NASA NTRSDate not supplied
BACKGROUND The impact of habitability on psychological and performance outcomes is recognized as an important factor in habitat and vehicle design—especially as missions increase in length. Formal evaluation of habitability’s impact is possible using the Spaceflight Habitability Acceptability Questionnaire (SHAQ), which was psychometrically validated by Roma et al. in 2022 [1]. The SHAQ survey systematically quantifies the relationships between habitat areas (e.g., bedroom, kitchen, hygiene area, office, etc.) and behavioral health and performance (BHP) outcomes (i.e., individual and team performance, mood, stress, sleep, social interaction), and considers the moderating effects of key habitability aspects (i.e., privacy, control, convenience, efficiency, comfort, social density) on that relationship. METHOD Respondents were HERA participants from Campaign 5 and 6 (n = 32). Data from three environments were used in our SHAQ analyses: SHAQ in HERA (in-mission), SHAQ at Home (pre-mission), and SHAQ in Hotel (pre- and post-mission for C6, just pre-mission for C5). For each habitat area, respondents are asked how that area layout impacts six BHP outcomes on a 201-point visual analog scale with the anchors: impairs, has no effect, and facilitates. They also had the option to respond “Not Applicable”. Follow up questions asked why six key habitability aspects (e.g., privacy) influenced the way the habitat area affected a given outcome. Participants indicated whether a habitat area’s habitability aspects were inadequate (low score) to adequate (midpoint) to ideal (high score), using a 201-point visual analog scale as well but were binned to a 7-point scale for analyses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION When comparing across environments, ratings of BHP outcomes were worse in HERA compared to home and pre-mission hotel, but rebounded for the post-mission hotel such that post-mission hotel rating were often higher than all previous ratings. Within HERA, ratings of how a habitat area impacted an outcome skewed towards facilitation with communal areas (i.e., galley and office) rated most facilitating. The follow up questions about why six key aspects related to habitability moderated outcomes indicated that most habitat areas were rated as having “adequate” habitability characteristics. Privacy was the only moderator with average scores below adequate for all habitat areas. The office had the most moderators scoring above adequate for all habitat areas. Ratings indicated small to moderate effects of layouts on BHP outcomes: with facilitating layouts averaging between 4 and 5, and impairing layouts averaging between 2 and 4. The sleeping module layout facilitated sleep, with ratings indicating adequate comfort but inadequate privacy. The galley layout facilitated social interaction and mood, with ratings indicating adequate efficiency and convenience. The office layout facilitated social interaction, team and individual performance, with ratings similarly indicating adequate efficiency and convenience. The hygiene module worsened individual performance, mood and stress, with ratings indicating less than adequate privacy and social density. Our findings suggest there is value in having dedicated team and individual spaces. REFERENCES [1] Roma, P. G., Landon, L.B., Spencer, C. A., Whitmire, A. M., & Williams, T. J. (2022). SHAQ: Development and Validation. Human Factors: Special Issue on Spaceflight, 65(6), 1074-1104. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the NASA Human Research Program directed task Human Factors and Behavioral Performance in HERA (PI = S. Bell) to the BHP Lab. KBR Inc. and JES Tech authors were supported by KBR’s Human Health and Performance Contract NNJ15HK11B with NASA.