strike in space

Matteo Conta-FEMBA9 Strike in Space 10/99

Strike in Space

A Problem of Power and Control

How could happen that highly trained and disciplined astronauts refused to

execute orders from the authority of mission control? If the events are analyzed from the

perspective of how the power and control was exercised by Houston, the outcome will

not result as surprising as it may seem. There was of course a set of overlapping

situations playing a role in the course of events, like the rebellious personal

characteristics of the astronauts of the third crew, their inexperience, their prolonged stay

and the lack of familiar conveniences, but none of these was as crucial as the way their

skills and precious energies had been managed by Ground Control.

Skylab and Ground Control

It is very interesting to study the pattern of the relationship between Skylab and

Mission Control in order to get a clear view on the differences in the three missions. Let’s

analyze first the key characteristics of the two parts, the astronauts and Mission Control.

Astronauts

Selected for their extraordinary military discipline and obedience.

Motivated by a widely shared ranking system based on courage and coolness.

Highly educated and trained individuals (some PHDs from top universities).

of 5


Mission Control Managers

Scientific management approach: (“every minute planned for the astronauts by the

ground”)

Pretended to have “learned how to maximize what you can get out of a man in

one day”.

Many interests riding on Skylab.

Skylab1&2: Compliance and Legitimate Authority.

Skylab1 and 2 complied with the orders, given the legitimate authority of Ground

Control and despite the difficult and unexpected environment situation. They did not

experience much pressure, they had nothing to lose because nobody had done something

like that before, nobody set for them any level of expectations. Members of the first crew

were instant heroes when they succeeded in erecting a thermal parasol and unjamming

the solar panels in two ‘extra vehicular missions’ outside the space station; moral was

very high from the beginning for them. Second crew’s moral remained high despite

difficulties, “thanks to Lousma’s high spirits”. Given their physical and psychological

status, both crews considered the workload imposed by Mission Control achievable, and

they felt the responsibility and the proud to try to accomplish as much as possible,

sometimes even more than requested.

of 5


Skylab3: a Reactance Situation.

Like the first two crews, also the third acted on the belief that authority (Ground

Control) had the right to make its requests. They were though less experienced, starting

the mission already with much more pressure, due to the high expectations imposed by

the second crew, and their moral was much lower due to the vomit episode at the

beginning. During the first six weeks of flight their stress level had been increasing but

had not yet reached the bar.

Aggressive management

Based on the observations made on the first two crews, Ground Control took a

very aggressive approach with the third crew from the very beginning of the mission; the

astronauts were allowed to enter Skylab thirteen hours earlier, which contributed to

Pogue’s vomit and set the mission with a bad start. Ground Control managers also

continued in their aggressive plan quickening the pace of the astronauts in the attempt at

getting as many experiments as possible done. This approach was in their mind justified

by the excellent performances of the first two crews, especially the second one. Also,

Houston was under tremendous pressure to achieve goals beyond studying life in space:

there were scientific and commercial interests and a budget of 2.5 billions of dollars to

justify. All these reasons led to push the astronauts of the third crew to the limit of their

possibilities and beyond, causing them to react.

Pressure

The strike occurred because the astronauts, pressured by the quickening pace

imposed by Houston, reached a psychological and physical stress level that they could

not handle any more, they felt “driven to the wall”. They were tired of making mistakes,

of 5


they felt like their freedom was threatened (also the meals time was scheduled with

experiments!) and they reacted to this situation by doing exactly the opposite of what

they were asked to do: relaxing and contemplating the beauty of free space. It was a

reactance situation caused by excessive pressure of the influencer.

Miscommunication, misunderstanding and misdiagnosing

In the astronaut’s mind Ground Control aggressive approach was clearly not

justified. The recommendations of Alan Bean, second crew’s captain, were not followed:

third crew was not allowed to have 50% more time for the first runs through all the

experiments and they did not have reduced work load for the first 10-12 days. Most of the

new experiments were added too late and there wasn’t time for the third crew to become

familiar with them, as previous crews had done, or even to know what their purposes

were or why they were important. They also perceived that Ground Control did not

understand at all the situation up there (stowage problems, physical uneasiness related to

little exercise …) because of the extremely poor communication, and inexact diagnosis.

The decision to no longer accept control from Houston was intended also to trigger again

a fruitful dialogue where both supervisor and supervised parts could understand

reciprocal needs.

What to do?

Lowering the strain: let the astronauts express completely their view on

the situation, trying to let them feel listened and understood. This will

restore the communication channel, which had broken when the strike

occurred.

of 5


Motivate: try to motivate the astronauts, recognizing the uniqueness of

their situation compared with the first two crews (their prolonged stay,

their bigger workload).

Relax schedule: reduce the requested workload for the astronauts, thus

reliving them from the psychological pressure of feeling always behind

schedule; restore their right for utilizing leisure time to fulfill their

intellectual and physical needs.

Prioritize: prioritize experiments, justifying the priority list to the

astronauts (which improves communication); make them understand the

importance of what they are doing (releases feeling of being treated like

machines).

Coaching, not micromanaging: try to take a different approach in

exercising the control, assuming more a coaching role instead of a

micromanaging role: in other words, give the astronauts more freedom to

manage the single experiments, leveraging on their technical abilities and

perception of the situation. Only the astronauts know how it is to be up

there, and only each one of them understands how his body and his mind

are reacting to the particular situation. This will keep the astronauts

challenged and mentally awake, as opposed to distract and mentally tired

when asked to operate as machines. Focus more on understanding and

diagnosing what is happening, stimulating the feedback from astronauts,

giving advices to solve problems, foreseeing the upcoming problems,

instead of pretending to have control on every minimal move.

of 5

strike in space

Documents