IF SPACE scientists had known better at the time of the Apollo 11 moon landing in July 1969, the mission’s defining legacy might have read “one small step for a woman, one giant leap for womankind”.*
In 1957, the USSR got the first satellite into space with Sputnik, and the race was on to get the first anything else up into orbit. As U.S. rockets kept exploding, experts involved were looking for a way to lighten the load of the first human mission. Men were heavier than women, which suddenly opened up the possibility of the first female astronaut.
The short-lived Women in Space Program ran from 1959 to 1961. Thirteen American women passed the astronaut admission standards but just days before they were to report to the Naval School of Aviation Medicine for further testing, NASA denied approval. Thank you Jerry Cobb, head of NASA, and then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson.
Alas, the U.S.S.R. successfully sent Valentina Tereshkova into space in 1963, effectively ending any ‘space race’ motivation behind getting American female astronauts into space, and keeping them grounded until Sally Ride joined the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger a full two decades later.
Another two decades passed before Svetlana Savitskaya — who would go on to be the first woman to walk in space — gained a place off this Earth. Other female astronauts have come from Canada, China, Japan, India and France. The first astronauts to enter space from Britain, South Korea, and Iran were women. And the U.S.?
Having come late to the party, NASA finally made up for lost time. Forty-five of the 57 women who have managed to break through the glass atmosphere since Tereshkova have been American.
So why would women be better astronauts?
Dr. Randolph Lovelace, Chairman of NASA’s Special Advisory Committee on Life Sciences, along with multiple scientific organizations and researchers have reasoned that women – versus men –
– require less oxygen;
– have a lower risk of heart or respiratory failure;
– retain less iron that can rise to dangerous levels in space;
– can withstand longer amounts of time in sensory deprivation simulations;
– are more flexible;
– have been proven to perform better in cramped spaces;
– eat less and create less waste;
– live more easily and less emotionally in small groups of people tightly bound together;
– are better at detecting potentially small changes in the environment that could be dangerous;
– are more sensitive to odors and sounds; and
– would require less fuel to propel the same distance because of their lighter weight.
In addition, neuroscientists have uncovered evidence suggesting that, when the pressure is on, women bring unique strengths to decision making. In stressful situations, women tend to make more advantageous decisions, looking for smaller, surer successes. Stressed men’s decisions become more questionable, risking a lot for the slim chance of a big achievement. Worse, men were less aware than women that they used a risky strategy.
Experiments have also shown that under stressful conditions, women became more attuned to others. They find it easier than usual to empathize and take the other person’s perspective. Men, on the other hand, became more egocentric. Some evidence suggests that organizations with women in charge actually make less risky, and more empathetic, decisions in stressful circumstances.**
Unfortunately what often happens is that women are asked to lead only during periods of intense stress. It’s called the glass cliff.
We can’t make the big jobs in government or business any less stressful. But we can ensure that when the pressure rises, there’s a better balance between taking big risks and making real progress.
In other words, if you need a crisis resolved, call a woman.
If you need a jar opened, call a man.
* “Why Women Are Better Astronauts Than Women.” The Scotsman.com December 18, 2004.
** “Are Women Better Decision Makers?” Therese Huston. New York Times. October 19, 2014.