A Diversity–Distraction–Dependency System as a Positive Human Factor in Crews’ Interplanetary Missions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the urgent problem of the organization of interplanetary manned mission. Among the many mentioned risks of such expeditions, an important place belongs to those directly related to psychological safety, which depends on interpersonal interaction and behavior of astronauts in flight. In this regards, the article under consideration is of high importance for stadying the issues of minimizing the risks of planned manned flights outside low orbits, ensuring the welfare of mixed international crews. The data presented by the author are based on the results obtained during large isolation unique experiments (SIRIUS, MARS-500) and are original. The content of the manuscript is presented in a clearly structured, understandable manner and corresponds to the subject of the publication. The materials of the article differ significantly in the direction of the research and the published results from the cited and previously published works of other authors. The conclusions of the article correspond to the presented materials of the conducted research.

Author Response

Comment: The article is devoted to the urgent problem of the organization of interplanetary manned mission. Among the many mentioned risks of such expeditions, an important place belongs to those directly related to psychological safety, which depends on interpersonal interaction and behavior of astronauts in flight. In this regards, the article under consideration is of high importance for stadying the issues of minimizing the risks of planned manned flights outside low orbits, ensuring the welfare of mixed international crews. The data presented by the author are based on the results obtained during large isolation unique experiments (SIRIUS, MARS-500) and are original. The content of the manuscript is presented in a clearly structured, understandable manner and corresponds to the subject of the publication. The materials of the article differ significantly in the direction of the research and the published results from the cited and previously published works of other authors. The conclusions of the article correspond to the presented materials of the conducted research.

Response: I thank you for the positive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to such a very significant area of ​​space psychology as the search for factors that contribute to the positive development of relationships in multinational mixed gender crews under conditions of extra-long autonomous missions to other planets. I’d like to stress that the author has many years of experience in analog studies to search for objective variables that describe and explain social interactions between people. This is especially valuable for psychological studies of small groups that have been living in closed  and isolated conditions for a long time.

The author's analysis of three long-term experiments simulating the flights of international crews to the Moon and Mars resulted in the development of a concept, representing a three-dimensional system of factors related to different areas of group activity:

- mixed composition (culture, gender, etc.) – the Diversity factor;

- joint leisure activities – the Distraction factor;

- mission duration and significant events – the Dependency factor.

Taking these factors into account, based on an objective analysis of the activities and social interactions in the crew, the 3D system is aimed at improving the adaptation process and developing an appropriate psychological support. It’s very important for providing a success of future interplanetary missions.

The article does not raise any objections. There is one remark: according to the author, the SIRIUS-21 crew demonstrated the greatest positive influence of the Diversity factor. Does this mean that it was more cohesive than the other two crews?

Author Response

Comment:

The article is devoted to such a very significant area of ​​space psychology as the search for factors that contribute to the positive development of relationships in multinational mixed gender crews under conditions of extra-long autonomous missions to other planets. I’d like to stress that the author has many years of experience in analog studies to search for objective variables that describe and explain social interactions between people. This is especially valuable for psychological studies of small groups that have been living in closed  and isolated conditions for a long time.

The author's analysis of three long-term experiments simulating the flights of international crews to the Moon and Mars resulted in the development of a concept, representing a three-dimensional system of factors related to different areas of group activity:

- mixed composition (culture, gender, etc.) – the Diversity factor;

- joint leisure activities – the Distraction factor;

- mission duration and significant events – the Dependency factor.

Taking these factors into account, based on an objective analysis of the activities and social interactions in the crew, the 3D system is aimed at improving the adaptation process and developing an appropriate psychological support. It’s very important for providing a success of future interplanetary missions.

The article does not raise any objections. There is one remark: according to the author, the SIRIUS-21 crew demonstrated the greatest positive influence of the Diversity factor. Does this mean that it was more cohesive than the other two crews?

Response:

I thank you for the descriptive comments. I have answered to the question with the following sentence added in the Discussion section.

"The greatest positive influence of the Diversity could also mean a more cohesive crew."

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and of great importance to the field. However, I would like to ask for postponing the final decision after a major revision, if the author is willing to comply with the following comments:

1.      The title of the paper required modifications. It does not reflect the exact core idea behind the presented paper. Calling this a 3D system is a bit misleading. There ought to be many creative way to address this.

2.      Please revise all politically incorrect terms: e.g. “human crew mission”, instead of “manned mission”. As pioneers of the emerging field, it is upon us to use and coin adequate terminology.

3.      Given the scarcity of the data (limited number of studies, and extreme low number of participants in each), there is no possibility of obtaining converged statistics in the gathered behavioral data. The only permitted ansatz should be an anecdotal and single-event approach in addressing the data. This is not a criticism, of course, but requires more precision in reporting the findings. I would certainly suggest including more individual cases, anecdotes, special events, etc. in the manuscript.

4.      The graphics of the plots are not satisfactory for a major journal publication. Data should be plotted with more capable tools (Matlab, Python, etc.) and not merely with MS Excel.

5.      I cannot understand the necessity of the doodled sketch in Fig 4.

6.      In Figure 5, do not use the formula in the figure, however, bring it into the text surrounding the figure, number it, and explain what it represents.

7.      Fitting all the points in Fig 5, has led to a very poor fitting index (R²). An alternative might be to disregard the 3^rd point (MD120), get a better fit, and discuss what has been inherently different in that case, making it not following the trend of the rest of the data set.

8.      Also, in Fig 5, you have named the horizontal axis “Temporal Dynamics”. This might be the title of the plot, but certainly no the horizontal axis. Correct please.

9.      The core message / finding of the paper is not obvious. A scientific paper requires much more than just reporting the (here limited) data. Please consider adding analysis to the finding in the already existing, or additional sub-sections.

10.   There are some recent works published in the previous years in major journals of the field (ICARUS, Acta Astronautica, etc.) discussing different types of missions (settlement, scientific exploration, human factor on site studies, etc.) which would lead to different reading and discussions of the data you are presenting, if the type of the mission (and expectations from the crew) are changed correspondingly. These aspects should be addressed in your manuscript as well.

11.   There is a step before explaining the findings of the already conducted long-term confinement missions, and that is to verify if the psychological aspects of being confined are decoupled from the location of the site. What I mean is, would the exact same mission on Mars and Moon lead to the exact same confinement issues? Or feeling closer to Earth has an effect. And if that is the case, then what should be concluded from a replicating experiment which is actually conducted on Earth?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

General comment: The paper is well written and of great importance to the field. However, I would like to ask for postponing the final decision after a major revision, if the author is willing to comply with the following comments.

Response: I thank you for the constructive comments.

Comment 1: The title of the paper required modifications. It does not reflect the exact core idea behind the presented paper. Calling this a 3D system is a bit misleading. There ought to be many creative way to address this.

Response 1: I agree. I have removed the term "3D-system" in the title ("D³-system is a better way").

New title is: "A Diversity-Distraction-Dependency system as positive human factor in crews’ interplanetary missions"

Comment 2: Please revise all politically incorrect terms: e.g. “human crew mission”, instead of “manned mission”. As pioneers of the emerging field, it is upon us to use and coin adequate terminology.

Response 2: The term "manned mission" is mentioned two times because it has a greater meaning about human crew and space inhabitant. Furthermore, it is used to avoid repetition.

Comment 3: Given the scarcity of the data (limited number of studies, and extreme low number of participants in each), there is no possibility of obtaining converged statistics in the gathered behavioral data. The only permitted ansatz should be an anecdotal and single-event approach in addressing the data. This is not a criticism, of course, but requires more precision in reporting the findings. I would certainly suggest including more individual cases, anecdotes, special events, etc. in the manuscript.

Response 3: I have added a paragraph is the discussion section with the reference (24) that is precisely an article on the key events and key days associated to the ethological data of SIRIUS-19.

"Context of behavioral occurrences is obviously to be regarded in these case studies. We emphasized that landing and on-surface operations, then transit and reaching near-Earth orbit were high behavior-impacted periods and key days in milestones simulated. Social context shaped by the unique nature of the space crew, is also to consider. Individual differences are implicit. Despite the small number of observed subjects, data are representative of real human crew missions. "

Comment 4: The graphics of the plots are not satisfactory for a major journal publication. Data should be plotted with more capable tools (Matlab, Python, etc.) and not merely with MS Excel.

Response 4: I present simple quantitative description of observational data with non-parametric statistics. We use the Observer XT software for data encoding and data extracting to MS Excel as compatible software. One of the ethological tool is to easily visualize the behavioral profiles.

Comment 5: I cannot understand the necessity of the doodled sketch in Fig 4.

Response5: I removed the doodled sketch from Figure 4.

Comment 6: In Figure 5, do not use the formula in the figure, however, bring it into the text surrounding the figure, number it, and explain what it represents.

Response 6: I removed the formula from Figure 5 and brought into the legend "(O) = N Social orientation ÷ N Social attendance)"

Comment 7: Fitting all the points in Fig 5, has led to a very poor fitting index (R²). An alternative might be to disregard the 3^rd point (MD120), get a better fit, and discuss what has been inherently different in that case, making it not following the trend of the rest of the data set.

Response 7: I have kept the curved line with the 6 temporal points that are fitted with the same 40-day interval. MD120 is a critical point during the mission (SIRIUS-21 experiment) that is explained in the last paragraph of the result section and discussed in the first paragraph of the Discussion section supported by previous findings.

Comment 8: Also, in Fig 5, you have named the horizontal axis “Temporal Dynamics”. This might be the title of the plot, but certainly no the horizontal axis. Correct please.

Response 8: I replaced Temporal Dynamics by "Temporal points" in Figure 5.

Comment 9: The core message / finding of the paper is not obvious. A scientific paper requires much more than just reporting the (here limited) data. Please consider adding analysis to the finding in the already existing, or additional sub-sections.

Comment 10: There are some recent works published in the previous years in major journals of the field (ICARUS, Acta Astronautica, etc.) discussing different types of missions (settlement, scientific exploration, human factor on site studies, etc.) which would lead to different reading and discussions of the data you are presenting, if the type of the mission (and expectations from the crew) are changed correspondingly. These aspects should be addressed in your manuscript as well.

Comment 11: There is a step before explaining the findings of the already conducted long-term confinement missions, and that is to verify if the psychological aspects of being confined are decoupled from the location of the site. What I mean is, would the exact same mission on Mars and Moon lead to the exact same confinement issues? Or feeling closer to Earth has an effect. And if that is the case, then what should be concluded from a replicating experiment which is actually conducted on Earth?

Responses 9, 10 and 11: I have added a full paragraph before the conclusion with further recent publications (comment 10), with further analysis (comment 9) and answers to the questions (comment 11).

"New progress is on human factors over a long journey such as designing systems to mitigate the hazard of reduced gravity that will affect physical fitness [28]. Being confined and isolated on Mars are decoupled environmental variables on psychological comfort with distance from mother Earth and the explored planet along with the exacerbating temporal variable. Feeling closer from Earth while looking it far away from Moon has a more beneficial effect by building a new cognitive image. These missions are not exactly the same. SIRIUS program and MARS-500 program illustrated these specificities like remote operations on the Lunar surface and EVAs on the Martian surface. That gives other explanation of the resulting behavioral profiles related to the activity areas. However the foundations of an individual and social adaptation might be the same during a human crew mission. Orchestrating physical, psychological and cognitive functions will require further advances in several fields. For instance, continuous Antarctic expeditions (Concordia station), recent Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns and recurrent Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) expeditions, in Terrestrial settings, are relevant for improving knowledge of efficient and endurant interplanetary crewmembers. Again with the aim of salutogenesis, it becomes interesting to include analyzes on mindfulness disposition as a protective factor [29], shared mental models as predictive effect [30], natural scene Virtual Reality for behavioral health [31] and creative performance in safety solutions [32]. Next step would be to promote creativity, cooperation and contemplation models as human skills."

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores how diverse and mixed-gender crews can better adapt to the long, isolated conditions of space missions. The main idea is that having a diverse crew, providing social activities to distract them, and fostering interdependence among crew members can improve their well-being and help them work better together. The research shows that in mixed-culture and mixed-gender crews, positive behaviors like smiling and laughing are more common, suggesting that diversity helps create a good social environment.

The paper is interesting and well-written. I have only minor comments that could enhance its impact. In particular, I recommend that the author consider grounding the work (especially the discussion) with additional challenges that the space community is currently facing in analog environment studies. Specifically, I suggest discussing how shared mental models predict creativity and problem-solving in space analogs (10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.10.022), mentioning mindfulness among relevant individual characteristics(10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102254), and perhaps including the supportive role of interacting with a VR-generated natural environment (10.1177/00187208221100693).

The charts are somewhat unclear, but this may be a printing issue. I recommend checking them.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript explores how diverse and mixed-gender crews can better adapt to the long, isolated conditions of space missions. The main idea is that having a diverse crew, providing social activities to distract them, and fostering interdependence among crew members can improve their well-being and help them work better together. The research shows that in mixed-culture and mixed-gender crews, positive behaviors like smiling and laughing are more common, suggesting that diversity helps create a good social environment.

The paper is interesting and well-written. I have only minor comments that could enhance its impact. In particular, I recommend that the author consider grounding the work (especially the discussion) with additional challenges that the space community is currently facing in analog environment studies. Specifically, I suggest discussing how shared mental models predict creativity and problem-solving in space analogs (10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.10.022), mentioning mindfulness among relevant individual characteristics(10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102254), and perhaps including the supportive role of interacting with a VR-generated natural environment (10.1177/00187208221100693).

Response 1: I thank you for your comments and suggestions.

I have added a full paragraph in the discussion section with further recent publications including the 3 references suggested and more.

"New progress is on human factors over a long journey such as designing systems to mitigate the hazard of reduced gravity that will affect physical fitness [28]. Being confined and isolated on Mars are decoupled environmental variables on psychological comfort with distance from mother Earth and the explored planet along with the exacerbating temporal variable. Feeling closer from Earth while looking it far away from Moon has a more beneficial effect by building a new cognitive image. These missions are not exactly the same. SIRIUS program and MARS-500 program illustrated these specificities like remote operations on the Lunar surface and EVAs on the Martian surface. That gives other explanation of the resulting behavioral profiles related to the activity areas. However the foundations of an individual and social adaptation might be the same during a human crew mission. Orchestrating physical, psychological and cognitive functions will require further advances in several fields. For instance, continuous Antarctic expeditions (Concordia station), recent Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns and recurrent Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) expeditions in Terrestrial settings, are relevant for improving knowledge of efficient and endurant interplanetary crewmembers. Again with the aim of salutogenesis, it becomes interesting to include analyzes on mindfulness disposition as a protective factor [29], shared mental models as predictive effect [30], natural scene Virtual Reality for behavioral health [31] and creative performance in safety solutions [32]. Next step would be to promote creativity, cooperation and contemplation models as human skills."

Comment 2: The charts are somewhat unclear, but this may be a printing issue. I recommend checking them.

Response 2: I have modified the figures (according to the reviewer 3 suggestions) and submitted them in a separate file from the manuscript for higher quality edition.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is revised to satisfaction. I suggest for its publication.