VTechWorks staff will be away for the Thanksgiving holiday starting at noon on Wednesday, November 23, through Friday, November 25, and will not be replying to requests during this time. Thank you for your patience.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHanyok, Lauren Watsonen
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-19T22:40:51Zen
dc.date.available2013-02-19T22:40:51Zen
dc.date.issued2013-01-21en
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:78en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/19252en
dc.description.abstractThe introduction of calculation methods for motion induced interruptions (MII) in 1984 introduced a new way to quantify human factors in addition to the motion sickness index (MSI). The 1990 Graham method for calculating MII uses a combination of a vessel's acceleration and roll to determine a "tipping" factor to calculate MII per minute. The Applebee-Baitis (AB) method considered that the motions are implicitly considered in accelerations, and therefore did not require roll to calculate MII. This thesis examines and analyzes the differences between the AB and Graham methods and compares their results for a unique hull form shape, a cylindrical capsule, in rough seas to determine which method is preferred. Two tests were performed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in post-splashdown conditions. A one-quarter scale model of the CEV was tested at the Aberdeen Test Center in Aberdeen, Maryland. Direct comparison of the analyzed data, MII sensitivity to location, and scaling analyses are examined and future work to further the application of MII calculation methods are proposed. The symmetry of the capsule leads to the assumption that roll and pitch-dominant MII calculations should be on the same order of magnitude. They are not because both MII methods only take roll-motions into account. The inclusion of both pitch and roll motions for the MII calculations is proposed as future work. The Graham method was found to be the more appropriate calculation because it is more conservative, and therefore preferred in the context of crew safety.en
dc.format.mediumETDen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectmotion induced interruptionsen
dc.subjectunique hull formen
dc.subjectspace capsuleen
dc.subjectaccelerationsen
dc.subjecthuman factorsen
dc.titleMethods for Calculating Motion Induced Interruptions as Applied to a Space Capsule After Splashdownen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.contributor.departmentAerospace and Ocean Engineeringen
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.disciplineOcean Engineeringen
dc.contributor.committeechairMcCue-Weil, Leigh S.en
dc.contributor.committeememberBelknap, William Forresten
dc.contributor.committeememberBrown, Alan J.en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record