{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/19252"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/19252","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Methods for Calculating Motion Induced Interruptions as Applied to a Space Capsule After Splashdown","abstract":"The 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.","abstract_html":"The 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.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Hanyok, Lauren Watson"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Ocean Engineering","degree_department":"Aerospace and Ocean Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["McCue-Weil, Leigh S."],"committee_members":["Belknap, William Forrest","Brown, Alan J."],"year":2013,"date_issued":"2013-01-21","date_published":"2013-01-21","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:18Z","subjects":["motion induced interruptions","unique hull form","space capsule","accelerations","human factors"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:78"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:78","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19252","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["McCue-Weil, Leigh S."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Belknap, William Forrest","Brown, Alan J."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Hanyok, Lauren Watson"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2013-02-19T22:40:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2013-02-19T22:40:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2013-01-21"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Ocean Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["motion induced interruptions","unique hull form","space capsule","accelerations","human factors"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:78"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19252"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The 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."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Methods for Calculating Motion Induced Interruptions as Applied to a Space Capsule After Splashdown"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["McCue-Weil, Leigh S."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Belknap, William Forrest","Brown, Alan J."],"dc:contributor.department":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Hanyok, Lauren Watson"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2013-02-19T22:40:51Z"],"dc:date.available":["2013-02-19T22:40:51Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2013-01-21"],"dc:description.abstract":["The 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."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:78"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/19252"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["motion induced interruptions","unique hull form","space capsule","accelerations","human factors"],"dc:title":["Methods for Calculating Motion Induced Interruptions as Applied to a Space Capsule After Splashdown"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Ocean Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:18Z"}