization in Prolonged Space Flight. Moscow:
Slovo Press (In Russian).
Psychiatric Issues 157
Myasnikov, V.I. and Zamaletdinov, I.S. 1996. Psychological states and group
interactions of crew members in flight. In: A.E. Nicogossian, S.R. Mohler,
O.G. Gazenko, and A.I. Grigoriev, eds. Space Biology and Medicine III: Humans
in Spaceflight. Book 2. Reston,Va: AIAA.
Oliver, D.C. 1991. Psychological effects of isolation and confinement of winter-
over group at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A.
Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Palinkas, L.A. 1991. Group adaptation and individual adjustment in Antarctica: a
summary of recent research. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P.
McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Palinkas, L.A. 2001. Psychosocial issues in long-term space flight: Overview.
Graviational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14:25–33.
Palinkas, L.A., Allred, C.A., and Landsverk, J.A.. 2005. Models of research-
operational collaboration for behavioral health in space. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B52–B60.
Palinkas, L.A., Glogower, F., Dembert, M., Hansen, K., and Smullen, R. 2001.
Psychiatric morbidity after extended isolation and confinement in an extreme
environment: The antarctic-space analog program. Proceedings of the 2nd
Biennial Conference on Bioastronautics, Galveston, Texas, January 16, 2001.
Pavy-Le Traon, A., Saivin. S., Soulez-LaRiviere, C., Pujos, M., Guell, A., and
Houin, G. 1997. Pharmacology in space: pharmacotherapy. In: S.L. Bonting, ed.
Advances in Space Biology and Medicine. Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pearlman, C.A. Jr. 1970. Separation reactions of married women. America Journal
of Psychiatry. 126:946-950.
Petrovsky, A.V. and Yaroshevsky, M.G. 1987. A Concise Psychological Dictionary.
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Rasmussen, J.E. and Haythorn, W.W. 1963. Selection and effectiveness
considerations arising from enforced confinement of small groups. Second
Manned Space Flight Meeting. Dallas, TX: AIAA.
Ritsher, J.B. 2005. Cultural factors and the International Space Station. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B135–B144.
Rivolier, J., Cazes, G., and McCormick, I. 1991. The International Biomedical
Expedition to the Antarctic: psychological evaluations of the field party. In:
A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sadock, B.J. and Sadock, V.A. ed. 2000. Kaplan & Sadock’s Comprehensive
Textbook of Psychiatry, Vol. 1, Seventh Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, p. 1530.
Saivin, S., Pavy-Le Traon, A., Soulez-LaRiviere, C., Guell, A., and Houin, G. 1997.
Pharmacology in space: pharmacokinetics. In: S.L. Bonting, ed. Advances in
Space Biology and Medicine. Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Santy, P.A. 1987. Psychiatric components of a health maintenance facility (HMF)
on space station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 58:1219–1224.
Santy, P.A. 1994. Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of
Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Westport, CT: Praeger Scientific.
158 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Santy, P.A. 1997. Behavior and performance in the space environment. In: S.E.
Church, ed. Fundamentals of Space Life Sciences. Vol. 2. Malabar, FL: Krieger
Publishing Company.
Santy, P.A., Kapanka, H., Davis, J.R., and Stewart, D.F. 1988. Analysis of sleep on
Shuttle missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 59:1094–1097.
Seeman, J.S. and MacFarlane, T.G. 1972. Results of Post-test Psychological
Examinations of the Crewmen from the 90-day Manned Test of an Advanced
Regenerative Life Support System. NASA CR-112019. Huntington Beach, CA:
McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
Serxner, J.L. 1968. An experience in submarine psychiatry. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 125:25–30.
Shepanek, M. 2005. Human behavioral research in space: quandaries for research
subjects and researchers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6,
Suppl.):B25–B30.
Suedfeld, P. 1998. Homo invictus: the indomitable species. Canadian Psychology.
38:164–173.
Suedfeld, P. 2005. Invulnerability, coping, salutogenesis, integration: four phases of
space psychology. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6,
Suppl.):B61–B66.
Suedfeld, P. and Weiszbeck, T. 2004. The impact of outer space on inner space.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 75(7, Suppl.):C6–C9.
Taylor, A.J.W. 1991. The research program of the International Biomedical
Expedition to the Antarctic (IBEA) and its implications for research in outer
space. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From
Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tedeschi, R.G. and Calhoun, L.G. 1996. The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory:
Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Truamatic Stress. 9:455–471.
Weybrew, B.B. 1991. Three decades of nuclear submarine research: implications
for space and Antarctic research. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P.
McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wilson, S.R. and Spencer, R.C. 1990. Intense personal experiences: Subjective
effects, interpretations, and after-effects. Journal of Clinical Psychology.
46:565–573.
World Health Organization. 1992. International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
160 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Leisure time activities in space are very important. They help to counter
boredom and monotony, and they can serve as a way for the crewmembers to
interact around a positive event. “Astronaut Carl E. Walz (lower left), Expedition
Four flight engineer, plays host to some crewmates as he performs on a musical
keyboard in the Destiny laboratory on the International Space Station (ISS)…”
(Photo and quoted description courtesy of NASA)
Chapter 6
Psychological Countermeasures
161
162 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Basic Screening
Crew Composition
and Selection
Pre-Flight
Crewmember Mission Control
Training Training
In-Flight
Monitoring Support
Post-Flight
Support
general [Novak, 2000, p. A131]. Given this vague definition, it is no surprise that a
wide diversity of aspects have been included in this concept. A list of important
items that usually are considered to represent important habitability factors of space
flight is provided in Table 6.1. Most of these factors are of some psychological
importance, and a well-designed living and working environment can promote the
performance and well-being of astronauts and entire crews. For example, a good
design of workstations may contribute to a reduction of crew errors in operational
tasks, reduction of noise can enhance well-being, and a well-designed toilet or
shower will considerably increase the living comfort of the crew. In this sense, all of
these aspects of design may be regarded as psychological countermeasures during a
space flight. However, most of these issues are not entirely psychological ones, nor
are they specifically related to space flight. Instead, they represent general issues of
ergonomic design and human factors engineering [Wickens et al., 1998]. Take the
important issue of workstation and human-machine interface design for space
applications as an example. Even though some aspects of this design have to take
into account the specific constraints found in space (e.g., the need for restraint
systems to stabilize the position of the working astronaut or the fact that fine manual
control can be impaired during an early flight phase), a large number of other
aspects involve more general issues of human-machine or human-computer
interaction that are not really different from those used in Earth applications (e.g.,
basic principles of compatibility in display design or aspects of software usability).
It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss in sufficient detail all aspects of
human factors engineering for space flight. Fortunately, most of them are
Living quarter design Individual crew quarters, wardroom and meeting facilities,
recreation facilities
Health management Nutrition and food systems, sleep facilities and scheduling,
microgravity countermeasure facilities, space medical facility
Undisturbed sleep
cinnamon, beige, cream, maize, straw, ivory, white, pale yellow, and blue [NASA,
1995].
An important aspect of the use of colors is for the coding of location. Given the
enhanced significance of visual cues for orientation in space, where gravitational
cues are lacking, it is useful to provide a clear vertical structure of the habitat by
means of color as a countermeasure for problems of spatial orientation and
navigation in the habitat. In addition, the different psychological functions of
working areas and living quarters may be supported by different coloring. For
example, Raybeck [1991] suggests using excitatory colors (e.g., red, orange,
yellow) only in working areas and calming colors (e.g., green, blue) in rest areas.
The most detailed research with respect to other aspects of interior décor dates
back to a NASA/Ames research program which has become known as “functional
esthetics” and which has provided recommendations concerning the topics and
layouts of paintings and photographs most preferred under conditions of confine-
ment [Clearwater and Coss, 1991]. For example, it suggests that photographs
depicting spacious Earth-bound landscapes might be used to enhance psychological
comfort in confined settings. Future research on the preference of specific interior
design, and its impact on human behavior and performance, should be conducted
under conditions of isolation and confinement and should develop comprehensive
design recommendations. With regard to multi-cultural crews, possible cultural
differences must be considered in this research.
Windows represent another habitability factor which clearly can be ascribed a
psychological countermeasure function. Windows can promote well-being by
reducing sensory monotony and feelings of confinement and isolation, and they may
prevent the development of claustrophobic reactions [Haines, 1991]. Support for
this notion is provided by a number of anecdotal reports. For example, looking
outside the space habitat has been appreciated by cosmonauts and astronauts since
the first flights into orbit in Vostok or Mercury spacecraft [Haines, 1991], and it is
known that the first NASA astronauts spent much effort in convincing the engineers
to build a window in the Mercury spacecraft. Even though this request related to the
first seven NASA astronauts being pilots who used windows for flying their aircraft
[Wolfe, 1980], it turned out that windows also served an important psychological
function, particularly during prolonged space missions. This is nicely illustrated by
diary entries made by Russian cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev during his 211-day
Salyut 6 mission which describe the relaxing function of looking back to Earth
through the portholes of the space station [Lebedev, 1988]. After about 2 months in
space he wrote: “It’s getting more difficult to fly. Visual observations calm me
down” [p. 154]. It is further supported by the findings of Kelly and Kanas [1992] in
their survey of 54 cosmonauts and astronauts who had flown in space. They found
that “watching” activities were reported to be of increased importance during a
space flight. Thus, in a confined environment like a space habitat, windows not only
represent a “nice-to-have” feature of the habitat architecture, but they must be
regarded as an indispensable element of exceptional psychological significance.
Psychological Countermeasures 167
too much rest time and lack of meaningful work might become a psychological
problem during the course of a long-term mission.
A second countermeasure related to work in space involves maintenance of a
constant 24-h work-rest routine. As has long been known from Russian space
flights, stable work-rest schedules (i.e., constant sleeping and waking times) can
have a positive impact on crew well-being and performance efficiency. Strict 24-h
work-rest scheduling corresponding to conditions on Earth has been reported to
promote crew performance, whereas deviations and disturbances of work-rest
schedules from a strict 24-h regime have resulted in adverse effects (e.g., increased
risks of crew errors) [Litsov and Shevchenko, 1985; Nechaev, 2001]. One reason
for this is likely related to the effects of work-rest schedules on the circadian
system. As described in Chapter 2, the lack of natural diurnal time-cues
(“zeitgebers”) in space may affect the circadian system and contribute to sleep
disturbances. However, a free run of rhythms has never been reported, and this may
be taken as evidence that the lack of natural time cues can efficiently be
compensated for by external zeitgebers that keep the circadian system entrained to a
24-h sleep-wake regime. One of the most efficient external zeitgebers in space is a
strict work-rest schedule, and maintaining a constant 24-h work-rest schedule might
prevent performance decrements related to disturbances of circadian rhythms and
sleep. Yet during Space Shuttle, Soyuz, and International Space Station (ISS)
operations, a sleep shift in space may become necessary due to operational
constraints (e.g., to align the work-rest schedule of a crew with the expected times
of landing, or to align the work-rest schedule of ISS crews with those of visiting
crews). In order to avoid detrimental effects on well-being and performance, this
sleep shifting must be carefully planned and implemented, depending on the
direction of shifting (see Chapter 2 for details).
Finally, a countermeasure for dealing with possible impairments of work
satisfaction and motivation in space is to provide the crew with as much freedom as
possible to plan and schedule work tasks on their own initiative. Whereas this is not
possible during short-term space flights, where the task load is high and tasks need
to be strictly scheduled, it is more relevant during long-term space flights. Providing
some autonomy to the crew in adapting the scheduling of tasks to their current
workload may help to avoid over- or underload, which may be difficult to assess
from the ground. Tasks should be classified according to priority, and the crew
should have the freedom to decide when to perform “nice-to-have” tasks which are
not critical with respect to the time of performance. This has been an important
lesson learned from Skylab missions, where such a system helped to increase crew
efficiency during the longest flight (Skylab 4) [Douglas, 1991]. Similar experiences
have been reported from Russian missions. To refer once more to the Lebedev
diary: “Today is a medical day according to our program, but the FCC (i.e., flight
control center – added by authors) decided to give us the day off. Nevertheless we
made it a really hard working day by ourselves. …. We were filled with unhindered
versality and initiative. With our knowledge of the capabilities of our station and
equipment, along with our understanding of experimental goals, we were able to
schedule our activities efficiently and photograph what we wanted to. Previously
when we have had to adhere to rigid schedule formulated on the ground we waste a
Psychological Countermeasures 169
lot of time; sometimes our work would be completed ahead the schedule, but we
would not be allowed to begin our next jobs until the time specified by the schedule.
So we just sat (and) wasted precious time, fuel and resources” [Lebedev, 1988,
pp. 279–280].
beginning of long-term flights in the orbital station Salyut 6 [Bluth and Helppie,
1986; Gazenko, 1980]. Since the composition of crews usually is known well in
advance, this has allowed the interactions of crewmembers to be observed as they
trained together on Earth. However, specific issues might arise if during future
missions (e.g., on the ISS) crew composition may be staggered, allowing some
crewmembers to remain in space for several months while others are sent up to join
them from time to time. This situation creates the potential for interpersonal
conflicts to occur which may endanger mission success. Work needs to be done to
develop simple, quick methods of assessing potential incompatibilities. Given the
availability of such measures, it would be possible to test potential crewmembers
before launch, and whenever a major turnover was anticipated, these results could
be examined for warnings that suggested possible intrapsychic and interpersonal
problems in the proposed new mix of crewmembers.
Table 6.3. DSM-III-R Diagnoses Among a Sample of 106 NASA Astronaut Applicants.
Adapted from Santy et al. [1993].
Axis I
Dream anxiety disorder 1
Major depressive disorder (single episode) 2
Axis II
V-Code
Life circumstance problem 2
Bereavement (grief reaction) 1
Marital problem 2
Total 9 (8.5% of group)
However, most of the currently used select-in systems for astronaut candidates
have not been based on systematic research on which individual characteristics best
predict efficient work in space [Santy, 1994]. Instead, most of the current attempts
to define select-in factors for astronaut selection have been based primarily on
expert judgments, which may seem to be plausible and sometimes self-evident but
usually lack empirical validation. One of the most recent set of such factors, cur-
rently used by NASA, is shown in Table 6.4. It is based on analyses of available
research and anecdotal information from analog environments, as well as expert
ratings from 20 Russian, European, and American astronauts and mission support
experts [Galarza and Holland, 1999a, b]. A comprehensive review of psychological
select-in criteria used in Russia, Japan, and Europe is provided by Santy [1994].
Table 6.4. Critical Psychological Factors Required for Long-Duration (LDM) and Short-
Duration (SDM) Space Missions. Criticality refers to the expert ranking of the
factors with respect to their importance for LDM and SDM, respectively. Adapted
from Galarza and Holland [1999b].
More direct evidence that this personality profile might be predictive for astronaut
performance has been provided by McFadden et al. [1994]. In their study, they
classified a total of 65 NASA astronauts according to the different personality
clusters and contrasted them on peer and supervisory ratings of different aspects of
astronaut effectiveness (i.e. interpersonal competence, technical competence,
leadership competence, overall job performance). The results suggested that positive
instrumentality/expressiveness was associated with higher peer evaluations of job
and interpersonal competence. They also suggested that whereas technical job
competence might not be predicted by personality characteristics alone, peer ratings
of interpersonal competence are indeed predictable by expressive traits related to
interpersonal sensitivity and concern.
Other analyses involving the same astronaut data have addressed relationships
between peer and supervisor ratings of astronaut effectiveness and five global
personality traits, referred to as the “Big Five” [Rose et al., 1994]. These include
Neuroticism (i.e., being emotionally instable, nervous, anxious, depressive, hostile);
Extraversion (i.e., being sociable, talkative, impulsive, assertive); Openness to
Experience (i.e., being interested, intellectual, original); Agreeableness (i.e., being
cooperative, good-natured, tolerant); and Conscientiousness (i.e., being achievement-
oriented, responsible, organized) [Digmann, 1990; McCrea and Costa, 1987]. The
results of these analyse are provided in Table 6.5.
The data suggest that Agreeableness is a good predictor of interpersonal
competence, as well as the other peer and supervisor competency areas shown in the
table. This fits well with the findings of the predictive value of expressive traits,
which were described above, as well as with other data from a recent astronaut
selection study that showed Agreeableness to be closely related to aspects of
positive expressivity [Musson et al., 2004]. However, other relationships are not as
straight-forward. For example, the negative relationship between Openness to
Table 6.5. Bivariate Correlations (n = 65) Between the “Big Five” Personality Traits and
Different Criteria of Astronaut Effectiveness. Source: Rose et al., [1994].
Peer-Ratings
Supervisor
Rating of Job
Interpersonal Technical Leadership
Performance
Competence Competence Competence
Extraversion
.124 .040 .033 .147
Openness to
.220 –.376* –.335* –.277*
Experience
* p < .05
Psychological Countermeasures 175
Emotional attitude to each other The extent to which crewmembers like and
respect each other.
mission simulation and other relevant group activities prior to launch to test for
compatibility and performance.
Several factors related to the mission itself can have an impact on the
compatibility and cohesion of space crews. In their survey of 54 astronauts and
cosmonauts who had flown in space, Kelly and Kanas [1992] looked at issues
related to communication that enhanced intra-crew compatibility in space. Of nine
factors that were felt to possibly influence crew communication, four were rated as
significantly helping: Shared Experience, Excitement of Space Flight, Close
Quarters, and Isolation from Earth. Three others were judged to hinder communi-
cation: Facial Swelling, Spacecraft Ambient Noise, and Space Sickness. These
findings suggest that a bonding experience may occur among space travelers who
are physically close to one another, who share common experiences, and who are
involved with the same activity in a positive, emotionally exciting manner.
6.5. Training
Training aims at preparing astronaut candidates or crewmembers for the
psychological demands of space flight. It complements the crew selection process
and focuses on the further development of behavior and performance with respect to
the specific job demands of astronauts. However, compared to selection, experi-
ences with psychological training for astronauts are limited. Psychological training
has always been provided to Russian cosmonauts in preparation for space missions,
but little information has been published about the nature of this training. According
to some sources, it has focused on stress management techniques, such as relaxation
training and the familiarization with stressful events in field exercises like survival
training or parachuting [Garshnek, 1989; Santy, 1994]. American approaches during
the Shuttle/Mir program were limited to a few theoretical briefings to crewmembers
and their families about psychological and psychiatric issues. In Europe,
psychological training has been provided to a group of five German astronauts as
part of their basic medical training [Manzey and Schiewe, 1992; Manzey et al.,
1995]. The current ISS program has brought more attention to this area. Currently,
almost all of the partners involved in ISS operations are engaged in implementing
some kind of basic psychological training for their astronauts, and even more
advanced training has been provided during specific field exercises (e.g., in the
outdoors or in isolation chambers). In what follows, three questions of
psychological training for space flight will be addressed: who should be trained,
what should be trained and what kind of training can be applied?
understand the mission’s goals and communicate clearly with each other. Issues that
have to be addressed relate to disturbances of communication between space and
ground personnel that might develop during long-duration space missions (see
Chapter 4). One issue involves the empathy of people in mission control for specific
situations in space. Astronauts have requested more attention from the ground and
have complained about a lack of empathy from mission control personnel for the
difficulties they face in space [Gushin et al., 1997]. In addition, crewmembers
working under conditions of isolation and confinement may experience tension and
maladaptive interpersonal relationships that they cannot resolve openly. As a result,
they may withdraw from one another and exhibit territorial behavior. They also may
displace tension and negative emotions to people in the “outgroup” of mission
control who are monitoring their behavior. As mentioned in Chapter 4, this
displacement can interfere with the crew-ground relationship and lead to ingroup/
outgroup communication problems. Consequently, mission control personnel who
interact with space crewmembers need to be sensitized to the different psycho-
logical issues likely to arise during the mission. Parts of this sensitization might be
achieved in separate training sessions, but to develop a common rapport,
consideration should be given to training crewmembers together with key members
of their mission control support staff.
live and work together in a small multinational crew under conditions of isolation
and confinement. These categories will now be discussed in detail.
“Self-care and Management” comprises competencies that are needed to cope
with the demands and stress of long-duration space flights on an individual level in
Table 6.7. Behavioral Categories and Competencies of the ISS Human Behavior and
Performance Competency Model. ISS Mission Operations Directorate ITCB HBP
Training Working Group [2007a].
Leadership
Cross-cultural
Demonstrate respect towards other cultures Demonstrates respect and appreciation
(national, professional, organizational) for team members’ culture(s) and
viewpoints
Understand culture and cultural differences Acknowledges the impact of cultural
(national, organizational, and professional) dominance on crew interaction
Builds and maintains social and working Demonstrates tolerance of cultural
relationships differences and ambiguities
(Continued)
182 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Communication
Optimize communication Communicates information clearly and
concisely; provides constructive feedback
Ensure Understanding Listens “actively”; verifies information
Conflict Management
Conflict prevention Prevents disagreements from influencing
personal and professional relationships
Conflict resolution Adapts conflict management strategies to
resolve disagreements
Situational Awareness
Maintenance of an accurate perception of Monitors people, systems and environment
the situation
by controlling autonomic functions. The latter may also obviate the use of
medications during stressful periods in space and may even help to control space
sickness [Cowings and Toscano, 2000].
“Team-work and Group Living” include a strong team orientation that is
reflected in team-work-related attitudes and skills (“active team participation”), such
as the readiness to put common goals above individual needs, a cooperative instead
of a competitive work attitude, and skills related to proactively supporting other
crew members in their tasks. In addition, diverse skills are needed to establish and
maintain positive and trustful relationships with others, and to actively care about
the integration of all crew members (“interpersonal relationships”). The “group
living” competence mainly involves attitudes and skills necessary for a common life
under isolation and confinement. Important factors include the readiness to balance
one’s needs with the needs of other’s during co-living in space, as well as skills
supporting a positive team spirit and a good team-cohesion within the crew.
“Leadership” competencies are related to the specific demands of commanders
of space crews. One important competence addresses the “execution of the
designated leader’s authority”. This includes diverse management skills as well as a
flexibility to adjust leadership behavior to the specific situational demands. The
latter is mainly reflected in a good balancing of task and supportive leadership roles
(see Section 4.6), which also constitutes an important lesson learned from previous
space missions and analog environments on Earth [Nicholas and Penwell, 1995;
Stuster, 1996]. Other competences in this category include “mentoring skills”, such
as directing other crewmembers by providing feedback, consultation, and
encouragement; “followership”, which mainly involves aspects of subordination and
acceptance of authority, but also the support of the crew leader; and “workload
management”, which are related to specific skills of effective human resource
management, delegation, and balancing of workload within a crew [Helmreich and
Foushee, 1993].
“Cross-cultural” competencies have gained particular importance during the last
decade due to the construction of the International Space Station. As was described
in Section 4.2.2, the “multi-culture” aspect of ISS operations is not limited to the
different ethnic or national background of the crewmembers and mission control
support personnel. It also involves issues arising from a mix of participants from
different space-related organizations and different professional backgrounds. These
individuals interact not only during the space missions themselves, but also during
pre-launch training, which might involve prolonged stays in other countries and
cooperation with other organizations. Some competencies in this category address
respect for differences and information that helps in understanding the behavior of
people from other cultures, organizations, and professions (“demonstrate respect of
other cultures”; “understand culture and cultural differences”). Other competencies
include skills based on relating and communicating with members of other cultures
(“builds and maintains social and working relationships”, “intercultural
communication and language skills”) and an attitude of transcending specific
cultural issues for the sake of the group (“commitment to multi-cultural work”).
The remaining four categories in Table 6.7 include competencies that are needed
to efficiently cope with the operational demands of a space mission (e.g., piloting,
184 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
One of the advantages of this approach is that it might also be provided as a training
or refresher tool for astronauts on board a vehicle traveling through space.
The main limitation of these approaches relates to their theoretical nature.
Although they may be the method of choice for providing information and for
enhancing general awareness of certain issues, they are much less suitable for the
establishment and training of specific behavioral skills. This latter training requires
more applied approaches like the ones provided by field exercises.
6.5.3.2. Field exercises
Field exercises refer to experiential training that is used to provide potential
crewmembers with real experiences in self-management, team-work, leadership,
multi-cultural issues, and all CRM related competencies in an environment that
shares important characteristics and demands with real space flight. Examples
include outdoor training (e.g., hiking in the wilderness), specific survival training,
short-term stays in underwater habitats (see below), or isolation chamber training.
These kinds of activities have played a major role in the education of Russian
cosmonauts [Bluth and Helppie, 1986; Garshnek, 1989]. With respect to ISS
operations, such training approaches also have been implemented by NASA and
other international partners as an important element of advanced training required
for possible assignment for a long-duration space flight. One example implemented
by NASA includes specific outdoor training provided in the Rocky Mountains or
similar areas by the National Outdoor Leadership School. This training involves
astronaut crews working and living together for up to 2 weeks in the wilderness
who are accompanied by coaches who provide input and feedback on self-
management, team-work and leadership under these extreme conditions.
The main advantage of field exercises is that they provide opportunities to train
most of the required competencies at the same time and in an integrated manner. In
addition, it provides crewmembers the opportunity to encounter their own strengths
and weaknesses in a mission-like scenario and to identify individual strategies to
cope with extreme demands. For this purpose, it is important that these exercises are
combined with some kind of coaching and feedback by experienced trainers and
peers. However, most benefit can be expected to arise from these exercises if they
are applied as a second step of training after basic knowledge and skills have been
provided in all relevant areas by seminars and workshops.
6.5.3.3. Crew-oriented sensitivity training and team-building
The training approaches discussed so far can be applied to individual astronauts or
mission control personnel independent of a specific mission assignment. Even
though this kind of training might be sufficient to prepare astronauts generally for
the demands of long-duration space flight, it needs to be complemented by more
specific training applied to an entire space crew and key personnel of their ground
support staff who are assigned to a certain mission. Nicholas and his colleagues
have described important interpersonal issues that can affect crew composition and
behavior, and they suggest training the crewmembers together in order to enhance
crew functions [Nicholas, 1987, 1989, 1997; Nicholas and Foushee, 1990]. More
specifically, Nicholas [1989] suggests that this training should focus on three
objectives: improvement of interpersonal skills, improvement of social support
Psychological Countermeasures 187
skills, and improvement of crew coordination skills. Specific programs exist to train
people on how to work together as a team by observing their interactions, discussing
what occurred, and suggesting ways of improving communication and cohesion.
Such sensitivity training and team building has been in widespread use for decades
in a number of work-related settings [Beckard, 1969; Dyer, 1995; Skopec and
Smith, 1997].
A comprehensive program for whole crew training has been described by
Manzey et al. [1995]. The main objectives of this training concern: (1) the support
of the team building process, (2) the development of effective crew coordination
skills, and (3) the identification of strategies for coping with psychological issues
that may arise in this specific crew during their common mission. The importance of
the team building process for efficient crew functions already has been recognized
by the Russian cosmonauts [Leonov and Lebedev, 1975]. With regard to anticipated
interplanetary space flight, they have stated “…that the crew of an interplanetary
ship should not only be made up on the basis of careful selection, but should go
through all the stages of its development long before the flight” [p. 66].
The different stages of team building that need to be mastered by a crew in order
to become most efficient have been referred to as forming, storming, norming, and
performing [Tuckman, 1965, 1977]. The forming stage represents the first stage
where team members are introduced to each other and begin working together. The
storming stage is the most critical one since the different crewmembers try to clarify
their individual roles within the crew. Very often, this stage is characterized by the
formation of cliques and by struggles between team members regarding issues of
autonomy and control within the team. The central task for the team during this
stage is to establish a formal and informal group structure that is accepted by each
team member. This represents an important requirement for the next two stages of
team performance. During the norming stage, common group norms, goals, and
skills have to be defined before team cohesion, efficiency, and task orientation reach
their maximum in the performing stage. Only members of crews that have reached
this final performing stage can be expected to work efficiently together during a
space mission without wasting time and personal energy in interpersonal struggles
and conflicts. What is needed for this purpose is the development of a clear and
unambiguous crew structure, and the crew should be supported in the development
of common group norms and a common commitment to mission goals, which are
important pre-conditions for crew cohesion. It is obvious that coaching a crew
proceeding through these different stages of team-building provides a good
opportunity to train and apply many of the different competencies listed in the
competency model described above.
The second objective of the training of whole crews can be seen in the
development of effective crew coordination skills that take the specific crew
composition into account [Manzey et al., 1995; Nicholas, 1989]. In particular,
effective team-working, collaborative decision-making, and workload management
skills can be addressed. Such kind of training is similar to concepts of crew resource
management training (CRM) or line-oriented flight training (LOFT), such as those
used with aircraft crews in simulators [Helmreich and Foushee, 1993; Helmreich
et al., 1999]. In these programs, realistic flight scenarios are presented, and the ability
188 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
properties) by specially trained experts on the ground [Gazenko et al., 1976]. For
ISS operations, private psychological conferences between crewmembers and
psychological experts on the ground have been implemented (see Section 6.7.3) and
represent one of the most important tools currently used by Russian and American
support teams to monitor the psychological status of their crewmembers.
However, more specific and objective monitoring methods might be considered.
For example, Manzey [2000] has suggested using a set of standardized performance
tasks like those used in his research (see Chapter 3) for assessing cognitive
performance and fatigue, and others have recommended even more complex
approaches combining performance measures with physiological measures in order
to not only evaluate the performance level but also assess aspects of stress and
workload [e.g. Pattyn, 2007; Salnitskiy et al., 1999]. Other monitoring approaches
have involved wrist actigraphy (i.e., recordings of arm movements by means of an
electronic device attached to the wrist of the non-dominant arm) as an objective
method for differentiating between sleep and wakefulness and for the assessment of
sleeping times and sleep efficiency in space [Monk et al., 1999]. Yet all of these
methods have only been used for research purposes so far, and their feasibility for
operational monitoring still has to be demonstrated. It also has been suggested that
the further development of Russian approaches of voice analysis into a more formal
standardized monitoring tool would have some appeal, since this technology
represents an objective measure that does not require extra effort from the
crewmembers but makes use of data that are provided unobtrusively during audio
transmissions from space. However, as will be shown below, more work needs to be
done before this approach can be used reliably for operational crew monitoring.
6.6.2. Empirical findings from space: monitoring stress through voice analysis
The analysis of formal voice characteristics, such as frequency, amplitude, speech
rate, etc., has been advocated as being a useful indicator of the functional state of
pilots and astronauts [Lieberman et al., 2005; Ruiz et al., 1990]. Several Russian
researchers have reported success in using the analysis of the objective
characteristics of speech from recordings of space transmissions as an indicator of
cosmonaut stress and emotional state [Gazenko et al., 1976; Khachaturyants and
Grimak, 1972; Simonov and Frolov, 1973]. In contrast, an analysis by American
researchers of the voice frequencies of selected Skylab communications was judged
to be insufficiently predictive of crewmember stress to warrant further use [Older
and Jenney, 1975]. One study of 17 male subjects in a laboratory found some
promising results but did not reveal speech analysis to be as robust a stress indicator
as other factors, such as heart rate [Brenner and Shipp, 1987]. The general con-
sensus based on this work was that speech technology did not have enough
specificity and sensitivity to be used as a reliable predictor of emotional state in
space.
More recently, however, the work of Johannes and his colleagues [1995, 2000]
has shown promise in this area. Their work has centered on measurements of the
lowest frequency of voice pitch, the so-called fundamental frequency, which results
from the vibrating glottis. Since the glottis is innervated by the vagus nerve, this
Psychological Countermeasures 191
provides a physiological mechanism for linking the fundamental frequency with the
autonomic nervous system, which is itself involved in the body’s emotional
reactions. And indeed, elevations of the fundamental frequency of the voice have
been found to represent the most sensitive voice indicator of workload and
emotional stress [Ruiz et al., 1990].
In preliminary studies on the ground, Johannes and his colleagues [2000]
provided some support for this general effect. They found that emotional excitation
increased the mean level of the fundamental frequency and that voice pitch
statistically differentiated people with sensitizing versus repressing personality
traits. Unlike other physiological parameters such as heart rate and blood pressure,
voice pitch was not systematically related to the increased physical load produced
during a bicycle test. Due to individual variation, they found it important to calibrate
voice pitch to reflect individual reference values. During a 135-day confinement
study involving three men working in the Mir space station simulator in Moscow,
they analyzed the speech of the crewmembers while they performed a Mir docking
simulation. Drops in the fundamental frequency were found when tasks had to be
performed in a state of fatigue after 72 h of sleep deprivation [Johannes et al., 1995,
2000].
Together with Russian colleagues, Johannes also studied voice pitch on the Mir
space station itself. Crewmembers were analyzed pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight
while they performed three mental task load tests related to time pressure, tracking,
and memory, and a standard physical handgrip test. During all three mission phases,
the first test with a manometer induced the highest psychological load and resulted
in a rise in the fundamental frequency. There also was an increased level of
fundamental frequency for all test and rest periods in space as compared with pre-
and post-flight. Johannes and his colleagues concluded that provided calibrations
were made to baseline the specific relationship between voice pitch and subjective
perceptions of stress in a given individual, the analysis of speech fundamental
frequency could be used to monitor the psychophysiological state of people working
in the space environment. However, it has not been possible to evaluate the quality
of workload or stress by means of formal voice analysis so far; i.e., to distinguish
whether an elevated fundamental frequency of the voice results from workload or
states of positive or negative emotional arousal. This represents a serious limitation
of this approach, and Johannes et al. [2000] admit that further work needs to be
done on this methodology under different stressors and different environmental
circumstances using people with different personality and cultural backgrounds
before this method might be applied as an objective evaluation tool in space flight
operations.
Based on this experience, a similar system has been established by NASA for its
space station support activities [Flynn, 2005; Sipes and Vander Ark, 2005]. Table
6.9 provides a summary of psychological in-flight support activities for crew-
members as defined in the ISS Medical Operations Requirements Document (ISS
MORD) [International Space Station Program, 2000]. The main objectives of these
activities are to prevent feelings of monotony, boredom, and isolation, to maintain a
close contact between the crewmember in space and family and friends on Earth,
and to provide crewmembers opportunities to talk with members of their
psychological support group on a regular basis (see Chapter 5 for a separate
discussion of in-flight support for psychiatric issues).
Table 6.9. Psychological Countermeasures for ISS Crewmembers. Adapted from ISS
Program [2000].
Personal packages from family and psychological support group delivered by re-supply
flights
Uplink of audio news in native language not less than once per week
Uplink of written news summaries not less than every other day
Uplink of video for recreation and leisure purposes (e.g., sports, news, cultural events)
Private two-way audio-video contacts with family and friends for a minimum duration of
15 min for each crewmember on a weekly basis (“Private Family Conferences”)
Private two-way audio-video contacts with members of the psychological support group for a
minimum duration of 10 min for each crewmember on a biweekly basis
and friends was more important for stabilizing mood and performance than potential
support available from crewmates. Somewhat surprisingly, individuals showed a
clear decrease in the tendency to ask other crewmates for advice or support in the
course of the winter-over and instead relied on the support provided from family
and friends back home. According to Palinkas et al. [2000a], this might have
reflected a decreased reliance in support from others facing the same stressors as
oneself, and a similar tendency might be expected to occur during long-duration
space missions.
The best way to maintain a close contact between crewmembers in space and
their social network on Earth is to provide communication contacts on a regular
basis. One important medium for this purpose is e-mail, which has been used
frequently by crewmembers on Mir and the ISS for communicating with home. On
the ISS, private family conferences have been established as part of the
psychological support program. These conferences involve two-way video contacts
between a crewmember and his/her family. They are scheduled every week for a
minimum duration of 15 min for each crewmember. The communication lines used
for these conferences are kept private and cannot be monitored by third parties.
One important issue related to the contact between families on Earth and
crewmembers in space is how to inform an astronaut or cosmonaut of bad news
from home. During a Salyut 6 mission, authorities delayed telling one cosmonaut
about the death of his father until he returned to Earth, fearing that the bad news
would negatively affect his performance [Oberg, 1981]. But during a recent Mir
mission, the Russian commander was notified of the death of his mother and was
able to deal with it with support from his fellow crewmembers. In their survey of 54
astronauts and cosmonauts, Kelly and Kanas [1993] reported that 18 respondents
were of the opinion that negative personal information (such as a death in the
family) should be withheld until a space traveler completes the mission, whereas
another 22 stated that it should not be withheld. Five additional respondents gave no
clear opinion but volunteered that information could be withheld on short space
flights but perhaps should be disclosed during long-term missions. A reasonable
compromise is for mission support personnel to discuss this issue with each
astronaut or cosmonaut before launch in order to assess his or her personal
preference regarding disclosure. When disclosed, bad news from home should be
tempered with support and should probably be delayed until after the completion of
a critical mission activity.
6.9. Summary
• A number of habitability factors can be expected to have a psychological
impact on the behavior and performance of crewmembers under confinement
and isolation. Important factors that are of general psychological concern
include the volume of personal space, the provision and design of private crew
quarters and meeting facilities, the kind of interior décor, and the provision of
windows.
• Countermeasures related to work design include an appropriate daily task load
and a stable work-rest schedule according to a 24-h work-rest routine. In
addition, abrupt sleep shifting should be avoided, and some degree of freedom
for autonomous scheduling of work tasks should be provided.
• Specific psychological countermeasures involve selection, crew composition,
training, monitoring, support, and post-mission readjustment.
• Two different aspects of the selection of astronauts can be distinguished.
Psychiatric selection focuses on selecting-out individuals who possess qualities
that indicate an increased risk for developing mental or behavioral illness.
Psychological selection focuses on selecting-in individuals who, with respect to
their capabilities and personality, seem to be best suited for becoming
astronauts or working together on a space mission.
• Optimally, space crews should consist of crewmembers who are
psychologically compatible to each other. However, interpersonal compatibility
is a complex concept that has not yet been fully understood. Important
determinants include homogeneity of personality traits, congruent and
complementary needs; shared interests, values and norms; a positive emotional
attitude to each other; and fluency in a common language. Specific methods to
assess the psychological compatibility of individuals still need to be developed.
• Several methods of training can be used to prepare crewmembers
psychologically for a long-duration space mission, including briefings, lectures
and workshops; field exercises; and specific sensitivity and team building
training addressing the whole crew. Important areas of competencies to be
addressed include strategies of self-care and management, teamwork and group
living, leadership and followership, and cross-cultural issues in crews
consisting of individuals with different national, organizational and
professional backgrounds. In addition competencies specifically related to
operational work should be trained, including communication, decision-making
and problem-solving, situation awareness, and conflict management.
• Pre-flight training should be provided to both astronauts and key personnel of
their ground control staff, because both groups are mutually dependent in
conducting the activities of a space mission, and mission success is directly
related to the efficiency of co-working between these groups. Topics
specifically relevant for mission control members include a sensitization to
issues of living under confinement and isolation in order to enhance their
empathy for space crewmembers, and a preparation for typical conflicts
between space and ground crews that might arise during the mission.
200 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
References
Altman, I. and Haythorn, W.W. 1967. The effects of isolation and group
composition on performance. Human Relations. 20:313–339.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis. Peronnel Psychology. 44:1–26.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., and Mount, M.K. 1998. Relating crew
member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 83:377–391.
Barry, B. and Stewart, G.L. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-
managed groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82:
62–78.
Beckard, R. 1969. Organizational Development: Strategies and Models. New York:
Addison-Wesley.
Beregovoy, G.T., Grigorenko, V.N., Bogdashevskiy, R.B., and Pochkayev, I.N.
1987. Space Academy. Moscow: Mashinistroyeniye. (Translated from Russian).
Psychological Countermeasures 201
Bluth, B.J. and Helppie, M. 1986. Soviet Space Stations as Analogs, 2nd. Ed.
Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Brenner, M. and Shipp, T. 1987. Voice stress analysis. In: J.R. Construck, ed.
Mental-State Estimation 1987. NASA Conference Publication Washington DC:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Carter, J.A., Buckey, J.C., Greenhalgh, L., Holland, A.W., and Hegel, M.T. 2005.
An interactive media program for managing psychosocial problems on long-
duration spaceflights. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6,
Suppl.): B213–B223.
Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, E., and Geis, C.E. 1991. Pilot
personality and crew coordination: implications for training and selection.
International Journal of Aviation Psychology. 1:25–44.
Clearwater, Y.A. and Coss, R.G. 1991. Functional esthetics to enhance well-being
in isolated and confined settings. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and
C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Connors, M.M., Harrison, A.A., and Akins, F.R. 1985. Living Aloft: Human
Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. (NASA SP 483). Washington D.C.:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. 1992. NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cowings, P.S. and Toscano, W.B. 2000. Autogenic-feedback training exercise is
superior to promethazine for control of motion sickness symptoms. Journal of
Clinical Pharmacology. 40:1154–1165.
Cowings, P., Toscano, W., DeRoshia, C., Taylor, B., Hines, A’L., Bright, A., and
Dodds, A. 2007. Converging indicators for assessing individual differences in
adaptation to extreme environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 78(5 Suppl.): B195–215.
Digman, J.M. 1990. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model.
Annual Review of Psychology. 41:417–440.
Douglas, W.K. 1991. Psychological and sociological aspects of manned spaceflight.
In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From Antarctica to
Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Dunlap, R.D. 1965. The Selection and Training of Crewmen for an Isolation and
Confinement Study in the Douglas Space Cabin Simulator. No. 3446. Santa
Monica, CA: Douglas Aircraft Co.
Dyer, W. 1995. Team Building: Current Issues and New Alternatives, 3rd ed.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Endo, T., Ohbayashi, S., Yumikura, S., and Sekiguchi, C. 1994. Astronaut
psychiatric selection procedures: a Japanese experience. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 65:916–919.
Endsley, M. 1995. Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems.
Human Factors. 37:85–104.
ESA. 1994. Human Factors. Vol. 1 & 2. ESA PPS-03-70. Paris: ESA.
Fassbender, C. and Goeters, K.-M. 1994. Psychological evaluation of European
astronaut applications: results of the 1991 selection campaign. Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine. 65:925–929.
202 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Ferguson, M.J. 1970. Use of the Ben Franklin Submersible as a Space Station
Analog. Vol. II: Psychology and Physiology. OSR-70-5. Bethpage, NY:
Grumman.
Fitts D. 2000. Overview of NASA ISS Human engineering and habitability: past,
present, and future. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71:
A112–A116.
Flynn, C.F. 2005. An operational approach to long-duration mission behavioral
health and performance factors. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
76(6, Suppl.):B42–B51.
Galarza L. and Holland A.W. 1999a. Selecting astronauts for long-duration space
missions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental
Systems, Denver, CO, July 12–15, 1999.
Galarza L. and Holland A.W. 1999b. Critical astronaut proficiencies required for
long-duration space flight. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Environmental Systems, Denver, CO, July 12–15, 1999.
Garshnek, V. 1989. Soviet space flight: the human element. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 60:695–705.
Gazenko, O.G. 1980. Psychological compatibility on Earth and in outer space.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 51:622–623.
Gazenko, O.G., Myasnikov, V.I., and Uskov, F.N. 1976. Behavioral control as a
tool in evaluating the functional state of cosmonauts in flight. Aviation, Space,
and Environmental Medicine. 47:1226–1227.
Grigoriev, A.I., Kozerenko, O.P., and Myasnikov, V.I. 1987. Selected problems of
psychological support of prolonged space flights. Paper presented at the 38th
Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gushin, V., Zaprisa, N.S., Kolinitchenko, T.B., Efimov, V.A., Smirnova, T.M.,
Vinokhodova, A.G., and Kanas, N. 1997. Content analysis of the crew
communication with external communicants under prolonged isolation.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 68:1093–1098.
Haines, R.F. 1991. Windows: their importance and functions in confining
environments. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A., Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From
Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Haythorn, W.W. 1970. Interpersonal stress in isolated groups. In: J.E. McGrath, ed.
Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Haythorn, W.W. and Altman, I. 1963. Alone Together. Research Task MR022-01-
03-1002. Washington DC: Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, U.S. Navy
Department.
Haythorn, W.W., McGrath, J.E., Hollander, E.P., Latané, B., Helmreich, R., and
Radloff, R. 1972. Group processes and interpersonal interaction. In: Space
Science Board, Ed. Human Factors in Long-duration Spaceflight. Washington
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Helmreich, R.L. and Foushee, H.C. 1993. Why crew resource management?
Empirical and theoretical basis of human factors training in aviation. In:
Psychological Countermeasures 203
I.L. Wiener, B.G. Kanki, and R.L. Helmreich, eds. Cockpit Resource Manage-
ment. San Diego: Academic Press.
Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C., and Wilhelm, J.A. 1999. The evolution of crew
resource management training in commercial aviation. The International
Journal of Aviation Psychology. 9:19–32.
Herring, L. 1997. Astronaut draws attention to psychology. Human Performance in
Extreme Environments. 2:42–47.
Hoermann, H.-J. 1995. FOR-DEC. A prescriptive model for aeronautical decision-
making. In R. Fuller, N. Johnston and N. McDonald, eds. Human Factors in
Aviation Operations. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the European
Association of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 17–23). Aldershot: Averbury
Aviation.
Holland, A.W. and Curtis, K. 1998. Spaceflight psychology: operational psychology
countermeasures during the lunar-mars life-support test project. International
Journal of Life Support and Biosphere Science. 5:445–452.
International Space Station Program. 1995. ISS Flight Crew Integration Standard
(SSP 50005). Revision C. December, 1999. [http://human.space.edu/old/docs/
SSP50005rC.ISS_crew_integ.pdf; last access 20 September 2007].
International Space Station Program. 2000. International Space Station Medical
Operations Requirements Document (ISS MORD). (SSP 50260). Revision B,
May, 2000.
Isay, R.A. 1968. The submariners’ wives syndrome. Psychiatric Quarterly. 42:
647–652.
ISS Mission Operations Directorate ITCB HBP Training Working Group (2007a).
Volume I, Human behaviour and performance competency model. Working
Group Document, April, 2007. Houston: Johnson Space Center.
ISS Mission Operations Directorate ITCB HBP Training Working Group (2007b).
Volume II, Human behaviour and performance competency model guide.
Working Group Document, September, 2007. Houston: Johnson Space Center.
Johannes, B., Salnitzki, V.P., Haller, H., Wilke, D., Fischer, F., and Schlykova, L.
1995. Comparison of voice stress reactivity under psychological stress and
simulated Mir docking maneuver. Journal of Gravitational Physiology. 2:
P107–P108.
Johannes, B., Salnitski, V.P., Gunga, H.-C., and Kirsch, K. 2000. Voice stress
monitoring in space—possibilities and limits. Aviation, Space, and Environ-
mental Medicine. 71:A58–A65.
Kanas, N. 1990. Psychological, psychiatric, and interpersonal aspects of long-
duration space missions. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (AIAA). 27:
457–463.
Kanas, N. 1991. Psychosocial support for cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 62:353–355.
Kanas, N. 1998. Psychiatric issues affecting long duration space missions. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 69:1211–1216.
204 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E.M., Gushin, V., Weiss, D.S., Kozerenko, O.,
Sled, A., and Marmar, C.R. 2002. Lessons learned from Shuttle/Mir: psycho-
social countermeasures. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 73:
607–611.
Kane, R.L., Short, P., Sipes, W., and Flynn, C.F. 2005. Development and validation
of the Spaceflight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT).
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B183–B191.
Kanki, B.G. and Foushee, H.C. 1989. Communication as group process mediator of
aircrew performance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 60:
402–410.
Kealey, D.J. 2004. Research on intercultural effectiveness and its relevance to
multicultural crews in space. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
75(7, Suppl.):C58–C64.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1992. Crewmember communication in space: a survey of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 63:
721–726.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1993. Communication between space crews and ground
personnel: a survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 64:795–800.
Kelly, A.D. and Kanas, N. 1994. Leisure time activities in space: a survey of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Acta Astronautica. 32:451–457.
Khachaturyants, L. and Grimak, L. 1972. Emotional stress during spaceflight.
Aviation Kosmonautica. 11:33–34 (JPRS OPBS 58039).
Kubis, J.F. 1972. Isolation, confinement, and group dynamics in long duration
spaceflight. Acta Astronautica. 17:45–72.
Kubis, J.F., McLaughlin, E.J., Jackson, J.M., Rusnak, R., McBride, G.H., and
Saxon, S.V. 1977. Task and work performance on Skylab missions 2, 3, and 4:
time and motion study – experiment M151. In: R.S. Johnston and L.F. Dietlein,
eds. Biomedical Results from Skylab (NASA-SP377). Washington: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 136–154.
Lebedev, V.V. 1988. Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space. College Station,
TX: Phytoresource Research Information Service.
Leonov, A.A. and Lebedev, V.I. 1975. Psychological Problems of Interplanetary
Flight (NASA-TT-F-16536). NASA Technical Translation. Washington :
NASA.
Lieberman, P., Morey, A., Hochstadt, J., Larson, M., and Mather, S. 2005. Mount
Everst: a space analogue for speech monitoring of cognitive deficits and stress.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B198–B207.
Litsov, A.N. and Shevchenko, V.F. 1985. Psychophysiological distinctions of
organization and regulation of daily cyclograms of crew activities during long-
term spaceflight. Space Biology and Aerospace Medicine. 19:12–18. (Translated
from Russian).
Manzey, D. 2000. Monitoring of mental performance during spaceflight. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71: A69–A75.
Manzey, D. and Schiewe, A. 1992. Psychological training of German science
astronauts. Acta Astronautica. 27:147–154.
Psychological Countermeasures 205
Novak, J.B. 2000. Human engineering and habitability: the critical challenges for
the International Space Station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
71(9, Suppl.): A117–A121.
Novikov, M. 1991. The principles and methods of psychological compatibility
investigation. Proceedings of the German-Russian Workshop on Space
Psychology. Hamburg, Germany (unpublished report).
Oberg, J.E. 1981. Red Star in Orbit. New York: Random House.
Older, H.J. and Jenney, L.L. 1975. Psychological Stress Management Through
Voice Output Analysis. NASA CR 147723. Alexandria,VA: Planar Corporation.
Palinkas, L.A. 1986. Health and performance of Antarctic winter-over personnel: a
follow-up study. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 57:954–959.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K.E., Holland, A.W., Miller, C., and Johnson, J.C.
2000a. Predictors of behavior and performance in extreme environments: the
Antarctic space analogue program. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 71:619–625.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K.E., and Johnson, J.C., and Holland, A.W. 2000b.
Behavior and performance on long-duration spaceflights: evidence from
analogue environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71
(9, Suppl.):A29–A36.
Pattyn, N. 2007. Psychophysiological measures of cognitive performance in
operational conditions: applications to aviation and space environments.
Doctoral Thesis. Free University of Brussels.
Pearlman, C.A., Jr. 1970. Separation reactions of married women. American
Journal of Psychiatry. 126:946–950.
Picano, J.J. 1990. An empirical assessment of stress-coping styles in military pilots.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 61:356–360.
Raybeck, D. 1991. Proxemics and privacy: managing the problems of life in
confined environments. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, C.P. McKay, eds.
From Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Retzlaff, P. and Vanderploeg, R. 2000. Validating the spaceflight cognitive assess-
ment tool against other neurocognitive measures in young adults, (Abstract).
Proceedings of the 71th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association,
Houston, May, 2000.
Retzlaff, P., Flynn, C., Glode, B., and Lane, B. 1999. Space cognitive assessment
tool: description and cut scores. Paper presented at the American Psychological
Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, August, 1999.
Rose, R.M, Fogg, L.F., Helmreich, R.L., and McFadden, T.J. 1994. Psychological
predictors of astronaut effectiveness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 65:910–915.
Rosnet, E., Le Scanff, C., and Sagal, M.-S. 2000. How self-image and personality
influence performance in an isolated environment. Environment and Behavior.
32:18–31.
Ruiz, R., Legros, C., and Guell, A. 1990. Voice analysis to predict the psychological
or physical state of a speaker. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
61:266–271.
Psychological Countermeasures 207
Salas, E., Fowlkes, J.E., Stout, R.J., Milanovich, D.M., and Prince, C. 1999. Does
CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit? Two evaluation studies.
Human Factors. 41:326–343.
Salas, E., Burke, C.S., Bowers, C.A., and Wilson, K.A. 2001. Team training in the
skies: does crew resource management (CRM) training work? Human Factors.
43:641–674.
Salnitskiy, V.P., Myasnikov, V.I., Bobrov, A.F., and Shevchenko, L.G. 1999.
Integrated evaluation and prognosis of cosmonaut’s professional reliability
during space flight. Aviakosmicheskaya i Ecologicheskaya Meditsina. 33:
16–22.
Sandal, G., Vaernes, R., and Ursin, H. 1995. Interpersonal relations during
simulated space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
66:617–624.
Sandal, G., Vaernes, R., Bergan, T., Warncke, M., and Ursin, H. 1996. Psycho-
logical reactions during polar expeditions and isolation in hyperbaric chambers.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 67:227–234.
Sandal, G., Gronningsaetter, H., Eriksen, H.R., Gravraakmo, A., Birkeland, K., and
Ursin, H. 1998. Personality and endocrine activation in military stress
situations. Military Psychology. 10:45–61.
Santy, P.A. 1994. Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of
Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Westport, CT: Praeger Scientific.
Santy, P.A. and Jones, D.R. 1994. An overview of international issues in astronaut
psychological selection. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 65:
900–903.
Santy, P., Endicott, J., Jones, D.R., Rose, R.M., Patterson, J., Holland, A.W., Faulk,
D.M., and Marsh, R. 1993. Results of a structured psychiatric interview to
evaluate NASA astronaut candidates. Military Medicine. 158:5–9.
Sekiguchi, C., Umikura, S., Sone, K., and Kume, M. 1994. Psychological evaluation
of Japanese astronaut applicants. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.
65:920–924.
Shephard, J.M. and Kosslyn, S.M. 2005. The MiniCog RapidAssessment Battery:
developing a “blood pressure cuff for the mind”. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B192–B197.
Simonov, P.V. and Frolov, M.V. 1973. Utilization of human voice for estimation of
man’s emotional stress and state of attention. Aerospace Medicine. 44:256–258.
Sipes, W.E. and Vander Ark, S.T. 2005. Operational behavioral health and
performance resources for International Space Station crews and families.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B36–B41.
Skopec, E. and Smith, D. 1997. How to Use Team Building to Foster Innovation.
Chicago: Contemporary Books.
Smith, S. and Haythorn, W.W. 1972. Effects of compatibility, crowding, group size,
and leadership seniority on stress, anxiety, hostility, and annoyance in isolated
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22:67–79.
Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., and Holahan, C.K. 1979. Negative and positive
components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships
208 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Following the construction of the International Space Station, the next goal will
be to conduct expeditionary type missions throughout the solar system and
beyond. The psychological impact of such long-duration and isolated missions
has yet to be determined. This plate by Johann Doppelmayr, which appeared in
Johann Homann’s Atlas Coelestis in 1742, features the Copernican view of the solar
system in the center rimmed by the rest of the Cosmos, which is represented by the
signs of the Zodiac. (Courtesy of the Nick and Carolynn Kanas collection).
Chapter 7
Future Challenges
For nearly 50 years, human space flight has shown an impressive evolution. Since
the first flight of Yuri Gagarin into Earth orbit in 1961, which lasted for 1 h and 48
min, numerous human space missions have been carried out. These have lasted for
a few days in small capsules or the American Space Shuttle, and up to several weeks
and months in orbital stations such as Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and the International
Space Station (ISS). In addition, the American Apollo program has given us our
first experience with sending humans beyond Earth’s orbit to the Moon. To date,
five Russian cosmonauts have lived and worked in space for continuous periods of
1 year or longer, with a maximum duration of over 14 months (438 days). The ISS,
representing a global partnership of 16 nations, marks the current culmination of
long-duration stays in space. But this certainly will not be the end of space
activities. An example of further progress has been provided by China becoming
another space-faring nation with independent access to space. Other countries will
likely follow this example in the future.
Three other and perhaps even bigger challenges have become realistic options
and less a science fiction fantasy. The first is the notion that the average person can
travel into space as a tourist. The second relates to a return to the Moon and
colonizing our closest heavenly body. The final involves leaving Earth’s neighbor-
hood and traveling to Mars as our first expeditionary mission to another planet.
These three issues are the focus of this concluding chapter.
211
212 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
medical conditions involving his heart and lungs. Through prophylactic treatment
and evaluation in space analog conditions, he was finally certified for flight and
successfully completed a 10-day mission to the ISS, demonstrating that with proper
precautions, a person with medical problems can still be accepted for flight into
space. Clearly, more work needs to be done in this area, as the number of people
willing and able to be space tourists increases and as we gain more experience with
the vicissitudes of manned space flight for the general public.
250 days; a stay on the martian surface of about 10–60 days; and the flight back
(again, 160–250 days). The main disadvantages of this scenario are the high costs of
energy (i.e., propellant consumption) and the comparatively short stay on the
martian surface, which is determined by constraints for the flight back that are
related to the optimal relative positions of the Earth and Mars in their orbits. The
more likely concept, therefore, is a second approach that envisions a round-trip to
Mars lasting about 1,000 days. This mission scenario involves a transfer flight to
Mars on a low energy trajectory, which will take about 200–300 days. However,
once on Mars the crew has to stay there for 400–500 days without any possibility
for re-supply before another launch window opens for a low energy transfer flight
back, which again will take 200–300 days. In this scenario, transfer times might
become considerably reduced by investing modest amounts of extra energy, but this
would only prolong the required stay on the martian surface. Such a concept has
been chosen as the reference mission developed by NASA [Hoffman and Kaplan,
1997]. It largely is based on ideas published by Robert Zubrin and his colleagues
and is referred to as “The Mars Direct Plan” [Zubrin, 2000; Zubrin et al., 1991]. It
also has been considered in a recent study by ESA [Horneck et al., 2003]. Possible
launch windows for such a mission open every 26 months (one martian year) and
last for several weeks.
All of the different 1,000-day scenarios currently available envision that a
spacecraft carrying a crew of probably six astronauts will either be launched directly
to Mars by a heavy booster rocket comparable to that used for the Apollo missions
to the Moon, or from some kind of orbital platform, respectively. During the
transfer flight in microgravity, the crew will stay in a habitat on-board that is similar
to or identical with the habitat to be used for the stay on the martian surface. The
overall volume of such a habitat is a matter of speculation, but it might not be
expected to be larger than about 300–400 m3. However, on Mars this volume could
be considerably enlarged using components sent via independent cargo flights or by
inflatable components. Such an option, for example, is envisioned in the NASA
reference mission. The work of the crew on Mars will include a diversity of
different tasks that include the maintenance of technical systems; the operation of
equipment for in-situ resource utilization (e.g., production of propellant for the
flight back); and the scientific work, which will include numerous extra-habitat
activities and which will be supported by complex automated systems, including
telerobotic devices or specific rovers for cross-country explorations on the surface
of Mars.
Availability of in-flight
support measures
Visitors Yes No No No
positions, audio, video, or other data transmissions between these two planets will
need transmission times of 5–22 min. Communication may even be blocked for
periods of time should the planets be on opposite sides of the Sun. As a
consequence, communications between the Earth and Mars will be delayed, and no
real time two-way communication will be possible. Furthermore, there will be no
possibility for any re-supply or short-term rescue flights. Consequently, most
strategies of ground-based support that currently are used to foster crew morale and
psychological well-being during long-duration orbital space missions will be
ineffective. So in summary, the risks for mission success and safety associated with
psychological and interpersonal issues may be increased during Mars missions.
7.5.2. Results
According to Nechaev et al. [2007], the respondents said that the crew would have 5
or 6 persons. Nine said that it should be international. Six respondents thought it
should consist only of men, and 5 said there should be both men and women. To
perform the tasks of the mission, the consensus was that the Mars crew should
include an engineer, physician, biologist, physicist/astrophysicist, and geologist, and
that individuals should be cross-trained to provide redundancy in case a member
became unable to perform his or her functions. Piloting skills were not specifically
mentioned but were probably assumed. In decreasing order of importance, the
consensus was that crewmembers should be professional, sociable, responsible,
have self-control and a sense of humor, and be tolerant of others.
The respondents felt that the training for such a mission would last 1.5–2 years.
It should include helping to design and test on-board systems and scientific
equipment, cross-training duties with other crewmembers, learning skills related to
self- and mutual-aid, understanding ways to optimize interpersonal relationships,
defining leisure and rest activities, training to work under simulated Martian
gravitation, and coordinating interactions with mission control personnel under
conditions of communication delays due to the long distance from the Earth.
The major factors that were seen as causing psychological tension and conflict
were isolation and monotony, communication delays with the Earth, and insufficient
water and nutrition reserves. Other factors mentioned included leadership pro-
blems, differences in management style, role redistribution, and cultural
problems. In terms of on-board psychological support, the following activities and
220 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
percentages were listed: music (35%), personal information about families and
friends (22%), movies (21%), literature (14%), and art projects (8%). Keeping up
the information link with the Earth was endorsed by a number of respondents,
despite the communication delays. Eight subjects endorsed a fixed work-rest sche-
dule, whereas the remaining 3 preferred to regulate their own schedule depending
on the mission profile. Interestingly, 7 respondents thought that periodically chang-
ing the color scheme of the interior would increase the comfort of the crewmembers.
To ensure crew safety, the respondents highlighted issues related to the careful
selection of crewmembers, medical and psychological support in-flight, proper
radiation protection, and meeting fluid and nutritional needs.
Several subjects endorsed using the ISS to test important operational aspects of the
Martian mission (e.g., artificial gravity, radiation protection), study crew and crew-
ground interactions under simulated communication delays, and experiment with
biological life support systems. It was felt important to assess the crewmembers’ post-
flight work capacity under conditions that reproduced the Martian gravity. The value
of isolation studies on Earth and in space that simulated the Martian mission was also
endorsed.
7.5.3. Conclusions
Despite the small sample size, the results from this cosmonaut survey agree well
with some of the surveys and studies reported in Chapters 4 and 5. The need for
proper selection, training, inflight-monitoring and support, and ability to work under
partial gravity conditions were endorsed by the subjects. Attention was paid to a
variety of operational, safety, and medical/psychological issues. Clearly, this group
of cosmonauts appreciated the realistic challenges of an expedition to the Red
Planet. In the next section, we will examine some of these challenges, with special
attention paid to those related to psychological, interpersonal, and psychiatric issues,
as well as to appropriate countermeasures.
Transfer flights between the Earth and Mars will last about 150–300 days for
each direction, depending on the selected trajectory and propellant consumption.
Thus, crews traveling to Mars will engage in space flights comparable in duration to
a complete ISS mission before they finally reach the surface of the red planet, where
major scientific work will be done. And they will have to perform another similar
long-duration flight back to Earth after their work on Mars has been finished. These
long flight times likely will be accompanied by a number of stressors that may
affect crewmember mood, well-being, and performance.
One issue concerns maintaining motivation and morale, since the transit times
will involve long periods of decreased workload, monotony, and boredom. In
addition, due to the limited size of the spaceship, privacy will be harder to achieve
than during a stay on-board an orbital space station. Will it be possible to maintain
adequate crew motivation, morale, and mood during these transfer flights to and
from Mars? This certainly will depend on the habitability of the spaceship and the
meaningfulness of work the crewmembers have to perform during these mission
phases. Work activities may be less of a problem on the outbound flight to Mars,
when the crewmembers have much to do in preparation for their arrival on the
planet, than during the flight back after the most important and interesting tasks
have been accomplished on the red planet. Nevertheless, it will be of great
significance for overall mission success that the crewmembers remain alert and
motivated during this return. A decline of motivation and activity during this
mission phase can be a serious hazard, not only for the crew’s efficiency in dealing
with nominal and off-nominal situations, but also for maintaining the degree of on-
board exercise that is needed for re-entering the Earth’s gravity after a long period
of exposure to low gravity conditions.
A second issue associated with the long transfer flight to Mars is related to the
retention of performance skills that have been acquired during pre-flight training but
will only be needed after arrival on Mars. Such skills include critical operational
activities (e.g., skills needed for landing on the martian surface or the operation of
complex technical equipment for Mars exploration) and all kinds of cognitive
activities needed to conduct the scientific work on the Martian surface. Even though
issues of skill retention have been investigated in several laboratory and field
settings [Patrick, 1992], it is unclear to what extent the findings of this research can
be transferred to the extreme conditions of space missions. In any case, training
methods will need to be developed, which on the one hand allow for the on-board
training of critical performance skills during the transfer flight to Mars, but which
on the other hand do not require much space and mass. For this purpose, new
technological developments (e.g., virtual reality) might be considered, and their
potential application for support of on-board training of perceptual-motor and
cognitive skills need to be investigated.
One particular issue of skill maintenance during a mission to Mars that will be
difficult to investigate in advance will be related to the different gravity conditions
that will occur during different mission phases. For example, perceptual-motor skills
that are acquired pre-flight under 1 g conditions have to be maintained during the
transfer flight to Mars under microgravity conditions (if options of artificial gravity
are not available), but they also must be applied on the surface of Mars in a 0.38 g
222 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
environment. This will involve the re-learning of skills under different gravitational
forces during the mission. And beyond that, learning and acquiring completely new
skills while in space might become necessary. This will be the case if skills needed
for work on Mars cannot be learned during pre-mission training. Whereas mission
control experts can provide effective support and even on-line coaching to
crewmembers if issues of new learning arise during orbital space flight, crews
traveling to Mars will have to rely much more on their own capabilities. But is
learning under conditions of space flight as effective as under the usual learning
conditions on Earth? Or are special approaches and tools of training needed to
support the acquisition of new skills during a flight to Mars? So far, we do not
know much about learning capabilities under the conditions of space missions.
Although current experiences from orbital space flight suggest that performance
skills acquired on Earth can be applied efficiently in a different gravitational
environment after some time of adaptation (see Chapter 3), more systematic
research will be needed to increase our understanding of space-based learning.
Beyond the issues arising from the duration of transfer flights and overall
mission length, another new psychological challenge for individual adaptation and
performance during Mars missions will involve automation and the human-machine
interaction. People traveling to Mars will have to interact with complex human-
machine systems, including automated life support systems, rovers, robots, and
other operational hardware that will be needed for Mars exploration. In addition,
human-machine systems on Mars will include interactions with a number of
intelligent software agents that make the operation of systems possible without 24-h
coverage of ground-based monitoring and support. The design of these systems
will determine the quality of life and work during the mission. In order to minimize
the workload and stress resulting from interactions with these systems and to
optimize overall system performance, a strict human-centered approach of design
will have to be applied. On the one hand, this relates to the design of human-
machine interfaces, which must guarantee a high level of usability of the different
systems given the specific constraints on Mars. However, even more importantly, it
will require careful psychological considerations concerning the level of automation
to be attained, including an optimum allocation of functions to both humans and
machines [Parasuraman et al., 2000]. These considerations must ensure that the
obvious advantages of automation do not lead to negative side effects that might
impact the well-being and performance of the crew. One of these side effects
includes the boredom that can arise if too many tasks become automated, thus
reducing the responsibility of crewmembers to monotonous monitoring tasks.
Another issue regards the loss of situational awareness and a degradation of skills
needed to manually control the different systems if automation fails. This can result
from too much automation, leaving the operator “out of the loop” most of the time
[Endsley and Kiris, 1995; Lorenz et al., 2002; Parasuraman et al., 2000].
Furthermore, even if today’s technology guarantees a sufficient reliability of
automated systems, they can break down and might need repair to return to normal
functioning. Will the technological levels chosen to implement the systems allow
the crew to fix them in case of a severe breakdown? How must systems be designed
to optimally support the diagnosis of failures and on-site repair on Mars? What kind
Future Challenges 223
environmental hazards (e.g., solar particle events). In the second place, it involves
internal crises that might arise not only from interpersonal conflicts but also from a
serious medical illness of a crewmember, injuries that might require surgical
treatment, or incidents of mental and behavioral illness that result in a crewmember
losing control. How can a crew on Mars deal with such events? What kinds of skills
are needed to cope with them? Will the crew be able to maintain its cohesion and
morale in the face of such crises? Of course, some of these issues can be dealt with
in pre-mission training or by including an expert in the crew. For example, at least
one physician undoubtedly will be part of a Mars crew who will be trained to
provide medical (including psychiatric) support and even to conduct surgery if
necessary. At least one additional crewmember will be trained as a back-up to
provide medical treatment under the direction of experts on the ground [Hoffman
and Kaplan, 1997; see also Section 5.4]. With regard to psychological issues,
Nicholas [1989] has proposed training all crewmembers in general social support
skills.
But incidents may occur during a 3-year mission to Mars that will be more
difficult to prepare for. Take, for example, a worst case scenario where the
physician dies of an accident, illness, or even a suicidal act during the mission. Will
the rest of the crew be able to cope with such a horrible experience without
decremental effects on the mission? What if a crewmember murders another? How
will the rest of the crew react? Admittedly, these are extreme examples of incidents
that hopefully will never happen. But since they cannot be excluded given the
general risks of a trip to Mars, crews going on such space missions must be
prepared to cope with them in some way. However, our current experiences with
such situations generally are limited to military operations, which seem hardly
comparable to a civilian expedition to Mars. Thus, the answers to some of these
questions cannot be given in advance.
Another issue that might arise in a crew traveling to Mars is what has been
referred to as “groupthink” [Janis, 1982]. This phenomenon has been shown to
develop in highly autonomous and cohesive groups that work under stressful
conditions, and it is characterized by a number of features that can seriously degrade
crew performance, especially the quality of decision-making. Important
characteristics of groupthink include: delusions of invulnerability (i.e., members
think that they are incapable of making wrong decisions and show an unreal
confidence in their own competence); reluctance of crewmembers to express
concerns and disagreements about decisions and ways of acting in order to maintain
harmony (i.e., there is group pressure on deviating individuals to conform); and
stereotyped views of people outside the group (e.g., mission control personnel).
Observed effects on decision-making include an incomplete survey of decision
alternatives, a failure to examine risks of preferred choices, a failure to reappraise
initially rejected alternatives, and a failure to work out contingency plans. Thus, the
development of groupthink attitudes represents a serious hazard for the performance
of crews acting in a high-risk environment. In addition, it can contribute to
individuals feeling uncomfortable in the crew (especially those who disagree with
important decisions), and it can lead to an erosion of crew cohesion. Finally, there is
Future Challenges 225
a negative impact on the relationship with people on Earth that puts additional
pressure on an interaction that already may be strained (see Section 4.7).
medications for different disorders are most appropriate to use during space
missions. Furthermore, with regard to missions to Mars, specific knowledge will be
needed about how the different gravitational conditions astronauts will be exposed
to (e.g., microgravity during transfer flights, 0.38 g on the martian surface) will
affect the pharmacodynamics and kinetics of different psychoactive drugs. Finally,
restraint systems need to be developed that can be used to protect agitated,
psychotic, or suicidal crewmembers and others from harm. These restraint systems
must be designed for application under different levels of gravity.
emotional state of the sender, and they have shown some promising results. For
example, analyses of the content of e-mails sent by confined crews reveal that the
number of emotional statements and complaints increased significantly after 2–4
months of confinement, which probably reflected issues of adaptation involving the
crewmembers [Gushin et al., 1997]. But other important issues related to e-mail
communication as an in-flight support tool have never been addressed by systematic
research. This include, for example, the advantages and disadvantages of this kind
of communication as the sole tool for maintaining social contacts between confined
crewmembers and outside personnel, and the suitability of e-mail to serve as the
main communication tool for psychological counseling and guidance of a confined
crew.
Having only restricted channels for communication that may be blocked for
certain periods of time makes it clear that the quantity and quality of in-flight
support will suffer considerably. At least to some extend the lack of ground-support
might be compensated by the provision of specific on-board training and coaching
tools for different psychological issues. Recent developments of training tools like
those suggested by Carter et al. [2005, see Section 6.5.3.1] seem to be promising
approaches in this area. But other kinds of support tools might include even more
sophisticated expert systems and monitoring tools suitable for self-monitoring of
different behavioural functions (see also Section 6.6.3). However, the possibilities
of such autonomous support tools certainly will be limited. This will affect the
relative importance of other psychological countermeasures, particularly those that
can be applied in advance of a mission. That is, given that less in-flight support can
be provided, crew selection and training will become even more important for
mission success and safety than they are already for orbital space flights. The
biggest challenge in this respect will be to find the right crew for a mission to Mars.
This will include the selection of suitable individuals for the mission as well as the
composition of a “psychologically compatible” crew whose members can be
expected to work and live together under the extreme conditions that they will
encounter. But what kind of personality will be most suitable for a mission to
Mars? And what kind of crew mixture will work best? Several attempts have been
made to describe the ideal psychological profile for crewmembers traveling together
on an long-term expeditionary-type space mission [Ursin et al., 1992]. However,
most of these attempts are based on anecdotal information or common sense
considerations, and the empirical basis for the definition of crewmember profiles
still is weak. Clearly, more research is needed during orbital space missions or in
analog environments on Earth in order to identify critical individual characteristics
that predict optimum adaptation to long-duration isolation and confinement before
valid select-in criteria for Mars crewmembers can be defined. However, even more
important for an interplanetary space mission will be a psychologically-guided
method of composing the crew. This already has been ascribed some significance
for orbital space missions [Gazenko, 1980; Manzey et al., 1995], but it will become
a pivotal element for missions involving high levels of crew autonomy, such as a
mission to Mars. Important aspects that will have to be considered include the age-
mix and gender-mix of the crewmembers, their cultural background, and the
compatibility of their personalities. Several of these issues already have been
228 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
discussed in earlier chapters of this book (see Sections 4.2 and 6.4.4 ), but our
current knowledge about the ideal composition of confined crews is limited at best.
After selecting the crew for a Mars mission, it will become necessary to prepare
them for the specific psychological demands of such an enterprise. Currently used
methods will have to be revised, and new methods may have to be developed.
Crews leaving for Mars will need more training and preparation than currently is
provided to ISS crews, particularly with regard to working under autonomous
conditions, building an efficient team and supporting themselves psychologically
and interpersonally. They will need to self-monitor and self-correct individual and
interpersonal problems that arise and be able to deal with medical and psychological
emergencies, such as trauma, accidents, suicide, or psychoses. Orasanu [2005] has
argued that naturalistic decision-making models may be of value for space crews on
exploration missions. In addition, specific training facilities will need to be defined,
where crews can be trained for prolonged periods of time under conditions similar
to those in a Mars mission. The ISS provides such an option since it replicates many
of these conditions (e.g., microgravity, isolation and confinement, potential danger).
But experimental ground-based facilities (e.g., confinement chambers) or human
outposts in extreme environments on Earth (e.g., Antarctica) also might be considered.
external guidance of the crew impossible. The main problem related to this issue is
that it cannot be studied before the first crew has been sent out, and it will need to
be monitored and dealt with in-flight should psychological, interpersonal, or
psychiatric problems occur.
7.8. Summary
• Space tourism is a growing industry, and careful attention need to be paid to
establishing realistic medical and psychiatric guidelines to protect the safety of
paying passengers and other crewmembers involved with the flight, both
suborbital and orbital.
• The future of human space flight will involve missions that go beyond the
Earth’s orbit. These include the establishment of a permanent presence on the
Moon as well as human expeditions to Mars and beyond.
• Missions to the Moon and the planets will involve many of the same
psychological risks and issues that have been reported from orbital space
missions or expeditions to extreme environments on Earth.
232 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
References
Arnold, H.J.P. 1993. Man in Space. An Illustrated History of Spaceflight. New
York: Smithmark Publishers.
Artunano, M.J., Baisden, D.L., Davis, J., Hastings, J.D., Jennings, R., Jones, D.,
Jordan, J.L., Mohler, S.R., Ruehle, C., Salazar, G.J., Silberman, W.S., Scarpa, P.,
Tilton, F.E., and Whinnery, J.E. 2006. Guidance for Medical Screening of
Commercial Aerospace Passengers. DOT/FAA/AM-06/1. Washington, DC:
Federal Aviation Administration.
Baranov, V.M. 2001. Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems.
Moscow: Firm Slovo.
Beard, S.S. and Starzyk, J. 2002. Space Tourism Market Study: Orbital Travel &
Destinations with Suborbital Space Travel. Bethesda, MD: Futron Corporation.
www.spaceportassociates.com
Bogomolov, V.V., Castrucci, F., Comtois, J-M., Damann, V., Davis, J.R., Duncan,
J.M., Johnston, S.L., Gray, G.W., Grigoriev, A.I., Koike, Y., Kuklinski, P.,
Matveyev, V.P., Morgun, V.V., Pochuev, V.I., Sargsyan, A.E., Shimada, K.,
Strauble, U., Tachibana, S., Voronkov, Y.V., and Williams, R.S., 2007.
International Space Station medical standards and certification for Space Flight
Participants. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 78:1162–1169.
Caldwell, B.S. 2005. Multi-team dynamics and distributed expertise in mission opera-
tions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B145–B 153.
Collet, J. and Vaernes, R.J. 1996. EXEMSI: The second European simulation of
long-duration space mission. In: S.L. Bonting, ed. Advances in Space Biology
and Medicine, vol. 5. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Future Challenges 233
Connors, M.M., Harrison, A.A., and Atkins, F.R. 1985. Living Aloft: Human
Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. NASA SP-483. Washington DC: NASA.
Dorais, G.A., Bonasso, R.P., Kortenkamp, D., Pell, B., and Schreckenghost, D.
1998. Adjustable Autonomy for Human-centered Autonomous Systems on Mars.
http://www.ic.arc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/1999-0099.pdf.
Endsley, M.R. and Kiris, E.O. 1995. The out-of-the-loop performance problem and
level of control in automation. Human Factors. 37:281–394.
European Space Agency. 1992. Mission to the Moon. (ESA SP-1150). Nordwijk:
ESA Publication Division.
Gazenko, O.G. 1980. Psychological compatibility on Earth and in outer space.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 51:622–623.
Grigoriev, A.I., Kozerenko, O.P., and Myasnikov, V.I. 1987. Selected problems of
psychological support of prolonged space flights. Paper presented at the 38th
Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gushin, V., Zaprisa, N.S., Kolinitchenko, T.B., Efimov, V.A., Smirnova, T.M.,
Vinokhodova, A.G., and Kanas, N. 1997. Content analysis of the crew
communication with external communicants under prolonged isolation.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 68:1093–1098.
Hoffmann, S.J. and Kaplan, D.L., eds. 1997. Human Exploration of Mars: The
Reference Mission of the NASA Mars Exploration Team. http://
exploration.jsc.nasa.gov/ marsref/contents.html [access at 15 September 2007].
Holland, A.W. and Curtis, K. 1998. Spaceflight psychology: operational psychology
countermeasures during the lunar-mars life-support test project. International
Journal of Life Support and Biosphere Science. 5:445–452.
Horneck, G., Facius, R., Reichert, M., Rettberg, P., Seboldt, W., Manzey, D.,
Comet, B., Maillet, A., Preiss, H., Schauer, L., Dussap, C.G., Poghon, L.,
Belyavin, A., Reitz, G., Baumstark.-Khan, C., and Gerzer, R. 2003. Humex, A
Study on the Survivability and Adaptation of Humans to Long-duration
Exploratory Missions. (ESA SP-1264). Noordwijk: European Space Agency.
International Science and Technology Center. 2000. Preliminary Project of the
Manned Mars Expedition (Project 1172). Moscow: ISCT.
Janis, I.L. 1982. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jennings, R.T., Murphy, D.M.F., Ware, D.L., Aunon, S.M., Moon, R.E.,
Bogomolov, V.V., Morgun, V.V., Voronkov, Y.I., Fife, C.E., Boyars, M.C.,
and Ernst, R.D. 2006. Medical qualification of a commercial spaceflight
participant: not your average astronaut. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine. 77:475–484.
Kanas, N. 1991. Psychosocial support for cosmonauts. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 62:353–355.
Kanas, N. 1997. Psychosocial value of space simulation for extended spaceflight.
In: S.L. Bonting, ed. Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, vol. 6. London:
JAI Press.
Kanas, N. 2005. Interpersonal issues in space: Shuttle/Mir and beyond. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):B126–B134.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:
Springer.
234 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Lorenz, B., Di Nocera, F., Röttger, S., and Parasuraman, R. 2002. Automated fault
management in a simulated spaceflight micro-world. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine. 73:886–897.
Manzey, D. 2002. REGLISSE. Review of European Ground Laboratories for
Sciences and Support of Exploration. Technical Note 2: Ideal Facility for
Psychological Research. Nordwijk: ESA/ESTEC.
Manzey, D., Schiewe, A., and Fassbender, C. 1995. Psychological countermeasures
for extended manned spaceflights. Acta Astronautica. 35:339–361.
Myasnikov, V.I. and Zamaletdinov, I.S. 1996. Psychological states and group
interactions of crew members in flight. In: A.E. Nicogossian, S.R. Mohler, O.G.
Gazenko, and A.I. Grigoriev, eds. Space Biology and Medicine III: Humans in
Spaceflight. Book 2. Reston,Va: AIAA.
Nechaev, A.P., Polyakov, V.V., and Morukov, B.V. 2007. Martian manned mission:
what cosmonauts think about this. Acta Astronautica. 60:351–353.
Nicholas, J.M. 1989. Interpersonal and group-behavior skills training for crews on
space station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 60:603–608.
Orasanu, J. 2005. Crew collaboration in space: a naturalistic decision-making
perspective. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76(6, Suppl.):
B154–B163.
Palinkas, L.A. , Johnson, J.C., Boster, A.S., and Houseal, M. 1998. Longitudinal
studies of behavior and performance during a winter at the South Pole.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 69:73–77.
Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K., Johnson, J.C., and Holland, A.W. 2000. Behavior
and performance on long-duration spaceflights: evidence from analogue
environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71(9,
Suppl.):A29–A36.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., and Wickens, C.D. 2000. A model of types and
levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, Cybernetics. 13: 257–266.
Patrick, J. 1992. Training: Research and Practice. London: Academic Press.
Rockwell, D.A., Hodgson, M.G., Beljan, J.R., and Winget, C.M. 1976. Psychologic
and psychophysiologic response to 105 days of social isolation. Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine. 47:1087–1093.
Santy, P.A. 1987. Psychiatric components of a health maintenance facility (HMF)
on space station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 58:1219–1224.
Stuster, J. 1996. Bold Endeavor: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration.
Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
Suedfeld, P. 1991. Groups in isolation and confinement: environments and
experiences. In: A.A. Harrison, Y.A. Clearwater, and C.P. McKay, eds. From
Antarctica to Outer Space. New York: Springer.
Ursin, H. 1988. Expectancy and activation: an attempt to systematize stress theory.
In: D. Hellhammer, I. Florin, and H. Weiner, eds. Neurobiological Approaches
to Human Disease. Toronto: Huber.
Ursin, H., Comet, B., and Soulez-Larivière, C. 1992. An attempt to determine the
ideal psychological profiles for crews of long term space missions. Advances in
Space Research. 12:(1)301–314.
Future Challenges 235
237
238 Space Psychology and Psychiatry
Cultural differences, 2, 7, 90, 93, 107, Habitability, 1, 2, 9, 15, 16, 32, 55,
115–117, 121–125, 149, 150, 161–166, 221
166, 178, 181, 183, 185 HUBES, see Human Behavior Study
and mood, 149, 150 (HUBES)
organizational, 93, 121–123 Human Behavior Study (HUBES), 97,
104, 105
De-conditioning, 16, 19, 24–27, 77 Human factors, see Habitability; Work
Displacement, 2, 90, 105, 106, 108, Design
109, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120,
121, 123, 180 Illusions
Dual-task performance, 67, 68, 70, elevator, 61
73–78 geometric, 58, 59
inversion, 57
Earth-out-of-view phenomenon, spatial, 56, 57
228, 229 visual, 2, 20, 49, 55
ECOPSY study, 97, 105 In-flight support, 193–197, 217, 227
Edwards Personal Preference Scale, International Biomedical Expedition to
96, 97 the Antarctic, 98, 99, 143
Ergonomics, see Habitability International Space Station (ISS), x, xi,
EXEMSI, see Experimental Campaign xii, xv, 1, 5, 14, 24, 48, 88, 90,
for the European Manned 91, 104, 106–108, 113–125,
Infrastructure (EXEMSI) 153, 160, 164, 168, 181–183,
Experimental Campaign for the 194, 197, 210–213, 217, 226
European Manned ISEMSI, see Isolation Study for
Infrastructure (EXEMSI), 91, European Manned Space
96, 98, 100, 104, 106 Infrastructure (ISEMSI)
Experimental settings, 3–5 Isolation Study for European Manned
Eye movements, 19, 20, 28, 29, 50, 55 Space Infrastructure
(ISEMSI), 97
Facial swelling, psychological impact ISS, see International Space Station
of, 17, 18, 179 (ISS)
Family
private family conferences, 194, Kelly and Kanas survey, 3, 18, 37, 101,
196, 226 105, 118, 119, 122, 136, 140,
as support for astronauts, 194–196 146, 166, 177, 179, 195, 196
support for, 197 Kelly Repertory Grid, 97
FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation- Language and dialect, 7, 90, 94, 100,
Behavior), 96 101, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119,
Food choices, 80, 95, 100, 163, 193, 121, 122, 124, 176, 177, 182,
195, 212, 228, 230 183, 194
Leadership roles, 90, 102–104, 112,
Gender, 2, 6, 90–92, 94, 97, 98, 138, 122, 123, 183
178, 227 Lebedev diary, 38, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99,
Group Environment Scale (GES), 102, 103, 106, 135, 140,
109, 110, 114, 115 166–169
Index 239
Leisure time, 100, 109, 146, 160, Perceptual changes in space, 146
194, 195 See also Illusions
Line-oriented flight training (LOFT), Perceptual-motor skills, complex,
187, 188 78–80, 221
Long-eye phenomenon, 98 Personality, 2, 6, 8, 22, 37, 38, 90,
Lunar-Mars Life Support Test 96–98, 120, 121, 123, 138, 140,
Project, 188 142–144, 170–179, 191, 198,
227, 231
McDonnell Douglas simulation Personality Characteristics Inventory
study, 105 (PCI), 96
Marital problems, 144, 198 Positive experiences in space study,
Mars missions, 213, 215–229 136–139
cosmonaut survey, 219, 220 Post-flight readjustment, 197, 198
Mars Direct Plan, 216 Post-traumatic stress disorder, 225
psychological challenges, 220–229 Privacy, 2, 16, 94, 99, 164, 221, 230
Mass discrimination, 56, 60 Profile of Mood States (POMS), 100,
Medications 109, 110, 114, 115, 147–149
effects of microgravity on, 151–153 Proprioception, 51, 60, 62
usage, 28, 146, 150, 151, 153 Psychomotor performance, 23, 50, 52,
Mental efficiency, 80, 192 66, 152
Mental rotation, 55, 59, 60 Psychosis, see Mood and thought
Microgravity disorders
effects on brain, 50–52 Psychotherapy, see Crew, counseling
effects on medications, 151–153 and psychotherapy
See also Adaptation
MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, see
(MRAB), 192, 193 Sleep
Mir space station, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, 1, Reaction time, 32, 64, 65, 70
6, 24, 27, 28, 38, 39, 64, 65, Re-interpretation hypothesis, 63, 77
67–77, 79, 80, 91, 93, 95, 98, Research in space, 5, 139, 153,
100, 103, 104, 106–124, 135, 229–231
139, 140, 147–150, 167, 179, Right stuff, 97, 171–175
191, 192, 196, 211, 220
Mission control challenges study, Salutogenesis, 135–139
106–108 Salyut Space station, 1, 24, 36, 37,
Mood and thought disorders, 139, 91–93, 95, 101–103, 135, 140,
141–143, 151, 225, 228 146, 161, 162, 166, 169, 170,
Moon missions, 211, 213–215, 196, 211
217, 218 See also Lebedev diary
Muscles, atrophy of, 23, 24 Scapegoating, 2, 90, 97, 98, 103, 198
Schizophrenia, see Mood and thought
Neurasthenia, see Asthenia disorders
Novelty effect, 73, 111, 115, 120 Selection, 169–179
select-in, 98, 169, 171–175, 227
Object recognition, 55, 59, 60 select-out, 96, 142, 169, 170, 171
Orthostatic tolerance, 19, 24 Sensitivity training, 186–188
Sensory conflict, 20–23, 50, 57
240 Space Psychology and Psychiatry