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 JonieAiken@gmail.com .

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.