This will be the last Science report of Crew 148. I will summarise the
results we had, trying to make it concise and clear. A lot
of science has been done during these two weeks! We have conducted 6
scientific studies, having finished collecting the data
for the last one today. These are, for now, the main conclusions for
each of the studies:
1) In the PED pre-pilot study, we had a total of 5 subjects doing 3
runs each. Each run had 19 target points (each target was
between 1 to 10m, separated by intervals of 0.5m). In short the
protocol was the following: a) the subject stands on the
starting line with eyes closed, b) opens their eyes, sees the object
on the ground that has been placed by another crew
member, c) closes their eyes and walks until the target. Once stopped
where he/she believes the target was (and before
opening the eyes), he/she gives also a verbal report of the distance.
After that the subject goes back to the starting line to
repeat the process for another distance. During the whole time one of
the crew members was assuring the safety of the
The results obtained show that distances are very accurate up to a
distance of 6m but after that point subjects start to
underestimate distances. This happens for both tasks: verbal reports
and walking to target with eyes closed. Figure results1.png (attached)
shows two different representations of the egocentric distance
judgement for each modality. As an example, at a distance of 10,0m
subjects verbally report a distance of 9,3m and a walk a distance of
9,5m. Both results being significantly different from the
10m target (Wilcoxon signed rank test with p<0.0001).
2) In the Base Emergency Scenario Procedure Testing, a total of 10
simulations were run for all the combinations of the
following two categories: “Fire / Depressurisation” and “Level 1 / 2 /
3 / 4”. Each level had a 20min, 15min, 10min and 5min
maximum evacuation time in case the issues had not been located and
solved by then. Furthermore Levels 3 and 4 always
required evacuation, simulating an issue that could not be mitigated.
The debriefings after each run allowed the adaptation of
the proposed protocol for the emergency. Roles and order of actions
changed a lot from day one and for each of the crew
members, making the protocol much easier to follow and much more efficient.
3) For the Loss of Communications experiment a total of 12 runs were
performed. Throughout the days runs with and without
communications were compared noting the difficulties in the procedures
of both modalities. All necessary data was collected
and the results will be analysed in the near future. With training,
subjects had less difficulties to solve the task, reducing the
total time. Also it could be seen that the runs that allowed
communication between the subjects in the same team went much
faster and smoother than when the loss of communications was simulated.
4) Regarding the Dust mitigation experiment, data was collected for 10
runs during 4EVAs. Each crew member carried two
patches on the left arm, one patch where the mitigation was applied
and one for control. Patches were weighed before EVA
and after applying the mitigation. Since the objective of the study
was to understand which is the best mitigation method
(brush, towel or electrostatic cloth), these 3 methods were applied in
the non-control patches. Also controls were done in the
laboratory applying 1min of dust exposure. The data was collected and
registered and will be analysed once we are back “on
5) Finally for the Radish growth experiment, we were able to collect
soil that was prepared with and without cyanobacteria.
The objective of the study was to understand if the soil that had
cyanobacteria in it would be better for the growth of radish.
Two days after planting the radish seeds the first sprouts started to
appear in both the controls and cyanobacteria soils. Both
seem to be growing well, but sprouts in the cyanobacteria environment
look healthier than controls. However, one point to
note is that inside the hab it is impossible to find a place with
abundant light. Because of this, neither the controls nor the
cyanobacteria soils are getting enough light and their development is
not as rapid as expected.
6) Regarding Astronomy, we had a great start of mission with clear
skies during the first week, but very cloudy skies during the
second part of the mission. Yet, we were able to document a few
transits and occultations of the moons of Jupiter and take
great pictures of Jupiter and the moon.
Besides the 6 studies we have conducted, we have also participated in
a sociomapping experiment. For this experiment we
filled in a questionnaire before the mission, one every two days
during the mission and we will be filling one last questionnaire
by the end of the mission. Each questionnaire meant to evaluate the
environment and performance of the team and how it
evolved during the mission. Every two days we also got a short summary
of everyone’s answers concerning the previous two
days. By mid-mission and also by the end of the mission the reports
were more detailed, graphically presenting the answers
of the whole crew members.
Crew scientist signing off!