/m/nt

Is 'the right stuff' the right stuff?

Interpersonal challenges facing an international crew on a long- duration Space Station mission

Jerrold M. Post

In 1979 the author Tom Wolfe likened US astronauts to sacrificial gladiators characterized by competitiveness, #l- dependence, self-sufficiency, ex- troversion and a sense of moral right- eousness and superiority- in short, 'the right stuff'. But are these the qualities needed for long-duration in- ternational missions? The author's hunch is that they are on the whole still necessary but not sufficient, but he emphasizes that systematic study of past behavioural reactions and analogous environments is needed if vital questions of interpersonal dyna- mics are to be answered correctly.

Jerrold M. Post, MD, is Professor of Psychiatry, Political Psychology and Inter- national Affairs at The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA.

1Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff, Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, New York, 1987.

On first entering NASA's Johnson Space Center the newcomer is forcibly struck by the unique elan which permeates the environment. There is a very special spirit, tangible yet diffi- cult to define.

As a behavioural scientist invited to act as a consultant to the NASA In House Astronaut Selection Working Group on the formidable challenges of selecting an international crew that could work effectively together in a sustained-duration (three months to one year) mission in the Space Sta- tion, I had more than a casual interest in defining the social psychology of the NASA milieu. While the assigned task was to consider the interpersonal problems of harmoniously blending astronauts from three cultures - North American, Western European and Japanese - it had quickly become apparent that the US astronauts were themselves a unique cultural group with their own value system. In wrest- ling with the problems of integrating individuals from disparate cultures, understanding the culture of the astro- nauts, who would almost certainly comprise the majority of any particu- lar crew, was Critical.

Whomever I queried in my quest to understand 'what makes astronauts tick' indicated it was essential that I gain an understanding of the social history of the space programme and the traditions which shaped and influ- enced a s t r o n a u t se lec t ion and socialization. They uniformly sug- gested that I real Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff} While they would quickly disclaim that it was totally accurate, nevertheless, they would aver, it really captured the essence of the psycholo- gy of that very special breed, that very special sub-culture - the astronauts.

Wolfe likened the astronauts to sacrifical gladiators. Among the qual- ities he described with great literary flair were: courage, a sense of adven- ture and action orientation (with a concomitant disinterest in introspec- t i o n and low p s y c h o l o g i c a l - mindedness); a driving ambition to achieve the heights (literally); com- petitiveness, independence and lead- ership; and a very special self- confidence and consuming belief in one's own abilities to master chal- lenges (identified as 'Astropower'), along with a conviction that they were best for the job. There was a sense of

SPACE POLICY May 1989 99

Vie~t7~oim

2p. Santy, 'Psychiatric components of a health maintenance facility (HMF) on Space Station', Aviation, Space, and En- vironmental Medicine, December 1987. 3N. Kanas, 'Issues in space', American Journal of Psychiatry, Vo1144, No 6, June 1987. 4NASA Life Sciences Planning Study Committee, Exploring the Living Universe: A Strategy for Space Life Sciences, NASA, Washington, DC, 1988.

moral superiority and righteous recti- tude which often conveyed a sense of cockiness, of infallibility .- indeed of arrogance. Yet despite the competi- tiveness and arrogant superiority which at times was manifested by defiance of external authority, there was nevertheless a demonstrated capacity for bonding and loyalty.

t tow accurately and uniformly these descriptions fit the original astronauts is by no means clear. And even less clear is the degree to which all or some of these qualities characterize the cur- rent generations of astronauts. Most say that the individual and group psychology of the astronaut corps has evolved considerably over time, parti- cularly with the addition of highly trained scientists and engineers to the test pilot corps. But even if the traits described above do not fit any indi- vidual entirely, if they do characterize an ethos that persists, this is impor- tant.

It is clear that many of the qualities ascribed to the astronauts were of the greatest import for US pioneers in space and contributed significantly to the US space programme's success. But, in considering a long-duration mission in the Space Station, are they the qualities which will contribute to harmonious group functioning, or will they contribute to intragroup tension and conflict'? In short, is 'the right stuff' still the right stuff? Is it enough stuff? Or is ~the right stuff' the wrong stuff?

Let us consider in particular some of the qualities enumerated: competi- t i v e n e s s , i n d e p e n d e n c e , se l f - sufficiency, action-orientation with diminished psychological-mindedness and a sense of moral righteousness and superiority. It does not take a behavioural scientist to suggest that this does not sound like an optimal recipe for harmonious group function- ing.

Importance of interpersonal issues In considering the challenges facing the astronauts on a mission of ex- tended duration (initially projected at three to six months; 12-month mis- sions are now under consideration),

interpersonal issues will be of particu- lar importance. Psychiatrists, psycho- logists and life scientists associated with NASA have of course carefully considered the psychological stresses astronauts undergo on space missions, and have drawn attention to social and interpersonal issues. Santy has com- prehensively reviewed the spectrunl of stressors and adverse reactions, and has reflected on the combined phy- siological, emotional and social stres- ses which will affect the occupants of a permanently re;tuned space station, e In his article 'Issues in space', Kanas has given particular emphasis to the interpersonal tensions which have occurred in space hut have not prog- ressed to the point of interfering with mission goals. ~ The longer the dura- tion, the more individual and interper- sonal tensions can be expected to increase, a point emphasized in the report Exploring the Living Universc: A Strategy jot Space LiJ? Sciences. ~

Even without the added complica- tions of an international crew, the group dynamics within the Space Sta- tion will be complex and potentially conflictual. On a short space mission the numerous highly specialized tasks leave little time for relaxation. But on a long-duration mission there will be significant down time, and it may well be that the manner in which crew members relate during that down time will be even more important than their individual skills. For tensions that develop during that unstructured time can in turn contaminate and interfere with cooperative performance during active duty time.

This clearly poses a challenge to NASA management in terms of both selection and training. What are the qualities which should guide the selec- tion process? Are they the same qual- ities which have led to the space programme's success up to the pre- sent? It seems likely that many of the qualities emphasized heretofore will continue to be of importance. But it may well be that other qualities which up until now have not been given great weight will also be important. In par t icular , cer ta in psychological strengths and interpersonal skills will be of great import. Thus 'the right stuff' may still be necessary, but not be

100 SPACE POLICY May 1989

'The best way of testing for ability to function cooperatively in a group is in a group'

5Kanas, op cit, Ref 3.

sufficient. W h a t are these psycho log ica l

strengths and qualities and interper- sonal skills, and how does one select for them? Ideally the answers to these questions should be derived from past experience. On such extended mis- sions, what types of interpersonal difficulties have developed? Which types of individuals were most sus- ceptible to such tensions? Most re- sistant? It will be argued that the planned long-duration missions are unique, and there there are no analo- gous envi ronments or analogous groups. Strictly speaking, of course, this is true, but there is a rich body of experiential data which may well illu- minate possible areas of difficulty and lessons learned could in turn be em- ployed to help refine selection and training procedures so as to minimize the likelihood of such difficulties on long-duration Space Station missions. In particular, long-duration underseas missions, such as Underseas Habitat, and prolonged isolated missions under adverse confined circumstances, such as certain Antarctic missions, appear relevant. Moreover, there have been behavioural difficulties on shorter- duration US missions and on the Soviet prolonged-duration missions. At present reports of these difficulties exist at the anecdotal level and have not been systematically collected and subjected to professional analysis. Such a study is imperative.

The value of simulation for pilot and astronaut training is well estab- lished. It has been of paramount importance in helping crews anticipate and appropriately react to crisis situa- tions. The conditions of a long- duration Space Station mission can also be simulated, with special atten- tion devoted to interpersonal chal- lenges, observations and analysis. Thus the establishment of an environ- ment where a group could be sub- jected to a variety of analogous condi- tions could be of immense help in identifying individual group psycholo- gical vulnerabilities. Conditions in space are of course unique, but lessons learned in an analogous condition on Earth could refine understanding of what to expect in space. However intensive the training experience, to

Viewpoint

be together during the day and be with families in the evening cannot provide the confined sustained experience that an environment with a control 'crew' confined together for three to six months can provide.

The ability to predict group func- tioning and dynamics from under- standings of individual personalities and abilities is poor at best. While there are some individual tests which predict to a degree cooperative be- haviour, one can make a case that the best way of testing for ability to function cooperatively in a group is in a group. This argues for group tests of cooperat ive problem-solving, in a group setting, as a part of the selection process. Assuredly group problem- solving exercises and sensitivity to group dynamics should be a major feature of training for Space Station crews.

Thus far the problems in bringing together an international crew have not even been touched upon. All of the above issues concern the trans- formation from a programme con- cerned with very special individuals to a programme which necessarily will be concerned with group functioning. What problems can he anticipated in bringing together astronauts from di- verse cultures?

Kanas has stressed the potential problems of crew heterogeneity and cultural diversi ty. 5 For example , Japanese representative to the work- ing group with which I am now in- volved have called attention to impor- tant Japanese cultural characteristics which will influence the group func- tioning. They emphasized the sub- ordination of individual interests to group consensus, with a concomitant suppression of individual ideas and creativity. While this could contribute to a surface appearance of harmony, in fact it might well detract from the full range of possible contributions these ind iv idua l members might make.

What crew composition and group structure will be optimal for function- ing? Should there be only one astro- naut from each nationality? Will this provide a better opportunity for full integration? Should a variant of the two by two model of Noah be

SPACE POLICY May 1989 101

Vie.7~oint

' T h e s h o r t h a n d a n s w e r is - stil l n e c e s s a r y , but not suf f i c i ent '

favoured, with at least two of each nationality and at least two women? Or will this promote clique develop- ment? Should there be a flat or hierarchical organizational structure beneath the mission commander? Given that present plans are that a majority of the crew will be from the USA, is it a foregone conclusion that the mission commander will be too? If not, what would be the consequences for group dynamics? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know they must be explicitly consi- dered. The reactions of individuals with different personality structures and from differing cultures will vary considerably in relation to different group compositions and organization- al structures. It is important to empha- size that these will be international space missions, so it is not a matter of i nd iv idua l s f rom o t h e r cu l tu res psychologically and interpersonally adapting to American mores, but a requirement for mutual sensitivity to personal and cultural differences. Some will be able to meet that re- quirement more easily than others.

In meeting the challenges of mount- ing extended-duration International Space Station missions, technological and social sciences must ,join hands. The selection and training of the very special individuals who will have the requisite technological mastery, indi- vidual psychological capacities and in- terpersonal qualities will play an im-

portant role in determining the success or failure of the mission. With an estimated turnaround time of 28 days, the consequences of an individual or group psychological crisis can be catastrophic.

Is ' the right stuff' the right stuff, then? Many of the qualities identified which have contributed so significant- ly to the success of the space program- me will undoubtedly continue to be of highest importance, but some of the identified qualities could contribute to conflict. Moreover, it is probably the case that other qualities will also be necessary which heretofore have not been important and have not been specific selection criteria. Thus my hunch is that the shorthand answer is - still necessary, but not sufficient: 'the right stuff' is for the most part prob- ably still the right stuff, but some is probably the wrong stuff, and it is not enough stuff. Some of the additional desirable qualities are inherent perso- nality qualities which can be selected for; others represent trainable skills. But this is only a hunch, and the consequences for the space program- me are too important to be left to optimism and guesswork. Many of the questions I have raised cannot be answered at the present state of know- ledge. Only careful systematic analysis of past behavioural reactions and re- search in analogous environments will help provide the answers to these questions.

102 SPACE POLICY May 1989