be subjected to new combinations of conditions, and the impact of these conditions need to be understood. Increased crew size means that the relatively simple mechanisms that regulate interaction in small groups may no longer suffice. Increased crew size and increased crew heterogeneity mean new opportunity for subgroup formation and intergroup tensions. Certain missions, such as Mars missions, will involve unprecedented periods of isolation and confinement in outer space. How do we engineer the physical and social environment to promote success? A second major reason for improving our understanding of the human element is to create a suitable quality of life in space. During the 1960s, spacefarers were steeled to endure cramped quarters, go unwashed, and subsist on cold or tepid prepackaged foods for relatively brief periods of time. During the new space era, people are living in space for extended periods of time. It is estimated that tomorrow's astronauts will spend 3-6 months on orbiting space stations, a year or so at lunar bases, and six years or so on Mars missions [12]. Interstellar travel may encompass generations [6]. We need to create conditions that are satisfactory in the long run, conditions that not only allow people to survive in space but to thrive in space [9, 11], A high quality of life is important not only in its own right, but because it is likely to enhance overall performance. The organizational behaviour literature teaches us that good working and living conditions build satisfaction, and satisfaction builds commitment. Commitment is reflected in the absence of withdrawal behaviours in such forms as absenteeism and turnover. Thus, a qualify of life is important if we do not want astronauts to malinger, mentally withdraw, or, after having undergone a very expensive training programme, quit after just one or two missions. In outer space as elsewhere, a suitable quality of life will depend on social as well as physical factors. The issue has been defined [13] in terms of ‘habitability'—how the environment affects productivity, performance, and a sense of well-being for spacefarers, such as astronauts in a space station. Of course those who plan, manage, and participate in space missions recognize that such missions are complex sociotechnical systems. The problem is that their view of the social component tends to be limited. Research has focused on biomedical considerations, and, to some extent on ‘hard' human factors such as perceptual and motor skills. Physicians, physiological psychologists, psychophysiologists, and experimental psychologists with interests in perception, learning, and other forms of information processing have had significant involvement in the US space programme. Personality, social and organizational psychologists, sociologists, and other ‘soft' scientists have not fared as well [9, 10, 14]. Whereas the latter have been encouraged to write review papers, hold workshops, conduct symposia and the like, they have not received appreciable funding to conduct first-hand empirical research, they have not had access to astronauts, and they have not had an impact on actual flight operations. There are several reasons that those who plan, manage, or participate in space mission are reluctant to seek contributions from the ‘soft' sciences. Consider, first, the organizational culture of NASA [15]. German rocket scientists, American engineers, and military test pilots are the formulators and heroes of these cultures. Those with engineering backgrounds are likely to view social sciences with considerable scepticism. Engineers and social scientists tend to operate on different cognitive ‘wavelengths': they have different priorities and different preferred styles of communication [16], Military test pilots and others with the ‘right stuff eschew psychopathology and social deviance. Yet it is exactly these topics that many ‘soft' scientists want to study. The truth is that psychological and social research is not always in the best interest of those who plan, manage, or participate in space missions [14], Managers who
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==