Crew 228 Science Report October 4th

Jin Sia, HSO

Science Report

Lindsay:

Today, Lindsay continued to investigate reddish-brown regolith she
collected from five locations along the slopes of the Jotunheim
structure, an inverted river bed located approximately two kilometers
North of the HAB at 38.41712 N, -110.78466 W (NAD27). The regolith
were collected from the same geographical feature sampled by Maggiori
et al. (2020), who confirmed the presences of microbes from all three
kingdoms of life, including extremophiles that could potentially
survive the harsh elements of the Martian environment, such as
psychrophiles, halophiles, and UV-resistant microorganisms. In the
ScienceDome, Lindsay began to extract DNA using a Soil DNA Isolation
Plus Kit (Product #64000, Norgen Biotek Corp) and will then prepare
the DNA samples into libraries using the Field Sequencing Kit
(SQK-LRK001, Oxford Nanopore Technology). To simulate the lack of
state of the art facilities in the rudimentary Martian science labs,
she used human power to lyse the cells instead of using
micro-centrifuge or vortexes. Her protocol will take much longer than
usual and she will assess how this alternative process will affect the
yield of the DNA.

She will then use the handheld DNA sequencer MinION to basecall and
sequence the libraries and the MinKNOW software to perform
metagenomics analyses on the reads from the MinION. Overall, this
process will allow Lindsay to identify what organisms, if any, are
present in the regolith samples. She aims to validate the findings of
Maggiori et al. (2020), only now conducting the complete experimental
process from regolith sample collection to metagenomics analysis while
undergoing planetary exploration simulation at MDRS, all as a
proof-of-concept that metagenomics studies can be completed in-situ in
this remote environment.

Lindsay investigated alternate methods of separating DNA from the
regolith by density. She hopes to be able to use the micro-centrifuge
for this separation if possible, as separating the components at 1 g
seems to be too slow.

Jin:

Jin analyzed his data collected from the radio blackout/view shed
calculation investigation EVA today. A detailed explanation is
available in the EVA #5 report.

Inga:

I am studying small mixed gender crew interactions. There is no
significant gender difference in task performance and physical
adaptation in isolated, confined, and extreme environments (Harm et
al. 2001; Kanas and Manzey 2008; Mark et al. 2014). Mixed-gender crews
are praised as more efficient, cohesive, and with overall better team
climate than men-only teams. But at the same time gender differences
are recognized as a source of additional tension in a crew (Bishop
2004; Kahn and Leon 2000; Kring and Kaminski 2012; Leon 1991, 2005).
In my dissertation I aim to investigate gender inequality and
differences from a socio-structural point of view in order to help to
send a well-functioning group of women and men to Mars.

The first two chapters of the dissertation use reports from the
previous MDRS crews. In Chapter 1 I use multilevel generalized
regression models to show that women on average participate in six
percentage points less EVAs than men (p<.05) controlling for their
crew role, education, previous analog experience, number of women in
the crew, and commanders’ gender. A paper based on this chapter is
accepted for publication at the Journal of Human Performance in
Extreme Environments.

Chapter 2 utilizes commanders’ reports from 2009-2016 and looks at
communal and agentic aspects of leadership behavior. Sentiment
analysis results showed that female commanders are statistically
significantly (p<.001) more positive in their reports than their male
counterparts. Qualitative analysis results demonstrated that both male
and female commanders are agentic, but male commanders talked more
about maintenance issues, and did it in a more negative tone in
comparison to female commanders. Commanders of both genders were
communal, but male commanders focused on crew cohesion in terms of
team spirit, and women emphasized mutual support. Proportional word
frequencies confirmed that commanders of both genders are agentic, but
women tend to use more general terms and men use more specific terms
in their reports. Female commanders used more communal words than male
commanders. Overall, the results are in line with previous social role
theory research and show that commanders of both genders are agentic
(but with granular differences), and female commanders tend to be more
communal. This paper is currently under peer review.

Currently at MDRS I collect ethnographic (participant observation)
data for the last chapter of my dissertation. In addition to rich
original data, this chapter will provide context to the rest of the
project.

And last but not least, crew 228 is helping me to pilot a future
journal study of emotion and emotion management. A significant body of
empirical psychological research on mixed-gender crews in space analog
environments reaffirm gender stereotypes: women are more
other-oriented and care more about the well-being of others, and men
are more individualistic and competitive (Bishop et al. 2010; Kahn and
Leon 2000; Leon 2005). Emotional behavior in this line of research is
seen as an intrinsic part of a personality. I approach emotions and
emotion management as aspects of a social structure. Emotional
behavior is closely intertwined with an individual’s gender and
status. Emotion management is a conscious attempt to align one’s
emotions with situational emotion rules (Hochschild 1983). This future
study will examine emotion management and unwritten emotion rules in
space analog environments.

References:

Bishop, Sheryl L. 2004. “Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments:
From Issues to Answers.” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine
75(Suppl 7):C14-21.

Bishop, Sheryl L., Ryan Kobrick, Melissa Battler, and Kim Binsted.
2010. “FMARS 2007: Stress and Coping in an Arctic Mars Simulation.”
Acta Astronautica 66(9):1353–67. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.11.008.

Harm, Deborah, Richard Jennings, Janice Meck, Michael Powell, Lakshmi
Putcha, Clarence Sams, Suzanne Shneider, Linda Shackelford, Scott
Smith, and Peggy Whitson. 2001. “Genome and Hormones: Gender
Differences in Physiology. Invited Review: Gender Issues Related to
Space Flight in NASA Perspecitve.” Journal of Applied Psychology
(91):2374–83.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization
of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kahn, P., and G. Leon. 2000. “Group Climate & Individual Functioning
in an All-Women Antarctic Expedition Team.” Journal of Human
Performance in Extreme Environments 5(1). doi: 10.7771/2327-2937.1005.

Kanas, Nick, and Dietrich Manzey. 2008. Space Psychology and
Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kring, Jason P., and Megan A. Kaminski. 2012. “Gender Composition and
Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration Space Missions.” in On Orbit and
Beyond: Psychological Perspectives on Human Spaceflight, edited by D.
A. Vakoch. Springer Science & Business Media.

Leon, G. R. 2005. “Men and Women in Space.” Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 76(6 Suppl):B84-8.

Leon, Gloria R. 1991. “Individual and Group Process Characteristics of
Polar Expedition Teams.” Environment and Behavior 23(6):723–48. doi:
10.1177/0013916591236005.

Maggiori, Catherine, Jessica Stromberg, Yolanda Blanco, Jacqueline
Goordial, Edward Cloutis, Miriam García-Villadangos, Victor Parro, and
Lyle Whyte. 2020. “The Limits, Capabilities, and Potential for Life
Detection with MinION Sequencing in a Paleochannel Mars Analog.”
Astrobiology 20(3):375–93. doi: 10.1089/ast.2018.1964.

Mark, Saralyn, Graham B. I. Scott, Dorit B. Donoviel, Lauren B.
Leveton, Erin Mahoney, John B. Charles, and Bette Siegel. 2014. “The
Impact of Sex and Gender on Adaptation to Space: Executive Summary.”
Journal of Women’s Health (2002) 23(11):941–47. doi:
10.1089/jwh.2014.4914.

Science Report Oct 03rd

Science Report 03OCT2021

Crew Scientist / GreenHab Officer Inga Popovaite

Science Report

Lindsay:

Today, Lindsay continued to investigate reddish-brown regolith she collected from five locations along the slopes of the Jotunheim structure, an inverted river bed located approximately two kilometers North of the HAB at 38.41712 N, -110.78466 W (NAD27). The regolith were collected from the same geographical feature sampled by Maggiori et al. (2020), who confirmed the presences of microbes from all three kingdoms of life, including extremophiles that could potentially survive the harsh elements of the Martian environment, such as psychrophiles, halophiles, and UV-resistant microorganisms. In the ScienceDome, Lindsay began to extract DNA using a Soil DNA Isolation Plus Kit (Product #64000, Norgen Biotek Corp) and will then prepare the DNA samples into libraries using the Field Sequencing Kit (SQK-LRK001, Oxford Nanopore Technology). To simulate the lack of state of the art facilities in the rudimentary martian science labs, she used human power to lyse the cells instead of using micro-centrifuge or vortexes. Her protocol will take much longer than usual and she will assess how this alternative process will affect the yield of the DNA.

She will then use the handheld DNA sequencer MinION to basecall and sequence the libraries and the MinKNOW software to perform metagenomics analyses on the reads from the MinION. Overall, this process will allow Lindsay to identify what organisms, if any, are present in the regolith samples. She aims to validate the findings of Maggiori et al. (2020), only now conducting the complete experimental process from regolith sample collection to metagenomics analysis while undergoing planetary exploration simulation at MDRS, all as a proof-of-concept that metagenomics studies can be completed in-situ in this remote environment. Lidsay began to extract DNA from her samples.

Jin:

Jin came with a plan to test software predictions of potential radio blackout spots using viewshed analysis. Crew 228 plans an EVA tomorrow to test this.

Inga:

As the lead author of today’s report I want to tell more about my study in general. I am studying small mixed gender crew interactions. There is no significant gender difference in task performance and physical adaptation in isolated, confined, and extreme environments (Harm et al. 2001; Kanas and Manzey 2008; Mark et al. 2014). Mixed-gender crews are praised as more efficient, cohesive, and with overall better team climate than men-only teams. But at the same time gender differences are recognized as a source of additional tension in a crew (Bishop 2004; Kahn and Leon 2000; Kring and Kaminski 2012; Leon 1991, 2005). In my dissertation I aim to investigate gender inequality and differences from a socio-tructural point of view in order to help to send a well-functioning group of women and men to Mars.

The first two chapters of the dissertation use reports from the previous MDRS crews. In Chapter 1 I use multilevel generalized regression models to show that women on average participate in six percentage points less EVAs than men (p<.05) controlling for their crew role, education, previous analog experience, number of women in the crew, and commanders’ gender. A paper based on this chapter is accepted for publication at the Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments.

Chapter 2 utilizes commanders’ reports from 2009-2016 and looks at communal and agentic aspects of leadership behavior. Sentiment analysis results showed that female commanders are statistically significantly (p<.001) more positive in their reports than their male counterparts. Qualitative analysis results demonstrated that both male and female commanders are agentic, but male commanders talked more about maintenance issues, and did it in a more negative tone in comparison to female commanders. Commanders of both genders were communal, but male commanders focused on crew cohesion in terms of team spirit, and women emphasized mutual support. Proportional word frequencies confirmed that commanders of both genders are agentic, but women tend to use more general terms and men use more specific terms in their reports. Female commanders used more communal words than male commanders. Overall, the results are in line with previous social role theory research and show that commanders of both genders are agentic (but with granular differences), and female commanders tend to be more communal. This paper is currently under peer review.

Currently at MDRS I collect ethnographic (participant observation) data for the last chapter of my dissertation. In addition to rich original data, this chapter will provide context to the rest of the project.

And last but not least, crew 228 is helping me to pilot a future journal study of emotion and emotion management. A significant body of empirical psychological research on mixed-gender crews in space analog environments reaffirm gender stereotypes: women are more other-oriented and care more about the wellbeing of others, and men are more individualistic and competitive (Bishop et al. 2010; Kahn and Leon 2000; Leon 2005). Emotional behavior in this line of research is seen as an intrinsic part of a personality. I approach emotions and emotion management as aspects of a social structure. Emotional behavior is closely intertwined with an individual’s gender and status. Emotion management is a conscious attempt to align one’s emotions with situational emotion rules (Hochschild 1983). This future study will examine emotion management and unwritten emotion rules in space analog environments.

References:

Bishop, Sheryl L. 2004. “Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments: From Issues to Answers.” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 75(Suppl 7):C14-21.

Bishop, Sheryl L., Ryan Kobrick, Melissa Battler, and Kim Binsted. 2010. “FMARS 2007: Stress and Coping in an Arctic Mars Simulation.” Acta Astronautica 66(9):1353–67. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.11.008.

Harm, Deborah, Richard Jennings, Janice Meck, Michael Powell, Lakshmi Putcha, Clarence Sams, Suzanne Shneider, Linda Shackelford, Scott Smith, and Peggy Whitson. 2001. “Genome and Hormones: Gender Differences in Physiology. Invited Review: Gender Issues Related to Space Flight in NASA Perspective.” Journal of Applied Psychology (91):2374–83.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kahn, P., and G. Leon. 2000. “Group Climate & Individual Functioning in an All-Women Antarctic Expedition Team.” Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments 5(1). doi: 10.7771/2327-2937.1005.

Kanas, Nick, and Dietrich Manzey. 2008. Space Psychology and Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kring, Jason P., and Megan A. Kaminski. 2012. “Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration Space Missions.” in On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological Perspectives on Human Spaceflight, edited by D. A. Vakoch. Springer Science & Business Media.

Leon, G. R. 2005. “Men and Women in Space.” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(6 Suppl):B84-8.

Leon, Gloria R. 1991. “Individual and Group Process Characteristics of Polar Expedition Teams.” Environment and Behavior 23(6):723–48. doi: 10.1177/0013916591236005.

Maggiori, Catherine, Jessica Stromberg, Yolanda Blanco, Jacqueline Goordial, Edward Cloutis, Miriam García-Villadangos, Victor Parro, and Lyle Whyte. 2020. “The Limits, Capabilities, and Potential for Life Detection with MinION Sequencing in a Paleochannel Mars Analog.” Astrobiology 20(3):375–93. doi: 10.1089/ast.2018.1964.

Mark, Saralyn, Graham B. I. Scott, Dorit B. Donoviel, Lauren B. Leveton, Erin Mahoney, John B. Charles, and Bette Siegel. 2014. “The Impact of Sex and Gender on Adaptation to Space: Executive Summary.” Journal of Women’s Health (2002) 23(11):941–47. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4914.

Crew 228 Science Report – October 2nd

Lindsay Rutter

Today, Lindsay prepared the ScienceDome to investigate reddish-brown regolith she collected from five locations along the slopes of the Jotunheim structure, an inverted river bed located approximately two kilometers North of the HAB at 38.41712 N, -110.78466 W (NAD27). The regolith were collected from the same geographical feature sampled by Maggiori et al. (2020), who confirmed the presences of microbes from all three kingdoms of life, including extremophiles that could potentially survive the harsh elements of the Martian environment, such as psychrophiles, halophiles, and UV-resistant microorganisms. In the ScienceDome, Lindsay is beginning to extract DNA using a Soil DNA Isolation Plus Kit (Product #64000, Norgen Biotek Corp) and will then prepare the DNA samples into libraries using the Field Sequencing Kit (SQK-LRK001, Oxford Nanopore Technology). She will then use the handheld DNA sequencer MinION to basecall and sequence the libraries and the MinKNOW software to perform metagenomics analyses on the reads from the MinION. Overall, this process will allow Lindsay to identify what organisms, if any, are present in the regolith samples. She aims to validate the findings of Maggiori et al. (2020), only now conducting the complete experimental process from regolith sample collection to metagenomics analysis while undergoing planetary exploration simulation at MDRS, all as a proof-of-concept that metagenomics studies can be completed in-situ in this remote environment.

Jin recorded geographical data at each sampling site of the Jotunheim structure, including GPS coordinates, elevation, and sampling time. Today, he integrated the metadata into his digital GIS map of the area, confirming that the five regolith samples were obtained from relatively evenly-spaced sampling sites along the periphery of the Jotunheim feature. Jin and Lindsay discussed several areas for improvement on how the study could better simulate human operations of life detection experiments on Mars.

Inga is continuing data collection for the last part of her dissertation on group dynamics in extreme environments. She is conducting participant observation and aims to contribute to the sociological studies of groups in space and space-like environments. Her pilot study is also being diligently completed by each crew every night.

References:

Maggiori, C., Stromberg, J., Blanco, Y., Goordial, J., Cloutis, E., Garcı, M., Parro, V., & Whyte, L. (2020). The Limits, Capabilities,
and Potential for Life Detection. Astrobiology, 20(3), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.1964

Science Report – September 30th

Crew 228 Science Report 30Sep2021

Mission Commander Lindsay Rutter

Inga is continuing data collection for the last part of her dissertation on group interaction in space analog environments. She is conducting participant observation and aims to contribute to the sociological studies of groups in space and space-like environments. Her pilot study is also being diligently done by the crew every night.

Lindsay performed a practice collection of sample regolith surrounding the EVA destination today, Marble Ritual. She used sterilized gloves, spatula, and bags to do so and made notes of several operational areas of improvement. Namely, placing the collection items in the pocket closest to her shoes as the pocket on her torso is somewhat restricted by the straps of the EVA suit. She looks forward to collecting regolith surrounding Jotunheim, an inverted river channel to perform her metagenomics study.

Jin tested GPS navigation in the field using the GPS Essentials app on his smartphone. He was able to successfully obtain GPS fixes, track targets, and record waypoints in the phone’s storage for later use. This proves the viability of using smartphone GPS for recording geographical data in the field while shadowing scientific EVAs.

Science Report – September 29th

Crew 228 Science Report 29Sep2021

Crew Scientist / GreenHab Officer Inga Popovaite

Inga is continuing data collection for the last part of her dissertation on group interaction in space analog environments. She is conducting participant observation and aims to contribute to the sociological studies of groups in space and space-like environments

The crew started piloting data collection instrument for another sociological study of emotions and emotion management in space analog environments. It is a personal diary with daily prompts that asks the participant to reflect on the day’s events. The crew will continue daily journaling throughout the mission in order to give feedback and improve future participant experience.

Other science and research projects are to be started soon.

Science Report – September 28th

Crew 228 Science Report 28Sep2021
Crew Scientist / GreenHab Officer Inga Popovaite
Group Processes Study:

Continuing data collection for the study (University of Iowa IRB# 201911141) on small group interaction in space analog environments. This is an ethnographic study during which Inga Popovaite is documenting interactions between a group of people that live and work in a confined environment. It is the final part of her dissertation in which she examines group dynamics from socio structural perspective.

Other research projects:
Nothing to report.

Inga Popovaitė,

[end]

Science Report – September 28th

Crew 228 Science Report 28Sep2021
Crew Scientist / GreenHab Officer Inga Popovaite
Group Processes Study:
Continuing data collection for the study (University of Iowa IRB# 201911141) on small group interaction in space analog environments.
Other research projects:
Nothing to report.

Inga Popovaitė,

[end]

Science Report Apr 14th

Science Report 14-Apr-2021

· Extremophiles Research

o Collected 2 samples while on EVA, and samples stored in fridge in the Science Dome. Intended to collect 4 samples, so at a later date, a following EVA might need to return to the coordinates of this collection site.

· Hydroponic Garden

o Significant leaking from the compost and H2O (control) pipes. Monitoring with catch buckets underneath. Still unable to measure evaporation due to leak.

o Began to collect data on stalk height and root growth

o Green Hab heater to be turned on at approx. 5pm every evening with temperature set to 65F.

In addition, after this report is sent, Crew Botanist will be planting seeds this evening.

Olivia Ettlin & Julio Hernandez

Science Report – April 13th

Crew Scientist:

· Hydroponic garden completely assembled.

o Aeration system and pipes assembled and transported from RAM to the GreenHab

o Materials used from the RAM: gorilla glue, dewalt drill, hammer, razor blade, and needle-nosed pliers.

o Thermostat in the GreenHab set to 65 degrees F near 8:30pm

· Experimental steps completed today

o Calculated the amt of additives to be input into system.

o Administered additives (experimental variables: worm castings, BioLive fertilizers, compost biproducts)

· Troubleshooting

o Small leak at the ends of the pipes. Need to seal with caulking/ PVC pipe glue on Sol 4. Rate of evaporation may no longer be a feasible component to track unless leak can be sealed.

Crew Botanist:
Started to set up a botany experiment investigating the effect of different soil compositions on the growth of plants. The crew botanist recognized that there was a miscalculation for determining the group and population sizes. Namely, the weight fraction was used to calculate the quantities of different soil compositions instead of the volume fraction. If the problem was not corrected, the experimental group with increasing amount of martian regolith will decrease the overall volume of the "soil/regolith"; this would have meant that there would have been less material surrounding the seeds (and less potential nutrients). The crew botanist started to implement the fix but the completion of the work is rescheduled for tomorrow.

SH, XO
Red Planet People – MDRS Crew 245 "Team Patamars"To Mars and Beyond – For All!

Science Report – March 10th

Research report 10 March 2020

Crew 223

Submitted by Crew Scientist Marion Lebrun

1. LOAC and Weather Station:

Nothing to report. Everything is working as it should.

2. MegaARES:

Nothing to report. Everything is working as it should. We are waiting a bit longer to collect another round of data.

3. Solar oven:

The oven was taken outside a second time on sol 8. As the sun was not very bright, it only heated the 600mL of water from 12°C to 45°C during the EVA time of the day. Although the water was not as warm as the first time (due to the lack of sun light), Florian is satisfied with the collected data and the photos he took of the experiment.

4. BackPack and LCVG:

Nothing to report.

5. Foreign languages (Human Factors):

The experiment is now over (it ended on sol 7). I have noticed remarkable progress in communication within the pairs. All three teams managed to do their best performances on the last day although the LEGO model to build was the most complicated of all seven. When we come back to France, the videos and pictures taken will be sent to the Human Factors department of our school to be thoroughly analyzed.

6. Group collaboration (Human Factors):

The experiment started on sol 8. Two groups of 3 crew members play “Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes”: they have 5 minutes to defuse a bomb placed on a Martian rover. Two experts have the bomb defusing manual and need to communicate the information to the defuser who only sees the bomb screen. Just like the first experiment, this one aims at studying the communication within the teams, between the defuser and the experts. It is too early to collect relevant results.

7. Crew members’ individual planning display:

The display of the sol schedules and the hyperlink to access the available Internet data are now ready but we still cannot find a way to display a hyperlink giving direct access to Mission Support emails. This is the last thing Blandine and I would like to achieve by the end of the mission.

8. Relaxation and positive psychology (Human Factor):

Everything works well. The whole crew has been getting used to our daily relaxation time, it truly regulates our mood and gives us a bowl of positive energy to finish the day.

9. Music for plants (GreenHab):

Nothing to report. It is still too early to notice remarkable results.

10. Spirulina growth (GreenHab):

Nothing to report. Everything is working as it should, nothing new.

11. Aerospring (GreenHab):

Nothing to report.

12. Water consumption monitoring:

Aurelien realized what was wrong with the monitoring: it is the way the buttons that classify the different water usages are coded that needs to be changed. Other than that, everything else is working.

13. Supernova research:

No new observation due to bad weather but Florian still hopes the weather will improve in the next few days.