Teamwork in the Vacuum of Space: The Team Processes Guiding Apollo Missions’ Collaborative Problem Solving

Abstract

As space missions venture beyond low-Earth orbit, adaptive team processes become vital to mission success. Using a team process framework, this study analyzed 60 problem-solving events from manned Apollo missions. Findings reveal differential cognitive and interpersonal behaviors across mission phases and problem criticality. Implications include the importance of contextualized training, fostering support behaviors, and developing autonomy-compatible protocols (e.g., AI scaffolds) to sustain team performance in future high-risk, communication-delayed environments.

Keywords

space teamwork team processes ICE problem solving

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

D. P.

Day

Salas

(2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41(4 Pt 2), 1576–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-6773.2006.00566.X

Bell

S. T.

Fisher

D. M.

Brown

S. G.

Mann

K. E.

(2018). An approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2740–2765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316653805

Bendell

Williams

Fiore

S. M.

Jentsch

(2024). Individual and team profiling to support theory of mind in artificial social intelligence. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 12635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63122-8

Burke

C. S.

Käosaar

Szabo

Shorey

Driskell

J. E.

(2024). The human side of long-duration space missions: A qualitative examination of astronauts’ interpersonal experiences. NASA Human Research Program Investigators’ Workshop (HRP IWS 2023).

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Salas

Pierce

Kendall

(2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189

DeChurch

L. A.

Lungeanu

Contractor

N. S.

(2024). Think like a team: Shared mental models predict creativity and problem-solving in space analogs. Acta Astronautica, 214, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.10.022

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Fiore

S. M.

Käosaar

Wiltshire

T. J.

(2024). An operational assessment of team cognition for long-distance space missions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 68(1), 1316–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241284572

Fischer

Mosier

Orasanu

(2013). The impact of transmission delays on mission control-space crew communication. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(1), 1372–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571303

10.

Gibson

C. B.

Zellmer-Bruhn

M. E.

Schwab

D. P

. (2003). Team effectiveness in multinational organizations. Group & Organization Management, 28(4), 444–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103251685

11.

Golden

S. J.

Chang

C. H. (D.)

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2018). Teams in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments: Review and integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2288

12.

Hoegl

Gemuenden

H. G

. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635

13.

Käosaar

Fiore

S. M.

Gomez

Burke

C. S.

(2024). Understanding team cognition in support of long-distance space missions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 68(1), 1837–1842. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241260664

14.

Käosaar

Marques-Quinteiro

Burke

(2022). Fantastic teams and where to find them: understanding team processes in space and analog environments through the IMOI framework. Team Performance Management, 28(3/4), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-02-2021-0012

15.

Krippendorff

K. H.

(2014). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

16.

Landon

L. B.

Rokholt

Slack

K. J.

Pecena

(2017). Selecting astronauts for long-duration exploration missions: Considerations for team performance and functioning. Reach, 5, 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reach.2017.03.002

17.

Lungeanu

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Niler

A. A.

DeChurch

L. A.

Contractor

N. S.

(2023). Organizing for mars: A task management perspective on work within spaceflight multiteam systems. Human Factors, 65(6), 1199–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221129939

18.

Marcinkowski

M. A.

Bell

S. T.

Roma

P. G.

(2021). The nature of conflict for teams in isolated, confined, and extreme environments. Acta Astronautica, 181, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.004

19.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J

. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

20.

Marques-Quinteiro

Schmutz

J. B.

Antino

Eppich

W. J.

Maynard

M. T.

(2024). Event characteristics and team adaptation in extreme contexts: Evidence from an Antarctic summer campaign. Group and Organization Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241287945

21.

Morgeson

F. P.

DeRue

D. S.

Karam

E. P

. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

22.

Palinkas

L. A.

Suedfeld

(2021). Psychosocial issues in isolated and confined extreme environments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 126, 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2021.03.032

23.

Paris

(2014). Physiological and psychological aspects of sending humans to mars: Challenges and recommendations. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 100(4), 3–20.

24.

Parisi

M. E.

McTigue

K. R.

Panontin

T. L.

S. C.

Vera

A. H

. (2022, May 1-5). Extreme problem solving II: How can 4 astronauts do the jobs of 80 experts? (Meeting) SpaceCHI 2.0 Advancing Human-Computer Interaction for Space Exploration, New Orleans, LA.

25.

Salas

Sims

D. E.

Burke

C. S.

(2005). Is there A “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134

26.

Salas

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Kraiger

Smith-Jentsch

K. A.

(2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661

27.

Schmutz

J. B.

Bienefeld

Maynard

M. T.

Rico

(2023). Exceeding the ordinary: A framework for examining teams across the extremeness continuum and its impact on future research. Group & Organization Management, 48(2), 581–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221150756

28.

Shultz

K. S.

Hoffman

C. C.

Reiter-Palmon

(2005). Using archival data for I-O research: Advantages, pitfalls, sources, and examples. Psychology Faculty Publications, 5, 31–37.

29.

Wiltshire

T. J.

Butner

J. E.

Fiore

S. M

. (2018). Problem-solving phase transitions during team collaboration. Cognitive Science, 42(1), 129–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12482