Opportunities and Challenges of Promoting Scientific Dialog throughout Execution of Future Science-Driven Extravehicular Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science-driven, human spaceflight missions of the future will rely on regular and interactive communication between Earth- and space-based teams during activity in which astronauts work directly on Mars or other planetary surfaces (extravehicular activity, EVA). The Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) project conducted simulated human missions to Mars, complete with realistic one-way light time (OWLT) communication latency. We discuss the modes of communication used by the Mars- and Earth-based teams, including text, audio, video, and still imagery. Real-time communication between astronauts in the field (extravehicular, EV) and astronauts in a communication relay station (intravehicular, IV) was broadcast over OWLT, providing important contextual information to the Science Backroom Team (SBT) in Mission Control. Collaborative communication between the Earth- and Mars-based teams, however, requires active communication across latency via the Mission Log. We provide descriptive statistics of text communication between IV and SBT in a high-fidelity, scientifically driven analog for human space exploration. Over an EVA, the SBT sent an average of ∼23 text messages containing recommendations, requests, and answers to questions, while the science-focused IV crew member (IV2) sent an average of ∼38 text messages. Though patterns varied, communication between the IV and SBT teams tended to be highest during ∼50-150 min into the EVA, corresponding to the candidate sample search and presampling instrument survey phases, and then decreased dramatically after minute ∼200 during the sample collection phase. Generally, the IV2 and SBT used ∼4.6 min to craft a reply to a direct question or comment, regardless of message length or OWLT, offering a valuable glimpse into actual time-to-reply. We discuss IV2-SBT communication within the context of case examples from an EVA during which communication failures affected operations in the field. Finally, we offer recommendations for communication practices for use in future analogs and, perhaps, science-driven human spaceflight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".