Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Team cohesion”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Interplay of Humor and Team Cohesion Over Time

Team bonding and interpersonal relationships are increasingly important as we continue understanding the effects of the pandemic on team dynamics. Specifically, team cohesion, defined as having a sense of belonging and commitment towards the group, has been found to be important for key team outcomes such as performance, relationships, and productivity (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Bell & Marentette, 2011). Research has stressed the benefits of positive humor on cohesion, with humor creating positive emotions and decreasing social distance (e.g., Robert & Wilbanks, 2012; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 2001; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). However, research around the impact of negative humor on cohesion is scarce. This study aims to examine the impact of both positive and negative humor on cohesion for teams over time. The longitudinal design allows us to examine the interplay of humor and cohesion throughout a team’s lifecycle to guide relationship development and management (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Humor is defined as remarks recognized as amusing or funny (Martin, 2007). Positive humor can be categorized as good-natured aimed to create mutual agreement, while negative humor is defined as aggressive, hostile, and unreciprocated (Coan & Gottman, 2007). Research has concluded the many benefits of positive humor, showing it can increase open communication, social support, and create a pleasant environment (Martineau, 1972; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 2001; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). The Humor Wheel model suggests that positive humor is contagious due to the positive affect produced and mimicked (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen 2014). Research has suggested positive humor would increase over time based on the norm of reciprocity; those treated positively are likely to respond similarly (Gouldner, 1960). Multiple parties’ involvement in humor exchanges highlights the interpersonal nature of humor. Thus, long-term consequences on relationships should be considered, such as cohesion (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). It would be instrumental to understand how humor interactions could weaken or strengthen group cohesion through relational and emotional bonds over time (Martineau, 1972; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Positive humor should fundamentally increase team cohesion (Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, & Viswesvaran, 2012; Walter & Baruch, 2008) by promoting group harmony, team member attractiveness, and ingroup identity (Holmes, 2006). Thus, it is expected there is a positive relationship between positive humor and team cohesion over time (hypothesis 1). Humor is not always beneficial, especially when it elicits negative emotions (Dikkers, Doosje, & de Lange, 2011). Negative humor can be used to humiliate, tease, or insult (Coan & Gottman, 2007; Collinson, 1988; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). It tends to cause distress and damage relationships, and in turn, decrease organizational performance and production (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Janes & Olson, 2000; Yerkes, 2001). Research concludes negative humor may create subgroups and decrease cooperation (Romero & Arendt, 2011). Research has also indicated positive implications for negative humor under specific circumstances. Negative humor could help to solidify ingroup identity and strengthen bonds when directed outside the team (Terrion & Ashforth, 2002; Thomae & Pina, 2015). For example, sport teams may use negative humor towards their opponent before a game, which emphasizes their differences and lowers the status and power of their opponent, ultimately promoting solidarity and cohesion inside the group. For this study, it is anticipated that negative humor toward other teammates will decrease team cohesion over time due to the damage to relationships and negative affect produced (Duncan, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990; Maples, Dupey, Torres‐Rivera, Phan, Vereen, & Garrett, 2001). We also predicted that negative humor focused on something or someone outside the team will increase cohesion by enhancing ingroup ties and creating a common identity (Thomae & Pina, 2015). Thus, the relationship between negative humor and cohesion will be moderated by the target of the humor. The relationship will be negative when the target is within the team and positive when the target is outside (hypothesis 2).

Melissa M. Vazquez↗
NASA NTRS2012

Portraying the Contribution of Individual Behaviors to Team Cohesion and Performance

Behaviors of individuals in teams both contribute to and are molded by team dynamics. How they do so has been the subject of much research. A method of portraying individuals' behaviors in teams, the Team Diagramming Method (TDM) is presented. Behaviors are rated by other team members on three important dimensions: positivity/negativity, dominant/submissive, and task-orientedness/expressiveness. A study of 5-person teams engaging in a 3-day moon simulation task demonstrated that measures of these perceived behaviors as well as the variances of these behaviors correlated with cohesion measures and performance. The method shows strengths and weaknesses of particular teams and, by comparison with high-performing teams, suggests interventions based on individual as well as team behaviors. The primary goal of this study was to determine the extent to which these team level variables, derived from all team members' rated behaviors, were associated with previous methods of measuring cohesion and with performance. A secondary goal was to determine the stability of TDM measures over time by comparing team level variables based on ratings early and later in the team s work together.

Parke, Bonny↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2022

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, and Psychosocial Adaptions within a Team

The Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team (the Team Risk) is primarily performance-focused, with a secondary emphasis on behavioral health outcomes resulting from team performance and interpersonal interactions. Monitoring tools, measures, and countermeasures are aimed at enhancing team processes and team composition configurations to optimize team performance and functioning. Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will include major challenges that could affect team performance, including social isolation, physical confinement, a small and diverse crew, communication delays between crew and ground, limited or no crew rotation or evacuation options, limited or no resupply, and a high-consequence environment. Each of these conditions will affect the crew’s coordination, cooperation, psychological well-being, and performance. Although the International Space Station (ISS) remains important for studies that require spaceflight testing and validation, the current conditions on the ISS do not adequately mimic the exploration environment that is required for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teams research, and thus access to terrestrial or ground-based analogs of LDEM conditions is paramount. The emphasis on analogs for research is reflected in this updated evidence review of the Team Risk, and includes data from studies conducted at isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments (e.g., Antarctic stations), and from several mission simulation analogs such as the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) (HERA Experiment Information Package, 2014), also known as isolated, confined, controlled (ICC) environments. These studies have characterized many team factors regarding LDEMs, and the Team Risk has now matured from risk characterization to focusing more on countermeasure development. Because spaceflight evidence for team-level research is lacking, no reliable data is available to quantify the impact of team-level variables on individual and team-level outcomes during spaceflight missions. Until recently, no systematic attempt had been undertaken to measure the performance effects of team cohesion, team composition, team training, or team-related psychosocial adaptation during spaceflight. The Team Risk is a relatively young research area for NASA, with substantial growth only since the 2000s, and with limited access to spaceflight performance data. As a result, spaceflight evidence is lacking to identify specifically what team composition, level of training, amount of cohesion, or quality of psychosocial adaptation is necessary to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. However, astronaut journals and interviews and reports from spaceflight subject matter experts (SMEs) provide testimonies that team performance during spaceflight is important for mission success and to maintain crew health. Team spaceflight data is now being collected as part of the Spaceflight Standard Measures task (Clement, 2021)—a set of core measurements related to many human spaceflight risks that are collected from astronauts before, during, and after long-duration missions. The team-related standard measures focus on team cohesion, team performance, group living, team climate, and team processes. Collection of standard measures data is ongoing and published data is not yet available. Finally, although spaceflight evidence is lacking, evidence gleaned from ground studies and spaceflight analog studies will help close the gaps outlined in the Team Risk. Ground-based studies provide quantitative evidence for team functioning in ICE environments. Academic research on teams has produced dozens of meta-analyses that can be used to understand the general relationships among team inputs (e.g., team member characteristics and skills, job context), team processes, and emergent states (e.g., coordination, communication, cooperation, cohesion, trust, shared cognition), and team outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, errors, adaptation). Teams are complex, incorporating individual characteristics of team members, but also existing at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the Team Risk must be integrated with other individual-focused NASA Human Research Program (HRP) risks, including Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Sleep, and Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), and emerging research indicates more integration may needed between the Team Risk and the physiologically oriented risks. Much of this integration occurs through the Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB). A lack of team functioning may be a stressor in some circumstances, but the team often acts as a countermeasure. For example, support for team leaders and teammates can facilitate individual functioning and encourage psychological and physically healthy behaviors and attitudes. However, more research is needed regarding teams during LDEMs and the remaining gaps in the research are described in the current report.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS Teams Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS2025

Measuring Unique Contextual Factors: Group Living Skills

BACKGROUND The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration-class space missions. During the HFBP-EM suite development, the importance of assessing unique contextual factors to understand the drivers of team dynamics was identified. Group living skills are a unique workplace skill which applies to those coworkers who live and work together. As mission lengths become longer, the line between work and non-work life may blur. Extreme living conditions such as spaceflight can result in increased stress over time, negatively impact mood and well-being, decrease team cohesion and increase conflict, deteriorate task performance, and potentially reduce mission success [1]. With no breaks in their isolated and confined environment possible, living with a messy, inconsiderate crewmember can add to the stress. Alternatively, crews with good group living skills may support one another, mitigating the negative effects of the extreme environment. There was no direct measure of group living skills. This work sought to fill this measurement gap and collect data related to group living in isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments. METHODS Group living skills as an astronaut competency area were developed with the input of experts familiar with ICE environments. Distinct aspects of this competency were reviewed and discussed by a NASA-invited group of spaceflight experts in 2015 to identify individual and team behavioral health and performance measures for operational environments. This work resulted in a 5-item measure focused on group living experiences with each crewmember (or the crew as a whole). A 6th item asks whether an individual would go on another mission with a particular crewmember or crew as a measure of future-oriented group living, or team viability. The measure was deployed in 24 teams living and working together in isolated and confined environments (e.g., International Space Station, space mission simulation analogs). RESULTS & DISCUSSION In this presentation, we will summarize results which indicate the Group Living Skills (GLS) Survey is a reliable, valid, and operationally feasible measure. Reliability was evaluated in several ways. Two-way multilevel mixed models revealed strong repeated measures reliability (ICC2 = .902, Omega between = .954). Reliability of change within teams was strong (Rc = .81). Factor analysis showed a consistent two-factor structure when individuals rated either the whole crew, all individuals, just peers, or a focal roommate. The latter used a sociometric approach to rating the GLS of the roommates. The two factors were tidiness and being considerate of others. We assessed the criterion-related validity of GLS, by examining GLS operationalized as the team-level aggregated GLS Survey scores as a predictor of team viability, team cohesion, and team performance. We used generalized mixed models to account for the repeated measures and longitudinal data. The marginal R2 change was used to determine the extent to which GLS were related to the team outcomes while controlling for mission day and campaign. Results suggested GLS was strongly related to team viability (marginal R2 change = .40), team cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.28), social cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.25), and moderately related to task cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.18). GLS scores had a small relationship with team performance (marginal R2 change = .08). Results support GLS as a measure that can be used to capture group living skills of crews who live and work together in ICE. Because the items were written to be broadly applicable, less extreme environments with teams living and working together for some length of time also benefit from this measure (e.g., college roommates, camps). See Landon et al. (2024) for full results [2]. SUMMARY We report reliability and validity evidence for a new measure that assesses the Group Living Skills for teams that live and work in operational environments such as spaceflight.

J C W Miller↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Communication Delays in Cislunar Space: A Lab Study Examining Human System Integration Architecture (HSIA) and Team Risk Concerns

BACKGROUND: Communication delays are an inherent challenge of space missions to the Moon and beyond. Past research studies showed that 50+ second delays adversely affected individual well-being, team cohesion, and overall task performance (Kintz et al., 2016; Larson et al., 2019). However, there is a dearth of research on the effects of shorter delays (on the order of 4-12 seconds one-way) that may present a more immediate challenge during the upcoming Artemis missions. Even these shorter delays could make it difficult or infeasible for ground control to provide real-time support to Artemis astronauts, especially in complex and time-critical tasks such as extra-vehicular activities (EVAs). Results from studies on longer or Mars-like delays cannot be directly applied to Artemis-like delays, due to the large differences in delay magnitude and task types between these mission categories. For example, real-time oversight and guidance from ground control is impossible under Mars-like delays but may be performed under Artemis-like delays, albeit with potentially high workload and communication difficulty. Thus, a better understanding of the effects of Artemis-like communication delays on collaborative task performance is needed. Additionally, there is a need to develop reliable task paradigms that can be used in future studies on communication delays. METHODS: This project will study the effects of Artemis-like communication delays on collaborative task performance in a simulated space-to-ground team task via a lunar Gateway-like interface prototype. Teams of two astronaut-like participants - one serving as “crewmember” and one as “flight controller” - will perform a spaceflight-relevant task under six delay conditions (i.e., 0, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 seconds). Audio, video, texting, and file transfer will be delayed between the participants to mimic lunar-like communication delays. Measures related to workload, situation awareness, system usability, task performance, team cohesion, well-being, and communication strategies will be collected. These measures will be compared across delay levels, participant roles, and off-nominal and nominal tasks. Participants will be given the choice to use any combination of video and text communication in order to study preferences in interaction modality. RESEARCH AIMS: One aim is to identify a delay level or range of levels at which there may be significant decrements in individual and team-based measures. Identifying such ranges may help design novel workload management or communication countermeasures for future space missions. Also, the spaceflight-relevant research tasks and corresponding communication delay technology developed as part of this effort may be used for future studies on communication delays. Results from this work are also expected to inform study scenarios in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign.

S Upasani↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Teams in Space: Knowledge Gained, but More to Explore

NASA’s Human Research Program oversees the Team Risk (i.e., Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team). Research in this area informs all aspects of an astronaut’s career, from hiring to training to mission support, and works to address new challenges related to lunar and Mars missions. NASA’s astronaut selection process creates an astronaut corps of highly qualified, team-oriented individuals, which allows mission planners much flexibility in composing small crews for specific missions. These crews are further developed and supported through extensive training, including team skills training, and countermeasures available to the crew throughout the mission. However, in the high consequence environment of long-duration missions, team composition is complex and is not a one-time concern to be addressed pre-mission. Team factors such as team cohesion, dyadic relationships, and shared team cognition are likely to change dynamically in response to each interaction and event experienced by the individuals and the team as a whole. Thus, monitoring and optimizing team composition at a more micro level (e.g., per task) is one way to support team functioning and performance. Spaceflight teams research also includes the multi-team system of Mission Control and coordination between space-to-ground, adding another avenue in which risk might be introduced, particularly under exploration missions that experience significant communication delays. Spaceflight teams research has recently experienced a concentrated flurry of analog research over the past decade, shedding light on the many unique challenges and potential solutions to mitigate the team risk in long-duration exploration missions. However, questions still remain about how to, for example, create unobtrusive operational measures and how to advance interdisciplinary teams research and countermeasure development. We present an overview of the challenges facing teams in space, our current knowledge, and the next steps for research and spaceflight operations.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predicting Team Functioning in Long Term Space Missions Using Acoustic and Linguistic Measures

Maintaining optimal team functioning is critical for long-duration space exploration missions, yet traditional monitoring methods, such as self-reports and wearable sensors, often impose operational burdens or suffer from bias. This paper investigates a non-intrusive speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) framework to predict degradations in team functioning using data from the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Using acoustic features, linguistic descriptors, and semantic embeddings, we evaluate static non-linear and temporal machine learning models to predict both objective (task accuracy) and subjective (self-reported efficacy and cohesion) team functioning outcomes. Results indicate that temporal models outperform static approaches, with prediction of objective task accuracy in Team Interaction Battery (TIB) improving from near chance to 71%. Self-reported outcomes, including team efficacy and cohesion, are predicted more reliably than task performance, achieving balanced accuracies of up to 85.56% and 78.12%, respectively, and are found to be most strongly associated with acoustic features. In a second interdependent task, the MMSEV–EVA, accuracies of up to 78% are achieved using temporal models with acoustic features. Furthermore, incorporating just 1–2 days of team-specific historical data systematically improved performance, and acoustic markers from informal pre-task interactions provided modest predictive gains. Finally, while automated preprocessing yielded viable accuracy, humancorrected data provided moderate performance gains, though transcription error rates did not significantly correlate with model performance. These findings highlight the potential of speech as a passive, high-fidelity monitoring tool for autonomous habitats.

Temporal modeling↗
NASA NTRS2015

Essentials for Team Based Rehearsals and the Differences Between Earth Orbiting and Deep Space Missions

The mission readiness environment is where spacecraft and ground systems converge to form the entire as built flight system for the final phase of operationally-themed testing. For most space missions, this phase starts between nine to twelve months prior to the planned launch. In the mission readiness environment, the goal is to perform sufficient testing to exercise the flight teams and systems through all mission phases in order to demonstrate that all elements are ready to support. As part of the maturation process, a mission rehearsal program is introduced to focus on team processes within the final flight system, in a more realistic operational environment. The overall goal for a mission rehearsal program is to: 1) ensure all flight system elements are able to meet mission objectives as a cohesive team; 2) reduce the risk in space based operations due to deficiencies in people, processes, procedures, or systems; and 3) instill confidence in the teams that will execute these first time flight activities. A good rehearsal program ensures critical events are exercised, discovers team or flight system nuances whose impact were previously unknown, and provides a real-time environment in which to interact with the various teams and systems. For flight team members, the rehearsal program provides experience and training in the event of planned (or unplanned) flight contingencies. To preserve the essence for team based rehearsals, this paper will explore the important elements necessary for a successful rehearsal program, document differences driven by Earth Orbiting (Aqua, Aura, Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP)) and Deep Space missions (New Horizons, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN)) and discuss common challenges to both mission types. In addition, large scale program considerations and enhancements or additional steps for developing a rehearsal program will also be considered. For NASA missions, the mission rehearsal phase is a key milestone for predicting and ensuring on-orbit success.

Gomez-Rosa, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS1992

The role of metrics and measurements in a software intensive total quality management environment

Paramax Space Systems began its mission as a member of the Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC) team which was the successful bidder on a massive operations consolidation contract for the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at JSC. The contract awarded to the team was the Space Transportation System Operations Contract (STSOC). Our initial challenge was to accept responsibility for a very large, highly complex and fragmented collection of software from eleven different contractors and transform it into a coherent, operational baseline. Concurrently, we had to integrate a diverse group of people from eleven different companies into a single, cohesive team. Paramax executives recognized the absolute necessity to develop a business culture based on the concept of employee involvement to execute and improve the complex process of our new environment. Our executives clearly understood that management needed to set the example and lead the way to quality improvement. The total quality management policy and the metrics used in this endeavor are presented.

Daniels, Charles B.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Enhancing Team Performance for Long-Duration Space Missions

Success of exploration missions will depend on skilled performance by a distributed team that includes both the astronauts in space and Mission Control personnel. Coordinated and collaborative teamwork will be required to cope with challenging complex problems in a hostile environment. While thorough preflight training and procedures will equip creW'S to address technical problems that can be anticipated, preparing them to solve novel problems is much more challenging. This presentation will review components of effective team performance, challenges to effective teamwork, and strategies for ensuring effective team performance. Teamwork skills essential for successful team performance include the behaviors involved in developing shared mental models, team situation awareness, collaborative decision making, adaptive coordination behaviors, effective team communication, and team cohesion. Challenges to teamwork include both chronic and acute stressors. Chronic stressors are associated with the isolated and confined environment and include monotony, noise, temperatures, weightlessness, poor sleep and circadian disruptions. Acute stressors include high workload, time pressure, imminent danger, and specific task-related stressors. Of particular concern are social and organizational stressors that can disrupt individual resilience and effective mission performance. Effective team performance can be developed by training teamwork skills, techniques for coping with team conflict, intracrew and intercrew communication, and working in a multicultural team; leadership and teamwork skills can be fostered through outdoor survival training exercises. The presentation will conclude with an evaluation of the special requirements associated with preparing crews to function autonomously in long-duration missions.

Orasanu, Judith M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Evidence Base for Human Spaceflight Risks in Wikipedia

NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) is focused on understanding and mitigating thirty two risks to crew health and performance in exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The HRP has developed an evidence report for each of the risks. Most evidence reports are a brief review article describing the evidence related to a specified risk, written at a level appropriate for the scientifically educated, non‐specialist reader. Each evidence report captured the current state of knowledge from both research and operations. Two limitations of the evidence reports have become apparent: 1) they are updated infrequently and 2) they do not take full advantage of the expertise available in other space agencies and in related fields of terrestrial research. Therefore, the HRP is experimenting with the use of Wikipedia articles as a repository for evidence. Wikipedia's accessibility to the international space flight community and researchers in related terrestrial fields creates the opportunity to generate a more timely and comprehensive evidence base. Initial Wikipedia articles were populated for seven risks using a subset of the information in the HRP‐approved evidence reports: Fatigue and Sleep Loss, Treating An Ill or Injured Crew Member, Radiation Carcinogenesis, Visual Impairment and Intracranial Pressure, Renal Stone Formation, Team Cohesion, and Intervertebral Disc Damage. Since the initial articles were created, there have been additions to these Wikipedia articles, including content from sources outside the HRP, and editorial changes to the pages. We will report on the nature of the contributions made after the initial articles were created, the comprehensiveness of the resulting Wikipedia articles, and the effort required to maintain quality control of the content. The Wikipedia approach will also be compared to wiki efforts that exert more traditional editorial control of content prior to posting.

Kundrot, Craig↗
NASA NTRS2014

Reflections on Centaur Upper Stage Integration by the NASA Lewis (Glenn) Research Center

The NASA Glenn (then Lewis) Research Center (GRC) led several expendable launch vehicle (ELV) projects from 1963 to 1998, most notably the Centaur upper stage. These major, comprehensive projects included system management, system development, integration (both payload and stage), and launch operations. The integration role that GRC pioneered was truly unique and highly successful. Its philosophy, scope, and content were not just invaluable to the missions and vehicles it supported, but also had significant Agencywide benefits. An overview of the NASA Lewis Research Center (now the NASA Glenn Research Center) philosophy on ELV integration is provided, focusing on Atlas/Centaur, Titan/Centaur, and Shuttle/Centaur vehicles and programs. The necessity of having a stable, highly technically competent in-house staff is discussed. Significant depth of technical penetration of contractor work is another critical component. Functioning as a cohesive team was more than a concept: GRC senior management, NASA Headquarters, contractors, payload users, and all staff worked together. The scope, content, and history of launch vehicle integration at GRC are broadly discussed. Payload integration is compared to stage development integration in terms of engineering and organization. Finally, the transition from buying launch vehicles to buying launch services is discussed, and thoughts on future possibilities of employing the successful GRC experience in integrating ELV systems like Centaur are explored.

Launch Vehicle↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reflections on Centaur Upper Stage Integration by the NASA Lewis (Glenn) Research Center

The NASA Glenn (then Lewis) Research Center (GRC) led several expendable launch vehicle (ELV) projects from 1963 to 1998, most notably the Centaur upper stage. These major, comprehensive projects included system management, system development, integration (both payload and stage), and launch operations. The integration role that GRC pioneered was truly unique and highly successful. Its philosophy, scope, and content were not just invaluable to the missions and vehicles it supported, but also had significant Agency-wide benefits. An overview of the NASA Lewis Research Center (now the NASA Glenn Research Center) philosophy on ELV integration is provided, focusing on Atlas/Centaur, Titan/Centaur, and Shuttle/Centaur vehicles and programs. The necessity of having a stable, highly technically competent in-house staff is discussed. Significant depth of technical penetration of contractor work is another critical component. Functioning as a cohesive team was more than a concept: GRC senior management, NASA Headquarters, contractors, payload users, and all staff worked together. The scope, content, and history of launch vehicle integration at GRC are broadly discussed. Payload integration is compared to stage development integration in terms of engineering and organization. Finally, the transition from buying launch vehicles to buying launch services is discussed, and thoughts on future possibilities of employing the successful GRC experience in integrating ELV systems like Centaur are explored.

Centaur↗
NASA NTRS2015

Identifying Cross-Disciplinary Interactions to Assess and Promote Functional Resilience in Flight Crews During Exploration Missions

NASA supports research to mitigate risks to health and performance on extended missions. Typically these risks are investigated independently. In reality, physiological systems are tightly coupled, and related to psychological and inter-individual factors (team cohesion, conflict). We draw on ideas from network theory to assess these interactions and better design a research framework to address them.

Shelhamer, M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Behavioral Medicine Risks and Mitigations in Isolated, Confined, and Extreme Environments

Human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit will present unique environmental challenges to astronauts’ operational performance and well-being. Crews will need to work and live in confined and hazardous environments for prolonged missions that involve variable workloads and limitations to privacy, food options, exercise capabilities, leisure outlets, and communication with ground support personnel and loved ones. Currently, behavioral and cognitive risks of spaceflight are mitigated by selecting exceptionally resilient crews and providing extensive individual and team skills training pre-mission, as well as in-mission crew support via a suite of countermeasures targeting sleep and performance optimization, stress management, family support, and team cohesion. However, current countermeasures are difficult or impossible to implement in long-distance exploration as they require real-time communication with Earth and routine resupply. New countermeasure approaches are needed to adapt and enhance the current complement for the new challenges ahead. NASA therefore conducts research at ground-based spaceflight analogs to aid in characterizing the behavioral and cognitive risks of living and working in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) operational environments. Antarctic research stations are among the few long-duration ICE analogs in existence and are therefore uniquely positioned to support behavioral medicine research to enable human exploration beyond Earth. In this review, we will discuss previous and ongoing efforts to better understand spaceflight behavioral medicine risks, as well as validate new countermeasure approaches for future missions to the moon and Mars.

Behavioral Health↗
NASA NTRS2026

Machine Learning for Predicting Team Functioning in HERA Missions

Team functioning is integral to success in future long term space exploration missions. Proactively detecting declines in team functioning can mitigate conflict and ensure mission success. This project developed a speech-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that unobtrusively predicts degradation in team functioning, including performance and cohesion, in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5. The AI system conducted automated analysis of the prosodic (tone of voice) and linguistic (language content) components of speech, modeling interpersonal dynamics at both the turn-taking and day-wide levels. We investigated team functioning via observing structured interactions (i.e., multi-mission space exploration vehicle-extra vehicular activity [MMSEV-EVA], team interaction battery [TIB]) and unstructured interactions before the MMSEV-EVA task. We developed machine learning models to predict team functioning (objective task accuracy, self reported team efficacy and self reported team cohesion) by analyzing OpenSmile acoustic features, linguistic descriptors extracted via the linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) dictionary, and semantic embeddings. In the TIB, static models using logistic regression and random forests were not able to predict task accuracy, but predicted team efficacy and cohesion during both the decision making and relational tasks to a moderate level (60-70%). Majority voting on the individual turns to predict day long team efficacy further increased accuracies (70-80%). Finally, long short-term memory (LSTM) models showed the best performance across all variables (80-91%), including task performance. In the MMSEV-EVA, static models achieved an accuracy of 60% with majority voting, which increased to 80% through the incorporation of mission day as a variable, accounting for the learning effect. A key finding across both tasks was the "team-dependent" nature of these interactions; models achieved much higher accuracy when trained on prior days of the same team's data rather than attempting to generalize across entirely different teams, with even 1-2 days of prior data per team achieving 5-15% improvement over team-independent models. In addition, the incorporation of pre-task data from the same team also improves model performance, e.g., incorporating data from the decision-making task of the TIB, which preceded the relational task, improved the prediction of team efficacy and cohesion during the latter. We compared model performance when trained on machine-generated data compared to data that had been further corrected by human annotators. Overall, models trained on human-corrected data exhibited a modest improvement in performance, particularly when acoustic features were used. We found no significant correlation between word error rate (WER) and model accuracy (r(55) = -0.08, p = 0.51), but model’s accuracy was significantly higher for medium/high quality transcription (0.74 (SD = 0.48)) compared to the low-quality group (0.64 (SD = 0.36)) (t(63)=2.82, p = 0.006). Based on these, several design recommendation emerge, that could inform Standards at NASA. Models predicting team functioning should incorporate at least one to two days of historical interaction data, include brief pre-task discussions, and explicitly model temporal learning effects, especially for longer operational tasks. Minimum quality standards for automated speech-processing pipelines are needed, given the performance gains observed with manually corrected acoustic data. Finally, systems should leverage both acoustic features and language embeddings in complementary ways, with modality choices and fusion strategies tailored to mission context, task demands, and data quality requirements.

Shrivatsa Mishra↗