Thesis Prepared for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2014
APPROVED:
Christina Wasson, Major Professor Susan Squires, Committee Member Michael Gibson, Committee Member Lisa Henry, Chair of the Department of
Anthropology Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse
Graduate School
SPACE IN SPACE: PRIVACY NEEDS FOR LONG-DURATION SPACEFLIGHT
Jo Aiken
Aiken, Jo. Space in Space: Privacy Needs for Long-Duration Spaceflight. Master of Arts
(Applied Anthropology), May 2014, 111 pp., 3 tables, 11 figures, references.
Space exploration is a uniquely human activity. As humans continue to push the limits of
exploring the unknown, they have sought knowledge supporting the sustenance of life in outer
space. New technologies, advancements in medicine, and rethinking what it means to be a
“community” will need to emerge to support life among the stars. Crews traveling beyond the
Moon will rely on the development of new technologies to support the technological aspects of
their missions as well as their quality of life while away from Earth. Likewise, through
advancements in medicine, scientists will need to address remaining questions regarding the
effects of long-duration spaceflight on the human body and crew performance. Space explorers
must learn to utilize these new technologies and medical advancements while learning to adapt
to their new environment in space and as a space community. It is important that researchers
address these issues so that human survival beyond Earth is not only achievable but so that life
among the stars is worth living and sustaining. This thesis addressed these issues in an attempt
to extend the trajectory of space exploration to new horizons.
ii
Copyright 2014
by
Jo Aiken
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for my apprenticeship was provided by NASA’s National Space Biomedical
Research Institute (NSBRI). I would like to thank my clients, Mihriban Whitmore and Alexandra
Whitmire, for allowing me to conduct this research project and for their mentorship during my
summer apprenticeship at the NASA Johnson Space Center. I am grateful to my NASA family for
showing their support of this project through their willingness to participate in this study as
participants and lending their expertise on the subject matter. I owe special thanks to Dr.
Ronald McNeel and Dr. Amanda Hackler at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute
(NSBRI) for welcoming an anthropology student into their research apprenticeship program. I
would also like to thank Dr. Marietta Baba and Dr. Jeanette Blomberg for their feedback on this
study. I also want to give my sincerest thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Christina Wasson for
her guidance, support and endless patience. I also want to thank my committee members, Dr.
Susan Squires and Mr. Michael Gibson, for their insightful remarks and help throughout this
study. Additionally, I would like to thank the Anthropology faculty for their mentorship during
my time at the University of North Texas. I especially grateful to my fellow graduate students
for their friendship and encouragement over the years. Last but not lease, I am sincerely
grateful to my parents, Joe and Paula Aiken, for their love, inspiration, and support, and for
always having faith in my ability to reach for the stars.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Applied Thesis .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 The Client ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 The Research Question ........................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .................................................................................... 5
2.1 Defining Privacy ...................................................................................................... 7
2.2 NASA’s Vision and Mission for the Future ............................................................ 13
2.3 NASA’s Approach to Spacecraft Design ................................................................ 14
2.4 Risk Factors and Knowledge Gaps Regarding Future Missions ............................ 16
2.5 Composition of Past, Current, and Future Spaceflight Crews .............................. 20
2.6 Objectives of Past, Current, and Future Spaceflight Missions .............................. 22
2.7 Privacy as a Stressor in Long-Duration Space Flight ............................................. 24
2.8 Privacy in Previous Space-Related Research ........................................................ 26
2.10 Space Futures Research and Social Science Approaches to Space Research ....... 29
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................... 33
3.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1 Interviews .................................................................................................. 33
v
3.1.2 Photo and Video Narratives ...................................................................... 34
3.1.3 Mission Debriefs ....................................................................................... 35
3.1.4 Habitat Walk-Throughs ............................................................................. 36
3.1.5 Participant Observation as an Analog Crewmember ............................... 37
3.2 Population Description ......................................................................................... 39
3.2.2 Participant Demographics ......................................................................... 42
3.3 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 47
3.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................. 48
3.5 Limitations of Data Collection ............................................................................... 50
3.5.1 Mission Debriefs ....................................................................................... 50
3.5.2 Analogs ...................................................................................................... 52
3.5.3 Astronauts ................................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 54
4.1 Description of Deliverables ................................................................................... 54
4.2 Research Findings ................................................................................................. 55
4.2.1 A Participant-Centered Definition of Privacy ............................................ 55
4.2.2 The Tasks Requiring Privacy, The “Ability” ............................................... 58
4.2.3 The Sensory Elements of Privacy, The “Environment” ............................. 62
4.2.4 The Social Aspect of Privacy, The “Shared” .............................................. 67
vi
4.2.5 The Individual Aspects of Privacy, The “Choice” ...................................... 72
4.2.6 Cultural and Gender Differences in Privacy Needs ................................... 74
4.2.7 Medical Care and Privacy Needs ............................................................... 77
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 79
5.1 Impact of Anthropology on Study ......................................................................... 79
5.1.1 An Ethnographic Approach to Habitat Design .......................................... 80
5.1.2 A Holistic, Participant-Centered Approach to Privacy .............................. 81
5.2 Impact of Study on Anthropology ......................................................................... 83
5.2.1 Contributions to Knowledge of Privacy and Use of Space ....................... 84
5.2.2 Contributions to Anthropological Theory ................................................. 85
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 88
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT EMAIL .............................................................................................. 94
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 96
vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Structure of Activities in the HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP) ……………….………… 18
Table 2.2. Elements, Risks, and Gaps in the HRP IRP Related to Privacy ……………….………………… 20
Figure 3.1. The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU), renamed as HERA in 2013 ……………….…..… 37
Figure 3.2. Interior View of the Workplace Level of HERA …………………………...………………………… 37
Figure 3.3. Interior View of HERA’s Crew Quarters ………………………………………………………………… 38
Figure 3.4. Rev 1A of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), or “Rover” ……………. 38
Table 3.5. Distribution of Study Participants ……………………………………………………………………….… 44
Figure 3.6. Comparison of Gender Participation in Study and Space Travel ……………….………….. 45
Figure 3.7. Distribution of Analog Crew Member and Astronaut Participants ……………….……..… 47
Table 4.1. Tasks Requiring Privacy in an ICE Environment ……………………………………………………… 59
Figure 4.2. The Space Toilet ....................................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.3. Housekeeping Challenges in a Confined Environment ............................................. 63
Figure 4.4. American Crew Quarters Aboard the International Space Station (ISS) ................... 66
Figure 4.5. Field Note Excerpt..................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Space exploration is a uniquely human activity. As humans continue to push the limits of
exploring the unknown, they have sought knowledge supporting the sustenance of life in outer
space. New technologies, advancements in medicine, and rethinking what it means to be a
“community” will need to emerge to support life among the stars. Crews traveling beyond the
Moon will rely on the development of new technologies to support the technological aspects of
their missions as well as their quality of life while away from Earth. Likewise, through
advancements in medicine, scientists will need to address remaining questions regarding the
effects of long-duration spaceflight on the human body and crew performance. Space explorers
must learn to utilize these new technologies and medical advancements while learning to adapt
to their new environment in space and as a space community. It is important that researchers
address these issues so that human survival beyond Earth is not only achievable but so that life
among the stars is worth living and sustaining. This thesis addresses these issues in an attempt
to extend the trajectory of space exploration to new horizons.
1.1 The Applied Thesis
The Department of Anthropology at the University of North Texas requires its master’s
students to complete an independent applied project as part of the thesis requirement. The
project must demonstrate applications of anthropology while meeting the practical needs of
the student’s chosen client. The study presented in this thesis fulfills the applied project
requirement, and is therefore more applied than theoretical in nature. It is my intention that
1
2
this work will add to the existing body of knowledge in anthropological discourse on space and
place, as well as aid in the development of a solid, anthropological framework within which the
interwoven complexities of culture, technology, and organization are addressed.
1.2 The Client
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), other national space
agencies, and their commercial space partners are working to develop vehicles and habitats
capable of sending humans beyond low Earth orbit. The development of habitable
environments suitable to long-duration spaceflight has become an agency priority for NASA in
recent years as their mission objectives have turned from missions in near Earth orbit to
missions to Mars and beyond. The researchers in the Human Factors and Habitability (SFHE)
and Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) organizations represent two groups at the NASA
Johnson Space Center tasked with exploring the challenges anticipated for a long-duration
space mission.
One area of their investigations focuses on determining the minimum habitable volume
requirements for habitats supporting the day-to-day life and work of a long-term crew. The
need for privacy has been identified as particularly challenging to account for in defining the
minimal habitable volume for optimal, long-duration crew performance. I joined these
organizations as a research apprentice in 2013 to address this challenge.
3
1.3 The Research Question
The need for an improved understanding of the relationship between habitat volume,
social stressors, and privacy serves as the foundation of this study. The goal of the applied
thesis project, as stated in my research proposal to the clients was:
To obtain a more thorough understanding of how privacy concerns related to habitat and vehicle design issues as well as to social issues affect crew performance and quality of life for long-duration spaceflight. The product goal is twofold: the first entails the development of a whitepaper and associated information ready to publish according to NASA’s standards for technical briefs under the Human Research Program; the second entails the development of an academic thesis that meets the requirements of the Department of Anthropology at the University of North Texas.
Rather than determining a numerical value for the optimal habitable volume as called for by the
NASA Human Research Program, the research objectives of this project were to advance the
knowledge of the space research community concerning the elements that constitute privacy
that influence spatial volume and habitat design considerations. These research objectives were
to:
Identify the privacy concerns that impact long-duration missions and how those
concerns could impact habitat volume, interior layout acceptability, and specifications
Identify culturally constructed definitions and requirements of privacy and their
impact on habitat specifications
Develop a list of parameters that can be used to adequately define the acceptable
volume for space habitats so that privacy concerns are minimized
Provide advisories about the consequences of not addressing privacy concerns when
determining habitable volume metrics
4
Identify critical remaining knowledge gaps concerning privacy and habitable volume to
inform future research effort
5
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Privacy is a complex notion in and of itself. Human space flight is an equally challenging
subject of study. Researchers exploring privacy within the setting of space exploration must
face challenges imbued with multifaceted, convoluted properties. An understanding of both
privacy as a human condition and the effect of the space environment on the human condition
was needed to design and carry out a successful study that would effectively address the
research question. Moreover, knowledge of NASA as an organization would be key in producing
actionable results to meet the needs of my clients.
At the beginning of the study, I was familiar with NASA as a highly complex, highly
technological organization since I had worked within the agency for several years in the Mission
Operations Directorate1. However, I was only somewhat familiar with NASA’s Human Research
Program (HRP) based on a brief, independent study I conducted in 2011 (Aiken 2012) during
which I went through the HRP to gain access to participants. In order to uncover possible topics
of research and to reacquaint myself with the activities and culture of the NASA space agency, I
conducted an initial review of literature five months prior to meeting my clients. As the
research project began to take shape, the literature review focused on the psychosocial
stressors involved in space flight and previous space-related studies exploring these issues. In
total, this extensive literature review took place over the course of 18 months. Its primary
intent was to fully ground the research question within the context of human spaceflight and
privacy research. Some topics were explored at the explicit request of my clients and included
1 The Mission Operations Directorate leads overall crewed spaceflight mission activities including mission planning, astronaut training, and flight support through the Mission Control Center at the NASA Johnson Space Center.
6
exploring the use of technologies for remotely observing behavior and the possibility of
quantifying use of space within a confined environment. NASA is interested in how
crewmembers use the space, or volume, in a given habitat. Human factors engineers are
particularly interested in how often and in what capacity (e.g. socially, privately, for work, for
play, etc.) crewmembers use areas such as the galley or crew quarters. These topics are not
fully covered in the applied thesis but were discussed in detail in the whitepaper deliverable to
the clients.
In this chapter, I place the study of space in space within the context of the
anthropology discipline, American space exploration, and previous work related to the
psychosocial risks associated with living and working in an isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE)
environment. In the summary of literature pertinent to the research question, I first illustrate
the need for the research by exploring the future of NASA space flight missions and the
agency’s current research needs to meet their operational goals of developing habitats and
vehicles capable of sustaining human life for long-duration missions. Next, an overview of the
composition of space flight crews and the organizational values behind mission objectives is
provided. Finally, privacy is explored within the context of space-related research, as well as in
studies not directed towards space exploration. Terms specific to human spaceflight and this
study are defined throughout each chapter and are listed in the glossary in the appendix.
2.1 Defining Privacy
Contributing to the complexity of studying privacy is the inability of experts to agree on
a definition. My clients and other American space researchers generally follow NASA’s
7
definition of privacy as documented in the Human Integration Design Handbook (2011). NASA
defines privacy as “having an acceptable level of control over the extent of sharing oneself
(physically, behaviorally, or intellectually) with others” (NASA 2011:997). Outside American
space-related research, the definition of privacy varies dramatically.
The term “right to privacy” was not in existence until it was coined by future Chief
Justice Louis Brandeis in 1890, and it remained unrecognized by the Supreme Court until 1967
(Warren and Brandeis 1890, Breckenridge 1970). Katz v. United States 389 US 347, the case that
brought violations of privacy to the attention of the American public, sparked an academic
interest in understanding the phenomenon of privacy (Breckenridge 1970). Westin (1968,
1979), Margulis (1977, 2003), and Altman (1965, 1975, 1977) are possibly the most cited
privacy theorists to date. Hall’s (1969) well-known work The Hidden Dimension established the
idea of proxemics and personal space that ignited interest in the cultural aspects of privacy.
After an apparent decline in privacy research, the topic resumed a prominent place in social
science research in the 1990s, most notably by psychologists such as Newell (1994, 1995, 1998,
2010). The topic of privacy has gained a significant increase in popularity in recent years due to
the issue of big data privacy and most recently after whistleblower Edward Snowden went
public with the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities within the United States
(Greenwald et al. 2013; Perlroth et al. 2013). The Supreme Court, the American public, and
academics seem to have come full circle in their attention to privacy considering that the
concern of NSA tapping of phone calls raised by Snowden is comparable to the concern of the
FBI tapping pay phones in the 1967 case (Breckenridge 1970).
8
Anthropologist Debbie Kasper (2005:72) states that even well-tested, scholarly
definitions of privacy are “culturally and sociohistorically biased.” Despite, and perhaps due to,
the wealth of literature on privacy, a firm definition has yet to be accepted within even one
discipline. Some of the definitions encountered in the literature review are:
“freedom to choose what, when and to whom one communicates” (Westin 1967)
“personal control over personal information” (Westin 1968)
“the right to be left alone” (Warren and Brandeis 1890)
“control of personal space” (Hall 1969, Canter and Canter 1971, Fisher et al. 1984)
“a central regulatory process” (Altman 1975)
“a voluntary and temporary condition of separation from the public domain” (Newell
1995)
Aside from disciplinary differences in opinion of privacy, the subject of privacy is further
complicated by the various linguistic treatments or absence of the word in several cultures and
languages. Moore (1984) offers a historical look at the development of the concept of privacy in
various cultures. According to Moore (1984) and Newell (1995), many languages existing today
do not have a word equivalent to privacy including Arabic, Dutch, and significant to this study
Japanese and Russian. Of personal interest, a term for privacy is also missing in the Hawaiian
language.
The differing definitions of privacy encountered throughout the literature review illustrate
the challenges and opportunities of this study. Privacy theories generally fall in to one of two
categories: privacy and information (Westin 1968, 1979) and privacy and the environment
(Altman 1975). It should be noted that I elected not to review literature regarding privacy
9
theory until after the completion of data collection and a brief preliminary analysis. While there
are plausible flaws in this approach, the affect of this decision on the research findings was
significant and is discussed in the Discussion chapter.
2.1 Viewing Space Through an Anthropological Lens Anthropologists have long sought to understand the relationships between humans and
material artifacts. Bourdieu’s 1977 reflection on habitus addresses the material world in such a
way as to explain that the body inhabits an environment which imposes structural constraints,
forming dispositions or schemes of perception or thought (Eriksen and Nielsen 2001). Similarly,
Foucault introduced ideas of power and the body in the modern world. Yet, as consumer
technology continues to develop more and more rapidly, anthropologists are becoming
increasingly fascinated with the roles objects play in society. Rabinow and Marcus (2008:38)
note the shift in anthropological work in the past decades towards objects and “a revitalization
of interest in the material dimensions of the cultural.” Appadurai’s 1986 The Social Life of
Things, Ingold’s 1986 Evolution and the Social Life, and work by Daniel Miller (Miller 1987) are
formative in marking this shift. While this study takes cues from Bourdieu, Appadurai, Ingold,
and Miller, the influence of the physical or material on the human body and behavior is only
one part of the puzzle.
The role of work, or the organization, in understanding human behavior and their
relationship with the material is another aspect that heavily influenced this study. The idea that
technology and organization are interwoven is well accepted in academia and praxis. However,
the contemporary trend of a “current lack of theoretical coherence in the discipline”, as noted
10
by Eriksen and Nielsen (2001:160), requires design and organizational anthropologists to draw
on interdisciplinary theories to ground their practice. Activity theory, sociotechnical systems
theory (STS), and affect theory are all theories this study employs, yet these theories are
interdisciplinary and are not theories within anthropology. These theories played a much
smaller role in my analysis, though deserve special mention. Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006:5)
situate activity theory within interaction design as a means to understand “technology as part
of the larger scope of human activities.” STS theory, heavily influenced by Latour’s actor
network theory, similarly seeks to describe the interrelated roles of technology, environment,
and society (Appelbaum 1997; Baba and Mejabi 1997; Oppenheim 2007). Affect theory, or a
theory of affect, offers a different view on human-environment interaction which holds
application for experience designers to pursue emotional or empathic design (Gregg and
Seigworth 2010; Mazzarella 2009).
In lieu of expounding on interdisciplinary theories, this study contributes to the
integration of design anthropology and organizational anthropology perspectives.
Anthropologists at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) were the first to actively pursue
collaboration between ethnographers and designers (Aiken 2012, Wasson 2012). These
researchers were concerned with the analysis of work practices and the design of work
environments and tools. Their work, along with researchers at other venues, formed the basis
for the development of design anthropology. Anthropologists such as Lucy Suchman, Julian
Orr, Brigitte Jordan, and Patricia Sachs conducted research on diverse aspects of technology use
in the workplace (Baba 2012, Jordan 2012, Wasson et al. 2012). The work of these
anthropologists contributed significantly to the field of computer-supported cooperative work
11
(CSCW) and overlapped with the emergence of Participatory Design in Scandinavia, both of
which integrate a focus on organizations and technology design (Ehn 2008, Wasson 2012).
Increasingly since 1997, design projects in the United States and abroad have adopted
ethnographic methods as design firms and technology companies have discovered the benefits
of a qualitative approach to user research (Kensing and Blomberg 1998). However, as design
anthropology emerged as a field in its own right, its integration with organizational concerns
diminished. Despite their close engagement in the past, in recent times, workforce topics have
been delegated to the organizational anthropologists while technology projects were taken up
by the design anthropologists. Design anthropologists increasingly worked on projects outside
of an organizational context, such as on the use of products by consumers (Briody et al. 2010,
Wasson 2000, 2004 Squires and Byrne 2002). While publications have continued to appear that
bridge the concerns of design anthropology and organizational anthropology, this has not been
a major focus of recent research.
Building on Cefkin’s (2012) noteworthy Ethnography and the Corporate Encounter, I was
interested in contributing to theory that integrated design anthropology and organizational
anthropology from the start of my graduate studies. Initially, I was introduced to these
perspectives independently as they were taught as separate courses. I immediately started to
consider ways in which the two approaches could be combined. My first efforts at integration
resulted from a small project for NASA, whose results I presented at the Ethnographic Praxis in
Industry Conference (Aiken 2012). In this paper, I explored establishing an explicit framework
incorporating both organizational and design approaches. Later, my master’s thesis offered a
perfect opportunity to join these two approaches in a larger research context. The examination
12
of “space in space” required an integrated investigation of the design of the astronauts’ living
environments, their work processes and relationships within NASA, as well as an understanding
of the values and viewpoints of the NASA organization. My findings seamlessly interweave
these two elements together.
I drew from my studies and literature in design and organizational anthropology
throughout this study. Wasson (2000, 2004) provides a rich history of the application of
anthropological methodology and analysis to the study of a design problem. I followed her
example of developing “a model that both interpreted the ethnographic materials that had
been collected and envisioned a solution for the client” (Wasson 2000:383). Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) idea of communities of practice influenced the way I approached meeting the needs of
my client and ultimately framed my analysis of the participant interviews. Squires and Van de
Vanter (2013) review of learning within communities of practice and particularly within virtual
communities of practice holds great significance for this study as a way to explain the intricate
relationship between a space crew and their ground support.
The topic of privacy within anthropology maintains themes of cultural and holism.
Anthropologists offer explanations for perceptions of privacy based on the society or
community in question as viewed through a cultural lens (Aswad 2001; Cheung and Ma 2005;
Power 2007). Often anthropologists focus on privacy in terms of protecting the rights and
identity of their participants (Chernela 2005; Cornfield and Sullivan 1983; Rothstein et al. 1998).
The imperative to protect research participants from harm is central to anthropological codes
of ethics (Aiken et al. 2014). In recent years, anthropologists, as well as design researchers,
have taken up the challenge of understanding privacy in the digital context continuing rhetoric
13
of protection and safe-keeping (Coleman 2010; Horst and Miller 2013; Miller and Horst 2012;
Schneider and Kornberger 2013). Anthropological approaches to privacy are discussed later on
in this chapter as part of the discussion of social science definitions.
2.2 NASA’s Vision and Mission for the Future
Understanding the known technological and social difficulties of an unplanned, future
space mission presents a challenge, yet an overview of the issues are possible through the
review of existent literature and agency records. Space exploration continually pushes the limits
of humanity’s innovation and scientific prowess. Rhetoric of exploration and adventure is
prevalent in science fiction which is believed to inspire professionals in the space industry today
(Redfield 1996). Indeed, the creation of the U.S. space agency NASA is grounded in this rhetoric
and it is visible in the agency’s communication with the public, yet space as the ultimate
destination for exploration and discovery is absent from the official NASA Vision and Mission:
The NASA Vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown, so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
The NASA Mission: Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth. National Aeronatics and Space Administration (NASA), 2011
Even though the official Vision and Mission do not mention space exploration, NASA’s
goals remain fixed on exploring the realm of outer space. Following Congressional mandates,
the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan states that NASA’s first strategic goal is to “extend and sustain
human activities across the solar system” (NASA 2010:9). To meet this goal, NASA is directed to
14
“develop an integrated architecture and capabilities for safe crewed and cargo missions beyond
low Earth orbit” (NASA 2010:9). The significance of this goal and directive are that not only does
NASA plan to continue the crewed, or manned, exploration of space, but that the Agency
intends to push these activities beyond its current capabilities through research and technology
development. The agency will publish a new strategic plan in 2014 to address new national
priorities set forth by Congress and the Administration (NASA 2014).
Since the end of the Apollo program in the early 1970s, crewed space exploration has
remained close to Earth. From Skylab and Mir through the 30 years of Space Shuttle missions
and continuing with the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), humans have
remained relatively close to home when traveling in space. Missions to the Moon excluded,
human space flight has remained within what is referred to as low earth orbit (LEO) which is the
area of space 160-2,000 km above the Earth’s surface (NASA 2001). NASA does not currently
have a vehicle with the capability to send humans beyond LEO.
2.3 NASA’s Approach to Spacecraft Design
Although NASA does not have an operational vehicle to travel beyond Earth, engineers
and scientists at the U.S. space agency are working to meet this goal. Over the years, NASA’s
approach to design has evolved from a purely machine-centered paradigm to a practice more
accepting of contemporary human-centered ideas. A complete overview of NASA’s design
processes would require a departure from the focus of this applied thesis, so instead I highlight
the key areas of politics, safety, and engineering tradition which impact the need of the study
and the usefulness of my deliverables.
15
To this day, the United States Congress and Administration remain the most prominent
political influences on the design of American spacecraft. As described earlier, NASA’s strategic
plans and goals are directed by national policy, which in turn direct the design of spacecraft.
Throughout history, individuals from Congress and the Administrative Branch of the U.S. federal
government have often played a direct role in conceptualizing the Agency’s designs (Logsdon
1984; Logsdon 2002; Woods 2009). More frequently, Congress influences the design of
spacecraft by appropriating funds for NASA’s budget. Engineers have responded to years of
budget decreases by adopting a design model of reusability, repurposing, and reduced
standards of performance.
Within the boundaries of what-is-affordable, NASA engineers attempt engage in the
design process to meet the demands of what-is-safe. Space travel is dangerous, and the Agency
has gone to great lengths over the years to create and sustain a culture of safety (Batteau 2003;
Vaughan 1996). As part of their efforts, NASA continues to publish standards which engineers
must follow as they endeavor to design spacecraft to effectively facilitate human space
exploration. These standards are typically developed with a design reference mission, or a
planned mission, in mind. However, since the end of the Space Shuttle Program in 2011, budget
constraints and shifting directives from Congress have led managers to request standards be
developed that could be applied to any long-duration spaceflight mission. According to my
clients, generalizing spacecraft design standards has proven to be a significant challenge as
definitions of long-duration and habitability are often tied to the particulars of a mission
(Whitmore et al. 1998; Whitmore et al. 2013). For example, perceptions of isolation during a
one-year mission orbiting the Earth could be dramatically different from a one-year mission
16
orbiting Mars. Similarly, design criteria that guides the development of a terrestrial habitat is
different than that which guides the development of a vehicle used in a microgravity
environment.
Engineers’ uncertainty about the future, as a result of budget cutbacks and ever-
changing mandates, continues a tradition of establishing standards “designed to the threshold
of acceptability” established in the Skylab era (Compton and Benson 2011:136). Engineers and
program managers set design standards under this paradigm so as to establish what the least
amount of resources (e.g. spatial volume, industrial material, tools, etc.) is necessary to sustain
life and achieve mission success. My clients and other human research experts at the NASA
Johnson Space Center (JSC) recognize the danger in this design approach, yet are directed by
the Human Research Program (HRP) to work towards defining acceptable thresholds.
Therefore, these experts are continuously identifying risk factors associated with space flight
and knowledge gaps which need to be overcome in order to achieve and sustain a successful
mission beyond LEO. These risk factors and knowledge gaps revealed the need for this study.
2.4 Risk Factors and Knowledge Gaps Regarding Future Missions
As noted above, future crewed space exploration missions seem certain. Even though
humans have been traveling through space for over 50 years, mitigating the physiological and
psychological effects of long-duration, long-distance spaceflight remains a challenge. Space
agencies include countermeasures in their designs and procedures as a means to mitigate or
counteract the undesirable effects of space flight on humans (NASA 2011). However,
17
conducting empirical research to identify the undesirable effects is a challenge given the unique
environment and conditions imposed on humans during space flight.
One such challenge in space research is the study of behavior and the interpersonal
dynamics that evolve as a crew living and working in an isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE)
environment interacts with each other over a relatively long period of time. The restrictions
imposed on a space flight crew are arguably unique to the environment of space. Few places, if
any, on Earth require inhabitants to be isolated from outside contact and remain confined to a
small volume of space in order to survive the extreme environmental conditions it
characterizes.
Combine the challenges of an ICE environment with the time required for a trip to Mars
or a near-Earth asteroid, and the risks to human safety and well-being become intensified. It is
unknown if feelings of isolation are magnified by the sensory awareness of being unable to see
Earth. Likewise, questions remain unanswered as to the impact of being confined in a small
volume for longer than one year without the ability to freely enter the surrounding
environment. The questions relating to these challenges make up the Human Research
Program’s Integrated Research Plan.
The Human Research Program (HRP) at the NASA Johnson Space Center applies research
and technology development activities to support the achievement of NASA’s strategic goals.
The HRP investigates and works to mitigate the risks to human health and performance
associated with space flight (NASA 2014). Activities aimed at identifying and addressing the
undesirable effects of space flight on humans are outlined in the HRP’s Integrated Research
Plan, also referred to as the Human Research Roadmap. As noted above, manned spaceflight is
18
dangerous, and every aspect involved in traveling outside the safety of Earth’s atmosphere
poses a certain amount of risk to humans. For each aspect of a space flight mission that has the
potential to affect the safety and well-being of the crew (e.g. weightlessness, exposure to
radiation, etc.), the HRP collects evidence that supports the establishment of a risk. Within each
identified risk, knowledge gaps are identified that are needed to either assess or mitigate the
risk. Some risks are deemed acceptable while others require the development of
countermeasures, or result in establishing or revising design standards. Tasks are assigned to
NASA organizations and contractors to fulfill the needed research or development activities and
return the deliverable desired to fill the knowledge gap. Upon receipt of the deliverable, the
HRP reevaluates the evidence supporting the risk to determine if further activities are needed.
This Integrated Research Plan is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Structure of Activities in the HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP)
This study addresses HRP risks spanning two elements, represented by the organizations
of my two clients: Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFE) and Behavioral Health and
Performance (BHP) (Whitmire et al. 2009; Whitmore et al. 2013). The risks and associated gaps
representing the need for a study that utilizes ethnographic data on privacy are identified in
Table 2.2.
19
Table 2.2. Elements, Risks, and Gaps in the HRP IRP Related to Privacy
Element Risk Gap
Space Human Factors and Habitability
(SHFE)
Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design
Effect of environmental factors on crew performance (SHFE-HAB-03) Set guidelines for acceptable net habitable volume and vehicle/habitat configurations (SHFE-HAB-07) Identify Methods for Data Collection and Assessment of Vehicle/Habitat Designs (SHFE-HAB-09)
Behavioral Health and Performance
(BHP)
Risk of Performance Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team
Identify methods for monitoring and measuring team health and performance (Team Gap 2)
Risk of Performance Errors Due to Fatigue Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, Extended Wakefulness, and Work Overload
Identify space environmental and mission factors that contribute to sleep decrements (Sleep Gap 10)
2.5 Composition of Past, Current, and Future Spaceflight Crews
As NASA historian John Logsdon reminds his readers, space exploration has long-been
the ultimate example of international collaboration (Logsdon 2002). Since the last days of the
Apollo program, NASA has built its program around the auspices of fostering international
relationships as evident in programs like Spacelab, Space Shuttle-Mir, and the current
International Space Station (Woods 2009). The emphasis on international cooperation is
apparent in that a greater number NASA-sponsored studies focus on international crew
relationships than on any other topic other than biology. Studies including the well-cited
20
Shuttle-Mir and ISS research by Nick Kanas (Boyd et al. 2009; Kanas 2004; Kanas 2005; Kanas et
al. 2009; Kelly and Kanas 1994), Jack Stuster’s Astronaut Journal Flight Experiment (Stuster
2010b), and polar and space expedition studies by Nicolas Palinkas (Palinkas 1989; Palinkas
1990; Palinkas 2001; Palinkas 2003; Palinkas and Suedfeld 2008) highlight the interactions and
interpersonal conflicts of international crews.
The multicultural theme also appears in areas not tied to nation states or ethnic groups.
While some space researchers have reduced culture to a dichotomy of American and Russian,
occupational culture and organizational culture are other topics of commonality in the
literature reviewed. Diane Vaughan’s well-known 1996 book The Challenger Launch Decision
and Mary Roach’s 2011 popular science Packing for Mars both offer insight into the
organizational and work culture of NASA. Cultural differences between occupational groups are
presented as challenges to be overcome in these books as well as NASA-funded studies
involving space mission crews. Communication-styles, skill sets, and problem-solving abilities
differ among astronauts, scientists and engineers due to the nature of their occupational norms
or culture (Clancey 1999; Clancey 2000; Clancey 2006; Clancey et al. 2006a; Clancey et al.
2006b; Kanas and Ritsher 2005a; Linde 2006; Psenka 2009; Ritsher 2005; Stuster 2010b).
Policy-driven mandates from Congress shaped the earliest days of the U.S. space
program and created an operational paradigm of international involvement which continues
today. The crews of future spaceflight missions are likely to remain multinational for reasons
other than political appeal. Scholars and agencies both agree that space exploration is more
successful when approached through international and interdisciplinary collaboration due to
the increased availability of financial resources and diversity in expertise (Boyd et al. 2009;
21
Logsdon 2002; Olson 2010; Pass 2006). Space exploration is costly not just in terms of financial
resources but also in respect to the diverse, expert skills and knowledge needed to travel to the
stars. Prior to the establishment of the International Space Station (ISS), Perner and Langdoc
(1994:139) acknowledged that “in past space programs, the user population has been relatively
small and fairly uniform in size, but the projected user populations for future spacecraft include
international crews of both males and females.” Their prediction proved true as the crew
composition aboard the ISS continues to be a multinational, multidisciplinary mix of men and
women. Therefore, it is plausible that NASA will partner with other space agencies and seek
diversity in the expertise of future spaceflight crews to meet both the financial, technical and
social challenges of space exploration beyond near Earth orbit.
2.6 Objectives of Past, Current, and Future Spaceflight Missions
Historically, the U.S. space program has existed to serve the practical political goals of
the Administrative branch of the federal government. Logsdon (2002) and Woods (2009)
reaffirm that politics were the catalyst for every NASA program from Mercury to the Space
Shuttle due to the impact of the Cold War. Just as Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon
accomplished President Kennedy’s national and international agenda, the Space Shuttle gave
President Carter a needed tool of international intimidation (Woods 2009). Likewise, the United
Nations and the European Space Agency policies have established policies which serve as
practical solutions to the economic hardships of their member states such as the development
of low-cost, commercial satellites (Redfield 2002; Werner 2011).
22
In popular culture, space exploration is seen as being mission-driven rather than
meeting the needs of political figureheads and national agendas. Spaceflight is a mission-
oriented, task-driven enterprise. While the public is often aware of the political agendas behind
a space mission (Delgado 2011; Launius 2003), the media focuses on the mission objectives and
the goal-oriented pursuits of high-profile operations. Astronauts, according to historians and
sociologist Matthew H. Hersch (Hersch 2011), are therefore viewed in popular culture as
heroes, willing to go whatever it takes to accomplish the mission. Reinforcing this perception is
the history of military involvement in American spaceflight. Formal policy separates the
activities of the military from those of the U.S. space program (Handberg and Johnson-Freese
1997), yet NASA continues to select a majority of its astronauts from military ranks. The fact
that NASA’s major contractors, like Lockheed-Martin, are also prominent Department of
Defense (DOD) contractors supports a public opinion and NASA culture emphasizing a mission-
driven, task-oriented approach to space operations.
Social scientists have most often used a functionalist approach to understanding NASA’s
activities as evident in the literature reviewed. Functionalism, both explicitly and implicitly,
shapes the work of anthropologists, sociologists, and designers engaged in space-related
research in that every artifact, organizational structure, and process serves a functional role in
the success of a mission. Explicitly applied, Jim Pass (2006, 2007a) relies on Durkheim’s brand of
functionalism to ground his theory of constructing space societies for optimal success. Although
less explicit, the sociotechnical framework surrounding Clancey’s (2000, 2003) analog studies as
well as Stuster’s (2010b) content analysis of astronaut journals implies mission success as its
ideal measure of a functional human – technical design.
23
The literature I reviewed reveals the values and behavioral norms driving space-related
activities. What could be called a culture of space exploration, policy, scientific research and
operational missions directed towards space exploration are driven by a task-oriented,
functional, practical set of goals. Historically, the NASA Astronaut Corps has exemplified this
culture and developed a reputation for being indifferent, even nonchalant about spacecraft
design elements which are perceived as nonessential to the mission. Industrial designers
pushing for a more aesthetic Skylab station were unsuccessful in their pursuits in part due to
the astronauts who apparently, according to Compton and Benson (2011:136) “cared less about
styling and appearance than efficiency; they wanted a spacecraft in which they could do their
jobs without a lot of petty annoyances.” Based on this practical paradigm, it is reasonable to
assume future space missions will continue to be task-driven with success measured in terms of
meeting short-term, observable mission objectives as opposed to the long-term benefits of
scientific accomplishments.
2.7 Privacy as a Stressor in Long-Duration Space Flight
From lessons learned aboard short-term spaceflight missions, the NASA Human
Research Program has recognized habitat volume and layout as a contributing factor to human
health and performance in space (NASA 2010b; Administration 2011; Simon et al. 2011). The
risk of an incompatible vehicle or habitat design, as listed above in Table 2.2, can affect crew
safety and mission success (Whitmore et al. 2013). Future design strategies will need to address
adequacies in functional volume and acceptable habitat layouts in order to mitigate design-
related stressors. High-fidelity mockups are currently used to prototype and test design
24
strategies. Design-related stressors include sleep deprivation from high ambient noise levels
and interpersonal conflict arising from issues of confinement and inefficient designs of working
and living spaces (NASA 2010b, Whitmore et al. 2013). The effects of these design-related
stressors are generally understood with regards to short-term missions, but more research is
needed to evaluate how these stressors evolve over long periods of time.
In 2011, NASA identified issues of privacy as a top priority stressor relating to
habitability designs for long-duration exploration missions (Simon et al. 2011). Habitability
standards must meet the needs of crew members with regards to their physical and mental
health and well-being in order to assure mission safety and success (NASA 2011). The allocation
of space becomes an increasingly complex issue due to the costs associated with maintaining an
artificial, confined environment bounded by limitations of mass and volume, located in an
extreme environment. Therefore, determining the acceptable, minimal amount for habitable
volume for personal crew quarters and other activities requiring some level of privacy has been
identified as a specific area of concern for optimal crew performance.
The number of crew members, objectives, and duration of a space mission drive the
amount of habitable volume required. According to Perner and Langdoc (1994), evidence from
American spaceflight shows that the larger the crew and the more cramped the volume, the
more likely behavior and performance will be impaired, and feelings of being confined or
cramped are noted to intensify over time. Well-cited work from the 1960s by Fraser (1966,
1968) suggested that a volume of 4.24 m3 per person would be adequate for flights as long as
30 days. However, standards for the acceptable net habitable volume (NHV) of a spacecraft
have yet to be determined for missions lasting longer than 1 year. NHV is defined as the
25
functional volume not occupied by other elements occupying space within a given environment
(NASA 2011). The need for an improved understanding of the relationship between NHV and
available habitable volume, behavioral and psychosocial stressors, and privacy is the foundation
of this study.
2.8 Privacy in Previous Space-Related Research
Privacy has been noted anecdotally in many studies exploring the human condition in
space and analogous ICE environments. While this study represents one of the only known
bodies of research dedicated specifically to privacy in space, the need for privacy is discussed
throughout literature focused on the psychosocial stressors associated with space and in
literature exploring design requirements for future space craft.
Psychologist Nick Kanas’s (Kanas (1998); Kanas (2004); Kanas (2005); Kanas Nick et al.
(2007); Kanas and Ritsher (2005a); Kanas and Ritsher (2005b); Kanas et al. (2002); Kanas et al.
(2009); Kanas et al. (2010)) over 15 years of work and that of anthropologists Nicolas Palinkas
(Palinkas 1989; Palinkas 1990; Palinkas 2001; Palinkas 2003; Palinkas 2010; Palinkas et al. 2005;
Palinkas et al. 2011; Palinkas and Suedfeld 2008) and Jack Stuster (Stuster 1986; Stuster 1996;
Stuster 1998; Stuster 2000; Stuster 2005; Stuster 2010a; Stuster 2010b; Stuster et al. 1999)
offer the richest source of literature on psychosocial stressors in space and ICE environments.
Stuster’s 2000 book Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration is regarded by
my clients and others in the space research community as one of the most fundamental
collections of work regarding the life of explorers in extreme environments. Stuster (2000)
devotes an entire chapter to personal space and privacy. Although these researchers did not
26
dedicate empirical research solely to the issue of privacy, they have offered suggestions based
on anecdotal evidence in their work. These suggestions include:
Hot bunking, or the sharing sleep quarters by shift workers, should be avoided
for spaceflight missions due to the importance crewmembers place on having a
personal, private space. (Palinkas 1990, Stuster 2000).
Private crew quarters are optimal for providing a private space for crew
members (Kanas 1998, 2004, Kanas and Ritsher 2005; Palinkas 2001). Stuster
(2000) assuredly suggests that private crew quarters be provided with a volume
of 84 cubic feet.
Measures should be in place to mitigate crew withdrawal, or seeking permanent
privacy, aboard a spacecraft in order to avoid the negative, psychological effects
of isolation (Palinkas 1990, 2001; Stuster 2000)
Acknowledging the connection between the human condition and the environment,
privacy is regularly discussed in literature regarding the design of space vehicles and habitats
for living and working in an ICE environment. Cohen (1999:13) lists privacy as one of the most
important aspects of habitability and insists that “the best way to support these aspects of
habitability is through architectural design of a spatially and socially flexible environment.”
Evidence supporting the provision of privacy is vast and has supported the establishment of
NASA standards for vehicle and habitat design (NASA 2010, 2011). NASA’s (2011) Human
Integration Design Handbook emphasizes the need for privacy and outlines volume-driving
tasks, as outlined in 4.2.2, requiring at least some level of privacy.
27
The NASA Human Integration Design Handbook (2011:538) stipulates that “missions
greater than 30 days in duration must have dedicated crew quarters that provide privacy.”
However, this directive is anecdotal and not grounded in evidence-based research. As discussed
previously, long-duration space missions have yet to be fully explored in terms of psychosocial
stressors and volume requirements for optimal habitability. The Russian Federal Space Agency,
Roscosmos, has led the way in long-duration space research (Perner and Langdoc 1994; Ritsher
2005; Roach 2011a). According to Kozerenko and Holland (2004), observations of various
groups living and working in analogous environments on Earth have shown that changes in
behavior and performance occur after long exposures to characteristics of the ICE environment.
Sleep disruptances, sensory discomforts, and tension are the factors which affect crew
members’ psychological adaptation to spaceflight the most for missions longer than 15 days
(Myasnikov and Zamaletdinov 1996). However, a study of the psychological status and the
dynamics of diagnostic indicators of a 1-year Mir mission by Myasnikov and Zamaletdinov
(1996:422) revealed that “flight duration did not have a significant effect on the psychological
status” of the crew. Although this study only noted findings from one mission, these Russian
experts conclude that evidence does not exist to support the assumption that spaceflight
missions lasting up to 1 year result in the development of psychological issues which would
impede the success of the mission (Myasnikov and Zamaletdinov 1996).
Review of available publications coming out of Roscosmos reveals that privacy is not a
uniquely American design consideration and has been noted by Russian psychologists, social
scientists, and human factors engineers for many years. Kozerenko and Holland (2004)
emphasize the importance an environmental design which would allow crewmembers some
28
amount of privacy and control over the arrangement of at least some aspects of the interior
architecture Myasnikov et al. (2004:235) propose enhancing the “functional comfort” of the
crew-environment system by utilizing aesthetic architectural and interior design principles to
provide for a variety in volumes, layouts, decorations.
A remarkable aspect of literature on privacy in space is the prevalence of
interdisciplinary methods in the collection of data and analysis. The emphasis placed on
collaboration manifests in the cultural topics of investigation pursued by social researchers and
in the multidisciplinary nature of the research projects undertaken. Teams of psychologists,
behavioral scientists, ethnographers and even computer scientists often make up the research
group responsible for collecting and analyzing data related to culture and behavior (Clancey
2001). These teams operate, usually in a secondary position, with project collaborators
pursuing biological and physical science objectives (Ming 1997; Sawin et al. 1999). The
literature reviewed suggests that space-related research in the social sciences has been and will
continue to be a collaborative effort, making distinctions between disciplinary approaches
difficult to distinguish. When viewed outside the scope of space exploration, the overlap of
viewpoints and methods for measuring privacy needs becomes equally apparent.
2.10 Space Futures Research and Social Science Approaches to Space Research
Most of the projects pursued by scientists in human-based space research have focused
on the physiological, psychological and behavioral impacts of living and working in isolated and
extreme environments. Historically, more importance was placed on investigating the biological
sciences, but projects have increasingly incorporated behavioral and communication studies
29
into the research objectives (Harris 1992). Although progress has been made to involve the
social sciences in space research, the objective has remained fixed on improving productivity
and mission success (Sawin et al. 1999, Ritsher 2005, Kanas 2005, Stuster 2010, Clancey 2000,
2012, Dawson et al. 2004, Lane et al. 2002). The ultimate goal of mission accomplishment is
reiterated in the rhetoric of futures planning such as Martinez’s (2007) persuasive article on the
benefits of applying architectural design principles to habitat design and Jim Pass’s (2006,
2007b) work on planning space societies.
The nature of space-related research coupled with themes of pioneering, exploration,
and discovery adds to the future-oriented, science fiction undertones of adventure in space
exploration. Research activities allow for the future planning of relatively near-term projects
such as missions to Mars and near-Earth asteroids (Olson 2010, Linde 2006), but it also allows
for speculations about projects to be carried out past this century. The earliest work of
anthropologists interested in topics of space exploration concentrated on the impact contact
with extraterrestrials would have on the public (Dick 2006; Vann 1975; Wescott 1975).
Anthropologist Ben Finney (Finney 1992) was the first to move beyond extraterrestrial
speculation and look at space exploration as a topic worthy of serious anthropological inquiry.
His work with NASA’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the mid-1980s was
significant in that it was the first time a relationship between an anthropologist and a space
agency was established (Dick 2006). Finney continued his work in space exploration throughout
the 1980s and 1990s as a consultant for NASA, where he was the first to formulate a case study
as the basis for planning future space societies. The hypothetical construction of space societies
to guide strategies that could ensure the success of future missions is a contemporary topic of
30
interest among social scientists and space enthusiasts (Harris 1996; Harris 1995; Harris 1999;
Pass 2006; Pass 2007a; Pass 2007b; Riner 1987, Valentine et al. 2009).
The uniqueness of space as a field site for research and its assumed importance to the
future of humanity has led many scientists to propose a shift in disciplinary paradigms.
Astrobiology was created as a biology sub-discipline for the study of life in the universe. This
effectively shifted the paradigm of Earth-based life to universe-based life (Blumberg 2011).
Similar, less successful attempts have been made within the social sciences. Finney (1992)
proposes astroanthropology as a new subfield of anthropology to study the humanization of
space while sociologist Jim Pass (2006) proposes the similarly named astrosociology. In similar
fashion, Philip Harris (1995) proposes a paradigm shift from conceptualizing mankind or
humankind into the broader term spacekind. Terminology aside, these social scientists have
reached a consensus on the idea that a disciplinary paradigm shift is needed for future work
that correlates to the examination of social behavior and space exploration.
While I have not felt the need to label myself as something new within applied
anthropology (e.g. an astronanthropologist), I have adopted and indeed find necessary a
futures perspective in my approach to studying privacy needs among crew members during
long-duration spaceflight. Futures research exists in many disciplines, including anthropology.
Applying anthropological knowledge to solving future societal problems is a well-respected
endeavor, as evident in the Robert B Textor and Family Prize for Excellence in Anticipatory
Anthropology. Established by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1998, the
Textor Award acknowledges contributions of those who seek to apply anthropological
perspectives, theories, and methods in an anticipatory fashion which will allow societies to
31
realize preferred futures and avoid undesirable ones (AAA 2013). Elizabeth Briody, Tracy
Meerwarth, and Robert Trotter (2010), whose work with General Motors helped the
organization realize a preferred organizational culture, are a few of the anthropologists who
have been recognized for their futures, or anticipatory, research efforts. As discussed
previously, a futures perspective is inherent in most design and organizational anthropology
work which ultimately grounds this research.
32
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Beginning in December 2012, following an informal agreement to sponsor the research,
a series of meetings took place between myself and the clients and included a site visit to the
NASA Johnson Space Center. These meetings allowed the clients to describe their research
needs in further detail and provided an open forum to discuss expectations. A formal research
proposal outlining the project goals, research methods, and deliverables was presented to both
clients for their approval after incorporating edits from my committee members.
3.1 Methodology
Given the exploratory nature of the study and the limited population, all parties agreed
the study should focus on utilizing a more qualitative approach and forgo the use of purely
quantitative methods such as surveys and modeling. Therefore, the research methods used in
the study were selected so that triangulation of the results would contextualize participants’
behavior and their perceptions of privacy. The following sections describe the methods used:
interviews, photo and video narratives, mission debriefs, habitat walk-throughs, and participant
observation.
3.1.1 Interviews
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted one-on-one by myself with all
participants and served as the primary method for this study. The interviews followed an in-
depth, open-ended format due to the exploratory nature of the research question (Schensul et
33
al. 1999) as well as the broad range of population groups involved. Interviews were semi-
structured: an interview guide outlined the topics to be covered and in what order (Bernard
2006). The topics included in the interview guide emerged after a comprehensive review of
literature on the population groups and research topic. Knowledge gaps in existing literature on
privacy in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments made up the majority of topics
and included use of space during free time, and restroom and personal hygiene regimens.
I asked questions related to the topics in the guide in a conversational style in order to
create a relaxed dialogue with the participants regarding their experience. I asked four
questions verbatim from the interview guide regarding perceptions of privacy and personal
recommendations based on their expertise. These questions served two purposes: 1) by stating
these questions precisely word-for-word in each interview, the responses may be treated with
greater validity as would be possible in a written questionnaire and 2) the four verbatim
questions add to the reliability of the study in that they may be accurately replicated in future
studies. The interview guide is located in the Appendix with the four verbatim questions
highlighted.
3.1.2 Photo and Video Narratives
To supplement the interviews, I used photos and video narratives to examine observed
behaviors and contextualize behaviors within the ICE environment. In each interview, I
presented the participant with previously published photos and archival video footage, if
available, to trigger past memories of a particular experience. For photographs, the participant
was asked to describe the contents of the image, the depicted behaviors, and what was present
34
or occurring adjacent to what was captured in the photo. Video segments, if available, were
played on mute and treated as photographs. When possible, the participants were asked to
map out behaviors chronologically using a print out of the habitat floor plan.
3.1.3 Mission Debriefs
NASA conducts a series of debriefs, or a formal time set aside to answer questions, at
the end of space missions, training activities, and science expeditions in order to capture
detailed evaluations and responses to mission-related topics. Astronauts and cosmonauts
participate in numerous mission debriefs upon their return to Earth. Space mission debriefs
range from one-on-one medical debriefs to public affairs debriefs open to the press, and the
format varies across space agencies. NASA specifically schedules a series of post-flight mission
debriefs for returning International Space Station crews beginning within one to two months of
the end of the mission. These debriefs take place onsite at the NASA Johnson Space Center
(JSC).
Mission debriefs provided insight through two modes: first, in the form of in-person
observations and indirect interviews and second, in the form of a textual archive. While onsite
at JSC, I was allowed to attend and indirectly participate in the post-flight mission debriefs for
the NASA astronauts who recently returned from the International Space Station (ISS). I was
also allowed to view transcripts from previous ISS post-flight mission debriefs and debrief data
reports, which are catalogued by a team within my clients’ organization, the Habitability and
Human Factors branch.
35
3.1.4 Habitat Walk-Throughs
As a method, guided walk-throughs of habitats allowed for the collection of
photographs and video that would otherwise have been unobtainable. The walk-throughs took
place in both mockups and operational habitats onsite at JSC. NASA uses various full-size, fully-
functioning replicas of space systems, referred to as mockups, for testing and training purposes.
Access to mockups, particularly those for the International Space Station (ISS) and other space
habitats, is highly controlled and restricted to activities that facilitate official NASA business.
During my time at JSC, I was given one-on-one tours of the ISS mockups by astronaut trainers
and industrial engineers directly involved in the design of the space systems. Likewise, I was
given tours of operational habitats, including the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA),
as shown in Figures 3.1, 3.22 and 3.3, and the existing in-space and terrestrial configurations of
the multi-mission Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV). The terrestrial SEVs are often referred to as
“rovers”, as shown in Figure 3.4.
36
Figure 3.1. The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU), Renamed as HERA in 2013
Figure 3.2. Interior View of the Workplace Level of HERA
37
Figure 3.3 Interior View of HERA’s Crew Quarters
Figure 3.4. Rev 1A of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), or “Rover”
38
3.1.5 Participant Observation as an Analog Crewmember
In August 2013, I was selected as a member of the inaugural Human Exploration
Research Analog (HERA) crew, HERA-1. The mission took place in September onsite at JSC with
the goal of evaluating the newly reconfigured habitat used in previous Desert Research and
Technology Studies (Desert RATS), as shown in Figure 3.1. The four crewmembers, including
myself, another female and two males, spent three days and two nights in HERA which was
located inside a building onsite. Even though the mission was short and severely limited as a
space simulation, as described later, I was able to observe how crewmembers interact with
each other and with their analog environment first-hand in this confined space.
3.2 Population Description
The future-oriented nature of the research question called for a uniquely defined
population, uncommon in traditional ethnographic studies. Ethnographic research is typically
employed to gain an understanding of an existing population or community. Schensul et al.
(1999:7) define ethnographic research as that which is conducted as “locally” within the
particular community of study. However, the community of study for this research does not yet
exist. Earth has yet to send humans beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) for a mission lasting longer
than 6 months. Astronauts and cosmonauts have lived aboard space stations for long durations,
but these space stations have remained in orbit around the Earth. The Apollo Program sent
men to the Moon, beyond LEO, yet the longest mission time averaged only 12 days. My clients
intend to apply the findings from this study to the design of habitats or vehicles used for
39
missions to Mars or other terrestrial missions which will last a minimum of six months, up to
three years or longer.
In design anthropology, it is common to conduct research on future-oriented questions
such as this in order to inform the design of products, systems, and communities through
iterative and empirically informed analyses. The research design usually involves identifying
research participants who are currently engaging in practices that are similar along various
dimensions to the future practices that are being designed for. To study a space community
which does not yet exist, I elected to use crewmembers from existing space analogs. When
space scientists and engineers need to test space systems and simulate space mission
operations, they conduct tests at an analog site which meets the required physical aspects of
the space environment they are in need of studying. Analogs are field sites or laboratory setups
identified as having characteristics similar to the environment of space (Reagan et al. 2012).
Analog sites are chosen and simulated environments are created to produce the confined and
harsh conditions that may hinder the successful completion of a mission to the Moon or Mars
(Clancey 2003, Lane et al. 2002, Roach 2011b).
Earth-based and low-Earth orbit (LEO) analog sites offer insights into the effects of the
ICE environment on workplace-living continuities and the privacy requirements of a space-like
crew. Furthermore, analogs provide diverse opportunities to operationalize various scenarios of
use that are valuable in contextualizing the use of space by crew members. Although
psychosocial stressors are believed to change beyond LEO (De La Torre et al. 2012; Kanas 1998),
analogs make available data which yield findings related to the use of space and privacy needs
in an ICE environment and how these behaviors change over time. Analogs also provide the
40
unique multi-national, multi-disciplinary mix of crewmembers that directly compares to the
current and proposed makeup of spaceflight missions.
Space analogs vary according to which aspect of spaceflight are represented in the
respective environment and according to what fidelity, or level of accuracy, is needed for the
study. For example, the effect of weightlessness is best experienced underwater while the
effect of the relocation of fluids in the body can be simulated through bed rest studies. For this
study, it was important to select analogs that simulate the living conditions aboard a space
vehicle or habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, I define analogs as a locality that is
similar in some way to the isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environment of living and
working in space. In addition to analog crewmembers, I included habitat designers, or subject
matter experts (SMEs), in my population at the request of my clients. For the purpose of this
study, I use the term analog crew member to refer to individuals who have lived and worked in
an ICE environment who are not astronauts or cosmonauts.
3.2.1 Recruitment
I understood at the beginning of the study that it would be difficult to recruit a large
population of participants. NASA analogs have been in existence since the beginning of the
space program, but budget cutbacks have caused the agency to reduce the number of analog
studies which satisfy the ICE requirements I set out to meet. Access to military analogs and
analog studies conducted outside the United States would be difficult to obtain, and even so,
the total number of analog crewmembers remains relatively small. Given these circumstances
and the limited time of the study, it was decided to seek at least five analog crewmembers and
41
three designers for a total of eight participants. My clients insisted, and I agreed, that
astronauts returning from the International Space Station (ISS) should be included in the
crewmember sample.
Recruitment of participants began through a convenience sampling of individuals within
my clients’ organization who had accrued experience as an analog crewmember. Beginning
with the first participant, additional participants were identified through snowball sampling as
each participant throughout the study introduced me to at least one colleague with analog
experience. I noticed, however, that even though my recruitment process was successful in
obtaining participants, I was missing key elements within my population. Therefore, I began a
modified stratified sampling process in which I asked participants to introduce me to individuals
who met a certain criterion, or were located in a particular stratum. The strata sought, or the
missing key populations I needed, were additional female crewmembers, saturation divers, and
submariners.
Once identified as an analog crewmember, all participants were sent a recruitment
email approved by the NASA IRB and the IRB at the University of North Texas. The recruitment
email was reportedly sent to active astronauts by a scheduler in the Astronaut Office. The email
was sent from my nasa.gov email address on NASA’s secure server. The recruitment email is
included in the appendix.
3.2.2 Participant Demographics
Initially, it was determined that participation for this study would be limited due to the
few number of individuals who have served as a crewmember in a space analog, lived and
42
worked in an isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environment similar to space, or have expert
knowledge related to the design of space habitats. The planned number of participants was set
at eight—five analog crew members and three designers—with the goal, as emphasized by my
clients, to balance participation between analog crew members and astronauts. However, by
the end of the x-month/x-week data collection phase, the number of participants in the study
had grown to 50 through snowball sampling. The topic of the study was considered important
by NASA, which made it easy to approach participants. Remarkably, I was not turned down by
any individual I contacted to participate in the study. The number of willing participants soared
from eight to 26 after the first few interviews to the point where I had to start turning away
interested parties after the second month of conducting interviews. Notably, upon hearing
about the study, two astronauts reached out to me to ask if I wanted to speak to them before
my IRB was even approved by the Astronaut Office.
Most of the analog crew members I interviewed had served as a crew member in more
than one analog, and the fact that most designers, which included industrial designers and
space architects, and subject matter experts (SMEs) from the social sciences also had
experience as an analog crew member added to the richness of the study population. Out of
the total 50 participants, only 6 designers did not have experience as an analog crew member in
an ICE environment. Table 3.5 shows the distribution of study participants by analog and study
group. Note, the numbers in Table 3.5 indicate the number of participants with the indicated
experience and do not represent the total number of individual participants.
43
Table 3.5. Distribution of Study Participants
44
Even though I greatly exceeded the targeted number of participants, I struggled to
obtain a balanced representation of analogs and crew composition. Half-way through data
collection I began seeking participants to fill desired elements within my population. Women
and off-shore saturation divers proved to be the hardest participants to recruit due to the
limitations of my network and the low representation of women in ICE environments. Of the 44
analog crew members and astronauts interviewed, 11 were women and only three were
saturation divers. The low percentage—25% of the total analog crew member and astronaut
participants—of women included in this study is actually high considering the representation of
women in spaceflight. When this study began, less than 11%—57 out of 534—of people who
have traveled to space have been women (NASA 2013).The overrepresentation of women in
this study was deliberate in order to gain a deeper understanding of the privacy needs of
women than a more representative sample would have provided. Figure 4 depicts the
participation of women in this study compared with their participation in space exploration.
Figure 3.6. Comparison of Gender Participation in Study and Space Travel
45
In my analysis, I decided to group the analogs by environment for two reasons. First,
several analogs share particular elements of the space environment that are pertinent to this
study. For example, Navy submarines, NASA’s Extreme Environment Mission Operations
(NEEMO), and saturation diving in off-shore oil operations are similar because they all operate
in a pressurized environment: underwater. Isolation, confinement, and an extreme (ICE)
environment were the aspects of space travel that were of greatest importance to this study.
Therefore, it was logical to group analogs according to their similar environmental
characteristics because of the resulting levels of isolation and modes of confinement each
environment facilitates. This decision was based on evidence from initial interviews as I began
to notice participants from Antarctica voice their feelings of isolation in stronger terms than
those in desert environments. Second, I was able to make a better comparison of analog crew
members with astronauts by grouping the analogs. By grouping the analogs according to their
environment, I hoped to draw comparisons between the use of space in a habitat bounded by
Earth’s gravity versus the use of space in microgravity, or the weightless environment of space.
Figure 5 shows the total number of analog crew members and astronauts grouped by analog
environment. It should be noted that HMP and FMARS, although located in the Arctic, are
grouped with the desert analogs because the natural environment during their summer
operations are more comparable to a desert than an arctic ICE environment.
46
Figure 3.7. Distribution of Analog Crew Member and Astronaut Participants
* Includes Artic analogs HMP and FMARS
3.3 Data Collection
Most interviews were conducted onsite at the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
(JSC) in a reserved, closed conference room. Interviews were video- and audio-recorded.
Special precautions were taken to conceal the identity of each of the participants and the exact
nature of the meetings that appeared on conference room calendars which were viewable
through Outlook by the entire JSC community. Many of the participants were members of the
research community at JSC, so it was of extreme importance to keep their participation
anonymous in order to ensure their jobs would not be affected by the results of the study. Also,
I felt it was important to instill obvious mechanisms to protect their anonymity as a means to
build trust so that they felt secure in discussing their experiences.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Submersible Desert* Chamber Antarctica Space Underground
Participants by Analog Environment
47
3.4 Analysis
Throughout the data collection phase of this study, I transcribed interviews, wrote field
notes and catalogued photos according to study group and analog. The corpus of transcripts,
field notes, and photos was analyzed according to grounded theory and inductive, open coding
to look for patterns relating to the research question (Bernard 2006). In particular, I used
Strauss and Corbin’s in vivo coding so that the voice of my participants would explicitly drive
the analysis. This technique was crucial to my analysis because it enabled me to structure my
findings around the definitions of privacy my participants gave. I thought it important to first
understand how they defined privacy before trying to understand their private behaviors and
needs. I began the in vivo coding and identified top-level themes in Atlas.ti, but was unable to
complete the final analyses using that software because I no longer had access to the full
version. Fortunately, most of the coding had been completed so that I was able to transfer the
data to Excel and complete the analysis using that software. In Excel, I was able to combine the
top-level themes into larger groups and formulate the findings after combing these groups with
the major themes identified in my field notes.
After I had interviewed three members from the same crew of the Lunar Mars Life
Science Test Project (LMLSTP), I was intrigued by the similarities expressed when they shared
their experiences. For this reason, I conducted a narrative analysis, as described by Bernard
(2006), of the interviews conducted with members of the same crew to analyze the regularities
in how they spoke about their experiences. In total, I interviewed three sets of complete crews,
two crews from chamber analogs and one from a submersible analog. Although not covered in
this thesis, I noted to my clients that crew members participating in chamber studies onsite at
48
the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) significantly echoed their crewmates when retelling their
analog experience. Even though the submersible crew from NEEMO was part of a NASA study,
it did not take place onsite and crewmembers did not show the same similarities in storytelling.
From my personal experience as a HERA crewmember, an onsite analog, I suggested that the
reason for this phenomenon could be that the debriefing process conditions analog crew
members to support the ideas of their crewmates so that they develop a group response. While
this outcome does not add to the findings relating to privacy, it does have significant impact on
the evaluation of analogs and research methods used for future studies.
Data was analyzed in three phases. First, a preliminary analysis of the data was
conducted after the completion of the first six interviews. The purpose of this preliminary
analysis was to test the effectiveness of the interview guide in covering the desired topics and
in uncovering useful, useable data. The second phase of analysis was intended to be the final
phase and was conducted at the end of my apprenticeship at the NASA Johnson Space Center.
A final phase of analysis was necessary after my clients requested I interview additional
participants from the DRATS analog. My clients continued to be enthusiastic about the study
and desired to see findings which represented as much of the available analog population as
possible.
3.5 Limitations of Data Collection
3.5.1 Mission Debriefs
In the interest of protecting crew privacy, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974,
access to ISS post-flight mission data is controlled. However, methods are in place to provide
49
reports at varying levels of detail per an individual or organization’s need to know. While
extremely helpful in at the beginning of the study, the usefulness of debriefs as a research tool
in the context of this study was limited. The way that NASA organizes and limits astronaut
debriefs makes it difficult to use them for a timely research activity, and makes it particularly
challenging to utilize to inform ethnographic research.
ISS post-flight mission debriefs are organized according to mission systems, such as
Payloads or Stowage, and grouped so that each debrief addresses the interests of each NASA
organization or system involved. A majority of the questions asked during the mission debriefs
are standard questions which are asked at the end of every mission. However, NASA
organizations may submit new questions prior to the debrief, which may consist of follow-up
questions from previous debriefs or customized questions related to mission-specific
experiments or events. New questions must be approved by the ISS Increment, or mission,
manager. Astronauts and attendees are provided with the list of questions prior to the mission
debrief. Typically, the list of questions is displayed on a projector and a moderator or the
crewmembers themselves will read the questions from the approved list. The NASA
organization associated with the system may also appoint a debrief lead designated to conduct
each debrief following the approved set of questions provided.
Following a pre-recorded security message, NASA records audio from the debriefs in
addition to a transcript provided by a professional, onsite stenographer. Members of the NASA
organization associated with the debrief system are encouraged to attend. A coversheet
containing the details of the Privacy Act of 1974 is available at each debrief, and attendees who
wish to take notes during the debrief are required to attach the coversheet to their notes. Upon
50
completion of the debriefs, transcripts are loaded into a database by members of the
Habitability and Human Factors branch. Comments are categorized to allow for enhanced
archival and search capability. The comments themselves are a verbatim transcription of the
crew comments with the context of the question integrated to allow for each comment to be
standalone for increased search capability.
On a need-to-know basis, members of the NASA community may request a report of
debrief comments from the database filtered on any combination of specific systems, missions,
keywords or other search terms. The standard template for these reports is an Excel report,
but other formats are available. Per the direction of JSC legal and Astronaut office, which
reviews these reports prior to dissemination, crewmembers are identified generically by the
space program they represent in reports. However exceptions can be made, on a need to know
basis, to allow for identified comments that indicate a crewmember’s mission and further
attribution to a crewmember’s specific feedback on a topic. At the time of this research, the
database contained over 53,000 comments relating to ISS post mission crew feedback with a
search filter for the keyword “privacy” receiving 112 hits.
3.5.2 Analogs
Given the small population of analog crew members, I made the decision early on to let
the analogs fall where they may in the study. In other words, I did not set out to meet a specific
number of participants from each analog from a predetermined list of space analogs. While this
approach allowed me the flexibility to interview a large population, it limited my ability to make
strong comparisons across each analog or between groups of them.
51
3.5.3 Astronauts
As noted earlier, the final number of participants included in this study greatly exceeded
the planned number by 145%. However, the balanced representation of analog crew members
and astronauts was not achieved. Including astronauts in an ethnographic study proved
challenging on several fronts. In order to recruit astronauts for a research study, NASA funded
or otherwise, principal investigators must receive approval from NASA’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) and pass recruitment communications through the Astronaut Office which oversees
the activities of current astronauts. At the time of my study, policies regarding the involvement
of astronauts in Earth-bound research were changing due to the small number of current
astronauts available for research. I experienced initial pushback on the involvement of
astronauts from the administrative personnel in the office governing JSC’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB). I was able to obtain IRB approval from NASA only after one of my clients contacted
the head of the IRB directly. During this time, the Astronaut Office implemented a new process
for research recruitment which required the Office administrators to select which studies were
allowed to recruit astronauts based on the scientific merit of the study. Fortunately, several
active and retired astronauts were aware of my study and spoke to the Office administrators on
my behalf. This resulted in the acceptance of my study during the last week of my extended
apprenticeship onsite. I requested interviews with two male and two female astronauts who
had served as crewmembers aboard ISS and, preferably, also had experience at Earth-bound
space analog sites. Unfortunately, I was “assigned” four male astronauts who had limited or no
experience living on the Space Station.
52
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4.1 Description of Deliverables
I reported the findings from this study to my clients at the NASA Johnson Space Center
(JSC) in the form of a whitepaper and several onsite presentations. The whitepaper was the
primary deliverable and detailed the research design and findings. The clients requested that
this whitepaper include the following:
an extensive literature review of privacy assumptions and empirical studies
a catalogue of past, current, and planned space analogs including habitable volume and layout information
an evaluation of the analogs used in the study in terms of fidelity and feasibility of future qualitative behavioral research
suggestions for new aids or methods to aid in qualitative, behavioral research conducted remotely
The whitepaper included these elements as well as the findings from the study and suggestions
for topics of future research as well as suggestions on how to utilize ethnographic research in
the future research endeavors.
Presentations were given onsite at JSC at the program, organization, and client level and
provided different levels of detailed information and analysis. The intended audience of the
first presentation was the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), the NASA
program funding my research apprenticeship. The purpose of this presentation was to provide
a general report on the activities I participated in during my apprenticeship. I offered a general
overview and reported on the need and impact of the study. Similarly, I presented an overview
of the study and initial findings in a presentation to the members of both clients’ organizations,
53
the Human Factors and Habitability branch and the Behavioral Health and Performance branch.
After the delivery and review of the whitepaper, two in-depth presentations took place with
audiences comprised of the clients’ and key personnel interested in the study. These in-depth
presentations allowed the opportunity for my clients to ask specific questions and to engage in
a detailed discussion of the findings. Since the needs of my clients and the activities of their
respective organizations differ, it was decided that these presentations would be conducted
separately so that the topic of each in-depth discussion could focus on the needs of each client
without the interruption of voicing their own goals. Both clients attended each other’s in-depth
presentation and respected the flow of conversations that transpired within them that were
not as pertinent or germane to their interests by withholding questions and comments unless
asked by the other.
4.2 Research Findings
4.2.1 A Participant-Centered Definition of Privacy
In early discussions with my clients, I was asked on several occasions how I defined
privacy and how I planned to operationalize the concept. I initially responded to these inquiries
by asking them how they defined privacy within the scope of how it affected the focus of their
respective organizations, specifically vehicle and habitat design and crew health and
performance. I did this so that I could come to better understand their needs, and so that I
could determine how to best structure the study to meet their expectations. The discussions
revealed that my clients, like privacy theorists, could not agree on a firm definition of this term.
The need for me to address particular definitions of privacy in my study was guided by their
54
responses in combination with my training in anthropology and fondness for user-centered
design research.
I made the decision early on in the project’s design to allow my participants to define
privacy, instead of examining perceptions of it based on a pre-determined definition. My clients
struggled with the individualistic nature of perceptions of privacy, and I did not want to impose
my ideas or those of others about it on my participants. I also chose this approach so that
privacy could best be defined by the unique study population, or the community of practice
characterizing space exploration and analogous activities (Squires and Van De Vanter 2013).
While a hard sell initially, allowing the definition of privacy to emerge from my
participants was the most rewarding decision I made in the project design. The word-for-word
definitions indeed varied among participants, but the frequency of word choices and underlying
themes of their responses yielded fascinating results which might not have come to my
attention otherwise. First, the participants’ shared definitions of privacy helped alleviate my
clients’ worry that privacy was a perception that was too individualized to address practically.
Second, the shared themes revealed privacy needs that had not previously been identified by
my clients and NASA program managers. Finally, by asking my participants to define privacy in
their own words I was afforded a framework for discussing privacy needs and perceptions
tailored to the unique application of spaceflight. Definitions from all 50 participants, including
analog crew members, astronauts, and designers were included in the results. Participants’
conceptions of privacy may be summarized, in a somewhat simplified form, as:
The ability to choose what, when, and how aspects of one’s self are shared within a given environment.
55
Participants used the term “ability” most often when defining privacy. The term ability
infers the capacity to do something that achieves a specified goal or that enables a specific
function, and is therefore task-oriented. Related to the idea of privacy and successfully
completing tasks is the suitability or the effect of the design of the physical environment on
affording individuals living and working within it to achieve the needed level of privacy.
Participants often referred to privacy within the context of a physical space or setting which
either provides or impedes the desired level of privacy. The aspect of the participants’
definition I found most surprising was the reported social or “shared” element of privacy. As
described in greater detail below, privacy is a social affordance as well as a group need.
However, in relation to the social aspects of privacy, participants emphasized the need to
control or have a “choice” about how they share and receive information.
The participant-centered definition of privacy I have adopted for this study offers the
opportunity to conceptualize privacy in terms of both practical, technical applications and social
affordances. The task associated with and the environment aspects of the definition offer
insights and recommendations for practical solutions in space vehicle and habitat design. The
social and individual aspects of the definition illustrate attributes of privacy that affect
performance and the health and well-being of humans in an isolated, confined, and extreme
(ICE) environment. Each aspect of privacy and key findings are described below. A full
description and discussion of each finding can be found in the whitepaper.
56
4.2.2 The Tasks Requiring Privacy, The “Ability”
NASA researchers are addressing the challenge of determining the minimum acceptable
volume and for establishing standards for the net habitable volume (NHV) of a space vehicle or
habitat from a task-oriented approach (NASA 2009, 2011, Petrov et al. 2010, Simon et al. 2011,
2012). Even though I refrained from adopting this approach in my research design, participants
often organized their discussion of privacy around their ability to perform specific tasks in their
interviews. In fact, I strategically asked probing questions to challenge my participants to think
outside the task orientation.
Individual preferences surfaced in discussions about the details of needing to perform a
given task. However, the interviews revealed common areas of concern in achieving privacy.
The results also showed that tasks can be characterized according to the need to achieve
privacy or the need to provide privacy. Achieving privacy refers to the need of the task
performer to obtain a certain amount of privacy in order to complete the task effectively and
without anxiety. Providing privacy refers to the need to give others privacy either away from
their attempt to perform a certain task, or so that the other can complete this task in privacy.
Some tasks do not require privacy on the part of the task performer but instead affect the
discomfort of those within proximity to the performance of the task, or the task observer.
Participants identified tasks that required some level of privacy be afforded to both the task
performer and the task observer. “Ultimate” privacy, a term used by many participants and by
my clients, describes the highest level of privacy possible. The tasks identified as requiring at
least some amount of privacy are shown in Table 4.1.
57
Table 4.1. Tasks Requiring Privacy in an ICE Environment
Task Need to Achieve Privacy Need to Give Privacy Waste management X X
Personal hygiene X Sleep X X
Changing clothes X X Medical care X
Communications with home X X Exercise X
Personal work X X Personal recreation X (some activities) X Religious practices X X
Down time X
Key findings related to tasks:
Waste management activities require the highest level of ultimate privacy. The
most common area of shared concern among participants is centered on waste
elimination. Using the restroom was emphasized as the task requiring the most
privacy by all 50 participants. This task was identified as an area of concern for
privacy among both men and women, but women in analogs who used toilet
systems like what is used in space noted that privacy was harder to achieve due to
the design of the system. Figure 4.2 shows an operational mockup of the “space
toilet” currently aboard the International Space Station (ISS).
58
Figure 4.2. The Space Toilet
Some personal hygiene tasks such as brushing teeth do not require any privacy but
showering requires varying amounts of privacy ranging from some amount privacy
for a short amount of time to ultimate privacy for long duration mission.
Surprisingly, participants do not report the need for ultimate privacy while
showering during short-term missions provided certain affordances are met. A
majority of both male and female participants wore swimsuits while showering in
the Aquarius habitat during NEEMO missions. Over time, the need for ultimate
59
privacy while showering becomes necessary due to the desire to properly clean all
areas of the skin.
Exercise does not require privacy on the part of the task performer, but it may
have a negative impact on others in the vicinity. Participants noted that exercising
was an enjoyable activity in an analog environment and a lack of privacy did not
affect the experience. Participants attributed this to the prevalence of group gyms
and the acceptance of exercising in front of others among the general public.
However, participants noted that exercising often resulted in conditions that may
impinge on others not engaged in exercise. They noted the need to separate
“smelly” activities away from others who may be eating.
Privacy while changing clothes is important for both men and women.
Expectations of privacy for medical treatment are much higher in non-ICE
environments. Privacy expectations for medical care activities that are deemed
necessary for research in an ICE environment only require privacy as it relates to
waste management and personal hygiene.
Ultimate privacy is required for some personal recreation activities but in other
situations privacy is only a consideration for others. Analog participants report a
variety of activities pursued for individual recreation. The most often uses of free
time mentioned were journaling, reading, watching movies, and listening to music.
The first two activities listed required some level of privacy be achieved while the
latter required that privacy be provided to others. Surprisingly, because of the
60
reserved nature of the NASA and space analog communities, certain analog
participants and SMEs shared with me that privacy was desirable for recreational
drug use and sexual self-stimulation while living in the analog environment.
Some level of privacy is often preferred and sometimes required for religious
practices such as prayer and meditation.
Privacy is required for “down time”, a time for personal relaxation immediately
preceding going to sleep, and was deemed a necessary step to attaining proper
sleep.
4.2.3 The Sensory Elements of Privacy, The “Environment”
In terms of tasks, levels of privacy are measured by the five basic senses, making it
difficult to separate privacy from the use of the senses. As illustrated in Table 4.1, certain tasks
require different levels of privacy for the task performer and the task observer. Sight, hearing,
touch, smell, and even taste influence the level of privacy that can be achieved by an individual
and provided to others. The design and configuration of the living and working environment is a
critical factor in determining the amount of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory
elements of privacy through the production or removal of sensory stimuli.
Controlling for the sensory elements that affect privacy becomes more important and
difficult to manage in an artificial habitat located in an extreme environment. Survival takes
precedence over other considerations in the decision-making processes governing the design of
habitats needed to support life. The challenges of living and working in an extreme
61
environment imposes restraints on the quality and amount of materials used in their design and
also imposes restrictions on the use of space in determining the layout of a habitat. Therefore,
the architectural tactics employed in the design of everyday dwellings and work spaces are
more difficult to apply in space and in a space-like environment. Figure 4.3 depicts an analog
crew member demonstrating that even the simplest tasks such as changing linens become
more difficult in a confined environment with inadequate volume.
Figure 4.3. Housekeeping Challenges in a Confined Environment
These architecturally imposed challenges result in shared behaviors for coping and
affect perceptions of the habitable space among analog crew members. In addition to
interruptions in privacy due to the physical characteristics of living in an extreme locale, the
inability to achieve privacy is also a result of sharing a confined living space with others.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study and as evident in participants’ responses, I define
62
environment as the system of physical surroundings which form the interior of the habitat
structure and the adjacent natural ecosystem, including its inhabitants and observers. An
environment’s inhabitants are the people who have physical presence and direct contact within
the system. Observers are individuals who indirectly participate in the environment such as
ground controllers working in a mission control room on Earth with remote access to the ISS
environment. Observers are a significant consideration unique to space flight, but their role can
offer insight into the growing need to understand everyday digital privacy.
Key findings related to the environment:
Coping strategies are employed when extra privacy is needed that exceed what
the environment provides. Many analog crew members say they use sleep masks
and ear buds as a means to mitigate the influence of the environment on the level of
privacy they desire when attempting to sleep. One noteworthy result of this study is
the discovery of the fact that all participants reported behaviors that involved
“making space” to create privacy when conducting certain tasks during time periods
when their built environment did not afford them the level they desired. Examples
of this include common behaviors such as taking a walk to make a personal phone
call at work and behaviors unique to an ICE environment such as finding an isolated
space between missiles on a Navy submarine to journal.
What is a big deal at home becomes a bigger deal in the ICE environment.
Participants claim that sensory stimuli become magnified when living in an isolated
and confined artificial environment. Music becomes more enjoyable and colors
become more intense. While some experiences became more enjoyable, sensory
63
deprivation also contributed to negative perceptions of experiences so that, as one
participant put it, “what was annoying [outside the analog environment] was even
more annoying” inside of it.
Metaphors used for private spaces within the ICE environment offer insight into
attitudes and behaviors that affect habitat design. Analog crew members often
described their respective chamber, desert, and short-term field research in the
Arctic and Antarctic as “camping” or “like living in a dorm,” regardless of whether
crew quarters were shared or separate. These metaphors indicate a social
perception of their surroundings. “Camping” could also mean that they felt the
experience was akin to an adventure or “roughing it.” Participants from Antarctica
stations like Concordia and the South Pole describe their quarters as “apartments,”
stating that doors to their separate quarters remained locked. These participants
viewed their quarters as a personal space or territory to be protected. Astronauts
and designers described the crew quarters on the International Space Station (ISS),
seen in Figure 4.4, as “pods,” “a phone booth,” and in several cases as “a coffin.”
While the terms pod and phone booth hold relatively neutral connotations outside
the scope of architecture and design, comparing ISS crew quarters to a coffin is a
strong comparison with potentially negative cultural levity. It should be noted that
the two astronauts who made the phone booth comparison were asked if their
perception of the crew quarters was due to a feeling of “being Superman,” which
each participant jokingly denied despite their ability to fly in space.
64
Figure 4.4. American Crew Quarters Aboard the International Space Station (ISS)
All analog crew members, including astronauts, agree that separate crew quarters
are preferable and most agree they are necessary for long-duration spaceflight.
While participants differ in the amount of volume needed for crew quarters, all
agree that a private, personal, permanent space is preferred over a shared, bunk or
dorm-like space. Participants from a military background, including those with
submarine experience, insist that separate crew quarters are not necessary but still
agree that it would be preferable for missions longer than six months. Likewise, all
65
astronauts in the study said they would prefer separate crew quarters on a long-
duration mission. As one astronaut noted, “people need things differently, but for
long-duration, it is important that, especially to me, there is my own personal space
that I know no one is going to go in there.” Another astronaut stated “if I was going
on long-duration I would want my own bedroom.”
Privacy is recognized as an important consideration in the design of vehicles and
habitats for long-duration space flight. When asked if they thought providing
privacy was an important design consideration, all participants assertively
responded that it was extremely important. As one participant put it, “people are
going to differ on what things they want to keep private but it is a closely [sic]
universal thing that people need some level of privacy.” A designer with experience
as an analog crew member revealed her perception that "privacy and personal space
is critical and the current design is inadequate.”
4.2.4 The Social Aspect of Privacy, The “Shared”
The finding of greatest surprise to myself and my clients was the social dimension of
privacy. A great majority of participants defined privacy in terms of “sharing” and the inclusion
or exclusion of others. This finding suggests the need for a paradigm shift regarding privacy
needs and for providing privacy through the design of habitable spaces for an isolated and
extreme environment. To date, NASA has approached the subject of privacy as an individual
need (NASA 2011, Simon et al. 2012, 2011). A distinct “Us vs. Them” view exists among space
66
crews when discussing mission support personnel, as noted in several NASA studies (Kanas
2004; Kanas et al. 2010; Paul et al. 2010). Interviews with participants in this study show that
this viewpoint extends beyond mission support, to the public outside the local place of a space
agency. The greatest impact of this study may be the resulting shift in conceptualizing privacy
as a social set of needs that must be effectively met, in addition to an individualized set of
needs that must also be effectively met.
Key findings related to the social aspects of privacy:
Privacy as a crew, away from indirect observers, builds group cohesion and
improves the relationship between the crew and ground control. Analog crew
members and astronauts illustrated the importance of crew privacy primarily
through sharing stories of private group activities such as parties when the group
was able to “let loose.” Even though the presence of cameras in the habitat is often
forgotten, crew members and astronauts appreciated the few times when ground
controllers afforded the crew complete or even partial privacy. I observed first-hand,
as a HERA crew member, that even partially private moments separated from the
outside world gave our crew an opportunity to bond and alleviate tensions with
ground control. An excerpt from my field notes, shown in Figure 4.5, describes the
experience:
67
Figure 4.5. Field Note Excerpt
Privacy is necessary for personnel meetings and private conversations between
crew members, particularly between the mission leader and their subordinates.
“Operational housekeeping” was echoed as a need requiring privacy among many
analog crew members, astronauts and SMEs. The director and the designer of one
September 4, 2013 After two days of mission control throwing us green cards, or contingencies, we are getting a little tired of the constant interruptions to our schedule. I am personally getting tired of them messing with the air by turning off the air handlers. Really, the contingencies were not a big deal and no one is outright complaining but the others (and myself) are starting to note that they [ground control] are getting redundant and lacking in creativity. Well, tonight we got them back! During dinner, I jokingly suggested to Andrew and Jenna that we give them a green card. I was totally joking but later Andrew came back from a PEVA with the greatest idea. He had overheard Sally, one of the ground controllers, say someone said they saw a mouse in the building last week. So, during Carl and Jenna’s eval on the first level, Jenna pretended to see a mouse and started screaming. Carl got on the comm and told Ground they saw a mouse. We knew they would be able to hear us if we screamed, so Jenna and I started freaking out and threatening to break sim [leave]. The “green card” then was for us to test how Ground would handle a mouse in the hab. Sally’s reaction was priceless and we could hear Ground scrambling around HERA looking for the mouse. We eventually had to tell them it was a green card and everyone had a good laugh. The joke we played on Ground has become a recurring source of laughter and I feel like we have become closer as a crew because of it. We have even suggested our crew name become the HERA-1 Mighty Mice. September 5, 2013 This morning, Ground woke us up by playing the theme song to Mighty Mouse.
68
analog stated that “the need for a manager and subordinate to have a meeting does
not go away at camp, even when we only had 5 or 8 people for 10 days.” Just as
managers onsite at JSC have a private space for holding meetings with personnel,
habitats “need an airlock” for private conversations. Analog crew members from the
MDRS and HMP noted that the mission commander would take a walk or schedule
an activity away from the site in order to hold private conservations with crew
members.
New social norms develop within the group to cope with and signal the need for
privacy. Many examples were gathered that illustrated the development of new
social norms, but the most distinct examples of new social norms came from the
Navy submariners. One Navy participant explained that the bunk room, or berthing
area, remained a quiet place for sleeping and reading because “people would get
yelled at for hanging out in the berthing area and being loud.” Another submarine
crew member shared that it was understood that if an officer needed to have a
private meeting they would ask the others to clear out of the common area. When
the physical environment did not offer a means of communicating the need for
privacy, crew members developed a shared set of cues to signal the need for
privacy. ANSMET crews used a flag to let others know that the “poop tent”, or
outhouse, was occupied and re-enforced the flag as a privacy cue by berating people
who forgot to remove the flag when they left the restroom facility. ANSMET crews
also adopted the strategy of “rattling” the crew tents as a means of “knocking on the
door.” Most notable was that all analog crew members and astronauts reported that
69
it was expected for others to turn around or move to another area of the habitat
when someone needed to make a personal call.
Privacy needs are less among familiar crew members than among strangers. As
part of the social aspect of privacy, participants noted that their expectations of
privacy at home extends to privacy between their family and the outside world.
Similarly, analog crew members and astronauts mentioned that privacy was less of a
concern when they had a previous relationship with their crew mates than when
they were confined with people they just met. This finding is further exemplified by
the nature of relationships between scientists and operations personnel at the
Antarctic stations Concordia and the South Pole. The nature of Antarctica
expeditions generally do not permit inhabitants the opportunity to build
relationships with others before the expedition. Astronauts, on the other hand,
describe their crew mates as “brothers” or “family” placing significance on trust and
familiarity.
Training provides the opportunity for crews to establish relationships, recognize
each other’s nonverbal communication tendencies, and develop a shared set social
norms and cues so that privacy concerns are addressed ahead of the mission.
Astronauts specifically emphasized the need for training with all crew members
assigned to a space mission in order to address privacy concerns before the mission.
Each astronaut noted, without prompt, that they do not receive a lot or any formal
training for “life” and expectations of privacy in space. Senior astronauts train
rookies for things not covered in training through storytelling and sharing personal
70
lessons learned, but their interaction is informal and not a mandatory aspect of
astronaut training. One astronaut said that even “with a small crew, you need to get
used to people's signals for privacy, so that when things are bad, attitudes are not
misinterpreted.” Another astronaut noted the difficulty of training current ISS crews
alongside their Russian counterparts, “we don't train people in group interaction
skills in science... You need to learn how behaviors impact everyone and that you
can control it. And we should include we should include Russians in [our wilderness
training], to build trust, but don’t think that will ever happen.” Once on the mission,
social activities become a means of reconfirming and continuing interpersonal
relationship and social norms.
4.2.5 The Individual Aspects of Privacy, The “Choice”
Just as task and the environment are interrelated aspects of privacy, the social and
individual aspects of privacy are equally related. I found it interesting that the individual
element of the participants’ definitions focused on control or the choice of what to share or
make public. It was also fascinating to discover that terms of individual privacy were used far
fewer times than social terms, as mentioned above. Therefore, findings relating to the
individual focus on the ability to control the physical and social environment.
Key findings related to choice:
Expectations of privacy established before the mission impacts crew behavior and
performance and the acceptance of the ICE environment. Establishing expectations
before the mission gives the crew member time to realize which aspects of the
71
environment they will have control over and those they will have to accept. Analog
crew members and astronauts develop expectations of what life will be like during
the mission primarily, as mentioned earlier, from those who have gone before.
When access to returning crew members is not available, individuals create worse-
case scenarios in order to prepare for the unknown. For the most part, participants
are pleasantly surprised to discover that the ICE environment provided more privacy
than they expected. One astronaut shared that this practice can be detrimental to a
crew member’s outlook on the mission when expectations are set high by the
mission planners and then lowered once in space.
Knowing the end date of the mission gives crew members some sense of control
over their environment and makes it easier to cope with limited privacy by
providing a motivational target that is theirs to meet. Participation in an analog or
space mission is a choice. Part of that choice includes accepting of the duration of
time individuals will be required to live in the ICE environment. Analog crew
members said that it was easier to think about the mission as “only 3 days” and
would note milestones such as “half way” or “one week away from breaking the
record” during longer missions. ANSMET and Antarctic expeditions are unique in
that they often do not know the exact date when they will leave. While these analog
crew members have a planned exit date or range of possible dates, the extreme
weather limited modes of transportation in the Antarctic can cause unforeseen
delays. One ANSMET crew member said that when the extraction of their group was
72
delayed less than 24 hours, the group dynamics quickly declined and significant
interpersonal conflict resulted.
Cameras are a source of privacy concern when they cannot be controlled by the
crew. It was surprising to find that analog crew members and astronauts often
forget about the presence of camera capturing their every move during a mission. In
fact, saturation divers admitted to engaging in questionable behavior during the
mission even though they were being filmed from every angle, 24-hours a day.
However, it was noted by most participants that crew members want the ability to
control the indirect participation of outside observers in the ICE environment.
Control in this case includes the ability to turn off cameras, position oneself outside
the frame, and the ability to choose the content viewable by the general public. A
NEEMO crew member did not feel that the cameras were a big deal because she had
seen the position of the public cameras and the quality of the video feed before the
mission. Astronauts described turning on and off the cameras as a way to “invite”
ground controllers and the public onboard the space craft, effectively serving as a
means to control access to their environment.
4.2.6 Cultural and Gender Differences in Privacy Needs
As stated previously, my clients were concerned that privacy needs would vary too
much among individuals. They also expected vast gender differences in the needs for privacy
and anticipated a lower need for privacy from members of the military when compared to the
73
needs of civilians. As an anthropological study, I was especially interested in exploring these
comparisons as well as differences among national cultures. The findings discussed below
address the issue of cultural differences in expectations of privacy. Culture is defined loosely,
for the purpose of this study, as a group with the shared a shared set of values and background.
Males and females share common needs for privacy yet perceive differences in the
needs of the opposite sex. I was surprised to discover that males and females share
the same fundamental needs for privacy with regards to tasks such as waste
management, personal hygiene, and changing clothes. What differs among genders
is that men often claim to need less privacy than women when all crew members are
male. Several male analog crew members living in shared quarters compared their
behavior to a “locker room.” However, when asked where they changed clothes
most reported changing clothes in their bunk with the curtain closed and would only
change shirts or outer clothing outside their personal space. This finding also
contradicts the perceptions women have of men in that when together have little or
no need for privacy.
Americans are assumed to require the highest level of privacy yet themselves
perceive that the needs are greater for their British crew mates. While evidence
supporting differences in privacy needs among national cultures did not emerge
from this study, commonalities of perception of the needs of others did surface.
Privacy needs remain unchanged after service in the military but these individuals
may be better able to cope with limited affordances. Military personnel and
civilians share the basic needs for privacy needs in terms of tasks as previously
74
described. However, crew members with military experience seem to cope better
than their civilian counterparts when expectations of privacy are unmet by the
environment. It is important to note that military service does not ensure that crew
members will adapt to the ICE environment more easily or be able to sustain
performance over a long-duration mission. Navy submariners reported that many
individuals continuously struggled with the ICE environment and noted that by the
end of the mission incidences of interpersonal conflicts increased, often resulting in
physical violence or the withdrawal of individuals.
Privacy needs vary among communities of practice, with physicians having a higher
expectation of privacy with regards to work. A few analog crew members noted
that there appeared to be a difference in behaviors and needs relating to privacy
among disciplines. Similar to preparation in the military, certain disciplines seem to
be better able to cope with adapting to an ICE environment. Geologists are
accustomed to camping in the field for long periods of time and seem to adapt
easier during an ANSMET expedition than their counterparts who do not have
extensive camping experience. Expectations of privacy are higher among physicians
than other professionals in that they want to strive to protect the health information
of the crew members they are caring for, yet astronauts and analog crew members
insist that they are comfortable with sharing and expect their crew mates to share
personal health information if it could impede mission success. The significance of
this finding is discussed further in the following section.
75
4.2.7 Medical Care and Privacy Needs
One aspect of human space flight that has received little attention with regards to
privacy is that of medical contingencies and the protection of health information. Several
participants in this study represented healthcare professionals engaged in space-related
research and flight medicine. These participants noted the nature of their practice requires a
perceived higher level of protection than other healthcare professionals. While laws protecting
the dissemination of personal health information protects all Americans equally, flight surgeons
and physicians caring for astronauts feel a greater responsibility to protect the health
information of their patients since the careers of pilots and astronauts are contingent on their
health and well-being. Astronauts also live a relatively public life and physicians recognize the
importance of protecting as much personal information as possible.
The need to protect information extends to expectations of privacy and trust between
colleagues. One physician noted that “we are a very private group in some respects and we
share things with each other that we would never share with anybody else." This need is
further illustrated by the insistence of physicians to have a means to control access to medical
health records in an ICE environment as well as have a secure place within the habitat to
consult with other physicians “back home.”
By and large, the need most stressed by flight surgeons and physicians engaged in space
flight is the need for a completely private space within the habitat for medical tasks. These
professionals emphasize the importance of a physical space which provides an ultimate level of
visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory elements of privacy between the physician and
the patient. As mission duration becomes longer and astronauts travel further away from Earth,
76
the likelihood of a medical emergence increases. Antarctica poses similar challenges, and
indeed, medical emergencies have occurred requiring emergency medical attention.
Another significant aspect of this finding is that while physicians insist on protecting
health information, astronauts and crew members are comfortable with sharing some
information with crew mates and expect their crew mates to share health information that
could potentially impact mission success. The value behind this claim centers on survival and
the values associated with mission success. Survival is a group dynamic since the health and
well-being of one individual could potentially impact the health and well-being of crew mates in
an ICE environment. Likewise, the health and well-being of one individual could impede the
success of the entire mission. For these reasons and when group cohesion is strong, astronauts
and analog crew members claim to be comfortable sharing more health information than they
would normally consider outside the ICE environment. This phenomenon along with privacy
needs with regards to medical care in an ICE environment are areas which should be explored
further and addressed in mission and habitat design.
77
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The physical sciences are in familiar territory when it comes to an understanding of the
benefits space exploration can provide. The opportunities for advancements in astronomy,
physics, chemistry, geology and even the life sciences made possible by the space industry are
rarely debated. The social sciences, anthropologists in particularly, have been slow to
acknowledge space as useful to their respective disciplines and have only recently participated
in space-related research. The following sections illustrate the ways in which anthropology
contributed to the research findings and discuss the possible impact of the study on the further
development of the discipline. I also discuss areas where space research and anthropology, can
mutually benefit from each other in the future.
5.1 Impact of Anthropology on Study
Just as anthropologists have been slow to engage in space research, NASA and other
space agencies have slow to engage the social sciences in design research. To date,
anthropologists working with and for the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) have remained
under the purview of activities focused in the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP)
organization. BHP represented one of my clients, but my other client, the Human Factors and
Habitability (SHFE) branch, was not familiar working with anthropologists as part of the design
process. While this fact presented initial challenges, I was rewarded by the opportunity to
demonstrate the impact the discipline of anthropology had on the results of the study.
78
5.1.1 An Ethnographic Approach to Habitat Design
Human factors research has historically focused on the architectural, ergonomic and
psychological variables when designing work systems (Wasson 2000, Blomberg 1993, Blomberg
and Burrell 2009). Wasson (2000) remarks on the change in focus of design research which is
also illustrated by SHFE human factors engineers at NASA who, over the years, have recognized
the importance of contextualizing interactions between humans and work systems. Central to
this paradigm shift among NASA engineers is the introduction of user-centered design (Olson
2010).
User-centered design has a long, rich history within design research with the goal of
ensuring developers place the needs of the users central in the design process (Michel 2007;
Newell et al. 2010; Redström 2008). This approach to design began to stray from a traditional,
purely ergonomic focus, or human-centered approach, to design in the 1980s (Wasson 2000).
However, Olson (2010) noted that this paradigm shift at JSC was in its infancy as recently as this
past decade as engineers began to favor a human-centered design approach over a capacity-
driven, or technology-centered, design. By the time of my apprenticeship at JSC, a few years
after Olson’s (2010) dissertation work, human factors engineers in the SHFE branch had
adopted the term “user-centered” to describe their work, but I observed that this change in
paradigm was stronger in language than it was in practice. Anthropometry and a capacity,
mission-driven approach to design continues to place the crew members, or users, as a
peripheral consideration. It should be noted that NASA’s approach to habitat design can be
considered “user-centered” in that crew safety is their ultimate concern. However, when
79
considered as part of the design system, crew safety is a task-oriented driver associated with
accomplishing the mission.
As previously mentioned, NASA’s unfamiliarity with applying anthropology to design was
personally challenging. However, as I had the opportunity to illustrate the benefits of the
applying anthropology, I also had the opportunity to offer new ideas on what is “user-centered”
design. Similarly, I was able to introduce into the NASA lexicon contemporary design
approaches like user experience (UX), empathic design, and service design as new ways to
conceptualize the needs and well-being of the space crew. My educational background in
anthropology uniquely positioned me to make these contemporary design approaches come to
life through this study.
Since the 1990s, designers have turned increasingly towards ethnography as a means to
understand users (Wasson 2000, Drazin 2013, Blomberg and Burrell 2009, Cefkin 2012, 2013,
Jordan 2010). Ethnography, as a method, is the hallmark of anthropology and offers unique
contributions to the field of design. Anthropologists apply ethnographic methods to design in
order to provide designers with a holistic, descriptive, qualitative outlook on the end-user. This
study applied ethnographic methods to do just that for my designer clients.
5.1.2 A Holistic, Participant-Centered Approach to Privacy
As discussed in Chapter 3, this study was inductive rather than being hypothesis-driven.
While this is an acceptable and even preferred approach among anthropologists, it was a great
source of difficulty within the NASA culture of research. My SHFE client was familiar with and
appreciated my inductive approach to the study, but it took a few conversations to convince my
80
BHP the need for this type of study. The challenges my approach created with my clients paled
in comparison to the difficulty I had convincing the NASA Institutional Review Board of the
merit of this study, which represents the office overseeing all human research at JSC.
Despite the challenges, the ethnographic methods and anthropological approach I
applied to this study are what proved to be the most impactful. The Findings chapter illustrates
the usefulness of allowing themes to emerge. I allowed the users, my participants, to play a
central role in the research findings by adopting their definition of privacy. LeCompte and
Schensul (2010:2) note that ethnography differs from other behavioral science methods in that
it “assumes that researchers must first discover what people actually do and the reasons they
give... before trying to interpret their actions through filters from their own personal
experiences or theories derived from professional or academic disciplines.” Anthropology, with
its unique holistic awareness of context, has the potential to contribute a greater awareness of
the commonalities in space-related research by viewing the overall emergent themes as, to
some extent, a culture of space exploration. The outcome of my study illustrated this idea to
my clients and, I hope, to the space research community at large.
In addition to the benefits of an inductive approach, anthropology contributed to a
holistic view of the needs of crew members. Ethnographic research, as applied through
anthropology, is uniquely suited to uncovering aspects of an unknown, complex problem.
Privacy is a complex topic and is loaded with cultural perceptions and interpretations (Roberts
and Gregor 1971). Until this study, the privacy needs of long-duration crews had not been
explicitly explored. The study, therefore, called for an ethnographic approach to contextualize
the phenomena of living and working in an isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environment.
81
Anthropology emphasizes a holistic view of the human condition. Sociocultural
anthropologists in particular hold holism in high regard when describing a given population. As
a result of a deep immersion in anthropological theory over the past three years, I approached
this study with my eyes and ears open to outlying factors which impact privacy and the life of a
crew in an ICE environment. Anthropology’s holistic view of culture instilled in me the belief
that crews do not exist independent of their environment, as defined in this study. I
encouraged my clients to also adopt this viewpoint by insisting that the findings from this study
do not exist separately within the crew-ICE system. I suggested that each finding be evaluated
with respect to the others. For example, I pointed out that while privacy away from others who
are exercising is preferred, the annoyance of eating next to someone who is exercising has the
potential to become a significant issue when taken into consideration the finding that what is a
big deal at home becomes a bigger deal in the ICE environment.
5.2 Impact of Study on Anthropology
This study, as an opportunity to illustrate the benefits of applying anthropology to a
space problem, also gives me the opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of space research to
the discipline of anthropology. I agree with Valentine and Olson (Valentine et al. 2009) in the
assertion that space exploration presents a unique field of research for anthropologists. The
anthropology of space exploration and anthropology for space exploration both provide new
areas of research which contribute to our understanding of what it means to be human. Though
the nature of this research was applied, the results of the study have the potential to add to the
existing knowledge of anthropological views of the use of space functions of privacy. Overall, I
82
hope this study will contribute to the development of anthropological theory addressing the
interconnected nature of society and technology.
Finally, the use of analogs as a method for ethnographic inquiry is useful when the
community of study does not yet exist. Design anthropology is distinct from other applications
of anthropology in that the application is more often focused on the future. Design research is a
future-oriented activity which as Jones (1992:9) describes “extrapolates from past behavior... to
future behavior” (Laurel 2003; Quinn and Storey 2011). Anthropologists engaged in design
research are often faced with the challenge of describing a future community. Space
exploration offers the ultimate example of this concern. At the time of this study, the end-user
for the designs this research hopes to inform may not even been born. The long-duration space
flight missions NASA scientists and engineers are planning for will not be realized for the next
20 or 30 years. Analogs provide the ability to simulate a future society. However, stemming
from my holistic outlook on the user, I emphasized to my clients the need to continue this
research as society on Earth changes throughout the years.
5.2.1 Contributions to Knowledge of Privacy and Use of Space
How humans utilize space in space, outer space, is a relatively new topic of inquiry for
anthropological publication. Many anthropologists have studied the use of space within a
bounded, gravity-dominated environment (Kent 1993; Skeggs 1999) yet this study presents the
first work anthropological study solely dedicated to the use of space in a weightless
environment. This work is also unique in that it explores privacy, as a basic, human desire
83
situated in an outer-worldly locality. In addition to the weightless aspect impacting human
behavior, space travel requires a second look at how place impacts the need for privacy.
Also new to the dialogue of privacy in anthropology literature is the impact of the
senses on achieving, or measuring, a desired level of privacy. As discussed in Chapter 4, analog
crew members and astronauts spoke of infringements on privacy in terms related to the five
senses. Defining privacy according to sensory awareness and perceptions is a new way of
thinking about privacy, distinct from existing definitions of privacy as exampled in Chapter 2.
Hall (1969) explains proxemics and infringements on personal space through indirect terms of
the physical and visual senses but does not offer an explanation of how privacy is measured
through the senses of smell, touch, and taste. The participants in this study have expanded our
concept of measuring privacy and given researchers and philosophers food for thought in the
quest to define the complexities of privacy.
5.2.2 Contributions to Anthropological Theory
Through this study, I hope to contribute to the growing body of work that integrates
perspectives of design anthropology and organizational anthropology in addressing the
interconnected nature of technology, work, and society. As mentioned in Chapter 2, I am
particularly interested in contributing to the development of an all-encompassing perspective
or framework that integrates the domains applied anthropologists pursue when working
outside academia (Aiken 2011, Blomberg and Burrell 2009, Cefkin 2013). As evident in the
findings, I utilized such an approach to illuminate the influence of habitat design and
organizational values on the well-being of a space crew. The study therefore contributes to
84
existing anthropological literature by examining interrelationships among habitat design,
organizational culture, and crew interactions: the use of space in space.
In summary, this study has the opportunity to contribute to the discipline of
anthropology by adding to existing knowledge on privacy and use of space and as a case study
for strengthening theory. My approach to the research presented continues the current trend
within design and organizational anthropology to draw on interdisciplinary theories and
therefore offers another example of the need for an anthropological theory addressing the
complex nature of technology, organization, and culture. In turn, a discipline of anthropology
better equipped to engage in future technology research has the potential to advance space
exploration by offering a holistic, user-centered understanding of life in an ICE environment.
8
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The subject of space in space, or the amount of privacy needed for long-duration space
flight, proved to be a challenging and rewarding endeavor. Ethnographic methods were
stretched to meet the needs of my clients while staying true to anthropological principles.
However, what began as a study aimed at meeting the needs of the clients proved to be
mutually beneficial. I was able to provide my clients at the NASA Johnson Space Center and the
space research community with insight they need to make informed habitat and mission design
decisions regarding privacy. The study also benefited the discipline of anthropology by
illustrating to the space industry what the discipline can offer in terms of design research and
by contributing to the discipline a new method of inquiry and a case study for developing
future-oriented theory.
This study met the short-term goal of meeting the needs of my clients representing the
Human Factors and Habitability (SHFE) and Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP)
organizations at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The true impact of this study, however,
remains to be seen as space researchers and anthropologists continue the work.
APPENDIX A:
GLOSSARY
“down time” a time for personal relaxation immediately preceding going to sleep
analog crew member individuals who have lived and worked in an ICE environment who are not astronauts or cosmonauts.
contingency “An off-nominal situation that is identified in the hazard analysis process and has a preplanned response to mitigate the risks to crew and/or vehicle.” (NASA 2011:996)
countermeasures “A means to offset undesirable physical, physiological, and psychological effects of space flight on humans.” (NASA 2011:996)
debrief a formal time for crewmembers to answer a series of questions about a completed mission
design reference mission outlines the architecture of a planned mission, describes the operations and systems needed to execute a mission based on existing knowledge and technical capabilities
environment the system of physical surroundings which characterize the interior of the habitat structure and the adjacent natural ecosystem, including its inhabitants and observers
habitability “The state of being fit for occupation or dwelling. Meeting occupant needs of health, safety, performance, and satisfaction.” (NASA 2011:996)
habitable volume “The volume remaining within a pressurized volume after accounting for all installed hardware and systems.” (NASA 2011:996)
habitat “A type of spacecraft, not normally mobile, that has the conditions necessary to sustain the life of the crew and to allow the crew to perform their functions in an efficient manner.” (NASA 2011:996)
ICE environment Isolated, Confined, and Extreme environment; unique challenges to living and working in space
increment refers to the crew, payloads, and all activities for a 6-month period (generally) aboard the International Space Station
low Earth orbit (LEO) the area of space 160-2,000 km above the Earth’s surface (NASA 2001)
mockup full-size, functional replica of space systems used for training and experiments to simulate various aspects of a space mission
near Earth orbit another term for low earth orbit (LEO)
net habitable volume (NHV)
“The functional volume left available on a spacecraft after accounting for the loss of volume caused by deployed equipment, stowage, trash, and any other items that decrease the functional volume.” (NASA 2011:996)
privacy (NASA definition)
“Having an acceptable level of control over the extent of sharing oneself (physically, behaviorally, or intellectually) with others. The level of privacy that is acceptable to a person depends on the individual’s background and training” (NASA 2011:997)
privacy (study definition) the ability to choose what, when, and how aspects of one’s self are shared within a given environment
APPENDIX B:
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Note: The questions that are highlighted in the Interview Guide below are the ones that were
asked verbatim, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Exploring Perceptions of Privacy in Determining Minimal Habitable Volume
for Long-Duration Spaceflight
Semi-structured Interview Guide
Preliminary/Demographic Information
Where are you from? What is your hometown?
College/Major
What is your current job? Professional history.
Description of Analog Experience
History of analog participation
o Which analog?
o Work duties, crew role(s)
o Duration of participation
Selection process
Special training
Description of Analog Site
Describe physical characteristics of the analog site.
o Environment
o Habitat
Objectives of analog/study
Describe aspects of work practices.
o What was a typical day like? (brief)
o Crew autonomy
o Scheduling, free time
o Did work practices change over time in the analog?
Composition of the crew
o Male/Female ratio
o Nationalities
o Disciplines/Organizations
Describe the culture, or atmosphere, of the crew
o How long did you know the other crew members before going in?
o Was it a collaborative group, or did people work independently?
o Were there any cross-cultural differences that were noticeable?
o Did the culture change over time in the analog?
Conflicts and contingencies
o How were conflicts and contingencies handled?
o Medical emergencies
Privacy and Habitat Design
Describe the personal areas (if any) at the site and in the hab.
o Were these designated spaces or informal? If assigned, by whom? When?
o Describe layout, materials, artifacts (Photo narrative)
o Were there any differences in the personal areas?
o Were you able/allowed to personalize your area(s), rearrange the furniture?
What type of activities were conducted by the crew in their quarters?
o Traditional vs. non-traditional uses (e.g. sleeping in bunk used for work, exercise
area used for group meeting)
o Did activities change over time?
Interactions with habitat design, over time
o Did you like the design of your area? The habitat?
o What, specifically, did you like about it?
o What would you have changed?
o Did you notice your opinion of the habitat changing over time? For example, did
you get tired of the color of the walls?
o How long could you have stayed in the habitat?
If design engineer, strategies for addressing privacy issues
o Describe your concern for providing privacy (pre-design and post-mission)
o Did you conduct any research relating to privacy and habitat design?
o Describe strategies and countermeasures (if any) used to address privacy
concerns
Use of Space
Private enough? Activity – based
o Sleep: Were you able to sleep well?
o Personal hygiene: Describe regimen.
o Free time: What did you do? Where? What personal items did you bring?
o Personal communications: Were you able to communicate with family and
friends outside the analog? If so, with whom did you visit and how (email,
phone, etc.)? With other crewmembers?
o Medical exams (hypothetical): Describe experience of where, how, privacy
concerns
**WARN PARTICIPANT AGAINST SHARING PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION**
Differences observed in use of space among crew mates. Did certain people use the
space differently?
Perceptions of Privacy
In your own words, what is your definition of privacy? If English is not first language,
answer first in English and then provide a definition in your native language. The two
definitions do not necessarily need to match.
What are your expectations of privacy at work? At home? In analog?
Do you think there are multiple levels of privacy? Describe.
What are some barriers to achieving needed privacy?
Do you think your crewmates share your perception of privacy?
Wrap-up: Looking to the Future
Do you think privacy is important to consider for crews on long-duration missions?
What are your suggestions for future designs of long-duration habitats?
Anything else to share?
APPENDIX C:
RECRUITMENT EMAIL
Exploring Perceptions of Privacy in Determining Minimal Habitable Volume
for Long-Duration Spaceflight
Recruitment posting to be distributed on the NASA JSC employee listserv, emailed to the public
affairs officer of analog sites, and distributed by the NASA Astronaut Office
Subject: Participants Needed for Graduate Research on Privacy and Habitat Design
As a graduate student at the University of North Texas (UNT), I am conducting my thesis
research on perceptions of privacy among analog crew members and how these perceptions
affect the designs of habitats. The (insert site name) is considered a space analog due to the
similarities of its environmental and physical characteristics to space. I am seeking individuals
who have served as a crew member for (insert site name) or who were involved in the design of
the habitats used as living quarters for crew members.
Your participation is entirely voluntary. Individuals who wish to participate will be interviewed
for 20-60 minutes. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience, and you do not need to be
in the Houston area to participate. Research will be conducted June 1 – August 2, 2013.
To volunteer for this study, or ask any questions about the project, please email Jonie (Jo) Aiken
at [email protected] .
This research has been approved by the NASA Institutional Review Board (IRB) and by the
University of North Texas (UNT) Institutional Review Board. Christina Wasson, Ph.D. in the
Department of Anthropology at UNT is the faculty advisor of this study. You may contact the
UNT IRB at 940-565-3940 if you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject.
REFERENCES
American Anthropological Association (AAA) 2013 Prizes and Awards.
Aiken, Jo 2012 Integrating Organizational and Design Perspectives to Address Challenges of Renewal: A case study of NASA's post shuttle workforce transition. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2012. Vol. 2012, pp. 163-176. Wiley Online Library.
Aiken, Jo, Victoria Schlieder, and Christina Wasson. 2014 “No More Cakes and Ale?” Discovering Ethical Gray Areas in a Design Anthropology Class." Journal of Business Anthropology 1(1): 38-61.
Altman, Irwin 1975 The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Monterey, CA. 1977 Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific? Journal of Social Issues 33(3):66-84.
Altman, Irwin, and William W. Haythorn 1965 Interpersonal Exchange in Isolation. Sociometry 28(4):411-426.
Altman, Irwin, and Anne M Vinsel 1977 Personal space. In Human behavior and environment. Pp. 181-259: Springer.
Appadurai, Arjun 1986 The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective: Cambridge University Press.
Appelbaum, Steven H 1997 Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Management Decision 35(6):452-463.
Aswad, Barbara 2001 Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance. American Anthropologist 103(1):247-248.
Baba, Marietta, and Olugbenga Mejabi 1997 Advances in Sociotechnical Systems Integration: Object-Oriented Simulation Modeling for Joint Optimization of Social and Technical Subsystems1. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 7(1):37-61.
2002 Anthropology and Business: Influence and Interests. Journal of Business Anthropology 1(1):20-71.
Batteau, Allen W. 2003 A Perfect Report: Culture and NASA’s Analysis of the Columbia Space Shuttle Tragedy. In American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings.
Bernard, H. Russell 2006 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Blomberg, Jeanette, and Mark Burrell 2009 An ethnographic approach to design. Human-computer interaction: Development process:71-94.
Blomberg, Jeanette et al. 1993 Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relation to Design. Participatory design: Principles and practices 123-155.
Boyd, Jennifer E. et al. 2009 Cultural Differences in Crewmembers and Mission Control Personnel During Two Space Station Programs. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 80(6):532-540.
Breckenridge, Adam Carlyle 1970 The right to privacy: University of Nebraska Press.
Briody, Elizabeth K, Robert T Trotter II, and Tracy L Meerwarth II 2010 Transforming Culture: Creating and Sustaining a Better Manufacturing Organization: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cefkin, Melissa 2012 Close Encounters: Anthropologists in the Corporate Arena. Journal of Business Anthropology 1(1):91-117.
— 2013 Ethnography and the Corporate Encounter: Reflections on Research in and of Corporations. Volume 5: Berghahn Books.
Chernela, Janet M 2005 UN Policy: Protecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Anthropology News 46(6):14-14.
Cheung, Sidney CH, and Eric KW Ma 2005 Advertising Modernity: Home, Space and Privacy 1. Visual Anthropology 18(1):65-80.
Clancey, William J 2012 Working on Mars: Voyages of Scientific Discovery with the Mars Exploration Rovers: MIT Press.
Clancey, William J. 1999 Visualizing Practical Knowledge: The Haughton-Mars Project. Munich 3rd Millennium Conference on Knowledge and Visualization, Munich, Germany, 1999.
— 2000 Human Exploration Ethnography of the Haughton-Mars Project 1998-99. Computational Sciences Division. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
— 2001 Field Science Ethnography: Methods for Systematic Observation on an Expedition. Field Methods 13(3):223-243.
— 2003 Principles for Integrating Mars Analog Science, Operations, and Technology Research. In Workshop on Analog Sites and Facilities for the Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
— 2006 Participant Observation of a Mars Surface Habitat Mission Simulation. Habitation 11(1):27-47.
Clancey, William J. et al. 2006a To the north coast of Devon: Collaborative navigation while exploring unfamiliar terrain. American Astronautical Society Science and Technology 111:197-226.
Clancey, William J. et al. 2006b Cognitive Modeling of Social Behaviors. In Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. . R. Sun, ed: New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Marc M 1990 Designing Space Habitats for Human Productivity. Ann Arbor 1001:48109.
Coleman, E Gabriella 2010 Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:487-505.
Collins, Samuel Gerald 2003 Sail On! Sail On!: Anthropology, Science Fiction, and the Enticing Future. Science Fiction Studies:180-198.
Compton, W. David, and Charles D. Benson 2011 Living and working in space: A history of Skylab. Volume 4208. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
Cornfield, Daniel B, and Teresa A Sullivan 1983 Fieldwork in the oligopoly: Protecting the corporate subject. Human Organization 42(3):258-263.
Dawson, Steven J, John E Roesch, and Amaury Solignac 2004 Human Factors Studies for a Mars Expedition Martian Expedition Planning, 2004. Vol. 1.
De La Torre, Gabriel G. et al. 2012 Future perspectives on space psychology: Recommendations on psychosocial and neurobehavioural aspects of human spaceflight. Acta Astronautica 81(2):587.
Delgado, Laura M. 2011 When inspiration fails to inspire: A change of strategy for the US space program. Space Policy 27(2):94-98.
Dick, Steven J. 2006 Anthropology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: An Historical View. Anthropology Today 22(2):3-7.
Drazin, Adam 2013 Design Anthropology: Working on, with and for Digital Technologies. Digital Anthropology:245.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, and Finn Sivert Nielsen 2001 A history of anthropology: Pluto Press Londres.
Escobar, Arturo et al. 1994 Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture. Current Anthropology:211-231.
Finney, Ben 1992 Space Migrations: Anthropology and the Humanization of Space Resources 4:164-188.
Fraser, T. M. 1968 The Intangibles of Habitability During Long Duration Space Missions: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
Fraser, Thomas Morris 1966 The effects of confinement as a factor in manned space flight. NASA CR-511. NASA contractor report. NASA CR. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration:1-176.
Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras 2013 Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian 9.
Gregg, Melissa, and Gregory J Seigworth 2010 The affect theory reader: Duke University Press.
Hall, Edward Twitchell, and Edward T Hall 1969 The hidden dimension. Volume 1990: Anchor Books New York.
Handberg, Roger, and Joan Johnson-Freese 1997 The return of the American military to crewed spaceflight: Hypersonic and other visions. Space Policy 13(4):295-304.
Harris, P.R. 1996 Living and working in space: human behaviour, culture, and organization. New York: Praxis Publishing.
Harris, Philip R. 1995 The impact of culture on human and space development—New millennial challenge. Acta Astronautica 36(7):399-408.
— 1999 Millenium Challenges for Living and Working in Space. In International Jubilee Symposium: Learned Coucil of SAI.
Heemskerk, Marieke 2003 Scenarios in anthropology: Reflections on possible futures of the Suriname Maroons. Futures 35(9):931-949.
Hersch, Matthew H. 2011 Return of the Lost Spaceman: America's Astronauts in Popular Culture, 1959–2006. The Journal of Popular Culture 44(1):73-92.
Horst, Heather A, and Daniel Miller 2013 Digital anthropology: A&C Black.
Ingold, Tim 1986 Evolution and social life: CUP Archive.
Jordan, Ann T 2010 The Importance of Business Anthropology: Its Unique Contributions. International Journal of Business Anthropology 1(1).
Jordan, Brigitte
2009 Blurring Boundaries: The" Real" and the" Virtual" in Hybrid Spaces. Human Organization 68(2):181-193.
Kanas, Nick 1998 Psychosocial issues affecting crews during long-duration international space missions. Acta Astronautica 42(1):339-361.
— 2004 Group Interactions During Space Missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75(Supplement 1):C3-C5.
— 2005 Interpersonal Issues in Space: Shuttle/Mir and Beyond. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(Supplement 1):B126-B134.
Kanas Nick et al. 2007 Crewmember and Mission Control Personnel Interactions During International Space Station Missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 78(6):601-607.
Kanas, Nick, and Jennifer Ritsher 2005a Leadership issues with multicultural crews on the international space station: lessons learned from Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica 56(9):932-936.
— 2005b Psychosocial Issues During a Mars Mission. In Space Exploration Conference: Continuing the Voyage of Discovery. Pp. 1-5.
Kanas, Nick et al. 2002 Psychosocial Research on the International Space Station: Special Privacy Considerations. IAF abstracts, 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 2002. Vol. 1, pp. 168.
Kanas, Nick et al. 2009 Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica 64(7):659-677.
Kanas, Nick et al. 2010 High versus low crewmember autonomy in space simulation environments. Acta Astronautica 67(7–8):731-738.
Kaptelinin, Victor, and Bonnie A. Nardi 2006 Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Kasper, Debbie V. S. 2005 The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy. Sociological Forum 20(1):69-92.
Kelly, Alan D, and Nick Kanas
1994 Leisure time activities in space: a survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Acta Astronautica 32(6):451-457.
Kent, Susan 1993 Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study: Cambridge University Press.
Lane, Helen and L. Daniel 2002 Habitability and Environmental Factors:the Future of Closed-Environment Tests. In Isolation - NASA Experiments in Closed-Environment Living Advanced Human Life Support Enclosed System. R.L.S. Helen W. Lane, and Daniel L. Feeback, ed. Pp. 419-451. Science and Technology Series. San Diego: American Astronautical Society.
Lane, Helen W., Richard L. Sauer, and Daniel L. Feeback, eds. 2002 Isolation: NASA Experiments in Closed-Environment Living: Advanced Human Life Support Enclosed System Final Report. Volume 104. San Diego, California: American Astronautical Society.
Launius, Roger D. 2003 Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight. Space Policy 19(3):163-175.
Laurel, Brenda 2003 Design research: Methods and perspectives: MIT press.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press.
Linde, Charlotte 2006 Learning from the Mars Rover Mission: scientific discovery, learning and memory. Journal of Knowledge Management 10(2):90-102.
Logsdon, John M. 1984 U. S.-European Cooperation in Space Science: A 25-Year Perspective. Science 223(4631):11-16.
— 2002 The Development of International Space Cooperation. In Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program. J.M. Logsdon, ed. Pp. 1-57, Vol. 1: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society.
Margulis, Stephen T 1977 Conceptions of privacy: Current status and next steps. Journal of Social Issues 33(3):5-21.
— 2003a On the status and contribution of Westin's and Altman's theories of privacy. Journal of Social Issues 59(2):411-429.
— 2003b Privacy as a social issue and behavioral concept. Journal of Social Issues 59(2):243-261.
Martinez, Vera 2007 Architecture for space habitats. Role of architectural design in planning artificial environment for long time manned space missions. Acta Astronautica 60(4–7):588-593.
Maruyama, Magoroh 1978 Toward human futuristics. Cultures of the future:33.
Mazzarella, William 2009 Affect: What is it good for? In Enchantments of modernity: Empire, nation, globalization. S. Dube, ed. Pp. 291-309: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Michel, Ralf, ed. 2007 Design research now: Essays and selected projects: Birkhäuser.
Miller, Daniel 1987 Material culture and mass consumption.
Miller, Daniel, and Heather Horst 2012 The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital anthropology. Digital Anthropology.
Ming, D. W., Hurlbert, K M., Kirby, G., Lewis, J.F., O'Rear, P. 1997 Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project, Phase II: Human Factors and Crew Interactions. NASA.
Moore, Barrington 1984 Privacy: Studies in social and cultural history: ME Sharpe Armonk^ eNY NY.
Myasnikov, Vyacheslav I, Sergey Vasilyevich Bronnikov, and Oleg Igorovich Zhdanov 2004 Psychological Analysis and Monitoring of Crew Performance. In Space biology and medicine. L.F. Dietlein and I.D. Pestov, eds. Pp. 227-240: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Joint U.S./Russian Publication.
Myasnikov, Vyacheslav I, and Iltuzar S Zamaletdinov 1996 Psychological states and group interactions of crew members in flight. In Space biology and medicine. C.S.L. Huntoon, V.V. Antipov, and A.I. Grigoriev, eds. Pp. 419-432.
Humans in Spaceflight: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Joint U.S./Russian Publication.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 2009 Net Habitable Volume Verification Method. S.L.S. Directorate, ed: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
— 2010a 2011 NASA Strategic Plan.
— 2010b Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH).
— 2011 NASA Space Flight Human-System Standard Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, And Environmental Health. Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health
— 2013 NASA’s FY 2014 Management and Performance.
2013b History of Women in Space. —
2014 Human Research Roadmap. H.R. Program, ed. http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/.
Newell, A. F. et al. 2010 User-Sensitive Inclusive Design. Universal Access in the Information Society 10(3):235-243.
Olsen, Jon C, and Brad R Sabin 2003 Emergency department patient perceptions of privacy and confidentiality. The Journal of emergency medicine 25(3):329-333.
Olson, Valerie A. 2010 American extreme: An ethnography of astronautical visions and ecologies Dissertation, Cultural Anthropology, Rice University.
Oppenheim, R. 2007 Actor-network theory and anthropology after science, technology, and society. Anthropological Theory 7(4):471-493.
Palinkas, Lawrence A. 1989 Sociocultural influences on psychosocial adjustment in Antarctica. Medical anthropology 10(4):235-246.
— 1990 Psychosocial Effects of Adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for Long-Duration Spaceflight. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets\ 27(5):471-477.
— 2001 Psychosocial Issues In Long-Term Space Flight Overview.
— 2003 The psychology of isolated and confined environments. Understanding human behavior in Antarctica. The American psychologist 58(5):353-363.
— 2010 Coming out of the cold and stepping into the light: human adaptation in high latitude environments. International journal of circumpolar health 69(3):214.
Palinkas, Lawrence A., Charlene A. Allred, and John A. Landsverk 2005 Models of Research-Operational Collaboration for Behavioral Health in Space. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(Supplement 1):B52-B52.
Palinkas, Lawrence A. et al. 2011 Psychosocial Characteristics of Optimum Performance in Isolated and Confined Environments: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
Palinkas, Lawrence A., and Peter Suedfeld 2008 Psychological effects of polar expeditions. The Lancet 371(9607):153-163.
Pass, Jim 2006 The Astrosociology of Space Colonies: Or the Social Construction of Societies in Space. AIP Conference Proceedings 813(1):1153-1161.
— 2007a Enhancing Space Exploration by Adding Astrosociology to the STEM Model. In AIAA Space. Long Beach, CA.
— 2007b Moon Bases as Initial ``Space Society'' Trials: Utilizing Astrosociology to Make Space Settlements Livable. AIP Conference Proceedings 880(1):806-813.
Paul, F. U. John et al. 2010 Interpersonal Behavior in an Isolated and Confined Environment. Environment and Behavior 42(5):707-717.
Perlroth, Nicole, Jeff Larson, and Scott Shane 2013 NSA able to foil basic safeguards of privacy on web. The New York Times A 1.
Perner, Chris, and William Langdoc 1994 Design of Interior Areas. In Space biology and medicine. F.M. Sulzman and A.M. Genin, eds. Pp. 139-165. Life Support and Habitability: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Joint U.S./Russian Publication.
Petrov, Georgi I., Kat S. Park, and Constance M. Adams
2010 Optimization of Inflatable Spacecraft Interior Volume Using Constraints Driven Design. In 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Power, E Michael 2007 Developing a culture of privacy: A case study. Security & Privacy, IEEE 5(6):58-60.
Psenka, Carolyn Elyse 2009 A monumental task: Translating complex knowledge in NASA's human space flight network Dissertation, Cultural Anthropology, Wayne State University.
Quinn, Bradley, and Helen Storey 2011 Design Futures by Bradley Quinn.
Rabinow, Paul, and George Marcus 2008 Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary: Duke University Press.
Reagan, Marcum et al. 2012 NASA's Analog Missions: Driving Exploration Through Innovative Testing.
Redfield, Peter 2002 The Half-Life of Empire in Outer Space. Social Studies of Science 32(5-6):791-825.
Redström, Johan 2008 RE:Definitions of use. Design Studies 29(4):410-423.
Riner, Reed D 1987 Doing futures research—anthropologically. Futures 19(3):311-328.
Ritsher, Jennifer Boyd 2005 Cultural factors and the International Space Station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(6):135-144.
Roach, Mary 2011a Life in a Box: Psychology of Isolation and Confinement. In Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void. Pp. 41-62. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
— 2011b Next Gas: 200,000 Miles: Simulated Mars Expedition. In Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void. Pp. 173-190. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Roberts, John Milton, and Thomas A Gregor 1971 Privacy: A cultural view: Cornell University, Latin American Studies Program.
Rothstein, Mark A, Betsy D Gelb, and Steven G Craig
1998 Protecting genetic privacy by permitting employer access only to job-related employee medical information: analysis of a unique Minnesota law. Am. JL & Med. 24:399.
Sawin, Charles and Gerald Taylor, Wanda Smith 1999 Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project: Final Report 1989-1995. NASA Space & Life Sciences JSC.
Schensul, Stephen L., Jean J. Schensul, and Margaret D. LeCompte 1999 Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. Volume Vol. 2: AltaMira Press.
Simon, Matthew, Deborah Neubek, and Alexandra Whitmire 2012 Factors Impacting Habitable Volume Requirements for Long Duration Missions. In Global Space Exploration Conference.
Simon, Matthew et al. 2011 Factors Impacting Habitable Volume Requirements: Results from the 2011 Habitable Volume Workshop. C.f.A.S.S.-U.S.R. Association, ed: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
Skeggs, Beverley 1999 Matter out of place: Visibility and sexualities in leisure spaces. Leisure studies 18(3):213-232.
Squires, Susan, and B. Byrne., eds. 2002 Creating breakthrough ideas: The collaboration of anthropologists and designers in the product development industry. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Squires, Susan, and Michael L Van De Vanter 2013 Communities of Practice. In A Companion to Organizational Anthropology. D.D. Caulkins and A.T. Jordan, eds. Pp. 289-310: John Wiley & Sons.
Stuster, Jack W. 1986 Space station habitability recommendations based on a systematic comparative analysis of analogous conditions. In NASA contractor report. Washington, DC
Springfield, Va.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. —
1996 Bold Endeavors : Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press.
—
1998 Human and Team Performance in Extreme Environments: Antarctica. Human Performance in Extreme Environments: the Journal of the Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments 3(1):117-120.
— 2000 Bold Endeavors: Behavioral Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin 13(2).
— 2005 Analogue Prototypes for Lunar and Mars Exploration. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(6):B78-83.
— 2010a Acceptable Risk. Journal of Cosmology 12(October - December 2010).
— 2010b Behavioral Issues Associated with Long-Duration Space Expeditions: Review and Analysis of Astronaut Journals Experiment 01-E104 (Journals): Final Report. NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
Stuster, Jack W., C. Bachelard, and P. Suedfeld 1999 In the Wake of the Astrolabe: Review and Analysis of Diaries Maintained by the Leaders and Physicians at French Remote-Duty Stations. Santa Barbara, California: Anacapa Sciences Inc.
Valentine, David, Valerie A. Olson, and Debbora Battaglia 2009 Encountering the Future: Anthropology and Outer Space. Anthropology News 50(9):11-15.
Vann, Philip Singer 1975 Extraterrestrial Communities - Cultural, Legal, Political and Ethical Considerations In Cultures Beyond the Earth: The Role of Anthropology in Outer Space M.a.A.H. Maruyama, ed. Pp. 83-101. New York: Vintage Books.
Vaughan, Diane 1996 Risk, Work Group Culture, and the Normalization of Deviance. In The Challenger Launch Decision. Pp. 77-118. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Warren, Samuel D, and Louis D Brandeis 1890 The right to privacy. Harvard law review:193-220.
Wasson, Christina 2000 Ethnography in the Field of Design. Human Organization 59(4):377-388.
— 2004 Multitasking during virtual meetings. Human resource planning 27(4):47-60.
Wasson, Christina, Mary Odell Butler, and Jacqueline Copeland-Carson 2012 Applying anthropology in the global village: Left Coast Press.
Werner, Balogh 2011 Capacity building in space technology development: A new initiative within the United Nations programme on space applications. Space Policy 27(3):180-183.
Wescott, Roger 1975 Toward an Extraterrestrial Anthropology. In Cultures Beyond the Earth: The Role of Anthropology in Outer Space M.a.A.H. Maruyama, ed. Pp. 12-26. New York: Vintage Books.
Westin, Alan F 1968 Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review 25(1):166.
— 1979 The Dimensions of Privacy: A National Opinion Research Survey of Attitudes Toward Privacy.
Whitmire, Alexandra M. et al. 2009 Risk of Performance Errors due to Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, Fatigue, and Work Overload. Human Health and Performance Risks of Space Exploration Missions: Evidence Reviewed by the NASA Human Research Program:85-117.
Whitmore, Mihriban et al. 1998 Habitability and Performance Issues for Long Duration Space Flights. Human Performance in Extreme Environments: The Journal of the Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments 3(1): 64-74.
— 2013 Evidence Report: Risk of Incompatible Vehicle/Habitat Design. Human Factors and Human Research Program, eds. Houston, Texas: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
Woods, Brian 2009 A political history of NASA's space shuttle: the development years, 1972-1982. In Space Travel and Culture: From Apollo to Space Tourism. M.P.a.D. Bell, ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, The Sociological Review.