Skylab and Nasa Decision Making Essay Example

unbridled enthusiasm for discovering new possibilities contributed to elevated levels of E-to-P and P-to-O in his team. His contagious enthusiasm also helped to elevate the performance levels of his entire crew, making them model crew for NASA. Their eagerness to work and please caused NASA to struggle to keep up with their schedules. Unfortunately, NASA's Neal Hutchinson viewed this as a "new standard" for future crews, ignoring the role of personal makeup, team attributes, and abilities, as well as the impact of expectancy theory. This assumption that all teams could and should function at this level and be highly motivated to meet desired outcomes proved to be flawed. It did not take long for the limitations of this approach to become apparent.

We had to wait for the third and final Skylab crew to arrive while NASA had previously neglected to define the mission length, causing possible disagreements among the crew. NASA was aware of personality issues that could potentially cause problems, including the fact that none of the crew had been to space before, they had no personal connections with previous crews, and Skylab 3's science pilot, Gibson, was known for being difficult. Despite this, NASA criticized the crew publicly for not reporting Pogue's vomiting, creating conflicting outcomes.

The third crew during their time in space developed an "us against them" mentality which was fueled by various causes such as a cut in exercise time, scheduling of experiments during meal times, poor toilet facilities, and other numerous issues. These circumstances resulted in regular occurrences of rebellion. The third crew had little to no expectation of any positive outcome to their efforts or performance, with

both E-to-P and P-to-O expectations being low. Dissatisfaction with possible outcomes was also expected. Hence, they believed that NASA's task had very little value. To avoid such situations for extended stays, a team makeup that is a mix of both experienced and newbies with metric-driven members as well as those that enjoy the experience beyond quantitative measurement should be considered (ala Garriot).

In case there is not enough time between flights, it would be advisable to involve previous crews who have undertaken similar missions in collaboration with NASA and the next flight team, to develop the schedule. This approach will provide equal representation and ensure an agreement from all parties involved thereby eradicating the secrecy and hidden intentions that undermined Skylab projects. Furthermore, previous teams should be present at mission control during the event to observe and give feedback.

Include former astronauts in the teams responsible for the design of future space stations and vehicles. This concept has already been put into practice as Carr and Pogue, who were part of the Skylab 3 crew, assisted NASA in the creation of the current International Space Station (ISS) three decades later. They allocated a particular section for themselves, which was dedicated to educating others on how not to design a space station.