IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Magazine - January 2022 - 41

volunteers from the test pilot population [5], [6]. The Americans
favored an evolving mixture of interpersonal traits,
academic achievement, and flying experience, as their
astronauts opposed a focus on psychological and behavioral
states because they felt it could threaten their careers
[6]. The Russians, however, emphasized evaluating psychological
performance, owing to a " long-duration mission "
mindset [6] that led to the elimination of candidates who
did not meet expectations [5].
The space shuttle era introduced mixed crews of civilians
and pilots, incorporating diversity and opportunities for
minorities [5], and when combined with Mir missions, psychological
performance began to be closely monitored to
include " cultural flexibility, an ability to tolerate periods of
low arousal/simulation, and coexistence with others for long
periods of time " [6]. Features of the Russian cosmonaut training
program include an isolation chamber to monitor candidates'
emotional stability and ability to react under stress [5].
One-third of the training time is devoted to " individual psychological
features " of crew performance, and there is simulator
training to automate cosmonauts [7] to " master
responses to emergency situations and quick thinking " [8].
Successful crew selection favors compatible personality
types and skill sets to complete mission objectives, which
are enhanced during training [9]. Until launch, crew members
can be replaced by peers who have trained beside them
[9]. An Apollo 13 crew member was replaced 72 h before
launch, and the spacecraft later suffered an in-flight explosion,
with telemetry revealing only 10 h of oxygen for an 87-h
flight to Earth. Astronaut Swigert placed tape over a switch
and labeled it " LM Jettison " so he could " warn his commander
of a possible upcoming issue " [2] and prevent the
lunar module from being disengaged with his colleagues
inside [9]. Creative performance during the Apollo 13 mission
was displayed in conditions of cold temperatures,
fatigue, dehydration, and even a kidney infection, which prevented
the crew from performing the most routine tasks.
Alertness and motivation have been demonstrated to
influence performance " independent of circadian phases "
[10]. Cold and heat stress have been shown to promote creativity
in wealthier populations and hinder it in poorer people,
which could influence astronauts, depending on their
Second Pillar:
Optimization Using
Second Pillar:
Optimization Using
Processes and Procedures
socioeconomic status [11]. A study of high carbon dioxide
levels similar to those in space found that " performance was
proportional to or exceeded the baseline " compared to lower
levels, which could, in theory, influence effective decision
making and performance during emergencies [12]. Morphew
suggests that it is not microgravity that effects astronauts'
performance in space but the mission environment, which
involves " workloads, fatigue, chronic noise, stress, temperature
changes, lack of privacy, and isolation " [13].
In a later mission, the crew of Apollo 16 showed resilience
by monitoring members' readiness against fatigue by
communicating well and managing safety risks [6]. Left
alone in the service module, astronaut Mattingly discovered
violent vibrations during steering. After alerting the
ground crew, he found that the cable carrying signals to the
gimbal motors appeared a little short and could potentially
be pulled taught to cause the vibrations. Trust between
space crews and ground control is instrumental in problem
solving, and when mission control confirmed Mattingly's
suspicions, Apollo 16 proceeded successfully; the cable
design was revised for future flights [9].
During the Apollo 9, Apollo 13, and Skylab 4 missions,
discord developed among crew members, who demanded
unscheduled time to resolve their differences [14]. The
crew of Soyuz 15 cared for their commander, who experienced
an abnormal reaction [15] while entering space; the
reason for the mission's failure is cited as the " psychological
incompatibility of the crew " [9]. Several Salyut missions
included hostility, and other strange behaviors which
have been observed in cosmonauts. An otherwise disciplined
cosmonaut attempted an unscheduled extravehicular
activity (EVA) after becoming mesmerized by Earth,
stepping untethered from the vehicle before a comrade
caught his foot at the last second. Another Salyut crew disconnected
ground communication [14] altogether. Several
Soyuz 11 crew members were swapped out due to " disciplinary
reasons " that caused clashes. This unhappy crew
later perished during reentry, when ground control confirmed
a faulty sensor reading that caused rapid depressurization.
Investigations revealed that a responsive
commander was tangled his harness as he attempted to
close two air equalization valves. [9]
Third Pillar:
Optimization by Ground
Control and Mission Control
Third Pillar:
Optimization by Ground
Control and Mission Control
First Pillar:
Optimization of Space Crews
First Pillar:
Fourth Pillar:
Optimization of Space Crews
Fourth Pillar:
Optimization Through
Technology
Optimization Through
Technology
Figure 1. The four pillars of optimization are foundational for human spaceflight.
January 2022 IEEE SYSTEMS, MAN, & CYBERNETICS MAGAZINE 41
IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Magazine - January 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Magazine - January 2022
