Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration Space MissionsStuster emphasizes this point in his review of literature from spaceflight and similar
domains like polar bases and stations. Based on the writings of behavioral scientists
and accounts from explorers and Antarctic personnel, he concludes that “the smooth
functioning of the group contributes greatly to mission success and can be essential to
survival under emergency conditions.”^2
The factors influencing something as dynamic and complex as human inter-
action are, of course, numerous. For even the simplest one-on-one conversation,
the personalities of the individuals, their motivations, their organizational roles
(e.g., leader versus follower), and the context of the conversation affect each per-
son’s perception and interpretation of the interaction. Nonverbal cues, such as
body posture, and paralinguistic cues, like the tone of voice, also shape the inter-
action, altering the degree to which the conversation is deemed pleasant, threat-
ening, or productive. However, in the context of a long-duration space mission
with three or more crewmembers, the complexity of human interaction increases
significantly. For one thing, interactions occur in the context of a high-workload
and high-stress environment. The crew is under tremendous pressure to perform
tasks correctly and according to strict timelines with little room for error, creating
a setting ripe for tension. Furthermore, beyond their own internal interactions,
the crew must also routinely communicate with numerous groups on the ground.
These can range from flight-related personnel (e.g., flight controllers, engineers,
medical staff), to family members, to even representatives of the media and gov-
ernments around the world.
Nevertheless, the most prominent factor affecting crew interactions is the com-
position of the crew itself. Findings from the behavioral and social sciences, space-
flight, and similar settings indicate that the number of people on a team or crew and
their individual characteristics are influential to the team’s interactions and success.
Evidence from spaceflight and analogous settings like Antarctica and submarines
indicate, for instance, that the size of the crew has a major impact on crew interac-
tions. Harrison concludes that larger crews possess several advantages over smaller
crews, such as a greater range of skills and abilities, as well as providing more oppor-
- Jack Stuster, Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration (Annapolis, MD:
Naval Institute Press, 1996), p. 165.