**3. Sociomapping the communication of the crew on a flight to Mars**

The sociomapping method allows to visually express mutual proximities (and distances) between individual teammates, military units, and crews [39, 50–52]. From a mathematical perspective, proximity is the degree of membership into the fuzzy set of people close to a specific member of the team. Various operational definitions are being used for the degree of membership, depending on the situation. Mutual proximity can be defined by the time spent on joint conversations, the volume of text or information, the average physical proximity, and many other characteristics. Most commonly, scales evaluating the mutual communication or cooperation in a given timeframe from a quantity and quality standpoint are used [52]. Such operationalized values of mutual proximity do not have to be symmetrical for two team members. Data about the validity, reliability, and time dependability is known and constantly being supplemented [52–55]. During the creation of sociomaps, the order of the closest to the furthest colleague is correlated for each team member in terms of the spatial distance ranked by the closest to the furthest according to the degree of membership. The final sociomap is created by maximizing the average Spearman correlation coefficients calculated for each team member [51, 52, 56]. During sociomapping, the average values of the scales are being monitored using the control chart method, which allows to capture significant deviations over time [52, 57, 58]. In the HUBES experiment, it turned out [23] that sociometric tests were not sensitive enough, whereas the scales evaluating the cooperation allowed to capture the gradual development, which consisted in one crew member separating from the other two with a simultaneous decrease in communication (substantiated by analyses of actual communication). The aggregated score expressing the degree of subjectively and physiologically captured stress grew over time, particularly in the final quarter of the experiment [23, 50]. As (not only) the HUBES experiment showed, traditional sociometrical procedures consisting in the selection of the remaining crew members are not very suitable due to their lack of sensitivity to continuous changes, which is particularly important in long-term missions. For this reason, sociomapping was also used in the 90-day experiment ECOPSY-95, in which a three-member crew was expanded by another three-member crew over the course of the experiment. Thanks to sociomapping, it was possible to capture how both crews interconnected from a communication standpoint, particularly thanks to the communication between the two crew leaders [51, 59]. After the departure of the second crew, the original three-member crew returned to the initial composition, while one of the members remained relatively separated from the communication perspective. In the Mars-105 experiment, a flight to Mars was simulated throughout a 105-day stay of a six-member crew in a module of the MIR ship [52]. To monitor the communication, subjective scales were used again, including a five-point evaluation of changes in the communication frequency with individual crew members, for example, the communication in the last previous weeks decreased significantly – decreased slightly – stayed the same – increased slightly – increased significantly. In addition, it included a five-point evaluation of the required optimal change in communication frequency (a wish for a significant decrease – slight decrease – maintenance of the current state – slight increase – significant increase), a percentage evaluation of the quality of cooperation with

individual team members (0–100% scale), as well as an overall assessment of the team's performance and atmosphere (0–100% scale). The scales were supplemented by a question about the frequency of misunderstandings. All questions concerned the period from the previous measurement (i.e., approximately the prior 2 weeks). The following graph indicates the average values of the five-point scales of the perceived communication changes converted to the interval <0;1> for seven specific dates indicated by the administration (the whole experiment took place between March 31, 2009, and July 14, 2009). The value of 0.5 corresponds to constant, or stabilized, in terms of communication frequency (**Figure 1**).

Even though the communication frequency stabilized throughout the experiment, it is possible to capture significant changes in the percentage scales of the assessment of the mutual communication's quality, which match the fluctuations of the average percentage scales of the overall evaluation of the team's performance and atmosphere (**Figure 2**).

In the mutual assessment of the communication quality and in the overall evaluation of the team's performance and atmosphere, the minimum was reached in the administration on June 13, 2009, i.e., about two thirds into the experiment. The assessment of the performance and quality of communication were even lower at this point than it had been during the first administration. Furthermore, for this period, the highest number of misunderstandings was reported (only two out of six people indicated that no misunderstandings occurred in this period). In a personal account, the crew's leader commented on the worsening atmosphere, performance, and quality of communication. Among other factors, he considered fatigue, as well as the suggested improvement measures, which the crew submitted to the control center and which were not accepted according to their expectations, to have played a role. The deterioration of communication quality, captured on multiple levels, proves that it is possible to detect significant changes using a scaled assessment, even though the scales are test–retest reliable. The median of the test–retest correlation in this experiment was 0.8 [52]. While the average scale values may point to the fact that the communication overall is deviating from its norm, the sociomaps offer insight on an individual team member level. The following figures show sociomaps of the crew (including the displayed position of the control center) dated May 2, 2009, and May 9, 2009 (in this case, the time passed between the administration was only 7 days) (**Figures 3** and **4**).

As the description of sociomapping above implies, the closer two crew members are to each other, the more they communicate together. The whole team can be

**133**

center (CC).

**Figure 3.**

*Sociomap of Mars-105 crew (May 2, 2009).*

**Figure 2.**

*Average quality of cooperation.*

*Psychosocial Aspects of a Flight to Mars DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91021*

divided into subsets according to their mutual adhesion [50–52]. The blue arrows indicate a desired increase in communication (compared to the current level), while red arrows signify a wish for the decrease of communication. Colors stand for the average frequency of current communication for each crew member and control

The situation changed over the course of 7 days—person P2 is more connected with persons P3 and P4. The basis of the second subgroup is primarily the close relationship between P5 and P6, the only foreign (non-Russian) crew members. Following the Mars-105 experiment, the longest experiment to date took place, lasting 520 days—Mars-500, during which communication was also continuously monitored. Mars-500 simulated a flight to Mars in the full scale of its estimated 520-day duration [57, 60]. Sociomaps were continuously sent to the control center. The option of notifying the center about unusual or unexpected situations for possible intervention purposes was not utilized in this case, as the communication was relatively stable throughout the experiment, both in terms of quantity and quality.

**Figure 1.** *Average change in frequency of communications.*

*Psychosocial Aspects of a Flight to Mars DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91021*

*Mars Exploration - A Step Forward*

and atmosphere (**Figure 2**).

was only 7 days) (**Figures 3** and **4**).

*Average change in frequency of communications.*

individual team members (0–100% scale), as well as an overall assessment of the team's performance and atmosphere (0–100% scale). The scales were supplemented by a question about the frequency of misunderstandings. All questions concerned the period from the previous measurement (i.e., approximately the prior 2 weeks). The following graph indicates the average values of the five-point scales of the perceived communication changes converted to the interval <0;1> for seven specific dates indicated by the administration (the whole experiment took place between March 31, 2009, and July 14, 2009). The value of 0.5 corresponds to constant, or

Even though the communication frequency stabilized throughout the experiment, it is possible to capture significant changes in the percentage scales of the assessment of the mutual communication's quality, which match the fluctuations of the average percentage scales of the overall evaluation of the team's performance

In the mutual assessment of the communication quality and in the overall evaluation of the team's performance and atmosphere, the minimum was reached in the administration on June 13, 2009, i.e., about two thirds into the experiment. The assessment of the performance and quality of communication were even lower at this point than it had been during the first administration. Furthermore, for this period, the highest number of misunderstandings was reported (only two out of six people indicated that no misunderstandings occurred in this period). In a personal account, the crew's leader commented on the worsening atmosphere, performance, and quality of communication. Among other factors, he considered fatigue, as well as the suggested improvement measures, which the crew submitted to the control center and which were not accepted according to their expectations, to have played a role. The deterioration of communication quality, captured on multiple levels, proves that it is possible to detect significant changes using a scaled assessment, even though the scales are test–retest reliable. The median of the test–retest correlation in this experiment was 0.8 [52]. While the average scale values may point to the fact that the communication overall is deviating from its norm, the sociomaps offer insight on an individual team member level. The following figures show sociomaps of the crew (including the displayed position of the control center) dated May 2, 2009, and May 9, 2009 (in this case, the time passed between the administration

As the description of sociomapping above implies, the closer two crew members

are to each other, the more they communicate together. The whole team can be

stabilized, in terms of communication frequency (**Figure 1**).

**132**

**Figure 1.**

**Figure 2.** *Average quality of cooperation.*

**Figure 3.** *Sociomap of Mars-105 crew (May 2, 2009).*

divided into subsets according to their mutual adhesion [50–52]. The blue arrows indicate a desired increase in communication (compared to the current level), while red arrows signify a wish for the decrease of communication. Colors stand for the average frequency of current communication for each crew member and control center (CC).

The situation changed over the course of 7 days—person P2 is more connected with persons P3 and P4. The basis of the second subgroup is primarily the close relationship between P5 and P6, the only foreign (non-Russian) crew members. Following the Mars-105 experiment, the longest experiment to date took place, lasting 520 days—Mars-500, during which communication was also continuously monitored. Mars-500 simulated a flight to Mars in the full scale of its estimated 520-day duration [57, 60]. Sociomaps were continuously sent to the control center. The option of notifying the center about unusual or unexpected situations for possible intervention purposes was not utilized in this case, as the communication was relatively stable throughout the experiment, both in terms of quantity and quality.

The entire communication progress may be viewed dynamically based on individual sociomaps created in regular 14-day intervals (36 administrations in total). The simulated landing on Mars occurred in February 2011, when the team was separated into two subteams—a landing and orbital team. Control center is included (Video 1 can be viewed at https://bit.ly/2ENYzja).

Even though the average correlation between the values of subsequently occurring sections was high (the average scale value of the test–retest 14-day correlation was 0.785 for the current communication and 0.843 for the optimal communication), a decrease could be observed in some cases. The test–retest correlations for the 16th and 17th collection, which took place before and after the landing, were −0.005 and 0.117, respectively [60]. Since each of the six crew members expressed their opinion about the remaining five members in the relational questions, 30 values were gathered in total in the individual collections. The following graph (**Figure 5**) shows the differences in absolute values between the actual degree of communication expressed on a five-point scale and the optimal communication value.

**Figure 4.**

*Sociomap of Mars-105 crew (May 9, 2009).*

**135**

for 25 years [69].

**4. Conclusion**

*Psychosocial Aspects of a Flight to Mars DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91021*

*Aggregated sociomap of Mars-500 experiment.*

members (**Figure 6**).

**Figure 6.**

The most visible change occurred during the landing period. The occurrence of misunderstandings negatively correlated with the overall level of current communication (r = −0.33), while it positively correlated with the expressed wish for a communication change (r = 0.42). Besides creating partial sociomaps, it is possible to aggregate the sociomap data, as well as that from the derived sociomap, for an extended period. That way, it is even possible to aggregate all 36 data collections into one sociomap expressing the interconnectedness of the individual crew

The main linking factor among the crew members is person U, who is closer with pair R and S. The triplet U, R, and S, as well as G, E, and N, forms the Russian and non-Russian team subgroup, respectively. Communication within these subgroups is statistically higher than communication between (people from) both subgroups (p = 0.002, d = 1.28), which accentuates the importance of understanding linguistic and cultural aspects of communication and cooperation in crews. The Mars-500 experiment showed that this way of monitoring is sensitive enough (despite the high test–retest reliability of the scales) and that the crew can handle communication even in such long isolation periods without long-term deterioration. Based on our experience and research, we assume that monitoring alone can sensitize the crew to the importance of

communication and instigate possible attempts to change this communication.

The advantages of monitoring communication using sociomapping continue to be examined in other experiments simulating space flights [61–63]. The interventions' success is being researched experimentally and quasi-experimentally within work teams [53, 64–68]. The main source of our findings is all work teams we supported with sociomapping, some of which were being examined over the course of more than 3 years [52]. The second significant source is the usage of sociomaps in the Czech Army, where this method has been used in combat teams

From the experiments to date, which directly or indirectly simulate a flight to Mars, it can be deduced that psychosocial factors are critically important and their underestimation may even lead to a failure of the whole mission. Besides selecting

**Figure 5.** *Differences between current and optimal communication in Mars-500 experiment.*

*Psychosocial Aspects of a Flight to Mars DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91021*

*Mars Exploration - A Step Forward*

can be viewed at https://bit.ly/2ENYzja).

The entire communication progress may be viewed dynamically based on individual sociomaps created in regular 14-day intervals (36 administrations in total). The simulated landing on Mars occurred in February 2011, when the team was separated into two subteams—a landing and orbital team. Control center is included (Video 1

Even though the average correlation between the values of subsequently occurring sections was high (the average scale value of the test–retest 14-day correlation was 0.785 for the current communication and 0.843 for the optimal communication), a decrease could be observed in some cases. The test–retest correlations for the 16th and 17th collection, which took place before and after the landing, were −0.005 and 0.117, respectively [60]. Since each of the six crew members expressed their opinion about the remaining five members in the relational questions, 30 values were gathered in total in the individual collections. The following graph (**Figure 5**) shows the differences in absolute values between the actual degree of communica-

tion expressed on a five-point scale and the optimal communication value.

*Differences between current and optimal communication in Mars-500 experiment.*

**134**

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 4.**

*Sociomap of Mars-105 crew (May 9, 2009).*

The most visible change occurred during the landing period. The occurrence of misunderstandings negatively correlated with the overall level of current communication (r = −0.33), while it positively correlated with the expressed wish for a communication change (r = 0.42). Besides creating partial sociomaps, it is possible to aggregate the sociomap data, as well as that from the derived sociomap, for an extended period. That way, it is even possible to aggregate all 36 data collections into one sociomap expressing the interconnectedness of the individual crew members (**Figure 6**).

The main linking factor among the crew members is person U, who is closer with pair R and S. The triplet U, R, and S, as well as G, E, and N, forms the Russian and non-Russian team subgroup, respectively. Communication within these subgroups is statistically higher than communication between (people from) both subgroups (p = 0.002, d = 1.28), which accentuates the importance of understanding linguistic and cultural aspects of communication and cooperation in crews. The Mars-500 experiment showed that this way of monitoring is sensitive enough (despite the high test–retest reliability of the scales) and that the crew can handle communication even in such long isolation periods without long-term deterioration. Based on our experience and research, we assume that monitoring alone can sensitize the crew to the importance of communication and instigate possible attempts to change this communication.

The advantages of monitoring communication using sociomapping continue to be examined in other experiments simulating space flights [61–63]. The interventions' success is being researched experimentally and quasi-experimentally within work teams [53, 64–68]. The main source of our findings is all work teams we supported with sociomapping, some of which were being examined over the course of more than 3 years [52]. The second significant source is the usage of sociomaps in the Czech Army, where this method has been used in combat teams for 25 years [69].

## **4. Conclusion**

From the experiments to date, which directly or indirectly simulate a flight to Mars, it can be deduced that psychosocial factors are critically important and their underestimation may even lead to a failure of the whole mission. Besides selecting

suitable, stress-resistant individuals during the preflight phase, it is recommendable for the crew members to meet well in advance and for them to spend some time together in isolation before the actual flight. During this phase, it would be appropriate for the crew to be briefed with the issue at hand and with the usual development of the group dynamic, the methods that will help them capture it, and with the subsequent procedures of formulating a contract about what can be improved based on this data. We also recommend paying attention to a sensitization on cultural, linguistic, and gender aspects during the training and briefing prior to the actual flight. We also suggest for the team to familiarize itself with the way of conducting the debriefing, which improves its communication and performance. This is based not only on the meta-analysis, which showed a significant increase of the performance of teams that conduct debriefings [70], but also from the derived recommendations aimed specifically at space flights [71]. In the view of the communication delay between Earth and Mars, it is necessary to support the teams by leading them to conduct the debriefing based on an automated, structured protocol. For example, this could be sociomapping followed by a debate about how the communication is going and how it might be continuously improved. Throughout the mission, we recommend a regular monitoring of the communication with a possible discussion on improvement options. From time to time, the team "on Earth" should be included in such a discussion, so that this intervention can help strengthen the mutual ties and reduce the risks of possible displacement. Besides a debriefing, providing support or an intervention may also be considered in more difficult times. We also unequivocally suggest that the contact with close friends and relatives be available, which will decrease the sense of isolation. Monitoring communication using the sociomapping method will continue to be a part of the experiment in the Sirius project. After the Sirius 2017 [72] and Sirius 2019 experiments, the utilization of sociomapping is planned in the Sirius 2020 and 2021 experiments, as well. The team led by Kateřina Bernardová is now preparing not only a methodology of the measurement itself but also a methodology of team dynamic training and subsequent interventions similarly to the way the Czech Army has been using the system for the last 20 years [69].
