NASA/TP–2011-216146

Analog Assessment Tool Report 

Human Research Program 

Behavioral Health & Performance Element 

Kathryn E. Keeton, Ph.D. 1

Alexandra Whitmire, M.S. 1

Alan H. Feiveson, Ph.D.2

Robert Ploutz-Snyder, Ph.D.3

Lauren B. Leveton, Ph.D. 2

Camille Shea, Ph.D. 3 

1

Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering, Houston, TX, USA 

2

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA 

3

United Space Research Alliance, Houston, TX, USA

May 2011 
THE NASA STI PROGRAM OFFICE . . . IN PROFILE 

Since its founding, NASA has been 

dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics 

and space science. The NASA Scientific and 

Technical Information (STI) Program Office 

plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

The NASA STI Program Office is operated 

by Langley Research Center, the lead center 

for NASA’s scientific and technical 

information. The NASA STI Program Office 

provides access to the NASA STI Database, 

the largest collection of aeronautical and 

space science STI in the world. The Program 

Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of 

its research and development activities. 

These results are published by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes 

the following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports 

of completed research or a major 

significant phase of research that present 

the results of NASA programs and 

include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of 

continuing reference value. NASA’s 

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific 

and technical findings by NASAsponsored contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, 

seminars, or other meetings sponsored 

or cosponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and mission, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material 

pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services that complement the 

STI Program Office’s diverse offerings 

include creating custom thesauri, building 

customized databases, organizing and 

publishing research results . . . even 

providing videos. 

For more information about the NASA STI 

Program Office, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI Program Home 

Page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

• E-mail your question via the internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Fax your question to the NASA Access 

Help Desk at (301) 621-0134 

• Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk 

at (301) 621-0390 

• Write to: 

 NASA Access Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace 

Information 

 7115 Standard 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320 
NASA/TP–2011-216146

Analog Assessment Tool Report 

Human Research Program 

Behavioral Health & Performance Element 

Kathryn E. Keeton, Ph.D. 1

Alexandra Whitmire, M.S. 1

Alan H. Feiveson, Ph.D.2

Robert Ploutz-Snyder, Ph.D.3

Lauren B. Leveton, Ph.D. 2

Camille Shea, Ph.D. 3 

1

Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering, Houston, TX, USA 

2

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA 

3

United Space Research Alliance, Houston, TX, USA 

May 2011 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service 

7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161 

301-621-0390 703-605-6000 

This report is also available in electronic form at http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/ 
 

i

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

PURPOSE: NEED ASSESSMENT OF ANALOG TOOL .................................................................................... 2

UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BHP ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL ................................................ 3

SYSTEMATIC AND OBJECTIVE PROCESS ........................................................................................................ 3

COMPARISON OF MULTIPLE ANALOGS ......................................................................................................... 4

CUSTOMIZATION OF RESULTS FOR INVESTIGATORS ..................................................................................... 6

BACKGROUND: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND INCEPTION OF ANALYSIS PROCESS ........................... 6

DESIGN OF THE TOOL .................................................................................................................................. 8

ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL PROCESS DEFINED ..................................................................... 12

SELECT, DEFINE, AND CATEGORIZE CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................... 12

SELECT SPACE SCENARIO ......................................................................................................................... 12

SELECT ANALOGS ...................................................................................................................................... 13

ROLE OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS ..................................................................................................... 14

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHICAL PROCESS .................................................................................................. 15

CRITICALITY WEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................ 15

FIDELITY WEIGHTS ................................................................................................................................... 15

NOTES ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................................................. 16

SPECIFIC UPDATES TO THE THIRD ITERATION OF THE BHP ANALOG ASSESSMENT 

TOOL ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

THIRD ITERATION: CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... 17

THIRD ITERATION: SELECTED ANALOGS & SPACE SCENARIO .............................................................. 18

WORKING EXAMPLE ................................................................................................................................. 18

REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY RESULTS: FIRST ITERATION OF ANALOG ASSESSMENT 

TOOL ......................................................................................................................................................... 28

GAP WEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................................ 29

RISK: BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE.................................................................................................................... 29

RISK: TEAM ................................................................................................................................................. 30

RISK: SLEEP ................................................................................................................................................. 31

RESULTS OF THE SECOND ITERATION OF THE ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL ............... 32

GAP WEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................................ 34

RISK: BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE.................................................................................................................... 34

RISK: TEAM ................................................................................................................................................. 35

RISK: SLEEP ................................................................................................................................................. 36

RESULTS OF THE THIRD ITERATION OF THE ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL .................. 38
 

ii

CONCLUSIONS AND DEFINED FORWARD WORK: ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL ........... 47

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 49

ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................ 51
 

iii

Figures

Figure 1. Risk-to-mitigation strategy ensures that the research yields operationally relevant and 

 acceptable deliverables and products. ...................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Matrix formed by combining information from data collection sheets where 

 respondents rated the similarity of the characteristic in analog to anticipated 

 characteristic for long-duration space flight. ............................................................................. 7

Figure 3. Both research and utility characteristics apply to all analogs. ................................................. 10

Figure 4. Visual representation of hierarchical structure. ....................................................................... 23 

Figure 5. Weighting of each analog – preliminary results. ..................................................................... 28 

Figure 6. Visual demonstration of preliminary results for second iteration of 

 Analog Assessment Tool. ........................................................................................................ 33 

Figure 7. Overall ratings of analogs. ....................................................................................................... 46 

 
 

iv

Tables 

Table 1 Analogs for Third Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool ........................................................ 18 

Table 2. Definitions of Research Characteristics .................................................................................. 19 

Table 3. Definitions of Utility Characteristics ....................................................................................... 21 

Table 4. Research Categories/Definitions ............................................................................................ 22 

Table 5. Utility Categories/Definitions ................................................................................................. 22 

Table 6. Definitions of Research Characteristics in Selected Scenarios ............................................... 24 

Table 7. Definitions of Utility Characteristics in Selected Scenarios ................................................... 26 

Table 8. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Behavioral Medicine Risk ................................ 29 

Table 9. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Team Risk ........................................................ 30 

Table 10. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Sleep Risk ......................................................... 31 

Table 11. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Behavioral Medicine Risk ........................... 34 

Table 12. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Team Risk .................................................... 35 

Table 13. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Sleep Risk .................................................... 36 

Table 14. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool (BMed, Team, Sleep) – 

 Includes Utility Weight ........................................................................................................... 37 

Table 15. Behavioral Medicine Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category .......................................... 39 

Table 16. Team Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category ................................................................... 39 

Table 17. Sleep Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category ................................................................... 40 

Table 18. Behavioral Medicine Risk – Research Characteristics per Category ...................................... 41 

Table 19. Team Risk – Research Characteristics per Category............................................................... 42 

Table 20. Sleep Risk – Research Characteristics per Category ............................................................... 43 

Table 21. Summary of Results by Combining Weights for All Characteristics ...................................... 44 

Table 22. Priority Summary of Analogs .................................................................................................. 45
 

v

Acronyms

AEB Agencia Espacial Brasileira 

AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process 

ANSMET Antarctic Search for Meteorites program 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

BHP Behavioral Health and Performance Element 

BMed Behavioral Medicine 

CSA Canadian Space Agency 

CRL Countermeasure Readiness Level 

DRATS Desert Research and Technology Studies 

ESA European Space Agency 

EVA Extravehicular Activity 

NEO Near-Earth Objects 

HMP Haughton-Mars Project 

HMP-PO Haughton-Mars Project Proposed Operations 

HRP Human Research Program 

ISRU In-situ Resource Utilization 

ISS International Space Station 

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

NEEMO NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 

NURC National Undersea Research Center 

PISCES Pacific International Space Center for Exploration Systems 

PLRP Pavilion Lake Research Project 

SCOUT Science Crew Operations and Utility Test bed 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

TRL Technology Readiness Level 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USOS U.S. Operating Segment 

 
 

vi

(This page intentionally left blank) 
 

1 

THE NASA HUMAN RESEARCH PROGRAM 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE ELEMENT 

ANALOG ASSESSMENT TOOL REPORT 

Results Year 2 

Introduction 

In preparation for future exploration missions to distant destinations (e.g., moon, Near-Earth Objects 

[NEOs], and Mars), the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) Behavioral Health and Performance 

Element (BHP) conducts and supports research to address four human health risks: Risk of Behavioral 

Conditions; Risk of Psychiatric Conditions; Risk of Performance Decrements due to Inadequate 

Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team; and Risk of 

Performance Errors due to Sleep Loss, Fatigue, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload.[1] 

BHP Research – in collaboration with internal and external research investigators as well as subject 

matter experts (SMEs) within the operational environment including NASA flight surgeons, astronauts, 

and mission planners – identifies knowledge and technology gaps in the research within each risk. BHP 

Research subsequently manages and conducts research tasks to address and close the gaps, either through 

risk assessment and quantification or through countermeasure and monitoring technology development. 

The resulting deliverables, in many instances, also support current Medical Operations and/or Mission 

Operations for the International Space Station (ISS). 

BHP Research uses a risk-to-mitigation strategy to ensure that the research yields deliverables and 

products that are operationally relevant and acceptable (see Figure 1). BHP Research begins by 

considering the deliverable in light of the known mission requirements. Working with operational experts 

(e.g., flight surgeons, mission planners, astronauts), and intramural and extramural researchers, BHP 

Research is able to assess which best practices are currently implemented to determine whether future 

work in a specific area is needed. In instances where future research is proven necessary, the BHP 

Research Element must then determine which area is at risk and the specific gap in question, and then 

must decide how to implement research that would enable the development of a deliverable that 

adequately addresses the need within the context of the unique demands of exploration missions. 

Within this risk-to-mitigation strategy, BHP Research must identify optimal analogs for research studies 

that can be used to test and validate those needed products and/or deliverables, or further our 

understanding of the risk related to future long-duration space flight missions. Analog utilizations should 

be used before deploying the deliverable in flight, which is resource constrained (e.g., costs, crew time) 
 

2 

and should be used for high Technology Readiness Level (TRL)/Countermeasure Readiness Level (CRL) 

efforts needing final space flight validation and full testing. Those studies may employ such platforms as 

the shuttle or the ISS. Research efforts at lower TRL (5-6)/CRL (5-7) would utilize environments 

analogous to space flight, such as the undersea facility NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 

(NEEMO) or the remote, isolated analog Haughton-Mars Project (HMP). Thus, space analogs employ a 

significant and pertinent role within this framework to facilitate validation and a full testing process. 

Ultimately, once the research is completed, BHP Research deliverables inform ISS Medical and Mission 

Operations, provide updates for Human Health and Habitability Standards, and update existing evidence 

for the three BHP Research risks. 

Purpose: Need Assessment of Analog Tool 

The space analog that best addresses the needs of each research study must be selected to ensure that the 

highest quality of research is being conducted, the research product/deliverable is tested in a condition 

BHP Research Framework

Risks

Gaps

Tasks

Deliverables

Conduct Research: 

Use of Analogs

• Optimal Analogs Have:

• High Fidelity 

• High Accessibility

• High Feasibility

Figure 1. Risk-to-mitigation strategy ensures that the research yields operationally relevant and acceptable 

deliverables and products.
 

3 

that is meaningful for the space flight environment, and that BHP Research is able to use its funding most 

efficiently and effectively. However, before the development of our Analog Assessment Tool, an 

objective and systematic way to determine which platform would be most suitable to conduct research did 

not exist. BHP Research has sought to develop a process that will determine, as objectively as possible, 

which analogs are a “best fit” for addressing BHP Research gaps, thus reducing risk. Developers of the 

Analog Assessment Tool needed to consider, among other things, the importance of proposed 

environmental and psychosocial characteristics to BHP Research gaps, as well as the fidelity of those 

characteristics within the analog environment to space scenarios (i.e., NEOs and Mars). It also was 

essential to consider the utility of each analog in terms of its practicality and cost of conducting research 

in those environments. 

Analogs with high fidelity to space flight are often intuitively considered ideal platforms for conducting 

research to inform future space flight missions. Simply considering the fidelity of an analog, however, 

may not be enough to ensure that the analog serves as the appropriate platform through which to address a 

research gap. The Analog Assessment Tool provides a methodology to determine not only the fidelity of 

analog characteristics to characteristics of a space flight mission, but also how relevant those 

characteristics are for specific research gaps within a research element (e.g., BHP Research Element). 

Unique Characteristics of the BHP Analog Assessment Tool 

Systematic and Objective Process 

The Analog Assessment Tool allows a BHP investigator to carefully evaluate the needs of his/her specific 

study (e.g., the effects of certain stressors on behavioral health) with respect to how accurately the 

analogs in consideration replicate these characteristics to what is expected for a long-duration mission. 

Suppose an investigator, aiming to characterize the potential risks of a Mars mission, chooses to evaluate 

the effects of isolation on mood over the course of a long-duration mission; selecting an analog that offers 

key characteristics (long duration, isolation) is key to adequately addressing that question. An analogous 

environment such as Concordia Station in Antarctica – where small groups of individuals stay up to a 

year in an isolated, confined, and extreme environment – may provide an ideal setting to understand how 

this risk unfolds. If the investigator’s aim, however, is to provide a feasible and acceptable 

countermeasure for mitigating that risk in a Mars mission, a full analog study in Antarctica may not be the 

best fit; rather, a brief assessment with an analogous population may be more appropriate. Thus, the 

above example demonstrates how the Analog Assessment Tool can be used by the investigator to 

carefully consider how to accurately evaluate the importance of specific characteristics, the criticality of 
 

4 

addressing the needs of his/her specific study, and the space flight fidelity of the characteristics within the 

analog. 

In particular, the Analog Assessment Tool maps the specific research question to the relevant aspects of 

an analog. Understanding that an analog has high fidelity but not capturing the components that are 

critical to understanding a research gap can lead an investigator down a tangential path. For example, it is 

known that Devon Island, just 322 km (200 miles) south of the North Pole, is bathed in sunlight during 

the day and through most of the night. Investigators addressing human health risks for a Mars mission 

scenario have taken to Devon Island for its Mars-like terrain and feel. However, investigators considering 

the impact of sleep and circadian issues to inform a Mars mission would need to take into account the 

constant sunlight factor. It is important to bear in mind that there is constant daylight on Devon Island 

while Mars has a similar Earth day-night cycle of 24 hours and 39 minutes. The outcomes of constant 

daylight (enhanced alertness, difficulty sleeping) may likely trump the Mars-like terrain for an 

investigation seeking to evaluate sleep effects as they pertain to living on Mars. For a mission related to 

understanding team work, however, the constant sunlight, while still having an indirect impact via the 

individual crew member’s sleep (and subsequently, a possible impact on mood and cognitive capacity), 

may not weigh as heavily as teams being able to simulate a Mars-like excursion and task. 

In sum, the Analog Assessment Tool addresses a need to objectively compare analogs based on 

characteristics that are important to the investigators. This process provides a systematic way to hone in 

on key characteristics that are relevant to the gap they are aiming to address. The results from this process 

then provide the necessary information for the investigators to determine which analog will provide the 

highest fidelity of those characteristics needed for their investigation. 

Comparison of Multiple Analogs 

The Analog Assessment Tool uses its comparison process to examine the fidelity of multiple analogs. It is 

important to include a large number of analogs for this systematic comparison process, as characteristics 

may differ in their level of fidelity across analogs. Indeed, the analogs considered vary in terms of 

strengths and weaknesses for each critical characteristic included in the assessment for addressing BHP 

Research; thus, the needs of the investigator will guide the selection of the most appropriate analog when 

considering the desired characteristics. Consider research aimed at understanding the effects of work 

overload on team performance. Various possible contributors should be taken into consideration: team 

size; team structure; and meaningful work. Arguably, there are less salient factors – physical isolation, 

mission duration, and danger – that could be considered potential contributors, but less so. Hence, while 

at first glance Antarctica seems like the ideal BHP analog to implement a research study on this topic, the 
 

5 

results of the BHP Analog Assessment Tool suggest that the more relevant characteristics needed to 

address this particular research question can be found at NEEMO. 

Other illustrations include the following: 

• An investigator aims to understand how predictions of the effects of chronic work-rest schedules 

on performance can be used to prevent work overload and mitigate risk. The Pacific 

International Space Center for Exploration Systems (PISCES) analog offers a mission where 

small teams of individuals analogous to astronauts are given exploration-like tasks and must 

complete those tasks in a naturalistic environment. To the external investigator, this analog 

seems to be a fit for the aims of the investigation. The Analog Assessment Tool, however, would 

provide the investigator with a rank order of best fit analogs, with NEEMO scoring higher than 

PISCES. Unbeknown to the investigator, NEEMO offers astronauts themselves a living (as well 

as working) environment and, importantly, a time-lined mission scenario with specific scheduled 

requirements. 

• An investigator aims to use analogs to begin to understand the impact of space flight “type” 

stressors on psychosocial adaptation. Team size and structure is seen as an important 

characteristic to capture in an analog, but less so than mission duration. An analog that has a 

team size and structure similar to that anticipated in flight, such as a NEEMO analog, may be 

ideal for understanding team size effects on psychosocial adaptation; however, the minimal 

duration of NEEMO may trump that fact, with Haughton-Mars or an Antarctic station allowing 

for the assessment of more teams over longer periods of time. 

• An investigator is limited by funding and time availability; although he/she considers HMP or 

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) as a low-cost solution and relatively adept to 

time-constrained processing situations, the examination of results for the specific utility 

characteristics identify the NEEMO mission as a likely best solution within the defined 

constraints above. 

Thus, by including an array of analog environments for consideration, the Analog Assessment Tool 

allows the investigator to determine, based on the characteristics he/she wants to assess (i.e., team 

structure or mission duration), which analog would render the best fit. 
 

6 

Customization of Results for Investigators 

On a final note, it is necessary to describe how the results from the third iteration of the BHP Analog 

Assessment Tool can be used on a larger scale by the investigators as well as the research community. 

Although the above highlights numerous ways that investigators can use the results of the BHP Analog 

Assessment Tool, three primary uses of this tool should be considered: 

1. Investigators can use the results from this most recent iteration by examining the weights of each 

specific characteristic across all analogs considered for a specific risk. Thus, an investigator has 

the ability to hone in on specific characteristics that may be most relevant to his/her study when 

trying to mitigate a specific BHP risk (e.g., Behavioral Medicine [BMed], Team, and Sleep). 

2. Conversely, an investigator may instead look at the aggregate results for all characteristics (both 

research and utility characteristics) across each BHP risk by analog. This may be needed when 

the investigator is interested in targeting the optimal analog for a specific risk, and does not 

necessarily need to control for certain characteristics within the analog. 

3. Finally, the investigator also can look at the summary results that combine all of the weights for 

each characteristic across all analogs and sum at a top level to produce a priority summary for 

analogs across all three BHP risks. This broad-level prioritization identifies the analog(s) that 

have the highest fidelity when considering the aggregate of characteristics considered in this 

assessment. 

It should be noted that the results of this Analog Assessment Tool also can aid in the identification of 

specific weaknesses (rather than strengths) that an analog may possess, thus assisting in the identification 

of specific characteristics an analog must augment and/or improve to increase its fidelity. This insight is a 

great advantage of this tool as it will be necessary to include specific requirements that must be rectified 

to ultimately increase the fidelity of the current considered space flight analogs. 

Background: Historical Perspective and Inception of Analysis Process

Previous investigators have offered a method through which to assess analog fidelity for the purpose of 

understanding space flight missions. Specifically, Stuster[2] proposed a systematic analysis of analogs that 

would help inform the “biological, psychological, and sociological” risks associated with a long-duration 

stay in space. Similar to the Analog Assessment Tool, Stuster provides a methodology to help determine 

the appropriate analog from which to glean knowledge to provide relevant recommendations for space 

flight. In his analysis, a group of experts identified characteristics relevant to a long-duration stay in 

space. Analogs that offer some level of these characteristics were then identified. Respondents were given 

written descriptions of these analogs, and were then asked to rate the similarity of the characteristic in that 
 

7 

analog to the anticipated characteristic for long-duration space flight (see Figure 2). The result included a 

ranking of best fit analog for each characteristic for a long-duration space flight scenario. 

The Analog Assessment Tool augments this methodology by including not only the characteristic match 

between the analog and the space flight scenario, but the relevance of the characteristic to the research 

question using a pair-wise comparison process to complete this evaluation (using the Analytical 

Hierarchical Process). As an example, Stuster found that for physical isolation, Skylab was a best match 

for a future long-duration space mission. If the research question, however, pertains to team performance 

issues, physical isolation may not weigh as heavily as the characteristic “composition of the group.” The 

Analog Assessment Tool therefore enhances the methodology proposed by Stuster by offering a 

systematic mapping from research characteristic to analog characteristic. Other updates include 

revised/additional research characteristics, utility characteristics (i.e., costs and data points collected), an 

analytical hierarchy in which to group the characteristics (ultimately influencing the pair-wise comparison 

questions that are posed), as well as updated analogs to those currently considered by the NASA Human 

Research Program. 

Figure 2. Matrix formed by combining information from data collection sheets where respondents 

rated the similarity of the characteristic in analog to anticipated characteristic for long-duration 

space flight.
 

8 

Conceptualizing the Tool 

Per the Human Research Program Programmatic Requirements Document, BHP is tasked with: 

“quantifiably describing the likelihood and consequences of the risks. The uncertainties associated with 

these quantities should be narrowed to the target values identified by each standard or, to the greatest 

extent practical, to facilitate proper decisions for exploration hardware and software design and mission 

design.”[3] BHP Research relies on analogs to fulfill the requirements for characterizing and mitigating 

risk. This reliance is driven by the need to test and refine technologies before space flight, and the need to 

characterize behavioral health risks in long-duration isolated scenarios similar to a future exploration 

mission. 

In 2008, BHP Research presented a programmatic risk related to the fact that high-fidelity analogs 

remained inaccessible to the element. In response to this risk, the Human Research Program tasked BHP 

Research with developing a systematic way to assess which of the available analogs were a best fit for 

addressing BHP gaps. However, BHP Research had previously provided its own comparison of fidelity of 

analog characteristics to space flight characteristics.[4] In this comparison, BHP-relevant characteristics 

were identified as being present or not present at the various analogs, but still lacked a link between the 

analogs to the research gaps. An unrelated presentation regarding the t-matrix from O’Donnell, Moise, 

and Schmidt[5] proposed a methodology that mapped a space flight task’s cognitive requirements to the 

appropriate cognitive measures by determining which cognitive processes were primarily required to 

complete a task and mapping. This approach seemed a feasible way to systematically compare the analogs 

based on the specific needs of the BHP Research element. Thus, this conceptual idea was taken to Drs. 

Alan H. Feiveson and Robert Ploutz-Snyder and, together with the BHP Research team, the group was 

able to devise a pair-wise comparison process using an analytical hierarchy that included relevant 

research and utility characteristics (specific to the BHP Research Element) as well as analogs that were 

currently being considered for implementation purposes by BHP Research. The following is a description 

of the specific design components of the Analog Assessment Tool. 

Design of the Tool 

The Analog Assessment Tool process consists of three parts. In Part One, “criticality” or importance 

weightings of analog characteristics are calculated within two main categories: research and utility. 

Research characteristics are those that are relevant to the outcomes of BHP Element research tasks. 

Examples include characteristics of the habitat, environmental characteristics, and the makeup and 

composition of the crew and their roles. Utility characteristics are those that relate to the effectiveness and 

logistical considerations of actually conducting research within an analog. Examples include the number 
 

9 

of subjects/year one can assess at a specific analog, the relevance of the participants’ tasks, and the 

amount of data one could collect. Both research and utility characteristics apply to all analogs (see Figure 

3 for a visual representation). 

In Part Two, fidelity weightings are calculated across proposed analogs with respect to each of the 

research and utility characteristics. 

Finally, in Part Three, both sets of weightings are combined to produce an overall ranking of the analogs. 

This procedure is implemented independently for each of the three main BHP Element risks: Team, 

Sleep, and BMed. 

Part One: Criticality Weightings 

Criticality weightings reflect the relative importance of each characteristic chosen as a criterion for 

comparing analogs with regard to the Element goals. In particular, how important is it that the analog 

include a given characteristic when addressing a risk within the BHP Research Element? For example, 

from the viewpoint of a principal investigator, how important would it be for the analog to be evaluated in 

terms of lighting conditions as opposed to team size and/or mission duration? To answer these types of 

questions and produce overall weightings of the characteristics, we have enlisted SMEs to provide pairwise comparisons of research characteristics taking into account each BHP Research risk goal. These 

comparisons are then integrated into an overall weighting using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).[6]

At the same time, BHP Element scientists serve as SMEs to make pair-wise comparisons of all utility 

characteristics. These comparisons are integrated into an overall set of utility weights using the AHP. It is 

important to note that SMEs for the utility characteristics are likely to be within the Research Element, as 

these characteristics are more related to the logistics of actually conducting a research task within an 

analog. 

Part Two: Fidelity Comparisons 

In contrast to the criticality comparisons, fidelity comparisons address how similar analogs are to the 

space scenario chosen when considering a specific research or utility characteristic (e.g., does NEEMO 

have a mission duration that is similar to what would be expected for a Mars mission?). In this instance, 

the SMEs must determine how well a specific characteristic in an analog matches that same characteristic 

in the space flight scenario. Similar to the procedure used with research characteristics, fidelity 

comparisons are made using pair-wise comparisons; however, these comparisons are made between 

analogs for each research and utility characteristic. The AHP is then used to integrate the pair-wise 

comparisons into an overall set of weightings of analogs with respect to each characteristic. 
 

10 

Part Three: Final Ranking of Analogs 

Once the two sets of weightings (research/utility and fidelity) are made, the overall weight for each 

analog is a weighted average of its characteristic-specific weights. More specifically, let aij be the relative 

weight of the i-th analog with respect to the j-th characteristic, as calculated in Part Two. Also, let rj be 

the relative importance weight of the j-th research or utility characteristic as calculated in Part One. Then 

wi, the overall weighing for the i-th analog is given by: ݓ ௝∑ = ௜ݎ ௝ܽ௝௜. Values of wi for research and 

utility are then averaged to obtain the final weighting. Final rankings of the analogs are then made in 

terms of the averaged wi. 

Note: In the AHP, all characteristics are organized into a hierarchy, and pair-wise comparisons are made 

only within the same level of the hierarchy. Weights are then aggregated through the hierarchy to 

calculate the rj. In principle, hierarchical aggregation of weights also could be implemented for the 

fidelity weights, but we have chosen not to do so because of the difficulty of constructing a meaningful 

hierarchy for the analog candidates. 

Figure 3. Both research and utility characteristics apply to all analogs. 

SMEs evaluate pair-wise comparison questions based on the AHP[6] to create fidelity and criticality 

weights for each of the characteristics (within the research and utility categories). These two weights are 

then combined to create a final weight score for each of the analogs. The analogs can then be ranked to 

Research 

Characteristics 

by Gap

Utility 

Characteristics 

by Gap

Research 

Characteristics 

by Analog

Utility 

Characteristics 

by Analog

Criticality 

Comparisons 

Fidelity 

Comparisons 

Research 

Characteristics 

Utility 

Characteristics 
 

11 

determine importance relative to the specific risk in question and the space scenario chosen. These final 

rankings can then be used to identify optimal analogs for proposed characteristics-specific research tasks. 

In addition, an overall rank order can be determined for each risk, or across each of the three BHP risks to 

identify which analogs will provide the most fidelity across studies/tasks addressing more than one risk. 

In essence, these rankings provide effective optimization of analogs for achieving BHP risk-reduction 

goals and objectives.

 
 

12 

Analog Assessment Tool Process Defined

To use the Analog Assessment Tool, one must first complete the following steps: 

1. Select, Define, and Categorize Characteristics: 

a. The research and utility characteristics that are chosen must be comparable across all of 

the analogs and be specific to the risks that are being considered (i.e., discipline or 

element specific). 

2. Select Space Scenario: 

a. Determine which space scenario the SME group will be using to anchor the assessment. 

i. Example: Lunar Long, Mars, NEOs, etc. 

3. Select Analogs: 

a. Determine which analogs are most likely to address research needs for risks that are 

being considered. 

i. Example: NEEMO, Russian 105-day Study, HMP, ISS,1

 etc. 

Select, Define, and Categorize Characteristics

It is essential that the research and utility characteristics chosen be comparable across all analogs. More 

specifically, the characteristics must relate to the research risks, gaps, and specific tasks that the research 

will be addressing. 

The research and utility characteristics that are chosen must be defined. The definitions must be clear and 

concise as they are included to assist the SMEs in understanding which aspect(s) of a characteristic they 

are supposed to be considering when they complete the exercises within the analog assessment process. 

Once characteristics are selected and defined, they must be organized into distinct categories. The 

categories will be later used for the AHP. As a guideline, the categories should not have more than six 

characteristics each as they will be used in the pair-wise comparisons for AHP. 

Select Space Scenario

Careful consideration must be given when choosing a space scenario. The chosen scenario should be most 

related to the deliverables that are specified in the tasks within each risk. This will ensure that the final 

outcome of the assessment tool is related to the space scenario that is most relevant to the Element’s 

deliverables. Also, one must choose a specific scenario (i.e., Lunar Sortie, Lunar Long, Mars, etc.) as the 

 

1

 ISS has been included as an analog as a consideration of fidelity to long-duration missions. When considering exploration missions, the 

characteristics of the ISS may provide high fidelity to important characteristics for specific research tasks within the BHP Research Element. 
 

13 

characteristics will need to be defined in terms of this scenario for the SMEs as they complete the 

exercises. 

Once the space scenario is chosen, it is necessary to create an in-depth description of the scenario 

providing as much information as possible about what is known about the scenario, both in terms of the 

characteristics chosen and other general information. The chosen characteristics should also be defined in 

terms of how those characteristics are expected to exist in that specific scenario. 

The information about the scenario will then be provided to the selected SMEs as they will be expected to 

consider the aspects of the selected scenario in relation to the characteristics chosen when they complete 

the exercises. It is recommended that a document be created that contains all of the information about the 

space scenario. The document can easily be distributed to the SMEs and used as a resource when working 

through the activities. Another recommendation includes providing other resources, as they are available, 

to the SMEs to help increase their knowledge of the selected scenario. One suggestion is to create a panel 

of experts on the selected scenario and arrange an in-person meeting or teleconference so that the SMEs 

can ask questions and/or the panel of experts can present up-to-date information on expectations for that 

specific scenario. 

Select Analogs

The analogs that are chosen to be included in the assessment should include the most characteristics that 

closely resemble the space scenario desired. There is no limit to the number of analogs included; 

however, it should be noted that as the number of analogs increases, the time required on part of the 

SMEs also increases. We recommend no more than 10 to 12 analogs per assessment. As Cartreine[7]

observed in a presentation he gave concerning analog fidelity, choosing an analog research setting that 

resembles a space mission but does not include the necessary variables is unlikely to be scientifically 

productive. “Nevertheless, finding environments and samples that do include the necessary variables, 

even if they do not ostensibly resemble space environments, can provide the best test beds needed for 

countermeasures.” 

Once the analogs are chosen, it is necessary to create an in-depth description of selected analogs. This 

description should include as much information as possible, relating to both the specific characteristics 

chosen and other general information that may be useful to the SMEs as they complete the exercises. It is 

beneficial to also provide pictures and illustrations, if possible. Again, we recommend that this 

information be integrated into a reference document. A reference document that contains descriptions of 
 

14 

the analogs should then be provided to the selected SMEs. In this instance, the SMEs will be expected to 

use their knowledge about the analogs to compare the characteristics when completing the exercises. 

Once these initial steps have been completed, a pair-wise comparison process of the characteristics using 

the AHP[6] must be conducted. The SMEs will complete the pair-wise comparison questions. Although it 

is feasible to conduct analyses of the ratings received by the SMEs manually with the help of statisticians, 

we recommend the use of AHP software. 

Role of Subject Matter Experts 

Selection of the SMEs must be considered with great importance; the data that are gleaned from the 

Analog Assessment Tool can only be as good as the experts that participate in this process. Thus, it is 

essential that those selected truly possess an expertise in the area in which they are being asked to 

participate (i.e., completing the fidelity or criticality exercises for the research and utility characteristics). 

The number of SMEs chosen is up to the discretion of the Element, or user. However, for analytical 

purposes, it is recommended that each exercise completed have at least three SMEs. The upper limit to 

SME participation should only be determined by the number of true experts in a specific area that are 

willing to participate. 

The SMEs will need to access the following information: 

• Analog descriptions 

• Definitions of the characteristics and the assumptions of those characteristics for the scenario 

chosen 

• Description of scenario chosen 

• Risk and gap definitions of the Element 

Specifically, there will need to be at least two groups of SMEs: one group of SMEs for each risk relating 

to the criticality weights; and one group of SMEs for the analog portion of the assessment relating to the 

fidelity weights. However, an Element can choose to have multiple groups of SMEs complete the 

exercises for each risk for the criticality weights, if necessary; this will again be determined by the level 

of expertise that the SMEs possess. 
 

15 

Analytical Hierarchical Process

Completing the Exercises 

The AHP is a structured technique using a pair-wise comparison process.[6] First, the decision or problem 

at hand is modeled within a hierarchy of more easily comprehended subcategories, each of which can be 

analyzed independently. Once the hierarchy is built, SMEs then establish priorities among the categories 

of the hierarchy by making a series of judgments based on pair-wise comparisons of the characteristics 

within each category. In making the comparisons, the decision makers can use concrete data about the 

elements or, alternatively, can use their judgments about the elements' relative meaning and importance. 

These judgments are then synthesized to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. Specifically, the 

AHP converts these evaluations into numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire 

range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy. 

This process has been adapted for the objective and systematic comparison of analogs across 

characteristics that are important and relevant to BHP. Characteristics are organized by research and 

utility characteristics and then compared in terms of importance (criticality weights) and similarity to the 

space scenario (fidelity weights). 

Criticality Weights

For each risk, the characteristics (both the research and utility characteristics) that are selected will 

undergo a pair-wise comparison process in line with AHP. Specifically, for each risk (BMed, Team, and 

Sleep), the SMEs will be asked to compare two characteristics at a time and determine which one is more 

important, and the magnitude of that importance. The SME will have to repeat this pair-wise comparison 

process for all of the characteristics within each category (see the Select, Define, and Categorize section 

for more information) for each risk.

Fidelity Weights

For each characteristic (research and utility), the SMEs will have to compare the chosen analogs in a pairwise comparison process. In this instance, the SMEs will be asked to compare two analogs at a time for 

each characteristic (research and utility) and determine which one is more similar to the space scenario 

chosen, and the magnitude of that similarity. As with the criticality weights, the SMEs will have to repeat 

this pair-wise comparison process for all characteristics within each category (i.e., compare all of the 

analogs for each of the characteristics considered). 
 

16 

Notes about the Assessment Process

The complexity of this process illustrates the importance of the following: 

• Choosing the most necessary and important characteristics to the Element (should be based on 

research needs and research implementation) 

• Choosing SMEs that are true experts in either the research risks that are being assessed and/or 

those analogs that are being considered 

• Providing the resources and materials needed (i.e., characteristic definitions, assumptions, and 

information about the analogs and space scenario) to the SMEs to complete the exercises to the 

best of their ability 

 
 

17 

Specific Updates to the Third Iteration of the BHP Analog Assessment 

Tool 

Third Iteration: Characteristics 

For the third iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool, BHP considered 18 research characteristics and 

nine utility characteristics. These included: 

Research Characteristics 

• Availability of Medication/ 

Medical Care 

• Crowdedness 

• Danger 

• External Light Conditions 

• Internal Light Conditions 

• Physical Isolation 

• Autonomy 

• Communication w/Outside 

• Sensory Conditions 

• Sensory Deprivation 

• Workload 

• Personal Space 

• Rest & Recreation Options 

• Quality of Life Support 

Conditions 

• Leadership 

• Team Size 

• Team Structure 

• Team Interdependence 

Utility Characteristics 

• Exposure Time 

• Mission Duration 

• Mission Timeline 

• Similarity to Astronauts 

• Subjects/Year 

• Task Relevance 

• Cost/Study 

• Data Collection Feasibility 

• Research Process/ Protocol 

Feasibility 

Each of the characteristics was chosen due to its relevance to behavioral health and performance 

outcomes. It is important to note, however, that some characteristics are more applicable to specific BHP 

research questions than others. The Analog Assessment Tool process takes into account this relative 

importance (per the SME’s evaluation), ultimately mapping each research question to its best-fit analogs. 
 

18 

Third Iteration: Selected Analogs & Space Scenario 

Twelve analogs were chosen for the third iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool, as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Analogs for Third Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool 

Analog New Addition

1. ISS 

2. Antarctica – McMurdo *

3. Antarctica – Concordia *

4. Antarctica – South Pole *

5. Antarctica – Antarctic Search for Meteorites 

program (ANSMET) 

*

6. NEEMO 

7. HMP 

8. DRATS 

9. Everest *

10. Pavilion Lake *

11. PISCES *

12. PISCES Proposed *

In addition, the space scenario that was selected was a Mars mission, or long-duration mission 

destination. This change was due to a recent redirection for NASA to abandon the Constellation Program 

and redirect energy and money resources to work toward long-duration destinations including Mars and 

possibly NEOs. 

The remainder of this report reviews a working example of this process and results from the three 

iterations of the Analog Assessment Tool, and provides a section with overall conclusions and a 

discussion of forward work. 

Working Example 

As an example, we will review the BHP Research process of adapting this process to create the third 

iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool: 

Selection and Definition of Characteristics 

• BHP Research identified 18 research characteristics and nine utility characteristics that could be 

compared across analogs. These characteristics are directly related to the research gaps defined in 

the three risks of BHP: BMed, Team, and Sleep. While the research characteristics represent the 

specific characteristics within the analog that are relevant to BHP, the utility characteristics 

selected represent those characteristics that are important for logistical considerations of actually 
 

19 

implementing a proposed study within the analog, and thus may not be important across all three 

risks. 

• BHP Research then defined these characteristics – Tables 2 and 3 provide the definitions for each 

of the chosen characteristics. 

Table 2. Definitions of Research Characteristics 

Category Research Characteristic Definition 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

Availability of Medication/ 

Medical Care 

The extent to which medication and medical care is readily 

available and accessible to individuals at the analog 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

Crowdedness/Habitable 

Volume Characteristics 

The degree of crowdedness in an environment (can think of 

as a ratio: habitable volume divided by the number of people 

who must live in it) 

Environmental 

Characteristics Danger The likeliness that an individual will get injured or hurt 

when carrying out daily tasks 

Environmental 

Characteristics External Light Conditions The lighting conditions outside of the habitat 

Environmental 

Characteristics Internal Light Conditions The lighting conditions within the habitat 

Environmental 

Characteristics Physical Isolation 

The level of isolation an individual has from others outside 

of their team (operationalized as the amount of time it would 

take to escape the environment) 

Mission 

Characteristics Autonomy* 

The level of discretion that an individual and crew/team 

have over their choices, actions, and support in accordance 

with standard operating procedures 

Mission 

Characteristics Communication w/Outside The level of access to communication with the outside world 

Mission 

Characteristics Sensory Conditions The quality of environmental conditions affecting sensory 

perceptions including temperature, smell, noise, etc. 

Mission 

Characteristics Sensory Deprivation 

The extent to which the environment does not provide 

needed sensory stimulation in terms of visual, tactile, 

olfactory, auditory, and taste 

Mission 

Characteristics Workload The amount of work an individual has to perform on a dayto-day basis 

Personal Aspects Personal Space The amount of personal space that an individual has to 

himself or herself within the habitat 
 

20 

*Definition from the BHP Autonomy Workshop, 2009 (full term is called bounded autonomy) 

** Stuster[2]

 

Personal Aspects Rest & Recreation Options The extent to which rest and recreation options are available 

to crew members 

Personal Aspects Quality of Life Support 

Conditions** 

The quality of options related to food, hygiene, and other 

aspects of daily living 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Leadership The extent to which the role of the leader is clearly and 

strongly defined and present within a team 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Interdependence The extent to which the completion of assigned tasks 

requires collaboration among crew members 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Size The size of the flight crew that will be on the mission 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Structure 

The extent to which a clear structure (i.e., specific roles 

and/or tasks to be carried out by each individual) exists 

within a team 
 

21 

Table 3. Definitions of Utility Characteristics 

Categorize Characteristics 

• BHP then categorized the research characteristics into four separate groupings: Mission 

Characteristics, Environmental Characteristics, Personal Aspects, and Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects (see Table 4). 

• Utility characteristics were separated into two categories – NASA-Related and Analog-Related – 

as shown in Table 5. 

 

Category Utility Characteristic Definition 

NASA-Related Cost/Study The financial cost to implement a study within 

the analog (include cost for BHP representative, 

materials, travel, and logistics) 

NASA-Related Data Collection Feasibility The level of difficulty of implementing study 

requirements within that analog while 

considering NASA constraints (e.g., logistics, 

technology availability, ability to create 

requirements within the analog, etc.) 

NASA-Related Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility 

The level of difficulty of acquiring approval 

through NASA research channels for a research 

study at that particular analog (e.g., required lead 

time, approvals necessary, etc.) 

Analog-Related Exposure Time Per Subject The number of data points that can be collected 

from a participant 

Analog-Related Mission Duration The length of the mission 

Analog-Related Mission Timeline The extent to which the mission is structured and 

scheduled similar to a real mission 

Analog-Related Similarity to Astronauts The extent to which the participant population is 

comparable/generalizable to the astronaut 

population 

Analog-Related Subjects/Year The number of subjects that can participate/be 

assessed within a given calendar year 

Analog-Related Task Relevance The degree to which the tasks carried out in the 

analogs represent similar tasks during space flight 
 

22 

Table 4. Research Categories/Definitions 

Table 5. Utility Categories/Definitions 

Utility Category Definition

NASA-Related Factors dictated by NASA’s policies and procedures that 

influence data collection in specific analogs 

Analog-Related Factors that are dictated by analog characteristics and 

constraints that influence data collection in those analogs 

 

These categories serve to create a visual representation using a hierarchical structure, per the AHP process 

(refer to Figure 4). This hierarchical structure will create the process for the pair-wise comparisons 

process, discussed in more detail. 

Research Category Definition

Environmental Characteristics Situational factors present in analogs that influence 

individual and team functioning 

Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team-related characteristics that influence crew member 

interaction 

Mission Characteristics Structural features of the mission that influence 

individual and team functioning 

Personal Aspects Non-task-related factors that influence individual 

functioning 
 

23 

Select Space Scenario 

• For the third iteration of this tool, BHP Research determined that a Mars mission (or longduration mission) would best address BHP Research’s needs when considering the tasks and gaps 

within each risk, as well as represent current goals and targets for exploration missions as guided 

by the current direction of NASA. Once selected, the characteristics were then defined in terms of 

how they are anticipated to exist/express themselves in the selected scenario (see Tables 6 and 7). 

These assumptions are necessary for fidelity comparisons. 

Figure 4. Visual representation of hierarchical structure. 

Research 

Characteristics

Environment

•Availability of 

Medication/ 

Medical Care

•Crowdedness

•Danger

•External Light 

Conditions

•Internal Light 

Conditions

•Physical 

Isolation

Mission

•Autonomy

•Communicatio

n w/ Outside

•Sensory 

Conditions 

•Sensory 

Deprivation 

•Workload

Personal

•Personal 

Space

•Rest & 

Recreation 

Options

•Quality of Life 

Support 

Conditions

Team/ 

Psychosocial

•Leadership

•Team Size

•Team Structure

•Team 

Interdependence

Utility 

Characteristics

AnalogRelated

•Exposure Time

•Mission 

Duration

•Mission 

Timeline

•Similarity to 

Astronauts

•Subjects/Year

•Task 

Relevance 

NASARelated

•Cost/Study

•Data 

Collection 

Feasibility 

•Research 

Process/ 

Protocol 

Feasibility 
 

24 

Table 6. Definitions of Research Characteristics in Selected Scenarios

Category Research 

Characteristic Assumptions for a Long-Duration Mission 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

Availability of 

Medication/Medical 

Care 

Limited; basic emergency equipment available and standard 

medications. Crew members with basic training of emergency 

response and basic medical procedures. 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

Crowdedness/Habitable 

Volume Characteristics 

Moderate to high; anticipated that the habitat will be the size 

of a modest-sized RV or smaller for four to six people 

(consider both transit vehicle and habitat on Mars or other 

surface) 

Environmental 

Characteristics Danger 

Moderate to high; daily tasks carry a moderate risk of injury; 

ongoing environment comprises a high degree of risk of injury 

and/or death 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

External Light 

Conditions 

Moderate; exposure to sun will likely be consistent across the 

time during transit and on a foreign planetary surface (e.g., 

Mars day is very similar to Earth’s, but is 37.5 minutes 

longer) 

Environmental 

Characteristics 

Internal Light 

Conditions 

Anticipate full artificial light spectrum (do not consider 

possible lighting countermeasures) 

Environmental 

Characteristics Physical Isolation High; isolated to only other crew members. Escape would be 

impossible, or highly improbable. 

Mission 

Characteristics Autonomy 

Anticipate the crew to be much more autonomous than current 

operations; a moderate to high degree discretion of crew 

members over their choices and actions to complete mission 

objectives 

Mission 

Characteristics 

Communication w/ 

Outside 

Moderate to minimal; although communication options would 

be available, crew members will often experience 

communication delays with the ground ranging from 4 to 40 

minutes (for a full communication loop) 

Mission 

Characteristics Sensory Conditions 

Moderate; anticipate some negative environmental conditions 

that will influence the quality of the environment including 

the lack of fresh air, presence of odious smells, as well as 

noise from machines and support systems, etc. 

Mission 

Characteristics Sensory Deprivation 

Moderate to high; anticipate a lack of sensory stimulation that 

would arouse a visual, tactile, olfactory, auditory, and/or taste 

response (e.g., unlikely to have fresh food, plants, etc.) 

Mission 

Characteristics Workload 

Moderate to heavy workload, with some daily personal time. 

However, likely for some part of the transit, periods of low 

workload may be an issue. 
 

25 

Personal Aspects Personal Space Low; limited personal space anticipated due to the constraints 

of the vehicle and habitat size 

Personal Aspects Rest & Recreation 

Options 

Minimal; few options for rest and recreation are currently 

anticipated. Those options that will be available are likely to 

be a standard, constrained set of options (versus a flexible, 

wide-range of choices and/or different venues). 

Personal Aspects Quality of Life Support 

Conditions 

Minimal; some options for food, hygiene, and other aspects of 

daily living 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Leadership 

Assigned; anticipate the role of leader to be assigned and 

carry a strong role within the crew; also clear designation of 

chain of command 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Interdependence 

Moderate to high; anticipate that many daily tasks will require 

crew members to work together to successfully complete 

mission objectives; teams also will be able to eat together, and 

participate in team rest and recreation activities together 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Size Small; four to six crew members; likely to be mixed gender 

and multicultural 

Team/Psychosocial 

Aspects Team Structure Clearly assigned job roles for each crew member; strong team 

structure 
 

26 

Table 7. Definitions of Utility Characteristics in Selected Scenarios 

• BHP also collected as much information as possible about the Mars mission and created a 

reference document to be used by the SMEs when completing the exercises. Although limited 

information is known about specific expectations for a long-duration mission to Mars or other 

exploration destinations, general information was translated into effective expectations that could 

be used for the purpose of this comparison process. 

 

Category Utility Characteristic Long-Duration Mission Assumptions 

NASA-Related Cost/Study Lower costs will provide the ability to conduct 

more research studies to help mitigate issues 

related to a long-duration mission 

NASA-Related Data Collection Feasibility Higher data collection feasibility related to 

research requirements will increase the ability to 

implement more studies within that analog 

NASA-Related Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility 

Higher protocol feasibility will result in the 

ability to more easily implement additional 

research studies that will address/mitigate BHP 

risks 

Analog-Related Exposure Time Per Subject Higher exposure time will increase the number of 

data points collected to improve the predictability 

of the studies 

Analog-Related Mission Duration Longer mission durations (closer to 30 months) 

will increase the number of data points collected 

and improve the generalizability of studies that 

are conducted 

Analog-Related Mission Timeline Mission timelines that are more specific, clear, 

and generally realistic to what is expected for a 

long-duration mission will provide higher 

generalizability for research studies 

Analog-Related Similarity to Astronauts Participants that are highly similar to astronauts 

(e.g., in terms of intelligence, teamwork ability, 

and personality factors) will provide higher 

generalizability for research studies 

Analog-Related Subjects/Year More subjects/year will increase the number of 

data points collected and improve the 

generalizability of studies that are conducted 

Analog-Related Task Relevance Tasks that are more relevant and realistic to that 

expected on a long-duration mission will provide 

higher generalizability for research studies 
 

27 

Select Analogs 

• For this most recent iteration of the assessment tool, BHP Research selected 12 analogs. These 

analogs were chosen based on a consensus among the SME group as to the perceived 

applicability of these environments to a Mars mission. In addition, specific Antarctic stations 

were targeted this year, rather than using a generic Antarctica analog reference, as feedback from 

our SMEs during previous iterations revealed that there are stark differences between these 

stations. 

• Specifically, the analogs chosen included: 

o ISS 

o Antarctica – McMurdo 

o Antarctica – Concordia 

o Antarctica – South Pole 

o Antarctica – ANSMET 

o NEEMO 

o HMP 

o DRATS 

o Everest 

o Pavilion Lake 

o PISCES 

o PISCES Proposed 

• As a source of supplemental material,2

 BHP also created a comprehensive summary about each 

analog and created a reference document to be used by the SMEs when completing the exercises. 

 

2

 Please refer to Appendix A for a description of the analogs BHP selected. 
 

28 

Review of Preliminary Results: First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool 

The following tables are the result of the first iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool for the BHP 

Research Element. Please note that this first iteration only included an examination of the research 

characteristics (the utility characteristics were not yet included) and did not fully utilize the developed 

pair-wise comparison process per the AHP. However, from this preliminary evidence, ISS proved to be 

the analog with the highest fidelity to the lunar long scenario across all gaps for the three risks (BMed, 

Team, and Sleep). 

In summary, the top three analogs across each of the risks from these preliminary results were ISS, 

NEEMO, and HMP Proposed Operations (HMP-PO) (for Team, HMP-PO was tied with Antarctica). 

However, the weighting of each of the analogs is better represented though a visual representation, as the 

weighted results seemed to follow a tiered level structure. Figure 5 visually demonstrates these 

preliminary results. 

Figure 5. Weighting of each analog – preliminary results. 
29 

Gap Weights Risk: Behavioral Medicine

Table 8. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Behavioral Medicine Risk

Volvo 0.0792 0.0808 0.0808 0.0794

RCS 0.1035 0.1001 0.1001 0.1087

NEEMO 0.1317 0.1285 0.1285 0.1346

ISS 0.3493 0.3512 0.3512 0.3464

HMPPO 0.1332 0.1309 0.1309 0.1356

HMPCO 0.0738 0.0750 0.0750 0.0692

DRATS 0.0336 0.0337 0.0337 0.0326

Antarctica 0.0957 0.0998 0.0998 0.0935

Analogs BMed Gap 1 BMed Gap 2 BMed Gap 3 BMed Gap 4

Volvo 0.0792 0.0808 0.0808 0.0794

RCS 0.1035 0.1001 0.1001 0.1087

NEEMO 0.1317 0.1285 0.1285 0.1346

ISS 0.3493 0.3512 0.3512 0.3464

HMPPO 0.1332 0.1309 0.1309 0.1356

HMPCO 0.0738 0.0750 0.0750 0.0692

DRATS 0.0336 0.0337 0.0337 0.0326

Antarctica 0.0957 0.0998 0.0998 0.0935

Analogs BMed Gap 1 BMed Gap 2 BMed Gap 3 BMed Gap 4

Volvo 0.0797 0.0789 0.0780 0.0818

RCS 0.1047 0.0945 0.1016 0.0990

NEEMO 0.1329 0.1324 0.1358 0.1275

ISS 0.3480 0.3398 0.3432 0.3528

HMPPO 0.1333 0.1402 0.1364 0.1305

HMPCO 0.0750 0.0831 0.0738 0.0748

DRATS 0.0335 0.0384 0.0368 0.0338

Antarctica 0.0928 0.0927 0.0945 0.0997

Analogs BMed Gap 5 BMed Gap 6 BMed Gap 7 BMed Gap 8

Volvo 0.0797 0.0789 0.0780 0.0818

RCS 0.1047 0.0945 0.1016 0.0990

NEEMO 0.1329 0.1324 0.1358 0.1275

ISS 0.3480 0.3398 0.3432 0.3528

HMPPO 0.1333 0.1402 0.1364 0.1305

HMPCO 0.0750 0.0831 0.0738 0.0748

DRATS 0.0335 0.0384 0.0368 0.0338

Antarctica 0.0928 0.0927 0.0945 0.0997

Analogs BMed Gap 5 BMed Gap 6 BMed Gap 7 BMed Gap 8
30 

Risk: Team Table 9. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Team Risk 

Volvo 0.0799 0.0804 0.0809 0.0788 0.0828 0.08

RCS 0.0926 0.0969 0.0942 0.0943 0.0885 0.09

NEEMO 0.1195 0.1221 0.1200 0.1203 0.1141 0.1

ISS 0.3213 0.3218 0.3221 0.3187 0.3299 0.32

HMPPO 0.1370 0.1383 0.1380 0.1399 0.1336 0.13

HMPCO 0.0962 0.0949 0.0966 0.0931 0.0945 0.09

DRATS 0.0384 0.0373 0.0383 0.0371 0.0379 0.03

Antarctica 0.1150 0.1082 0.1099 0.1178 0.1188 0.1

Analogs Team Gap 1 Team Gap 2 Team Gap 3 Team Gap 4 Team Gap 5 Team Gap 

Volvo 0.0799 0.0804 0.0809 0.0788 0.0828 0.08

RCS 0.0926 0.0969 0.0942 0.0943 0.0885 0.09

NEEMO 0.1195 0.1221 0.1200 0.1203 0.1141 0.1

ISS 0.3213 0.3218 0.3221 0.3187 0.3299 0.32

HMPPO 0.1370 0.1383 0.1380 0.1399 0.1336 0.13

HMPCO 0.0962 0.0949 0.0966 0.0931 0.0945 0.09

DRATS 0.0384 0.0373 0.0383 0.0371 0.0379 0.03

Antarctica 0.1150 0.1082 0.1099 0.1178 0.1188 0.1

Analogs Team Gap 1 Team Gap 2 Team Gap 3 Team Gap 4 Team Gap 5 Team Gap 
31 

Risk: Sleep

Table 10. First Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Sleep Risk 

Volvo 0.0720 0.0683 0.0742 0.0691 0.0700

RCS 0.1155 0.1219 0.1107 0.1222 0.1194

NEEMO 0.1305 0.1368 0.1374 0.1406 0.1347

ISS 0.3557 0.3477 0.3666 0.3516 0.3541

HMPPO 0.1241 0.1303 0.1248 0.1298 0.1247

HMPCO 0.0695 0.0658 0.0638 0.065 0.0663

DRATS 0.0315 0.0304 0.0297 0.0305 0.0301

Antarctica 0.1011 0.0988 0.0929 0.0912 0.1007

Analogs Sleep1 Sleep2 Sleep3 Sleep4 Sleep5

Volvo 0.0720 0.0683 0.0742 0.0691 0.0700

RCS 0.1155 0.1219 0.1107 0.1222 0.1194

NEEMO 0.1305 0.1368 0.1374 0.1406 0.1347

ISS 0.3557 0.3477 0.3666 0.3516 0.3541

HMPPO 0.1241 0.1303 0.1248 0.1298 0.1247

HMPCO 0.0695 0.0658 0.0638 0.065 0.0663

DRATS 0.0315 0.0304 0.0297 0.0305 0.0301

Antarctica 0.1011 0.0988 0.0929 0.0912 0.1007

Analogs Sleep1 Sleep2 Sleep3 Sleep4 Sleep5

Volvo 0.0672 0.0703 0.0704 0.0683 0.0688

RCS 0.1226 0.1102 0.1130 0.1244 0.1146

NEEMO 0.1477 0.1291 0.1411 0.1448 0.1421

ISS 0.3546 0.3482 0.3589 0.3545 0.3561

HMPPO 0.1318 0.1312 0.1275 0.1299 0.1298

HMPCO 0.0603 0.0761 0.0655 0.0592 0.0660

DRATS 0.0295 0.0351 0.0295 0.0300 0.0309

Antarctica 0.0862 0.0998 0.094 0.0888 0.0917

Analogs Sleep6 Sleep7 Sleep8 Sleep9 Sleep10

Volvo 0.0672 0.0703 0.0704 0.0683 0.0688

RCS 0.1226 0.1102 0.1130 0.1244 0.1146

NEEMO 0.1477 0.1291 0.1411 0.1448 0.1421

ISS 0.3546 0.3482 0.3589 0.3545 0.3561

HMPPO 0.1318 0.1312 0.1275 0.1299 0.1298

HMPCO 0.0603 0.0761 0.0655 0.0592 0.0660

DRATS 0.0295 0.0351 0.0295 0.0300 0.0309

Antarctica 0.0862 0.0998 0.094 0.0888 0.0917

Analogs Sleep6 Sleep7 Sleep8 Sleep9 Sleep10
 

32 

Results of the Second Iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool

After completion of the first iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool, many areas of improvement were 

identified. First, it was imperative that the AHP was implemented using pair-wise comparisons for the 

second iteration. Second, it was essential that a utility analysis was incorporated into this process. The 

research characteristics, as originally defined, addressed those characteristics within the analog 

environment that were most relevant to specific research tasks (i.e., lighting); however, no consideration 

of the utility of actually implementing research within these analogs were considered (subjects/year, 

similarity of subject population to astronauts, etc.). Thus, it was clear that a true analog assessment would 

incorporate both those characteristics that were relevant to the specific research tasks, as well as those 

characteristics that relate to the logistics of conducting research studies within those analogs. Last, the 

efficiency and design of the pair-wise comparison exercises needed to follow the structure of the 

analytical hierarchy to reduce the workload that was required on the part of the SMEs. 

The second iteration, therefore, incorporated many revisions to the original design to improve the process 

itself, as well as the reliability and validity of the results and conclusions that were drawn from the 

evaluations. First, BHP worked with Johnson Space Center (JSC) statisticians to implement a 

comprehensive AHP hierarchical structure and incorporated a utility analysis by creating utility 

characteristics that also would be compared to the specific research gaps (risks) and analogs themselves 

(see Figure 4). A customized online survey was designed to create the numerous pair-wise comparisons 

that were required so that SMEs could quickly and efficiently complete their rankings. An additional step 

was implemented per the guidelines of AHP that involved holding a consensus session with SMEs. 

Following the online survey in which SMEs completed pair-wise comparisons based on their area of 

expertise, these results were then analyzed for inter-rater agreement. A consensus session was then held 

with SMEs to discuss items with a high discrepancy in terms of rating agreement, and reach a consensus 

for each of these flagged comparisons. Together with the original ratings, these consensus ratings were 

then analyzed by JSC statisticians to produce the final weights for each analog by each gap within each 

risk. 

The results of the second iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool are presented in Figure 6. Although we 

see consistency from the first iteration in that ISS is again the best analog in terms of fidelity across all 

gaps for the three risks (BMed, Team, and Sleep), there is less consistency for the remaining results of 

this second iteration than with the first. For example, for the second iteration, the top analogs across the 

three risks include NEEMO, RCS, and Antarctica. For this second iteration, results suggest that HMPProposed ranks fifth in terms of fidelity across the gaps when compared to the other analogs (it was in the 
 

33 

top three analogs for the first iteration). The differences in results could be due to the improved pair-wise 

comparison process and/or the incorporation of the utility analysis. However, we see that, once again, the 

weighting of each analog is better represented though a visual representation, as the weighted results 

seemed to follow a tiered level structure (i.e., the decimal difference between the analogs on the Tier 2 

level are insignificant). Figure 6 visually demonstrates these preliminary results.3

Figure 6. Visual demonstration of preliminary results for second iteration of 

Analog Assessment Tool. 

 The following tables provide the weightings for each of the analogs for each of the gaps under the three 

risks: BMed, Team, and Sleep. The tables have been color coded in line with the tiered figure presented 

above; the first tier is shaded yellow (i.e., ISS), the second tier is shaded blue, and the third tier is shaded 

red. The final table also includes the utility weight as a visual demonstration of what was used to average 

the gap scores to produce the final scores as represented in each risk table.

 

3

 Please note that Volvo Sailing Races were not included in the second iteration. 
34 

Gap Weights Risk: Behavioral Medicine Table 11. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Behavioral Medicine Risk 

Risk Gap NEEMO HMP_C HMP_P Antarctica RCS DRATS 

BMed 1 0.161839 0.049446 0.121552 0.130515 0.15366 0.07885 BMed 2 0.161574 0.051638 0.1202 0.129813 0.153615 0.078236 BMed 3 0.15816 0.050246 0.120187 0.131777 0.155368 0.078297 BMed 4 0.159246 0.049741 0.118054 0.133125 0.155671 0.077854 BMed 5 0.157567 0.0492 0.121336 0.134627 0.153262 0.077909 BMed 6 0.161069 0.04964 0.118231 0.133958 0.154174 0.077652 BMed 7 0.160754 0.050413 0.122607 0.131281 0.151869 0.078011 
35 

Risk: TeamTable 12. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Team Risk 

Risk Gap NEEMO HMP_C HMP_P Antarctica RCS DRATS 

Team 1 0.156441 0.048514 0.114047 0.131895 0.161593 0.07857Team 2 0.156014 0.048566 0.115479 0.135768 0.159352 0.07848Team 3 0.162926 0.048687 0.118869 0.129987 0.157198 0.08017Team 4 0.158292 0.048968 0.113341 0.132892 0.161241 0.07792Team 5 0.160778 0.049065 0.116287 0.129711 0.160776 0.07944 Team 6 0.161077 0.050442 0.116568 0.130089 0.15859 0.07936Team 7 0.164045 0.051007 0.117179 0.128645 0.156252 0.07809
36 

Risk: SleepTable 13. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool – Sleep Risk 

Risk Gap NEEMO HMP_C HMP_P Antarctica RCS DR

Sleep 1 0.158498 0.047031 0.119946 0.136678 0.155634 0.08Sleep 2 0.1597 0.047157 0.12266 0.136351 0.159508 0.08Sleep 3 0.15586 0.047056 0.120164 0.138114 0.156543 0.07Sleep 4 0.160994 0.047007 0.124997 0.135466 0.16146 0.08Sleep 5 0.156929 0.046887 0.124072 0.136721 0.155985 0.08Sleep 6 0.154952 0.048833 0.117131 0.139895 0.157441 0.07Sleep 7 0.158745 0.048165 0.120066 0.136483 0.156884 0.07Sleep 8 0.161098 0.047875 0.12211 0.135895 0.153754 0.0Sleep 9 0.157962 0.04724 0.12196 0.136338 0.155441 0.08Sleep 10 0.158997 0.047979 0.122034 0.135886 0.156392 0.08
37 

Table 14. Second Iteration of Analog Assessment Tool (BMed, Team, Sleep) – Includes Utility Weight 

Risk Gap NEEMO HMP_C HMP_P Antarctica RCS DRATS 

BMed 1 0.173457 0.053326 0.165765 0.073703 0.173526 0.05610BMed 2 0.172926 0.05771 0.163059 0.072299 0.173437 0.05488BMed 3 0.166099 0.054927 0.163033 0.076227 0.176943 0.05500BMed 4 0.168271 0.053917 0.158769 0.078924 0.177549 0.05411BMed 5 0.164913 0.052834 0.165331 0.081928 0.172731 0.05422BMed 6 0.171917 0.053714 0.159123 0.08059 0.174555 0.05371BMed 7 0.171287 0.055261 0.167874 0.075235 0.169945 0.0544

Team 1 0.16266 0.051463 0.150754 0.076464 0.189393 0.05555Team 2 0.161806 0.051567 0.153617 0.08421 0.184909 0.05537Team 3 0.17563 0.051808 0.160398 0.072649 0.180602 0.05876Team 4 0.166362 0.052371 0.149343 0.078458 0.188687 0.05426Team 5 0.171335 0.052565 0.155235 0.072095 0.187759 0.05728Team 6 0.171932 0.055318 0.155796 0.072852 0.183386 0.05713Team 7 0.177869 0.056448 0.157018 0.069964 0.17871 0.05459

Sleep 1 0.166774 0.048497 0.162553 0.086031 0.177474 0.06033Sleep 2 0.169179 0.048749 0.167979 0.085375 0.185222 0.05920Sleep 3 0.161499 0.048546 0.162987 0.088902 0.179293 0.0578Sleep 4 0.171766 0.048449 0.172654 0.083605 0.189126 0.06323Sleep 5 0.163637 0.048208 0.170804 0.086115 0.178176 0.06039Sleep 6 0.159683 0.0521 0.156923 0.092465 0.181088 0.0571Sleep 7 0.167268 0.050765 0.162793 0.08564 0.179974 0.05802Sleep 8 0.171975 0.050184 0.166879 0.084464 0.173713 0.06460Sleep 9 0.165703 0.048914 0.16658 0.08535 0.177088 0.05901Sleep 10 0.167773 0.050392 0.166728 0.084445 0.17899 0.06143

Utility 1 0.150222 0.045566 0.07734 0.187326 0.133794 0.10159
 

38 

Results of the Third Iteration of the Analog Assessment Tool

The third iteration of the BHP Analog Assessment Tool focused on augmenting previous work in revising 

the hierarchical structure to incorporate additional research and utility characteristics (especially focusing 

on the utility characteristics that were added), increase the number and diversity of the analogs 

considered, revise the space scenario as the designated comparison mission (long-duration mission 

destination), and customize the results in a way that would be most resourceful to the investigator and/or 

the scientific community. Specifically, the user can review the results at three levels of granularity, 

identifying which characteristics, risks, and/or BHP-related concerns are most relevant to the research 

study they wish to implement within a space flight analog environment. In addition, we increased our 

SME pool as we felt the previous iterations proved that this methodological approach was effective and 

appropriate to use for analog comparisons. Over 40 (n = 41) SMEs participated in this iteration providing 

more than 9,300 ratings across the different surveys. 

In addition to our consensus session, the online Web-based survey platform incorporated the ability to 

identify a super rater. This role allowed for an SME to review the answers and comments of others and 

then make a final rating in light of this input and their own evaluation. This feature improved the 

efficiency and allowed us to focus on those items that had the highest instance of disagreement among 

raters during the consensus session. 

The results are provided from these different vantage points: 

1. The first set of tables examines the specific utility and research characteristics that were 

considered for each risk by analog. 

2. The next set of tables includes the averaged weights for all characteristics across each analog by 

the BHP risk. 

3. The final set of tables provides a high-level summary of the results by combining all of the 

weights for each characteristic across all analogs and risks to produce a priority summary for 

analogs. 

Please note that the first set of tables include the weighted averages across each characteristic for each 

analog. While raw scores for each characteristic within each BHP risk were more noticeably different, we 

see a high consistency across these final weights for the characteristics across all of the risks. 
39 

Utility Characteristics Table 15. Behavioral Medicine Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category 

BMed Risk 

Category Utility Characteristics NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Analog-Related Exposure Time 0.080698 0.034048 0.038043 0.065354 0.035509 0.030987 0.074735 0.112391 0.146539 Analog-Related Mission Duration 0.022011 0.046331 0.021519 0.036387 0.022011 0.022011 0.072101 0.133065 0.159938 Analog-Related Mission Timeline 0.171292 0.062999 0.061297 0.041882 0.039459 0.036853 0.074383 0.239378 0.053571 Analog-Related Similarity to Astronauts 0.219662 0.059944 0.045656 0.025534 0.058719 0.023266 0.073213 0.289032 0.036475 Analog-Related Subjects/Year 0.026465 0.036133 0.091987 0.104288 0.039987 0.032118 0.073133 0.083090 0.245993 Analog-Related Task Relevance 0.203205 0.086081 0.057681 0.023140 0.060010 0.028956 0.075201 0.276123 0.038609 NASA-Related Cost/Study 0.252820 0.131185 0.117579 0.039086 0.049123 0.052074 0.066515 0.040000 0.106706 NASA-Related Data Collection Feasibility 0.244358 0.131367 0.118716 0.050831 0.048680 0.049295 0.064478 0.082055 0.071555 NASA-Related 

Research Process/Protocol Feasibility 0.174826 0.143243 0.150015 0.040832 0.048324 0.062408 0.066641 0.078260 0.078515 

Table 16. Team Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category 

Team Risk 

Category Utility Characteristics NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Analog-Related Exposure Time 0.080694 0.034049 0.038041 0.065353 0.035508 0.030986 0.074735 0.112390 0.146543 Analog-Related Mission Duration 0.022010 0.046333 0.021516 0.036385 0.022010 0.022010 0.072103 0.133063 0.159939 Analog-Related Mission Timeline 0.171289 0.062996 0.061299 0.041883 0.039460 0.036854 0.074384 0.239378 0.053570 Analog-Related Similarity to Astronauts 0.219661 0.059943 0.045657 0.025533 0.058720 0.023266 0.073212 0.289033 0.036475 Analog-Related Subjects/Year 0.026465 0.036133 0.091987 0.104297 0.039982 0.032113 0.073139 0.083074 0.245986 Analog-Related Task Relevance 0.203199 0.086077 0.057682 0.023142 0.060008 0.028959 0.075202 0.276123 0.038603 NASA-Related Cost/Study 0.252819 0.131185 0.117579 0.039089 0.049121 0.052073 0.066517 0.040000 0.106706 NASA-Related Data Collection Feasibility 0.244358 0.131365 0.118717 0.050832 0.048681 0.049297 0.064478 0.082054 0.071554 NASA-Related 

Research Process/Protocol Feasibility 0.174826 0.143243 0.150015 0.040832 0.048324 0.062409 0.066640 0.078259 0.078516 
40 

Table 17. Sleep Risk – Utility Characteristics per Category 

Sleep Risk 

Category Utility Characteristics NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Analog-Related Exposure Time 0.080697 0.034038 0.038048 0.065360 0.035516 0.030989 0.074728 0.112388 0.146537 Analog-Related Mission Duration 0.022011 0.046330 0.021521 0.036388 0.022011 0.022011 0.072106 0.133059 0.159944 Analog-Related Mission Timeline 0.171288 0.062992 0.061300 0.041886 0.039457 0.036860 0.074384 0.239378 0.053568 Analog-Related Similarity to Astronauts 0.219662 0.059943 0.045655 0.025533 0.058721 0.023266 0.073209 0.289032 0.036477 Analog-Related Subjects/Year 0.026456 0.036130 0.091968 0.104270 0.040012 0.032129 0.073156 0.083070 0.245984 Analog-Related Task Relevance 0.203197 0.086075 0.057678 0.023140 0.060005 0.028957 0.075194 0.276130 0.038610 NASA-Related Cost/Study 0.252821 0.131193 0.117580 0.039091 0.049127 0.052073 0.066511 0.039997 0.106703 NASA-Related Data Collection Feasibility 0.244356 0.131368 0.118715 0.050829 0.048681 0.049296 0.064478 0.082057 0.071551 NASA-Related 

Research Process/Protocol Feasibility 0.174826 0.143245 0.150016 0.040832 0.048326 0.062406 0.066641 0.078257 0.078515 
41 

Research Characteristics Table 18. Behavioral Medicine Risk – Research Characteristics per Category 

BMed Risk 

Category Characteristic NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Size 0.158885 0.026978 0.071857 0.070746 0.017234 0.024439 0.128162 0.267306 0.015647 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Leadership 0.136616 0.029141 0.037141 0.104713 0.018403 0.019408 0.177132 0.230886 0.027956 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Structure 0.221956 0.048832 0.081804 0.060690 0.026106 0.017370 0.094129 0.265120 0.029747 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Interdependence 0.216079 0.036120 0.067520 0.127101 0.023675 0.028825 0.036550 0.222230 0.041735 Mission Characteristics Workload 0.076228 0.087281 0.014013 0.199544 0.016239 0.015707 0.122561 0.037821 0.093755 Mission Characteristics 

Communication with Outside World 0.077392 0.096760 0.014538 0.214623 0.018428 0.024117 0.130261 0.050925 0.084896 

Mission Characteristics Autonomy 0.184563 0.046217 0.020620 0.045833 0.017885 0.017235 0.052995 0.187052 0.112945 Mission Characteristics Sensory Deprivation 0.112806 0.035663 0.014002 0.044504 0.015120 0.014462 0.033033 0.271332 0.142190 Mission Characteristics Sensory Conditions 0.216471 0.102593 0.078416 0.100370 0.014820 0.016788 0.075622 0.166677 0.061374 Personal Aspects Personal Space 0.262234 0.079288 0.047028 0.063537 0.014121 0.010827 0.114486 0.142923 0.051895 Personal Aspects Rest & Recreation 0.177935 0.089577 0.026528 0.058105 0.016154 0.014726 0.134800 0.219955 0.032412 Personal Aspects 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 0.181730 0.051142 0.022037 0.072936 0.014552 0.014309 0.113633 0.221244 0.052500 

Environmental Characteristics 

Internal Light Conditions 0.045916 0.047702 0.016081 0.092394 0.014062 0.015868 0.021036 0.256465 0.137041 

Environmental Characteristics 

External Light Conditions 0.292261 0.050314 0.028345 0.030446 0.015082 0.011885 0.070977 0.202829 0.076752 

Environmental Characteristics Danger 0.113641 0.037095 0.012328 0.191539 0.015532 0.013802 0.014232 0.276112 0.102194 Environmental Characteristics Physical Isolation 0.076628 0.096341 0.034060 0.063977 0.030557 0.040371 0.066229 0.161986 0.076127 Environmental Characteristics 

Habitable Volume Characteristics 0.166631 0.033522 0.025594 0.031609 0.028606 0.023784 0.127572 0.206708 0.108041 

Environmental Characteristics 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 0.047877 0.069148 0.012885 0.128645 0.042334 0.022993 0.024662 0.211031 0.059536 
42 

Table 19. Team Risk – Research Characteristics per Category 

Team Risk 

Category Characteristic NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Size 0.158880 0.026972 0.071864 0.070741 0.017244 0.024446 0.128171 0.267311 0.015643 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Leadership 0.136619 0.029144 0.037137 0.104710 0.018404 0.019406 0.177132 0.230883 0.027953 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Structure 0.221970 0.048828 0.081785 0.060675 0.026099 0.017348 0.094149 0.265135 0.029753 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Interdependence 0.216086 0.036127 0.067511 0.127094 0.023660 0.028820 0.036560 0.222235 0.041747 Mission Characteristics Workload 0.076230 0.087283 0.014012 0.199543 0.016240 0.015706 0.122561 0.037820 0.093752 Mission Characteristics 

Communication with Outside World 0.077394 0.096765 0.014534 0.214622 0.018434 0.024120 0.130255 0.050926 0.084900 

Mission Characteristics Autonomy 0.184563 0.046220 0.020623 0.045833 0.017886 0.017233 0.052997 0.187045 0.112946 Mission Characteristics Sensory Deprivation 0.112802 0.035663 0.014014 0.044497 0.015129 0.014451 0.033038 0.271337 0.142192 Mission Characteristics Sensory Conditions 0.216475 0.102593 0.078427 0.100357 0.014821 0.016784 0.075619 0.166681 0.061366 Personal Aspects Personal Space 0.262230 0.079287 0.047030 0.063537 0.014118 0.010831 0.114486 0.142921 0.051896 Personal Aspects Rest & Recreation 0.177942 0.089586 0.026517 0.058093 0.016138 0.014731 0.134803 0.219945 0.032396 Personal Aspects 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 0.181725 0.051143 0.022054 0.072917 0.014563 0.014311 0.113634 0.221230 0.052494 

Environmental Characteristics 

Internal Light Conditions 0.045916 0.047699 0.016082 0.092395 0.014056 0.015865 0.021032 0.256466 0.137040 

Environmental Characteristics 

External Light Conditions 0.292273 0.050317 0.028331 0.030459 0.015080 0.011870 0.070959 0.202837 0.076745 

Environmental Characteristics Danger 0.113633 0.037092 0.012335 0.191539 0.015538 0.013807 0.014239 0.276109 0.102186 Environmental Characteristics Physical Isolation 0.076643 0.096391 0.034031 0.063947 0.030563 0.040379 0.066240 0.161984 0.076114 Environmental Characteristics 

Habitable Volume Characteristics 0.166635 0.033521 0.025594 0.031609 0.028608 0.023781 0.127570 0.206708 0.108045 

Environmental Characteristics 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 0.047880 0.069160 0.012900 0.128645 0.042340 0.022989 0.024643 0.211037 0.059540 
43 

Table 20. Sleep Risk – Research Characteristics per Category 

Sleep Risk 

Category Characteristic NEEMO HMP DRATS Everest 

Pavilion 

Lake PISCES 

PISCES 

Proposed ISS 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 

Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Size 0.158876 0.026940 0.071793 0.070773 0.017184 0.024465 0.128149 0.267366 0.015582 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Leadership 0.136612 0.029129 0.037152 0.104709 0.018407 0.019420 0.177139 0.230862 0.027967 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Structure 0.221920 0.048918 0.081848 0.060610 0.026010 0.017348 0.094256 0.265111 0.029828 Team/Psychosocial Aspects Team Interdependence 0.216114 0.036101 0.067443 0.127174 0.023630 0.028881 0.036593 0.222186 0.041680 Mission Characteristics Workload 0.076233 0.087281 0.014012 0.199543 0.016240 0.015707 0.122560 0.037817 0.093750 Mission Characteristics 

Communication with Outside World 0.077403 0.096760 0.014538 0.214618 0.018447 0.024123 0.130254 0.050924 0.084900 

Mission Characteristics Autonomy 0.184565 0.046218 0.020623 0.045828 0.017893 0.017226 0.052995 0.187051 0.112946 Mission Characteristics Sensory Deprivation 0.112818 0.035670 0.014007 0.044519 0.015147 0.014442 0.033009 0.271296 0.142190 Mission Characteristics Sensory Conditions 0.216471 0.102605 0.078405 0.100367 0.014828 0.016786 0.075608 0.166672 0.061374 Personal Aspects Personal Space 0.262232 0.079285 0.047028 0.063541 0.014111 0.010831 0.114493 0.142920 0.051894 Personal Aspects Rest & Recreation 0.177916 0.089546 0.026526 0.058076 0.016167 0.014754 0.134830 0.219903 0.032412 Personal Aspects 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 0.181683 0.051169 0.022053 0.072908 0.014597 0.014283 0.113640 0.221237 0.052504 

Environmental Characteristics 

Internal Light Conditions 0.045917 0.047699 0.016082 0.092395 0.014061 0.015870 0.021037 0.256461 0.137036 

Environmental Characteristics 

External Light Conditions 0.292258 0.050309 0.028349 0.030439 0.015102 0.011893 0.070974 0.202826 0.076744 

Environmental Characteristics Danger 0.113635 0.037088 0.012323 0.191531 0.015531 0.013808 0.014234 0.276117 0.102200 Environmental Characteristics Physical Isolation 0.076613 0.096357 0.034066 0.063960 0.030590 0.040369 0.066231 0.161986 0.076149 Environmental Characteristics 

Habitable Volume Characteristics 0.166633 0.033520 0.025593 0.031609 0.028604 0.023781 0.127573 0.206708 0.108043 

Environmental Characteristics 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 0.047870 0.069152 0.012891 0.128652 0.042326 0.023000 0.024652 0.211022 0.059543 
 

44 

Table 21. Summary of Results by Combining Weights for All Characteristics 

Analog Utility Characteristics Research 

Characteristics

Average 

BHP Risk BMed Team Sleep BMed Team Sleep BMed Team Sleep 

NEEMO 0.155037 0.155036 0.174826 0.153658268 0.153661 0.153654 0.154348 0.154348 0.164240 

HMP 0.081259 0.081258 0.143245 0.059095227 0.059099 0.059097 0.070177 0.070179 0.101171 

DRATS 0.078055 0.078055 0.150016 0.034710929 0.03471 0.034707 0.056383 0.056382 0.092362 

Everest 0.047481 0.047483 0.040832 0.094517375 0.094512 0.094514 0.070999 0.070997 0.067673 

Pavilion 

Lake 0.044647 0.044646 0.048326 0.019939411 0.01994 0.019938 0.032293 0.032293 0.034132 

PISCES 0.037552 0.037552 0.062406 0.01927319 0.019271 0.019277 0.028413 0.028411 0.040842 

PISCES 

Proposed 0.071156 0.071157 0.066641 0.085448456 0.085449 0.085457 0.078302 0.078303 0.076049 

ISS 0.148155 0.148153 0.078257 0.199922334 0.199923 0.199915 0.174039 0.174038 0.139086 

Antarctica – 

McMurdo 0.104211 0.104210 0.078515 0.072596833 0.072595 0.072597 0.088404 0.088402 0.075556 

Antarctica – 

Concordia 0.094068 0.094069 0.059627 0.107184956 0.107184 0.107186 0.100626 0.100626 0.083406 

Antarctica – 

South Pole 0.096761 0.096763 0.069698 0.072363101 0.072366 0.072366 0.084562 0.084565 0.071032 

Antarctica – 

ANSMET 0.041618 0.041619 0.027612 0.08128992 0.08129 0.081292 0.061454 0.061454 0.054452 

 
 

45 

Table 22. Priority Summary of Analogs 

Priority of Analogs Across BHP Risks

Analog Research 

Characteristics 

Utility 

Characteristics 

Average

NEEMO 0.153658 0.161633 0.157645 

HMP 0.059097 0.101921 0.080509 

DRATS 0.034709 0.102042 0.068376 

Everest 0.094514 0.045266 0.069890 

Pavilion Lake 0.019939 0.045873 0.032906 

PISCES 0.019274 0.045837 0.032555 

PISCES Proposed 0.085452 0.069651 0.077551 

ISS 0.199920 0.124855 0.162387 

Antarctica – McMurdo 0.072596 0.095645 0.084121 

Antarctica – Concordia 0.107185 0.082588 0.094886 

Antarctica – South Pole 0.072365 0.087741 0.080053 

Antarctica – ANSMET 0.081291 0.036949 0.059120 

 
 

46 

The results summarized in Tables 16 through 22 show general consistency when compared to previous 

iterations of the BHP Analog Assessment Tool; however, these results also are distinct in several ways. 

First, although ISS was still the highest-ranking analog, the relative difference in weights between 

NEEMO and ISS was not significant. Second, although the results seem to denote a specific clustered 

ranking, the overall ranking of some of the analogs that were previously considered have changed, 

especially when the utility characteristic weights are considered (see Figure 7). Third, we see a stark 

contrast in some of the specific Antarctica stations that were considered, thus we see the utility in dividing 

the Antarctica analog into substations as was suggested by our SMEs. Finally, these results demonstrate 

how research and utility characteristics can impact the level of these results. For example, although HMP 

scored fairly low for research characteristic weight, the utility characteristic weight was high, thus the 

average weight placed HMP as a second-tier analog. This example also points to the power of providing 

the detailed tables as it allows the researcher to examine the results at the level of specificity they desire: 

results at the analog level (across risks); at the risk level (weights for each analog); or at the characteristic 

level (weights for each characteristic for each risk).

 

 Figure 7. Overall ratings of analogs. 

ANSMET, Pavilion Lake, & PISCES

DRATS, Everest

Antarctica – Concordia, Antarctica – McMurdo, HMP, Antarctica – South Pole, 

& PISCES Proposed

ISS, NEEMO
 

47 

Conclusions and Defined Forward Work: Analog Assessment Tool 

Many conclusions can be drawn from the efforts of creating the Analog Assessment Tool and the analyses 

that were conducted on the data collected. First, the Analog Assessment Tool demonstrates that it is 

possible to objectively and systematically compare analogs across specific characteristics that are relevant 

to research. Second, this process exemplifies the importance of considering both research and utility 

needs when conducting research; it is necessary to consider those specific characteristics that are essential 

for creating a high-fidelity environment as well as those characteristics that pertain to the logistics of 

conducting research within a specific analog. Third, the results across all three iterations demonstrated 

high reliability, which provided evidence-based support in using a pair-wise comparison process to 

examine analogs based on the specific characteristics that are collected. The AHP serves as an exemplary 

method of decision making to complete these difficult comparisons within a hierarchical structure. 

On a grander scale, the results from this process also demonstrate that ISS and NEEMO serve as a highfidelity analog to conduct BHP-related research for a Mars mission or alternate long-duration destination. 

Other analogs, including Antarctica – Concordia, Antarctica – McMurdo, HMP, PISCES Proposed, and 

Antarctica – South Pole, also are high-fidelity analogs and should be considered as viable alternatives to 

conduct behavioral and performance-related research. 

The Analog Assessment Tool has implications for other uses as well; its malleability allows researchers to 

consider which analog would provide the highest fidelity across BHP risks (when relevant). The results 

from this process can provide insight as to the weights for specific characteristics within each analog. 

Researchers can choose to look at specific weights at a more detailed level among the analogs to make a 

better selection of fidelity when choosing a location to implement a research task. In addition, results 

from this iteration can be used to identify those characteristics in which analogs are weak (indicated by a 

small weight in comparison to the other analogs), and use this information to specifically identify which 

characteristics need to be improved to increase the fidelity of the analog environment to the space 

scenario in question. In terms of forward work, future updates will be determined as needed, pending a 

substantial change of analogs considered, the space scenario selected, and/or research and utility 

characteristics that were included. These updates will be shared annually at the BHP Working Group. 

In conclusion, this report provides an account of the development and implementation of the Analog 

Assessment Tool for the BHP Research Element. The outcomes of this process will be used in future 

work within BHP Research when identifying analogs that would represent the highest fidelity for specific 

research tasks. This report also serves as an example for others to use this process so that they may 

objectively determine which analog will provide the highest fidelity to space flight when considering 
 

48 

specific research. And finally, this report serves as a resource to researchers and others in the research 

community to make informed decisions about where to implement research within those analogs that 

most highly replicate the characteristics desired for behavioral health and performance-related issues and 

the long-duration environment. 

As the Human Research Program tasked BHP Research with providing a summary of this process and 

recommendations for the Flight Analog Project to be able to use a similar methodology, we view this 

report as fulfilling this request. We anticipate that this tool will continue to develop and improve, and will 

provide the valuable resource information that is necessary to implement sound research within analog 

environments that have high fidelity to the space flight environment. 

 
 

49 

References 

[1] HRP Science Management Plan (2008). Human Research Program Science Management Plan, 

Revision C, HRP- 47053. 

[2] Stuster, J. W. (1986). Space Station Habitability Recommendations Based on a Systematic 

Comparative Analysis of Analogous Conditions. Washington: NASA. 

[3] Human Research Program (2010). Human Research Program Requirements Document, HRP- 47052. 

[4] Baskin, P., and Leveton, L. (October 2007). Analogs for Conducting BHP Research. NASA Human 

Research Program Quarterly Review: Houston, Texas. 

[5] O’Donnell R.D., Moise S., Schmidt R.M. (2005). Generating performance test batteries relevant to 

specific operational tasks. Aviation Space Environmental Medicine, 76(7, Supplement):C24–30. 

[6] Saaty,T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning Setting Priorities, Resource Allocation, 

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 

[7] Cartreine, J. (2009). Limits to Analog Studies. Presentation given at the Workshop on Human 

Behaviour and Performance in Analogue Environments and Simulations, Noordwijk, The 

Netherlands. 

 
 

50 

Acknowledgment 

We, the Behavioral Health & Performance Element, would also like to extend a special note of thanks and 

appreciation to all those who participated in this process. This took an enormous amount of work from 

individuals within NASA as well as from those in our external NASA community and we are indebted to 

all those who took the time to participate and help produce the results that are included in this report. 

Thank you!

 
 

51 

Appendix A 

Supplemental Material for Analog Assessment Tool

Descriptions of Analogs 

NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) 

NEEMO is an environment for studying human survival in the Aquarius underwater laboratory in 

preparation for future space exploration. Aquarius, an underwater habitat located near Key Largo, Florida, 

is owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and operated by the National 

Undersea Research Center (NURC) at the University of North Carolina–Wilmington as a marine biology 

study base. NASA has used it since 2001 for a series of missions, usually lasting 10 to 14 days, with 

research conducted by astronauts, other NASA employees, and NURC Habtechs (aquanauts that help 

support the NASA crew member during the mission; they stay inside the habitat for the duration of the 

mission and ensure that safety and NURC policies and guidelines are followed). The crew members are 

called aquanauts instead of "divers." They perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) in the underwater 

environment, as well as perform other scientific-based studies within the habitat. Groups of NASA 

employees and contractors live in Aquarius for up to approximately 3 weeks at a time. For NASA, 

Aquarius provides an environment similar to space living, and NEEMO crew members experience some 

of the same tasks and challenges underwater as they would in space. There are four to six crew members: 

three to four aquanauts, one commander, and one to three mission support personnel who conduct the 

science, exploration, and environmental studies. There are always two NURC habtechs (one lead and one 

support) whose main job is to ensure the safety of the team as well as complete the daily maintenance of 

the habitat. The habitat is the size of the Destiny module on board ISS. The habitat is a steel cylinder 3 m 

(~9.8 ft) in diameter by 14 m (~46 ft) in length, providing 11 m3

 (388 ft3) of living and lab space. Once 

the crew members have been underwater for approximately 6 hours, they are then required to complete a 

17-hour decompression process before their ascent to the surface or risk decompression sickness or 

possibly even death. A support staff (topside) of approximately five to 10 is located on shore. The staff’s 

duties resemble mission control. An NURC support team, also located on shore, operates a 24-hour watch 

desk, pot (delivers and retrieves) items daily, and supports EVAs. A structured timeline/schedule Onboard 

Short-Term Planning Viewing is used for each mission day’s activities. The crew members have full 

communication with ground support (topside) as well as internet and video conferencing capabilities. The 

lighting within the habitat is similar to the ISS. 

• www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/index.html
 

52 

• www.uncwil.edu/aquarius/thumb_cam.htm 

• http://www.uncw.edu/aquarius/index.html 

• http://www1.nasa.gov/pdf/448866main_NEEMO14%20factsheet-508c.pdf 

NEEMO – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Similar to ISS lighting; artificial light (not full spectrum) 

External Light Conditions 18.9 m (62 ft) underwater, similar to submarine lighting 

Danger 

Moderate level of danger associated with diving while 

performing EVAs and generally living underwater for an 

extended period of time 

Physical Isolation Underwater for approximately 2 to 3 weeks 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

11 m3

 (388 ft3) of living and lab space with approximately six 

crew members in the space 

Team Size 

Up to six crew members (three to four astronauts; two 

habtechs) 

Leadership One commander 

Team Structure 

One commander, others for mission support, habtechs ensure 

safety and complete daily maintenance 

Personal Space 

Size of Destiny module on ISS, 11 m3

 (388 ft3) of living and lab 

space 

Rest and Recreation Options 

Able to communicate with friends/colleagues, read, eat, rest, 

plan dives, research for next day, work with data found 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Mainly dehydrated food although can be sent fresh food on 

occasion; similar to what astronauts have in space. Bottled 

water or water from a specialized tank. 

Workload Structured timeline for each mission day's activities 

Communication with Outside 

Communication with topside, internet and video conferencing 

capabilities 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

There is a Dive Medical Officer (topside), but crew likely will be 

required to deal with emergencies on their own without the 

assistance of a doctor 

Autonomy 

Partial mission time spent with being fully autonomous 

(independent from mission control – delayed communication) 

Sensory Conditions 

The interior atmospheric pressure is equal to the surrounding 

water pressure; dank smell in the habitat (e.g., issues related to 

fungus) and moderate level of noise 

Sensory Deprivation Environment provides rich stimulation for all senses 

Team Interdependence 

High; team members must rely on each other to complete 

mission objectives, particularly during the autonomous phase 
 

53 

Haughton-Mars Project Research Station/Devon Island (Current Operations)

The Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) is an international, multidisciplinary, scientific field research project 

centered on the exploration of the 38-million-year-old Haughton impact crater and surrounding terrain on 

Devon Island, Nunavut, Canada. Devon Island, at 75 degrees North latitude, is a high arctic desert. The 

unique combination of rocky polar desert, permafrost, and analogous geological formations afford 

comparisons to the possible evolution of Mars. Devon Island, High Arctic is viewed as a terrestrial analog 

for future exploration missions to Mars. In addition to the cold operating temperatures, there is dust 

everywhere. Dust is perhaps one of the most significant issues facing lunar and martian surface 

exploration. Devon Island is the largest uninhabited island. The rocky polar desert setting, geologic 

features, and biological attributes of the site offer unique insights into the possible evolution of Mars. 

HMP is light 24 hours a day during the summer and dark 24 hours a day during the winter. This includes 

the history of water and of past climates on Mars, the effects of impacts on Earth and on other planets, 

and the possibilities and limits of life in extreme environments. In parallel with its Science Program, the 

HMP supports an Exploration Program aimed at developing new technologies, strategies, behavioral 

health and humans factors experiences, and field-based operational know-how key to planning the future 

exploration of the moon, Mars, and other planets by robots and humans. The HMP is managed and 

operated by the Mars Institute with support from the SETI Institute. HMP-2008 was the 12th field season. 

HMP provides the ultimate test bed for evaluating system implications (man, machine, and mission) of 

long-duration missions in deep space. A variety of habitat considerations could be evaluated, including 

habitat relocation and mobility, dual use space for science and operations, greenhouse operations, life 

support systems, communications, power distribution, and in-situ resource utilization. The environment 

makes this ideal for testing EVA and rover traversing, and navigation. With the proper planning, an entire 

end-to-end planetary surface mission scenario could be accomplished with training integrated with 

hardware development. The Haughton Crater site functions as an analogue planetary base, supporting a 

diverse array of exploration technology and engineering test projects that benefit from the Mars-like 

terrain, remoteness, and exploration activities. 

The HMP base on Devon Island is at 75°N 90°W. The base includes the airfield, fuel farm, satellite site, 

research station, and tent city. The research station proper includes a main mess tent, communicationsystems tent, operations office tent, two science laboratory tents, medical tent, maintenance tent, an 

autonomous research greenhouse, and an octagonal core module that will eventually unite the buildings 

into a single base-like structure. HMP can currently accommodate up to 45 people at a given time, with 

researchers sleeping in individual tents a short distance from the main camp, away from the food and 
 

54 

hence the polar bear risk. In a typical field season at HMP, multiple teams of researchers come in for 1 to 

2 weeks throughout the roughly 4- to 6-week field season. Approximately seven to 10 core group 

researchers and a base camp manager ensure the day-to-day operations during the entire duration of the 

mission. A timeline/schedule is not used at this time, but there is discussion for use of one in future 

missions. If emergency medical evacuation is required, it could take up to hours/days – depending on 

current weather conditions – to be removed from the facilities. Distance and time to definitive medical 

care make Devon Island a realistic analog to space exploration. It would be quicker to med-evac someone 

from ISS than it would be to provide a Devon Island casualty with immediate return and quick access to 

definitive medical care. Planetary protection procedures could definitely be evaluated here. HMP has full 

communication, internet, full medical support, and telemed/video conferencing capabilities. HMP funding 

is provided by NASA and the Canadian Space Agency. The project is managed by the Mars Institute, the 

SETI Institute, and Simon Fraser University (British Columbia, Canada). The Mars Institute manages and 

operates the HMP Research Station. 

• http://spacelogistics.mit.edu/pdf/HMP%20Final%20Report%20NASA%20TP-2006-214196.pdf

• http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/analogs/analog_haughton.asp

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_next_step_010905-1.html 

• www.marsonearth.org/ 

HMP – Current Operations – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Lighting powered by generators; artificial light 

External Light Conditions 

Light (sun) 24 hours day during summer and dark 24 

hours a day during winter 

Danger 

Moderately low danger; environment has potential of 

polar bears, but threat is low 

Physical Isolation Isolated and remote, polar location 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

No close quarters, tents set up for work, separate tents 

for sleeping 

Team Size 

Seven to 10 core members, then up to 40 at any given 

time 

Leadership Defined leader of HMP who makes final decisions 

Team Structure 

Approximately 50 people working together on projects; 

lack of clearly assigned roles 

Personal Space "Tent City"; individual tents for sleeping 

Rest and Recreation Options Not much down time, takes effort to find leisure time 

Quality of Life Support Conditions Difficult to get immediate emergency medical treatment 
 

55 

Workload No current timeline/schedule for work/tasks 

Communication with Outside Full communication, internet, video conferencing 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

Basic medical treatment is available on site but a serious 

accident or illness would require air transport to a 

“health center” in Resolute Bay or the nearest hospital in 

Iqaluit, 1,550 km (963 miles) from Resolute Bay 

Autonomy 

Moderate to high; often research project dependent, 

many teams do have autonomy from a ground control, 

though some do not 

Sensory Conditions 

Quality of environmental conditions is satisfactory and 

should not affect sensory perceptions 

Sensory Deprivation 

Environment is isolated and remote (lack of greenery, 

landscape changes, etc.) 

Team Interdependence 

Low to moderate; teams do exist but likely only subsets 

of team must work together to complete mission 

objectives (research project dependent) 

Desert RATS (Research and Technology Studies) 

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) – or Desert RATS – is a combined group of interNASA center scientists and engineers, collaborating with representatives of industry and academia for the 

purpose of conducting remote field test activities. These activities provide the capability to validate 

experimental hardware/software and mission operational techniques, and identify and establish technical 

requirements applicable for future planetary exploration. In recent years, tests have been conducted near 

Meteor Crater, located approximately 55 km (35 miles) east of Flagstaff, Arizona, near Winslow. The 

locations include Cinder Lake, Grand Falls, SP Mountain, Joseph City, Bar-T-Bar Ranch, and Meteor 

Crater. 

One purpose of the DRATS effort is to drive out preliminary exploration operational concepts for EVA 

system requirements by providing hands-on experience with simulated planetary surface exploration EVA 

hardware and procedures. 

The analog has been used for field testing of equipment in high desert environment – e.g., Science Crew 

Operations and Utility Test bed (SCOUT) vehicle – but the sites have not been used to simulate isolation 

or confinement of flight crews. The remote location of these sites, however, suggests the possibility that 

their use could perhaps be adapted to simulate these features of space exploration. 

There is a daily/weekly schedule, but it typically is not timelined like a mission. There is large 

(approximately 50-member) support team for suits and equipment. The support personnel commonly put 
 

56 

in 12-hour days and participants may be in EVA suits for 6 to 8 hours. There is a control trailer where 

communication and video is integrated and allows the “ground” support personnel to track status of 

hardware, suits, and consumables while the suited personnel are driving out in a rover and interfacing 

with the field equipment and completing tasks. There is an individual who leads the efforts. DRATS has a 

team with defined roles; however, it is not a mission support team like with NEEMO. At the end of the 

day, the support team members retreat to their hotel at a nearby local town. 

Historically, these sites were used to support training of Apollo astronauts in geology. These sites are the 

location of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Astrogeology Branch. Acquisition of land use permits, host 

accommodations, use of USGS facilities and equipment, and extensive planetary geology reference 

sources are available through memoranda of understandings between USGS and NASA. 

• http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/analogs/desert_rats.html

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=desert+rats&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=dateADALAd1&site=

nasa_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=nasa_production&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=nasa_production

• www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Research_and_Technology_Studies

DRATS – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions N/A 

External Light Conditions Natural light 

Danger 

Low danger; although remote, the desert does not 

provide a significant amount of danger 

Physical Isolation 

Not highly isolated; nearest town is within driving 

distance 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics Not crowded; plenty of open space 

Team Size Approximately 100 participants each year 

Leadership 

One individual who leads the efforts; somewhat not 

clearly defined role 

Team Structure 

Team has clearly defined roles to carry out and complete 

mission objectives 

Personal Space Personal space is high 

Rest and Recreation Options Not many recreational options available 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Crew often stays at a local hotel; quality of life support 

conditions are generally high 

Workload Daily/weekly schedule, but not timelined 

Communication with Outside 

Mission support team retreats at the end of the day to a 

nearby hotel, but puts in 12-hour days 
 

57 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

All sites are within 120-km (75-mile) radius of Flagstaff, 

Arizona, which provides a source of logistical support for 

medical facilities; medical officer on site also 

Autonomy 

The sites have not been used to simulate autonomy of 

the crew from a mission control 

Sensory Conditions 

Quality of environmental conditions are satisfactory and 

should not affect sensory perceptions 

Sensory Deprivation 

Environment is isolated and remote; however, greenery 

and some landscape does exist; animals are often seen, 

etc. 

Team Interdependence 

High; they stage mock explorations of the desert, try out 

various procedures/techniques for accomplishing the 

mission. Suited crew members work side by side with 

robots, and are connected to one another and to the 

robots by a wireless network. 

Antarctica 

A number of facilities are located in Antarctica. Winter stations’ population varies from two to 250 

participants. The external lighting is dependent upon the season. Some stations are seasonal and some are 

year round. Each station is operated by a National Antarctic Program. Approximately 64 stations are 

operated by approximately 20 different nations. Antarctica is an extreme, isolated, and confined 

environment. 

Scientists believe that Antarctica’s climate, terrain, temperature, and isolation provide an environment on 

Earth that most closely parallels the conditions of isolation and stress to be faced on long-duration human 

missions in space. Thus, the Antarctic space analog will provide a unique and accessible test bed to 

develop prototype lunar and Mars systems and technologies. 

Research disciplines at the many Antarctic stations include astronomy, atmospheric sciences, biology, 

Earth science, environmental science, geology, glaciology, marine biology, oceanography, climate 

studies, and geophysics. 

• http://quest.nasa.gov/antarctica/background/NSF/mc-stay.html

• http://antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/stations/index.shtml 

• http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/analogs/analog_antarctica.asp 
 

58 

McMurdo

McMurdo Station provides a good venue for conducting studies requiring relatively long-duration 

missions and reasonable levels of isolation and confinement. Due to the sophistication of the 

communications infrastructure, McMurdo is an excellent test facility for telemedicine. Subjects are 

typically scientists and technicians wintering over for other purposes. Human life science activities would 

likely require the resident station physician for oversight and, potentially, assistance, so early involvement 

of this individual is a key to success. This analog is unique in its ability to provide ambulatory subject 

populations participating in long-duration stays in an outpost isolated from the world outside Antarctica. 

McMurdo Station (77° 51' S, 166° 40' E), the main U.S. station in Antarctica, is a coastal outpost on the 

volcanic hills at the southern tip of Ross Island, about 3,864 km (2,415 miles) south of Christchurch, 

New Zealand, and 1,360 km (850 miles) north of the South Pole. The mean annual temperature at 

McMurdo Station is –18°C (0°F). Temperatures may reach 10°C (50°F) during the austral summer and 

–58°F (–50°C) in winter. The average wind speed is 12 kt, but winds have exceeded 100 kt. 

At McMurdo station, the participants work schedule is from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, 6 days a week. 

Participants only receive an occasional day off. McMurdo operates a personnel selection for the 

participants who winter over. Winter over is from February to October. McMurdo has communications 

for 12 hours each day. Each winter-over participant has his or her own individual sleep quarters and the 

participants share common areas. There is a station manager who is the leader for the mission, and he/she 

is supported by team members who each have defined roles. 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station

Antarctica – McMurdo – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Dim, artificial light 

External Light Conditions 

Dependent on season: summer – always sun; winter – never 

sunny 

Danger 

Moderate danger; issues with expeditions, building and 

structure development of the station, etc. 

Physical Isolation 

Isolated and remote; although many people at station, 

completely cut off from the rest of the world 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics Very large site, few issues with crowdedness 

Team Size 

Can be up to 250 people at a station; likely to have smaller 

teams 

Leadership Station manager who is the leader 
 

59 

Team Structure 

Station manager and team members with defined roles that 

support manager 

Personal Space Individual sleep quarters, but share common areas 

Rest and Recreation Options Many options: "clubs," bowling alley, weight rooms, etc. 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Water and food available, gardens planted for fresh fruit and 

vegetables also 

Workload Working hours: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm, 6 days a week 

Communication with Outside Only have communications with outside for 12 hours a day 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

The remote nature of the facilities poses a barrier to 

immediate advanced medical care if a serious accident or 

illness should occur. A medical clinic and physician are 

available at McMurdo Station, but serious emergencies and 

illness may require evacuation. 

Autonomy 

Moderate to high station does report to a mission control 

base but does not monitor and assign daily tasks; station lead 

does guide team activity 

Sensory Conditions 

The extremely hostile nature of the environment also poses 

health risks from exposure to the outside environment. 

Potential health risks in Antarctica include dehydration, 

sunburn, frostbite, altitude sickness, and snow-blindness 

Sensory Deprivation 

Although greenhouse is provided, sensory stimulation may 

be significantly affected 

Team Interdependence 

Research project dependent but smaller work teams at this 

station are highly interdependent to complete daily activities.

Concordia

Concordia Station is the third permanent, all-year research station on the Antarctic Plateau (along with 

Vostok Station and the Amundsen-Scott Station) at the South Pole. It is jointly operated by scientists from 

France and Italy. It has space for 45 persons in summer, but usually drops to 10 or slightly less in winter. 

Geostationary communication satellites provide broadband communication 24 hours a day. Concordia 

station has been touted as the most optimum location on Earth for astronomy research capabilities.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Station 

• http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/Concordia.html

 
 

60 

Antarctica – Concordia – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Dim, artificial light 

External Light Conditions 

Dependent on season: summer – always sun; winter – 

never sunny 

Danger 

Moderate danger; issues with expeditions, building and 

structure development of the station, etc. 

Physical Isolation 

Isolated and remote; although many people at station, 

completely cut off from the rest of the world 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

Moderate; summer months are significantly more 

crowded than winter months; size of habitats are 

relatively small 

Team Size Can be up to 45 people at a station (winter – 10 people) 

Leadership Station manager who is the leader 

Team Structure 

Station manager and team members with defined roles 

that support manager 

Personal Space Limited; share sleeping quarters 

Rest and Recreation Options Few options for rest and recreation 

Quality of Life Support Conditions Water and food available, but limited 

Workload Working hours: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm, 6 days a week 

Communication with Outside Continuous broadband capabilities provided by satellite 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

The remote nature of the facilities poses a barrier to 

immediate advanced medical care if a serious accident 

or illness should occur. Basic medications and a medical 

kit are available. 

Autonomy 

Moderate to high station does report to a mission 

control base but does not monitor and assign daily tasks; 

station lead does guide team activity 

Sensory Conditions 

The extremely hostile nature of the environment also 

poses health risks from exposure to the outside 

environment. Potential health risks in Antarctica include 

dehydration, sunburn, frostbite, altitude sickness, and 

snow-blindness. 

Sensory Deprivation Sensory stimulation may be significantly affected 

Team Interdependence 

Research project dependent but smaller work teams at 

this station are highly interdependent to complete daily 

activities 

 
 

61 

South Pole (Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) 

The station stands at an elevation of 2,835 m (9,301 ft) on the interior of Antarctica's nearly featureless 

ice sheet, about 2,850 m (9,350 ft) thick at that location. Recorded temperature has varied between 

−13.6°C (7.52°F) and −82.8°C (−117°F). Annual mean is −49°C (−56°F); monthly means vary from 

−28°C (−18°F) in December to −60°C (−76°F) in July. These temperatures, combined with low humidity 

and low air pressure, are only survivable with proper protection. During the summer, the station 

population is typically over 200. Most personnel leave by the middle of February, leaving several dozen 

(43 in 2009) "winter overs" – mostly support staff plus a few scientists – who keep the station functional 

through the months of Antarctic night. The station's winter personnel are isolated between mid February 

and late October. 

South Pole is more of a small town and has a station manager who is responsible for day-to-day 

operations. There are always things to do at the South Pole for recreation: a gym with a weight room, 

volleyball, basketball, music, and classes, in addition to work. 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen-Scott_South_Pole_Station 

• http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/southp.jsp

Antarctica – South Pole – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Dim, artificial light 

External Light Conditions 

Dependent on season: summer – always sun; winter – never 

sunny 

Danger 

Moderate danger; issues with expeditions, building and structure 

development of the station, etc. 

Physical Isolation 

Isolated and remote; although many people at station, 

completely cut off from the rest of the world 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume 

Characteristics 

Moderate; summer months are significantly more crowded than 

winter months 

Team Size Can be over 200 people at a station (winter ~40 people) 

Leadership Station manager who is the leader 

Team Structure 

Station manager and team members with defined roles that 

support manager 

Personal Space Limited; share sleeping quarters 

Rest and Recreation Options Many options: "clubs," bowling alley, weight rooms, etc. 

Quality of Life Support Conditions Water and food available, but limited 

Workload Working hours: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm, 6 days a week 
 

62 

Communication with Outside Continuous broadband capabilities provided by satellite 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

The remote nature of the facilities poses a barrier to immediate 

advanced medical care if a serious accident or illness should 

occur. A medical clinic and physician are available at McMurdo 

Station, but serious emergencies and illness may require 

evacuation. 

Autonomy 

Moderate to high; station does report to a mission control base 

but does not monitor and assign daily tasks; station lead does 

guide team activity 

Sensory Conditions 

The extremely hostile nature of the environment also poses 

health risks from exposure to the outside environment. Potential 

health risks in Antarctica include dehydration, sunburn, frostbite, 

altitude sickness, and snow-blindness. 

Sensory Deprivation Sensory stimulation may be significantly affected 

Team Interdependence 

Research project dependent but smaller work teams at this 

station are highly interdependent to complete daily activities 

ANSMET (Antarctic Search for Meteorites program)

The goal of ANSMET for the 2009−2010 field season was full-scale systematic meteorite recovery from 

ice fields immediately west of the Miller Range in the central Transantarctic Mountains. Four previous 

visits to the region (reconnaissance in 1985 and 2000 and systematic searching in 2005−2006 and 2007) 

led to the recovery of over 1,000 meteorites so far; these finds have included several lunar and martian 

specimens.

Each person at ANSMET has a snowmobile for transportation to the surrounding ice fields to search in 

systematic parallel sweeps, which is also sometimes done by foot. A campsite is set up for living 

arrangements, the crew camps at Meteorite Hills and is outfitted for eight people at a time. ANSMET 

camps are self-sufficient with equipment, gear, fuel, and food. A typical stay lasts 48 days. There is email and telephone access. 

• http://geology.cwru.edu/~ansmet/ 

• http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Feb02/meteoriteSearch.html 

 
 

63 

Antarctica – South Pole – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Dim, artificial light 

External Light Conditions 

Dependent on season: summer – always sun; winter – never 

sunny 

Danger 

Moderate danger; issues with expeditions, building and 

structure development of the station, etc. 

Physical Isolation 

Isolated and remote; although many people at station, 

completely cut off from the rest of the world 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics High; must share tent/living quarters with other teammate 

Team Size 

Total team is 40 to 50 individuals (but smaller teams are 

comprised of two to three individuals) 

Leadership Team leader is assigned over larger team 

Team Structure Team members with defined roles that support leader 

Personal Space Extremely limited; share sleeping quarters in small tents 

Rest and Recreation Options Few if any; can bring a few own personal items 

Quality of Life Support Conditions Water and food available, but extremely limited 

Workload Working hours: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm, 6 days a week 

Communication with Outside Limited technology capabilities for communication purposes 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

Low; the remote nature of the facilities poses a barrier to 

immediate advanced medical care in the event a serious 

accident or illness should occur 

Autonomy 

High; teams do not report to a mission control base; 

complete assigned tasks and objectives independently 

Sensory Conditions 

The extremely hostile nature of the environment also poses 

health risks from exposure to the outside environment. 

Potential health risks in Antarctica include dehydration, 

sunburn, frostbite, altitude sickness, and snow-blindness. 

Sensory Deprivation Sensory stimulation may be significantly affected 

Team Interdependence 

Research project dependent but smaller work teams at this 

station are highly interdependent to complete daily activities.

 
 

64 

Pavilion Lake

The Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP) is an international, multidisciplinary, science and exploration 

effort to explain the origin of freshwater microbialites in Pavilion Lake, British Columbia, Canada. PLRP 

was founded to characterize the morphogenesis (formation) and preservation potential of the microbialites 

in Pavilion Lake. 

PLRP research is conducted from the lake’s surface, as well as underwater. The underwater operations 

with humans and robots provide a learning opportunity for understanding how to operate in the hostile 

and challenging environments of the moon and Mars. 

According to the PLRP website, the activities at the site are considered analog research and of great 

interest to the Canadian Space Agency and NASA for two main reasons: 

• The microbialite structures provide a modern analog to ancient fossilized microbialites preserved on 

Earth. Studying how these modern structures form and are preserved in the rock record will provide 

us with tools to identify signatures of ancient life on our own and other planets. 

• Our research and exploration using remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles 

(AUVs), scuba divers, and submersibles provide an analog to human exploration missions on the 

moon and Mars. The research and exploration methods developed at Pavilion Lake will contribute to 

future human mission planning and exploration science on the moon and Mars. 

Our submersible pilots and divers are exposed to harsh conditions that require life support systems to 

study the microbialites. This is analogous to astronauts in space who require spacesuits and rovers to 

explore the surface of the moon and, in the future, Mars. Our exploration methods are closely monitored 

so we can learn how to efficiently explore new planets and conduct science in extreme environments. 

The PLRP brings together a large and diverse group of students, expert scientists, engineers, and 

astronauts to explore and study Pavilion Lake's unique microbialite structures. Richard Arnold (astronaut) 

and Mike Gernhardt (astronaut) are currently involved with PLRP. The summer of 2009 featured an 

expanded DeepWorker science program, and involved seven astronauts who will become integrated into 

the Analog Missions Program. These astronauts, including several Canadians, will become integrated into 

the science operations at Pavilion Lake, and develop their skills as field scientists. (June 26-July 9, 2010.) 

• http://www.pavilionlake.com/ 

 
 

65 

Pavilion Lake – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions When in AUVs, artificial light; otherwise, N/A 

External Light Conditions 

Natural light when above water’s surface; as much 

light as available when underwater 

Danger 

Low to Moderate; plenty of support crew above water 

but danger does exist for diving 

Physical Isolation 

While in AUV, only room for one person; otherwise, 

not physically isolated 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

Inside AUVs: just enough room for one person to fit 

inside, the pilot’s head sticks up into a Plexiglas bubble 

that is hinged open for access 

Team Size Approximately 60 people present at PLRP 

Leadership 

A lead principal investigator; leader of a crew is not 

necessarily clearly defined 

Team Structure 

Lead principal investigator with team members 

holding defined roles/positions 

Personal Space High; individuals usually have their own hotel room 

Rest and Recreation Options 

Moderate; participate in research activities at the lake 

but participants/researchers reside at a local hotel 

Quality of Life Support Conditions High quality, moderate availability at hotel location 

Workload 

Moderate to high; dependent on number of research 

projects; spend most of the day searching lake 

Communication with Outside Available and easily accessible 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care High; in proximity to facilities if emergency occurs 

Autonomy 

Low; no present mission control but carry out tasks at 

the direction of the principal investigator 

Sensory Conditions Normal environmental conditions above water 

Sensory Deprivation Low; deprivation to senses are nominal 

Team Interdependence 

High; dives require teamwork and interdependence to 

complete mission objectives 

 
 

66 

PISCES (Pacific International Space Center for Exploration Systems) 

PISCES is an international research and education center dedicated to the development of new 

technologies needed to sustain life on the moon and beyond. When it is fully developed, PISCES will 

feature a simulated lunar outpost on the Big Island of Hawaii, where research will be conducted, new 

technologies will be developed, students will be educated, K-12 students will be taken for field trips and a 

Space Camp, and the public will be invited to experience first-hand what it will be like to live and work 

on the moon and, eventually, on Mars. The PISCES Analog Lunar Outpost will help to “keep the dream 

alive” of lunar colonization and serve as a reminder that one day humanity will go back to the moon to 

stay, hopefully in a peaceful international endeavor. 

Goals

• To conduct research and develop educational programs to enable and promote the human 

settlement of space. 

• To host international tests and technology demonstrations at the PISCES test site. 

• To promote science, technology, engineering, and math education, inspiring students by 

connecting Hawaiian culture to space exploration and settlement. 

• To involve the commercial sector, spinning off technologies to help the local Hawaiian economy. 

• To develop a full-scale, technically valid, analog lunar/martian outpost on the Big Island. 

From January 23, 2010, to February 13, 2010, PISCES hosted teams from NASA, the Canadian Space 

Agency, and the German Space Agency for tests and demonstrations of equipment and concepts for insitu resource utilization (ISRU) to sustain human life on the moon and Mars. These international teams 

were composed of scientists, engineers, and technicians working together to test concepts such as remote 

operation of ISRU systems, road and landing pad construction, solar concentrator sintering of lunar 

regolith, excavation, oxygen generation for fuel cells and rocket fuel, carbothermal reduction of lunar 

oxides, augmented reality and space medicine. Preliminary results of the testing were reported at the 

PISCES meeting, which was held in Hilo on February 10-12, 2010. Permanent facilities are still in the 

process of being built and no concrete timeline for activities and research projects exists currently. 

• http://pisces.hilo.hawaii.edu/

 
 

67 

PISCES – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions N/A 

External Light Conditions Natural Light 

Danger 

Minimal physical dangers; although in a remote 

location, daily activities and environment do not pose 

a significant threat 

Physical Isolation 

In a remote location although within driving distance 

to a nearby town 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics N/A (facilities being built) 

Team Size 

Variable and research dependent; there will be 

researchers, university student researchers, 

volunteers, staff and faculty (of Univ. of Hawaii) 

Leadership 

Research dependent; presumably a principal 

investigator or staff member can create a study that 

would have a designated leadership position 

Team Structure 

Research dependent; presumably a principal 

investigator or staff member can create a study that 

would have an organized team with defined roles 

Personal Space N/A (facilities being built) 

Rest and Recreation Options 

Rest and recreation activities are available and 

allowed 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Moderate; likely to include some hygiene and 

personal amenities with new facilities being built 

Workload Research dependent but can vary 

Communication with Outside 

Internet and telephone communications are available 

but may be intermittent 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

Accessible from nearby facilities (unknown of any on 

site availability) 

Autonomy 

Research dependent; ability to create a study in which 

autonomous conditions were manipulated within the 

analog 

Sensory Conditions Normal environmental conditions 

Sensory Deprivation None assumed 

Team Interdependence 

Research dependent; again ability to create a study in 

which autonomous conditions were manipulated 

within the analog 

 
 

68 

Everest 

Mount Everest is situated at the edge of the Tibetan Plateau on the border between Nepal and Tibet. The 

two main climbing routes on Everest include the technically easier Southeast Ridge from Nepal, and the 

less-frequently used Northeast Ridge from Tibet. The Southeast Ridge (Nepal) Base Camp is located at 

5,380 m (17,700 ft) and takes mountaineers roughly 6 to 8 days to reach on foot with yak and porter 

support. The Northeast Ridge (Tibet) Base Camp is at 5,180 m (16,990 ft) on a gravel plain below the 

Rongbuk Glacier. While other 8,000-m (26,247-ft) peaks may be technically more demanding, the 

weather, altitude, time required to summit, and difficulties crossing through the Khumbu Ice Fall and over 

the Hillary Step make even the easiest route on Everest an enormous challenge. 

While most Everest climbers don’t carry more than about a 35-pound pack at any time, due to the extreme 

altitude, frigid conditions, avalanche hazards, and many days of repeated effort to reach the summit, it is 

one of the most challenging – physically and psychologically – climbing experiences available. The most 

common time to try climbing Everest is during April and May when winds die down a bit before summer 

monsoon season begins. 

A typical expedition will last about 2 months. After trekking several days to reach Everest Base Camp, 

the process of gradual acclimatization on Mt. Everest will begin. Teams go up and come down from 

gradually higher and higher camps until they are ready to try for the summit. This acclimatization process 

can take 4 to 6 weeks before a summit attempt is made. 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest 

• http://www.explorersweb.com/everest_k2/ 

• http://onorbit.com/everest 

 
 

69 

Everest – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions 

Often, teams stay at teahouses along the way with 

electricity; then camp in tents (no electricity) 

External Light Conditions Natural light 

Danger 

High; numerous dangers associated with attempting to 

climb Mt. Everest 

Physical Isolation 

Stay with group/team for entire climb, should never be 

alone; however, isolated from others outside of team 

and those climbing mountain 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

Most climbers will have their own tent and each 

expedition will have several larger tents dedicated to 

communal activities (mess tent, dining, 

communications, etc). 

Team Size 

Varies by climbing team; most are large climbing 

groups 

Leadership One to two “official” climb leaders of group 

Team Structure 

Highly interdependent on one another; work together 

and help one another 

Personal Space 

Minimal; although open space, often share tents with 

other teammates 

Rest and Recreation Options 

Time for rest, most groups take multiple rest days due 

to rough conditions, minimal to no recreational 

activities other than climbing 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Should pack enough food and water for duration of 

climb, no conventional bathing/showers and 

infrequent, pack own appropriate clothing, requires 

oxygen supply 

Workload Constant physical demands, daily, 24/7 

Communication with Outside Intermittent internet access, satellite phones available 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

Medical monitoring via satellite phone and webcam in 

base camp with mountain doctors; fully equipped 

medical suitcase with electrocardiogram, Ultrasound & 

Tough Book Laptop; medical kits 

Autonomy 

Team as a whole will be able to make autonomous 

decisions (no mission control), but not individually 

Sensory Conditions 

Temperature is the only affecting sensory perception, 

harsh, cold temperatures and winds (may impact noise 

and visual) 

Sensory Deprivation Environment provides needed sensory stimulation 

Team Interdependence 

Highly interdependent on one another to complete 

mission objectives 
 

70 

ISS (International Space Station) 

The ISS is a research facility that was assembled and recently completed in outer space; the on-orbit 

construction began with the Zarya module in November 1998. The space station is in a low-Earth orbit 

and can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. It orbits at an altitude of approximately 350 km (190 

miles) above the surface of the Earth, and travels at an average speed of 27,700 kph (17,500 mph), 

completing 15.7 orbits per day. 

The space station is a joint project among the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia, Japan 

(Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency [JAXA]), Canada (Canadian Space Agency [CSA]), and eleven 

European countries (European Space Agency [ESA]). The Brazilian Space Agency (Agencia Espacial 

Brasileira [AEB]) participates through a separate contract with NASA. The Italian Space Agency 

similarly has separate contracts for various activities not done in the framework of ESA's ISS works 

(where Italy also fully participates). 

The ISS is a continuation of several other previously planned space stations; Russia's Mir 2, the U.S. 

Space Station Freedom, the European Columbus laboratory, and the Japanese Kibō laboratory. The 

project was completed in 2010, with the station remaining in operation at least until 2020. As of 2008, the 

ISS is larger than any previous space station. 

The ISS has been continuously staffed since the first resident crew, Expedition 1, entered the station on 

November 2, 2000, thereby providing a permanent human presence in space. The crew of Expedition 23 

is currently aboard the ISS. Starting with Expedition 19, the station began maintaining a capacity of six 

crew members. Early crew members all came from the Russian and American space programs, until 

German ESA astronaut Thomas Reiter joined the Expedition-13 crew in July 2006, becoming the first 

crew member from another space agency. The station has been visited by astronauts from 16 different 

nations, and was the destination of the first five space tourists. 

The station is serviced primarily by the U.S. Space Shuttle and the Russian manned Soyuz spacecraft and 

unmanned Progress spacecraft. On March 9, 2008, the ESA launched an Ariane 5 with the first automated 

transfer vehicle, Jules Verne, an unmanned spacecraft that carried over 8,000 kg (17,636 lb) of cargo to 

the ISS. Several other servicing vehicles are in various stages of planning. 

• http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-4FSCV4D1&_user=2148702&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000056362&_versio

n=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2148702&md5=53d5da7a3f73921a5e7d7a2341eda7de
 

71 

Post 1J Configuration 1

 Assembly Complete 1

 

Date May 31, 2008 

Length 74 m (243 ft) 2, 5

Width 94 m (308 ft) 

Mass 276,807 kg (610,256 lb) 2, 3

Habitable Volume 10,616 6

Pressurized Volume 738 m3

 (26,052 ft3) 2, 3

USOS Power Generation 6 solar arrays = 63 kW 4

Date July 1, 2010 

Length 74 m (243 ft) 2, 5

Width 108 m (356 ft) 

Mass 366591 kg (808,195 lb) 2, 3

Habitable Volume 12,627 6

Pressurized Volume 676 m3

 (32,857 ft3) 2, 3

USOS Power Generation 8 solar arrays = 84 kW 4

Notes: 

(1) Based on (SSP 50110) Multi-Increment Manifest Rev H 

(2) Properties do not include visiting vehicles: Progress, ATV, and HTV 

(3) Properties include one docked Soyuz up to 17A [2009]; includes two docked Soyuz post 17A to account for six crew 

(4) U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) Power Margin available for payloads at 10A = 21.42 kW; USOS Power Margin available for 

 payloads at 20A = 34.6 kW 

(5) Length from tip of the solar array to Service Module Aft. 

(6) Progress and Soyuz are not considered in habitable volume calculations 

ISS Configuration Independent Characteristics 

Orbital Inclination /Path 51.6 degrees, covering 90% of the world’s population 

Altitude 370 km (200 nautical miles) (on average) above the Earth 

Speed 27,700 kph (17,500 mph); orbiting the Earth 16 times per day 

 
 

72 

ISS – Description of Analog by Characteristic 

Characteristic Description 

Internal Light Conditions Artificial Light 

External Light Conditions 

Only experienced on EVAs and through windows; sun rises 

and sets 16 times every 24 hours 

Danger 

High; numerous dangers associated traveling to and living 

aboard the ISS 

Physical Isolation 

Moderate; isolated from the rest of the world. Interaction 

with crew members but can spend whole day in a separate 

module than team members completing tasks aboard ISS 

Crowdedness/Habitable Volume Characteristics 

Moderate; ISS is currently a little larger than the size of a 

soccer field (108.5 m x 72.8 m [~356 ft x 239 ft]) 

Team Size Six crew members 

Leadership Designated leader for each Expedition mission 

Team Structure 

Moderate interdependence within the team; many tasks 

are performed by either astronauts or cosmonauts or 

independently 

Personal Space 

Minimal; although somewhat large area, ISS is highly 

cluttered and little room for personal space 

Rest and Recreation Options 

Moderate; crews can enjoy special care packages, movies, 

books, calls to home, internet, etc. 

Quality of Life Support Conditions 

Low to moderate; can only shower intermittently, and 

limited hygiene and other related products available 

Workload 

Moderate to high; schedule to work 6 days a week for 8 

hours a day (many times, it exceeds this time) 

Communication with Outside 

Moderate; constant communication with mission control; 

can also contact family and friends via phone and/or 

internet 

Availability of Medication/Medical Care 

Medical kit available; other medical necessities as well as 

some medications; crew is trained on basic medical 

procedures but would not be able to handle a serious 

emergency situation 

Autonomy 

Low; mission control creates schedule for crew; most 

decisions are made by mission control 

Sensory Conditions 

Issues with quality of environmental conditions including 

noise, smells, temperature, etc. 

Sensory Deprivation 

Environment does not provide some sensory stimulation 

that is needed for olfactory, visual, auditory, and tactile 

sensations 

Team Interdependence 

Low to moderate; team does often spend time together 

during rest and recreation activities and when eating 

together; however, many tasks are completed 

independently 
 

73 

Descriptions of Utility Characteristics by Analog 

ISS – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time High; opportunity to collect multiple data points as more science is being 

encouraged on ISS

Mission Duration Currently 6-month increments

Mission Timeline Very structured; timeline created by ground control

Similarity to Astronauts NASA astronauts

Subjects/Year Three to six people

Task Relevance Space flight environment in which astronauts provide a variety of technical, 

maintenance, and scientific tasks

Cost/Study $400K+

Data Collection Feasibility Moderate to high difficulty; have to consider up-mass, software and 

technology logistics, etc.

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate to high difficulty; estimates are at 11⁄2 years to implement a study 

on ISS

Antarctica – McMurdo – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Medium to high; data collection opportunities are available (longitudinal but 

perhaps not daily assessments)

Mission Duration Inhabited all year; however, “winter overs” usually last 7 months 

Mission Timeline Work 6 days a week and get 1 day off and have defined roles. However, 

there is not a daily timeline.

Similarity to Astronauts Scientists , technicians, and support workers

Subjects/Year There are about 1,000 personnel on base during the summer months, falling 

to around 250 in the winter.

Task Relevance Does not simulate astronaut tasks (except in regards to conducting research 

experiments); however, does provide a test bed for telemedicine

Cost/Study ~$75K to $100K

Data Collection Feasibility Low to moderate difficulty; have to consider software and technology 

logistics, surveys would not be a problem

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate difficulty; estimates are 6 months to implement a study at 

McMurdo

Antarctica – Concordia – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Medium to high; data collection opportunities are available (longitudinal but 

perhaps not daily assessments)

Mission Duration Inhabited all year. However, “winter overs” usually last 7 months
 

74 

Mission Timeline Usually work 6 days a week and get one day off and have defined roles. 

However, there is not a daily timeline.

Similarity to Astronauts Scientists and support staff

Subjects/Year 45 people in the summer which usually drops to 10 or slightly less in winter

Task Relevance Does not simulate astronaut tasks (except in regard to conducting research 

experiments); however, does provide a test bed for telemedicine

Cost/Study ~$100K to $150K

Data Collection Feasibility Low to moderate difficulty; have to consider software and technology 

logistics, surveys would not be a problem

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate to high difficulty; do not have many solidified contacts – estimates 

are 6 months to 1 year to implement a study at Concordia

Antarctica – South Pole – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Medium to high; data collection opportunities are available (longitudinal but 

perhaps not daily assessments)

Mission Duration Inhabited all year. However, “winter overs” usually last 7 months

Mission Timeline Usually work 6 days a week and get one day off and have defined roles. 

However, there is not a daily timeline.

Similarity to Astronauts Scientists and support staff

Subjects/Year There over 200 personnel on base during the summer months, falling to 

around several dozen in the winter (mid February to late October)

Task Relevance Prime location for astronomical observations; not highly relevant to 

astronaut daily routine (except for conducting research experiments)

Cost/Study ~$75K to $100K

Data Collection Feasibility Low to moderate difficulty; have to consider software and technology 

logistics, surveys would not be a problem

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Low to moderate difficulty; have to consider software and technology 

logistics, surveys would not be a problem

Antarctica – ANSMET – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Low to medium; data collection opportunities are available (longitudinal but 

maybe only weekly or monthly assessments)

Mission Duration 48 days on average (usually 5 to 7 weeks)

Mission Timeline Usually work 6 days a week and get 1 day off and have defined roles. 

However, there is not a daily timeline.

Similarity to Astronauts Invites graduate students and senior researchers with a history of research 

involving Antarctic meteorites to participate on a volunteer basis

Subjects/Year Crew camps at Meteorite outfitted for about 20 to 25 people (note that the 

2004-2005 expedition had 12 people)

Task Relevance Using snowmobiles spaced 30 m apart, they scan the blue ice for meteorites 
 

75 

(example of how research tasks may be relevant) but daily tasks are not 

highly relevant 

Cost/Study ~$150K

Data Collection Feasibility Moderate to high difficulty; very isolated, so surveys may even be an issue; 

have to consider software and technology logistics

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate to high difficulty; do not have many solidified contacts – estimates 

are 6 months to 1 year to implement a study at Concordia

NEEMO – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Moderate to high; have opportunity to collect data from participants more 

than once each day

Mission Duration Usually 14 to 21 days

Mission Timeline Very structured; very similar to what is experienced on ISS

Similarity to Astronauts Usually consists of some astronauts as well as NASA employees and 

contractors (moderate to high comparability in terms of intelligence and 

personality)

Subjects/Year Six (three to four crew members, two habtechs)

Task Relevance EVAs underwater, scientific-based studies within habitat

Cost/Study $25K to $75K

Data Collection Feasibility Low to medium; can work with NEEMO contacts to get logistics and 

requirements built into the mission design; high technological capability that 

can be used

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Low to medium; usual submission process; not too many extra requirements 

to get approval of study through

HMP – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Low to medium; longitudinal data collection is possible as they are able to 

participate in data collection efforts daily. However, data collected so far have 

high rate of non-response.

Mission Duration 4- to 6-week field session

Mission Timeline Little structure. Although there is not a timeline/schedule used at this time, 

there is discussion for use of one in future missions.

Similarity to Astronauts Researchers, students, support staff, media persons (somewhat comparable 

in terms of intelligence and personality)

Subjects/Year Seven to 10 core team members; up to 45 participants

Task Relevance Simulated EVAs by underlying assumptions of what it would be like on Mars 

or in space in general

Cost/Study $50K to $75K

Data Collection Feasibility Low; BHP involvement over the past missions allows for relatively easy and 

accessible data collection
 

76 

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Low to medium; usual submission process; not too many extra requirements 

to get approval of study through

DRATS – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Low to medium; longitudinal data collection is possible as they are able to 

participate in data collection efforts daily. However, data collected so far have 

high rate of non-response.

Mission Duration Varies; usually around 14 to 21 days

Mission Timeline There is a detailed daily/weekly schedule, but not typically time-lined like a 

mission

Similarity to Astronauts NASA scientists and engineers and non-NASA industry and academia 

representatives

Subjects/Year Approximately 100 possible participants per year (unlikely all would 

participate, will have smaller teams)

Task Relevance Develop and validate necessary levels of technical skills and experience, 

hardware/software, and mission operational techniques for future 

exploration missions. Explore EVA system requirements and participants may 

wear EVA suits for 6 to 8 hours

Cost/Study ~$50K to $75K

Data Collection Feasibility Low; BHP involvement over the past missions allows for relatively easy and 

accessible data collection

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Low to medium; usual submission process; not too many extra requirements 

to get approval of study through

Everest – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Medium to high; longitudinal data collection is possible as they are able to 

participate in data collection efforts daily. However, data collected so far had 

incidences of non-response.

Mission Duration 2 weeks in total, but variable

Mission Timeline Can vary depending on group/team, but there are scheduled plans for each 

day

Similarity to Astronauts Those who climb Everest are a very diverse, varying group – thrill seekers, 

students, researchers, climbing enthusiasts, astronauts

Subjects/Year ~150 climb Everest each year

Task Relevance Tasks focus on the climb, but a large amount of risk is involved, which is 

similar to space flight; tasks are not highly relevant to what astronauts would 

be completing each day

Cost/Study High cost for subjects who are climbing Everest; $150K to $200K

Data Collection Feasibility Moderate to high difficulty; very isolated, so surveys may even be an issue; 

have to consider software and technology logistics

Research Process/Protocol Moderate to high difficulty; do not have many solidified contacts – estimates 
 

77 

Feasibility are about 1 year or more to implement a study

Pavilion Lake – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Low to medium; longitudinal data collection is possible as they are able to 

participate in data collection efforts daily. However, data have never been 

collected here on behalf of BHP-R.

Mission Duration Field season – summer months; dependent on research study; usually 

between 14 and 21 days

Mission Timeline Daily activities to be accomplished

Similarity to Astronauts Graduate students, NASA scientists/researchers, engineers, other researchers, 

astronauts

Subjects/Year Over 60 research and supporting participants

Task Relevance Underwater operations with humans and robots provide a learning 

opportunity for understanding how to operate in environments of moon and 

Mars. Use remotely operated vehicle, AUV, and scuba divers

Cost/Study $100K to $150K

Data Collection Feasibility Moderate to high difficulty; unsure as to the ability to implement surveys or 

other technological-type instruments – seems likely but logistics would need 

to be worked out

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate difficulty; new analog, never before utilized by BHP as an analog, 

which may cause more difficulty, but has been used by other NASA agencies 

and groups

PISCES – Description of Analog by Characteristic

Characteristic Description

Exposure Time Unknown but likely to be to collect daily assessments; data collection 

opportunities are available (longitudinal but perhaps not daily assessments)

Mission Duration Ability to define mission duration (at least 21 days or more)

Mission Timeline Daily activities to be accomplished; flexibility to create a strict timeline

Similarity to Astronauts Researchers, professors

Subjects/Year New analog that is being developed – possibility to include many teams

Task Relevance Will focus specifically on space flight-related activities including the 

development of new technologies (highly relevant regarding research-type 

tasks); ability exists to create tasks that are highly relevant to astronaut work

Cost/Study $100K to $150K

Data Collection Feasibility Moderate to high difficulty; unsure as to the ability to implement surveys or 

other technological-type instruments; seems likely but logistics would need to 

be worked out

Research Process/Protocol 

Feasibility

Moderate difficulty; new analog, never before utilized by BHP as an analog, 

which may cause more difficulty, but has been used by other NASA agencies 

and groups
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, 

and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

 May 2011 NASA Technical Paper

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Analog Assessment Tool Report 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Kathryn E. Keeton, Alexandra Whitmire - Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering

Alan H. Feiveson, Lauren B. Leveton - NASA Johnson Space Center

Robert Ploutz-Snyder, Camille Shea - United Space Research Alliance

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBERS

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

S-1093

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

TP-2011-216146

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

Available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

7121 Standard

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Category: 53 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) Research has sought to develop a process that will determine, as objectively as 

possible, which analogs are a “best fit” for addressing BHP Research gaps, thus reducing risk. Developers of the Analog Assessment 

Tool needed to consider, among other things, the importance of proposed environmental and psychosocial characteristics to BHP

Research gaps, as well as the fidelity of those characteristics within the analog environment to space scenarios (i.e., Near-Earth 

Objects and Mars). It also was essential to consider the utility of each analog in terms of its practicality and cost of conducting 

research in those environments. Analogs with high fidelity to space flight are often intuitively considered ideal platforms for 

conducting research to inform future space flight missions. Simply considering the fidelity of an analog, however, may not be enough 

to ensure that the analog serves as the appropriate platform through which to address a research gap. The Analog Assessment Tool 

provides a methodology to determine not only the fidelity of analog characteristics to characteristics of a space flight mission, but 

also how relevant those characteristics are for specific research gaps within a research element (e.g., BHP Research Element).

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF 

PAGES

16. PRICE CODE 

risk assessment, analogs, research, human performance, health

90 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

Standard Form 298 (Rev Feb 89) (MS Word Mar 97)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

NSN 7540-01-280-5500