How to keep the astronauts from losing it on long voyages

In light of the Lisa Nowak love triangle/kidnapping/nutness NASA is re-evaluating how it...well...evaluates astronauts for psychological fitness for space flights.

Part of the problem is one of sex frankly; astronauts are not allowed to have it while on duty.

NASA has been intransigent about the idea of the astronauts have intimate relations, justifying this policy because they would rather not deal with any of the associated problems on manned missions. On the other hand, for particularly long flights -- such as trips to Mars -- sex could be a stabilizing force. Anyway, an interesting article is Popular Mechanics has an interesting article on the subject:

In a report issued last year, experts critiqued NASA's plan for long-duration space missions for failing to deal with "issues of human sexuality," something that now looks strikingly prophetic in the wake of Nowak's apparent love-triangle meltdown. Although research into genomic screening, brain scans and biometric monitoring may help avoid, or at least avert, mental breakdowns, the greatest threat to a Mars mission might be our own astronauts.

Trying to predict whether an astronaut will be vulnerable to psychiatric or psychosocial problems remains an inexact science. "With all the effort that people have put into it, it still boils down to this: the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," Larry Palinkas, a professor of social work, anthropology and preventative medicine at the University of Southern California tells Popular Mechanics.

Moreover, the attributes that make someone a successful astronaut for brief shuttle missions may in some cases be exactly the wrong attributes for extended missions, says Palinkas, who has done extensive research on behavior and performance in extreme environments such as Antarctica.

Palinkas was on a National Academy of Sciences panel that produced a 144-page independent review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap. The report, published last year, contains a series of recommendations on topics ranging from radiation exposure to nutrition and food preferences for hypothetical missions--including a month-long stay on the Moon and a 30-month round-trip mission to Mars. It also notes, briefly, that the roadmap contains no reference to human sexuality. From the report:

"Whereas the committee recognizes the task-oriented nature of both the crew and the mission, it concludes that ignoring the potential consequences of human sexuality is not appropriate when considering extended-duration missions. Areas of concern for the 30-month Mars mission include the potential psychological and physiological consequences of sexual activity, consequences that could endanger life, crew cohesion, performance, and mission success."

So here is my thing. Have you ever read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein? In the book, the mission they send to Mars is composed only of married couples with the understanding that couples will be more stable. This would be the appealing part of allowing sex, because if it in the context of a married couple it will serve to keep them calm and occupied on what could be a very, very long trip. On the other hand, if you remember the details from the book, one member of the crew ends up having an affair and killing himself and the woman's husband after he fathers a child, Valentine Smith, out of wedlock. This would what we like to call unanticipated consequences.

On the one hand, sex can stabilize relations between two individuals. On the other, it can make things very complicated. So I see NASA's point, but I also see NASA's critics point.

Another part of this issue is that it is really difficult to know whether someone is emotionally stable only by giving someone a psychological battery. The Popular Mechanics article also goes into that:

Standard instruments include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Personality Characteristics Inventory, both of which are used "to identify the characteristics of astronauts loosely resembling what's popularly known as the 'right stuff' - or also the wrong stuff, or individuals who have no stuff at all," Palinkas says.

But what constitutes the "right stuff" may be very different for a potential Martian odyssey. "There are different issues involved depending on the duration of the mission," Thomas Oltmanns, a member of NASA's Astronaut Selection Psychiatric Standards Working Group, explained in an e-mail. Many of these issues were addressed in a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Safe Passage: Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions," said Oltmanns, a professor of psychology at Washington University in St. Louis.

For long-duration missions, ideal candidates are typically older - at least 30 years old - with a history of emotional stability and little sign of depression or neuroticism, Palinkas says. They also tend to be "socially adept introverts," who get along well with others but don't need other people to be happy.

Strangely, another important characteristic is "high toleration for lack of achievement," he says. "Many people on short-term missions are highly motivated individuals, very achievement-seeking. Sometimes these people can get very frustrated when their goals aren't accomplished right away," he says. For longer missions, astronauts - or, in Palinkas's research, members of polar missions - need to be prepared for changes of plan, contingencies, and the possibility that goals won't be achieved.

Of course, writing down the ideal characteristics for a Mars-bound astronaut doesn't solve the problem of how to identify who has those characteristics. But there may be ways of testing the body, rather than the mind, that will provide some hints as to a candidate's suitability for deep-space travel.

It is really tough to tell if someone can't make it or if someone is going to crack under pressure. This is why submarine crews are composed only of men and there is a very stiff chain of command -- when someone cracks there is a way to deal with that strictly and very quickly.

I sit on the fence about two questions 1) is sex more trouble than its worth? and 2) can we evenly reasonably evaluate whether someone is likely to go crazy?

My suspicion for the first question is that the answer is probably yes. As much as we may hate to admit it, a more military approach to relations is likely to limit problems. My suspicion for the second question is a conditional no. I think you can do a reasonable job screening out the people who will definitely not be able to handle it, but I doubt whatever screen we can use will be 100% effective.

I am curious to hear what other people think.