Human Modeling for Ground Processing Human FactorsEngineering Analysis

Damon B. StambolianNASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Engineering and Technology DirectorateJFK Space CenterKSC, FL 32899321-861-5973

damon.b.stambolian@nasa.govList of co-authors: Brad A. Lawrence USA KSC; Katrine S Stelges, USA KSC; Marie-Jeanne O. Steady Ndiaye USA KSC;Lora C. Ridgwell, USA KSC; Robert E. Mills USA KSC; Gena Henderson, NASA KSC Engineering Directorate; Donald

Tran NASA KSC Engineering Directorate; and Tim Barth, NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NE~C)

Abstract- There have been many advancements andaccomplishments over the last few years using humanmodeling for human factors engineering analysis for designof spacecraft. The key methods used for this are motioncapture and computer generated human models. The focusof this paper is to explain the human modeling currentlyused at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and to explain thefuture plans for human modeling for future spacecraftdesigns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 12. METHODS 13. ANALYSIS 34. EXAl"IPLES •••••.••.•....•.•.: 45. WORKSPACES LIMITATIONS 66. RELATED STUDIES : 77. LESSONS LEARNED 78. FURTHER STUDIES AND FUTURE PLANS 79. CONCLUSION 8REFERENCES 8ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8BIOGRAPHIES 8

1. INTRODUCTION

The Human Engineering Modeling and Performance(HEMAP) Lab originated due to the complex andchallenging workspace design issues the Space Shuttleposed on technicians performing maintenance,modifications, and repair operations. The HEMAP Labincludes a motion capture system that' capturesbiomechanical motions of humans and perfornis variousdetailed ergonomic analyses of high risk operafions. Withthe previous knowledge, skills and capabilit.i~s developedduring the Space Shuttle and Constellation (Programs, theHEMAP Lab has evolved into a one of a kind state-of-the­art capability at KSC, which will prove to be very beneficialto design flight and ground hardware, and the related humantasks, to ensure safe, efficient, and effective ground, flight,

and non earth terrestrial habitation and processing of futurespace systems. [1,2]

One recent and very important accomplishment of theHEMAP team was the analysis of the installation/removal(l/R) of four Avionics Boxes (AB) planned for test flights ofthe Orion crew module. Three technicians of varying staturewere used to simulate the installation and removal of thefour avionics components. One technician picks up theavionics box component from the hatch dive board and thenpasses the component to an Installation Technician (IT)while a third technician served as an installation/removalQuality Inspector (Q1). Dozens of task scenarios wereperformed using many variations. Observations and datawere collected real-time, through technician inputs, and viaviewing and assessment of recorded playbacks of the taskswith ergonomic evaluation software applications.

The project requirements for this assessment weredeveloped and agreed upon using customer requirementsquestionnaires and discussions. The purpose of this projectwas meant to aid in the identification of processimprovements and possible tooling that could preventoccurrences of collateral damage and personnel injurycaused by limited access, awkward postures, and/or limitedfield of view during avionics box I1R.

It was determined that the prime scope of this initialassessment would include overall access, gross motor tasks,visibility, and lateral reach. Detailed assessment of finemotor tasks, performed inside the cavities where the box ismounted, including reach to fasteners, arrnlhand/tool accessbetween components and their respective walls, and toolgrasps within confined areas were not evaluated and wereplanned for extended studies.

2. METHODS

The HEMAP Crew Module (CM) mockup is an open­frame construction to allow visibility for the motion capturecameras. Accuracy of the fabricated mockup was checkedagainst CAD data. Wood was used as the core of the CM

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110023216 2020-04-07T20:45:47+00:00Z

floors, designed to be weight-bearing for multipletechnicians and objects and nonslip. The wood was paintedwith fire retardant paint. Wire mesh was used to representthe workspace envelopes. This mockup method developedby the HEMAP is easily adaptable and is used for manyother types of CM analysis and is extremely efficient atreducing costs as compared to a physical simulation thatdoes not use motion capture immersed into a CAD model ofthe vehicle.

The motion capture system was used to capture variousscenarios of real human participants simulating theinstallation offour avionics boxes (B I, B2, B3, B4) within arepresentative mockup. Each avionics box was constructedout of wire mesh and rods, according to their dimensionalattributes. The weight being handled at any time by anytechnician was less than 2 pounds. (the true mass of the boxis included into the biomechanical analysis). For the motioncapture sessions, each subject and component were markedso motions would be tracked and viewed within the CADelectronic environments. See Figure - I, 2&3

Figure 1 Mockup and Motion Capture

The inner configuration of the Crew Module (CM)included inner mold lines, curved aft bulkhead, side hatchopening, side hatch platform, forward bulkhead, dockingring, inner wall footprints; and other mounted componentsand wire/cabling. The work areas were broken down intofive zones formed by the structure of the CM. Work areasutilizing removable platforms placed atop the structure weredesignated as A I through A4. Areas with No Access (NA)were blocked for access by placing wire fence. The fourboxes are labeled BI-B4. See Figure- 2.

2

Figure 2 Box, Access, and Non Access Areas

Key features of the mockup were removable platformswhich allowed the team to trial a variety of configurationsfor technicians to install the four avionics boxes either byworking atop the platforms or with the platforms removed toallow working directly in the access areas A I-A4.Removable platforms were fabricated and placed atop thebackbone structure openings (A I-AS) during portions of themotion capture tasks.

Technicians for this project were selected to closelyrepresent a 5th Percentile and a 95th Percentile ArmyAnthropometric Survey (ANSUR) male in stature andweight, allowing analysis of a broad range of sizes, andcovering possible technicians populations from a short to tallstature male. Female Technicians were not available at thetime of the captures, so the software analysis did not includefemale ergonomic evaluations. See Table-I.

Table 1 Subject Height and Weight

Subiects Height Weight5th Percentile 162.1 cm 77.3 kg5th Percentile 163.3 65.5 kg5th Percentile 161.6 cm 65.9 kg95th Percentile 187.0 cm 101.0 k!!95th Percentile 188 cm 99.5 kg

Technicians used for this project had experience insimilar activities as part of Space Shuttle operations. Onehad performed tasks within the Orion ground test article,which offered insight and lessons learned to the team andother technicians regarding working in the nearly identicalsized mockup performing similar handling tasks. Thetechnician pool had received prior general training on propergeneral lifting techniques, using smooth and no suddenacceleration. Each technician was experienced with liftingcritical, fragile components. The moderate width of eachcomponent allowed for standard hand separation.Technicians performed the motions at the HEMAP Labunder environmentally controlled conditions.

Technicians were able to remove particular portions ofthese platforms and stood in the access area or kneeled onthe platform covering the access area. The A I platform justinterior to the side hatch opening was installed throughoutall tasks and assessments.

Based on Customer input, all motion capture tasksassumed the use of a lifting/lowering device (LLD). Thedesign of the lifting device had yet to be developed. Forproject evaluation, representation of a lifting device wassimulated by a participant who guided the part over to theinstallation location. The part was suspended by cords as itwas lowered into position by the technician.

Figure-3 shows two technicians kneeling on theinstalled platform A I and A2 while installing avionics box 4(B4). The technician holding the box is kneeling on the A2platform, the technician simulating the box lifting/lowingdevice (box held by string) is kneeling on Al platform.

Figure 3 Technicians Working from Platforms

Figure-4 shows a configuration which shows threetechnicians, one technician standing on platform A I andsimulating the box lowering apparatus, a second techniciankneeling on A2 platform holding the box, and the QualityInspector (QI) standing in the removed platform for A3.

Figure 4 Three Technicians

3. A ALYSIS

During and after performing various scenarios of realhuman participants simulating the installation of 4 avionicsboxes within a representative mockup, pros and cons of thesimulated process results were evaluated by the team whodeveloped recommendations based on customer inputs,

3

partIcIpant feedback, ergonomic/human factors analyses,participant visibility, and real-time and animation reviews.Included in the ergonomic/human factors analysis were thebiomechanical lower back analysis, fatigue analysis, access,reach, and visibility, which included the participant inputs.

Technicians participated in several capture activities tosimulate the installation, removal, and inspection of the fourcomponents. The technicians' feedback, Customer inputs,ergonomics, and process requirements were factors used todevelop recommendations.

As motions were performed, they were captured withinthe HEMAP system and fed into two evaluation softwareapplications. HEMAP used Siemens Jack to view livemotions, shown as avatars within an electronic environmentof the CM and components. Within Jack, as motions wereoccurring, the HEMAP Team was also able to performpreliminary real-time ergonomic analyses. Concurrently withJack, HEMAP used recently integrated DELMIA to alsoview the live motions and electronic environment. Aftermotion captures were recorded for later playbacks, eachmotion task scenario was reviewed and evaluated in each ofthe software analyses packages.

The renderings in Jack and DELMIA produced graphicsdiffering primarily in avatar, or manikin, skins. The virtualenvironment of the CM and components were similar in thatthey were nearly incomparable in graphic quality, providingsimilar levels of details.

Even though HEMAP fabricated and used platformswithin the mockup to simulate areas most feasible for futureplatforms, the actual platforms themselves do not appear inthe electronic, computer environment. In screenshotsrepresenting platforms installed, it will appear as techniciansare hovering at the top plane of the platform heights withtheir knees, prone posture, or feet if standing on actualmockup platforms. Likewise, graphics of the representedinstallation aid (actual cord tether in the physical mockup)does not appear in the electronic environment.

Moving the platforms in and out of the mockup werenot evaluated for ergonomic, feasibility, or human factorsassessment. For ~ach motion capture evaluated, platformswere either installed or removed before the start of actionbegan for recording and assessment purposes.

3.1 Task Sequence Analysis

During pre-task discussions, including review of theCM mockup and component configurations and tasks to beperformed, the Team deduced that a particular order ofcomponent installations would be needed to allowtechnicians access in simulating fastening and installing thecomponents. The list of feasible order of operations werefollowed during the motion capture analysis. Motioncaptures were performed with a variety of scenariosincluding platforms in, platforms out, 5th PercentileInstaller, and 95th Percentile Installer.

3.2 Lower Back Analyses (LRA); Compression Forces

The National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) has established a limit of 3400 Newtons (aunit of force required to impart acceleration of lift to themass being lifted) as a safety limit for compressive force tothe lumbar region of the spine. HEMAP references thisvalue during evaluations within the ergonomic softwareevaluation applications to determine safe lifting ranges. Allof the lower back compression, or Lower Back Analysis(LBA), forces experienced by the technicians during theAvionics Box tasks performed were below therecommended 3400N safe limit. This was primarily due tothe simulation of the LLD installation aid which resulted inthe components only being weighted to the mass of themockup materials that were used to fabricate them. Jack'sLow Back Compression Analysis tool is based on a complexbiomechanical low back model which is described inpublished articles: [3] Raschke, U. (1994) and [4] Raschke,U., Martin, BJ and Chaffin, D.B. (1996)

3.3 Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)

The RULA tool which examines the upper body postureand arms did not provide additional insight into any of thetasks, as it always interpreted the tasks as a level 7 - acondition requiring immediate intervention to alleviate theposture. Since the components are configured belowtechnician torsos and since the technicians cannot get levelwith the components during installations within the CM, itwas expected by Human Factors Analysts that the upperlimb forces and evaluations would reflect higher limits.

As experienced with similar shuttle processing,applying proper lifting techniques and padding to reducecontact stress during long task durations of carefully placingthe avionics box, should prevent risks during theseinfrequent tasks.

3.4 Reach and Visibility

During each scenario, reach and visibility wereevaluated as well as technician natural behaviors andtechnical limitations. Through discussions and performancesof the tasks, the consensus of technicians is that thesecomponents will require torquing from the back side and,due to this, it will be necessary to work from the AftBulkhead with the platforms out to allow the torque-wrenchswing required. See Figure-5 for the estimated view of thetechnician in the modeling software.

4

Figure 5 Estimated View of Technician

4. EXAMPLES

The section goes through one example which focusesmainly on the installation technician, and on the lower backstress.

4.1 Comparing Platfom In vs. Platform Out

This configuration did a comparison of the InstallerPlatform in versus out, with a 5th percentile installationtechnician of stature and wieght. The results showed that theInstallation Technicians (IT) preferred to work with theInstaller Platform out, while installing B3 and B4. This wasconfirmed after assessing results in the ergonomic analysessoftware.

A 5th Percentile IT experienced a lower backcompression of 1597 Newtons (N) with the InstallerPlatform out and a lower back compression of 2 I23 N withthe platform in. Therefore, both values of platform scenariosrepresented safe lifting ranges under 3400 N. Ultimately,being able to standlkneel within the access area A3 and A4cavity, nearest the components, allowed for more naturalpostures than when lying prone (Figure-8) on the platformsin the same locations. Figure-6 shows the analysis softwareJack, and Figure-7 shows the analysis software DELMIA.

Figure 65th Percentile Installer in Gray

Figure 7 DELMIA Analysis of Installer Platform Out

Figure 8 Technician Lying Prone

4.2 Comparing 5th vs. 95th Percentile Installer

Further comparisons were made between installingcomponents 83 and 84 with a 95th percentile technicianagainst a 5th percentile technician in stature and weight. Itwas determined that a 5th percentile technician shouldinstall the components as they are shorter of stature and arenot forced to lean over as far into the avionics bays, whichcauses more strain on the lower back. A 5th percentiletechnician experienced a lower back compression force of1597 N compared with a 95th percentile technician whoexperienced a lower back compression of 2695 N. Figure­9&10

5

Figure 95th Percentile Inataller

Figure 10 95th Percentile Installer in Blue

4.3 Static Strength Prediction

Static Strength Prediction analysis of 8 I and 82installation/removal and quality tasks showed that a higherpercentage of the population would be capable ofperforming the tasks with the platforms out than with theplatforms in.

4.4 Reach

The subjects' arm lengths ranged from below the 5thpercentile to the 90th percentile. From a lying prone postureon a platform or from kneeling or standing directly atop A2and A3, each technician was able to reach down to thebottom of the box openings. However, reach within theavionics bays amid the components is a concern due tolimited space which may not allow adequate hand/armmotions.

4.5 Visibility

Due to the components being placed in the centers ofthe avionics bays for the baseline assessment, techniciansreported they were able to see to the lowest edge of the outerplanes of each wireframe mockup component duringinstallation and removal. The Jack and DELMIA fIrst-

person eye view software evaluations also confi.nned theeffective visibility. Figure-II.

Figure 11 View of Box in Restricted Space

4.6 Other Analysis

Several other analyses were perfonned. For example forthe boxes B I and B2 further away from A2 and A3,technicians advised that they preferred to use the platfonnsto perfonn these tasks for B I and B2. Lying on platformswould prevent technicians from having to reach across eitherthe B3 or B4 components. Also having adjacent, AI and A4platfonns installed allowed for tool placement and ability tostretch beyond A2 and A3 workspaces. Lying on the A2 andA3 center platfonns helped to reduce strain on the lowerback when reaching further away from the box opening. Atthese postures, additional pressure was placed on the kneesand ankles, a trade willingly accepted by the technicianswho did not experience pre-existing knee or ankleconditions that would be cause for further assessment.

Furthennore, motion captures were perfonned with avariety of scenarios including platfonns in, platfonns out,5th Percentile Installer, and 95th Percentile Installer.Standing, kneeling, lying prone, bent or straight arms, etc.were analyzed. Additionally the Installation Technician (IT)and the Quality Inspector (QI) positions and locations werestudied. During each scenario, along with biomechanical andstatic strength, reach and visibility were evaluated, as well asnatural behaviors and physical workspaces and limitations.

5. WORKSPACES LIMITATIONS

For the purposes of the initial assessment of theAvionics handling, the boxes were centered within eachcavity as overall handling, gross motor tasks, lateral reach,and visibility to the Aft Bulkhead were assessed.

6

Based on these designs, there was not enough space fora technician to thoroughly place his hands down the sides ofeach component due to the tight configurations. Even withbare hands and no markers, concerns were addressedregarding whether there would be sufficient room tomanipulate tools on the sides of each of the componentboxes. See Figure-12 and 13.

Figure 12 Restricted Access Around Box

Figure 13 Limited Hand Space

It was detennined that more detail assessments wouldneed to be perfonned to detennine true physical workspacelimitations and feasible handling methods for installationsand removals. For this project primarily large body motionswere assessed to detennine whether technicians benefitedfrom platfonns being installed or not in handling thesecomponents. In addition, reach to the outward planes of thecomponents and downward to the Aft Bulkhead, where thelowest fasteners would be, were detennined to be feasiblewith the technician pool used and general placement ofcomponents within the centers of the cavities.

6. RELATED STUDIES

The Avionics Box Cold Plate Damage Prevention paperexplains lessons learned from the Space Shuttle Programwhile describing the cold plate damage problems and thecorrective actions for preventing future damage to aerospaceavionics cold plate designs. [5]

During the Constellation program analysis was done forthe Ares rocket to improve avionics box placement for thetechnicians. [6] In order to have the efficient and effectiveground processing inside and outside the vehicle, all of theground processing activities were analyzed. The analysiswas performed by engineers, technicians, and human factorsengineering experts with spacecraft processing experience.The procedure used to gather data was accomplished byobserving human activities within physical mockups. Figure­14

Figure 14 Designing Box Locations and Ground SupportEquipment

Another study simulated the avionics box and avionicsshelf configuration in a biomechanics laboratory at theUniversity of Miami. [7] This study looked at lifting time,how close the box can be placed on target, the EMG muscleactivity, and the forces to the L5/S I. The lifts were manuallydone with restrictions or no restrictions to the installed boxwith three different box weights, and two shelf heights. SeeFigure -15

Figure 15 University Study

7

7. LESSONS LEARNED

I. Technicians familiar with shuttle and crew modulecapsule ground test article processing were effective inproviding lessons learned and valuable insights into varioushandling options of the four components which wereperformed and simulated during dozens of motion capturescenarios.

2. Having a lower stature technician perform theinstallation/removals closer to their bodies, offers lessstrains caused by bending on the back and legs, compared tothe taller stature technician performing the same tasks.

3. The use of additional removable platforms in theCM are not recommended since these platforms would limitaccess and not enhance the postures.

4. Labeling of the platforms is recommended to assureproper positioning.

5. Non-protruding and non-interfering handholds wouldalso provide benefits to handling the platforms within theconfined environment.

6. Dimensions and thickness would be affected bymaneuverability through the Side Hatch and interfaces withthe CM.

7. Flexibility in horizontal platform maneuvering withinthe CM is also recommended in planning platformconstruction.

8. Having adjacent platforms installed for the Guidingand quality technician allow increased visibility andhandling for their roles and provide additional stagingsurfaces.

9. Operations should afford the technicians theopportunity to take frequent stretching breaks during thetask to increase circulation and rest stressed, fatiguedmuscles after holding postures static.

10. Foam padding should be used where practical,especially during long duration jobs, to minimize contactstress to tissues and muscles and to increase techniciancomfort in performing the installation and removal tasks.

8. FURTHER STUDIES AND FUTURE PLANS

8.i Further Studies for Avionics Box instal/ation

Plans are to perform further studies to evaluatecomponent configuration with the cavities, assessing finemotor and detail handling tasks. This assessment wouldevaluate components placed in exact locations to determineFeasibility of Hand/Arm Workspaces, Detailed Handling,Fine Motor Tasks (Hand/tool grasp), Collision Detection(Component placement within cavity), Visibility (Aroundcomponents in cavities), and Detailed Reach (Insidecavities).

8./ Future Plans

Provide the state-of-art biomechanical capabilities todesign flight hardware to ensure safe and efficient ground,flight, and terrestrial processing of future space systems.

Improve the HEMAP capabilities to satisfy NASAsneed for Research and Technology by partnering with andincorporating NASA, academia, and commercial state of artcapabilities, methods, and expertise.

9. CONCLUSION

The HEMAP Lab has evolved into a one-of-a kindstate-of-the-art capability at KSC, which will prove to bevery beneficial for designing flight hardware, designingtasks, and analyzing stress, force and strain to ensure safeand efficient ground, flight, and terrestrial processing offuture space systems.

REFERENCES

[I] United Space Alliance Human Engineering Modeling andPerformance (HEMAP) Laboratory. OFf-I Backbone AvionicsInstallationlRemoval Assessment. Baseline Report (Overall Access,Gross Motor Tasks,

[2] Jeffrey S. Osterlund & Brad A. Lawrence. 61st VirtualReality: Avatars in Human Spaceflight Training. InternationalAstronautical Congress, Prague, CZ. Copyright ©20 I0 by theInternational Astronautical Federation.http://kave.ksc.nasa.gov/HEMAP/HEMAP2010/HEMAP2010.mp4

[3] Raschke, U. (1994) Lumbar Muscle Activity PredictionDuring Dynamic Sagittal Plane Lifting Conditions: Physiologicaland Biomechanical Modeling Considerations. PhD Dissertation(Bioengineering), The University of Michigan.

[4] Raschke, U., Martin, B.J and Chaffin, D.B. (1996)Distributed Moment Histogram: A neurophysiology based method ofagonist and antagonist trunk muscle activity prediction. J.Biomechanics Vol 29 (12) pp. 1587-1596.

[5] Damon B. Stambolian. Co-authors; Steven W. Larcher.,Gena Henderson., Donald Tran., and Tim Barth. Avionics BoxCold Plate Damage Prevention. 2012 IEEEACpaper#1074

[6] Gregory M. Dippolito & Damon 8. Stambolian. Co-authors;Bao Nguyen, Charles Dischinger, Donald Tran, Gena Henderson, Dr.Tim Barth. Human Factors Analysis to Improve the Processing ofAres-I Launch Vehicle. 2011 IEEEACpaper#1022

[7] Damon B. Stambolian, Shihab S. Asfour, Moataz Eltoukhy,and Stephanie Bonin. Avionics Box Precision Placement inRestricted Space. XXIIIrd Annual International OccupationalErgonomics and Safety Conference. June 9-10, 20 II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Evaluation and Test Data Acknowledgements:Girard, Doug. Osterhout, Mary K.

8

BIOGRAPHIES

Damon Stambolian is currently working on aPhD in Industrial Engineering focusing hisresearch on Biomechanics at the University ofMiami's Biomechanics Laboratory. He is alsocurrently working in the KSC Engineering andTechnology Directorate at Kennedy SpaceCenter. Prior to working in the Engineeringand Technology Directorate, he worked in;the Constellation Ground Operations Project

office, the Space Station Program within the Orbiter Space PlaneProject at KSC, and the Space Shuttle Program at KSC. Withinthese Programs, he was involved with human factors relatedprocess improvements for ground processing operations, i.e.,assembly, maintenance, inspection offlight hardware.

Brad A Lawrence began his career in theu.s. Navy as a Cryptological MaintenanceTechnician. After his discharge he joinedITT in Dallas as a Field Systems Engineer.His responsibilities included maintainingcomputer systems for the City ofDallas andvarious major corporations. A few yearslater he transferred to Texas Instruments

building and calibrating FUR systems. In 1985 he accepted ajobas a Video Systems Specialist on the Space Shuttle Program withLockheed Space Operations Company. Holding the title ofComputer Science Lead he now oversees the NASA Image AnalysisFacility, Kennedy's Advanced Visualization Environments Lab andthe HEMAP Motion Capture Studio. He obtained the NASA UNIXSystem Administration Certification and has earned the NASASpace Flight Honoree Award, Space Flight Team Award, and thecoveted Silver Snoopy Award. Brad has received the TechnicalAchievement Award in 2004 from United Space Alliance and threeNASA Director awards for dedication and innovation.

Katrine Stelges is an Industrial and HumanEngineer (I&HE) with United SpaceAlliance with over 11 years' experience ofimplementing projects that have reducedrisks, improved efficiencies, and applieduser inputs and human factors criteria intopractical solutions. She is currently thePrincipal Investigator for the Human

Engineering Modeling and Performance (HEMAP) Lab. Stelges isa Lean Six Sigma Certified Green Belt, holds a M.s. inManagement of Technology from the University of Miami, ispursuing a second M.S. in Industrial Engineering. Prior tojoining I&HE, Stelges was a Materials and Process Engineer withUSBI, currently USA's Solid Rocket Booster Element, and taughtsecondary physical science and chemistry for Brevard and OrangeCounty public schools.

...- ., . ....

,~. -,

MJ S. Ndiaye is currently working on aMasters in Human Factors and Systems atEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University(Daytona Beach, FL). Her thesis assessesthe effects of intelligent adaptive displayson fighter pilots. MJ joined United SpaceAlliance (USA) in 2007 as an Industrial &Human Engineer, and is currently working

in the Human Engineering Modeling & Performance (HEMAP)Lab. Before joining USA, she was granted undergraduate andgraduate Teaching/Research assistantships that allowed her tohone her research skills and satisfy her inquiring mind. MJ is keenon R&D and enjoys working on projects that involve designingspace vehicles or habitats (i.e., ground crew performance andfunctionality, acceptability testing, and other habitability impacts).

Lora Ridgwell is currently working forUnited Space Alliance at Kennedy SpaceCenter. She has a Bachelor of Science inPsychology from the University of CentralFlorida and an MS degree in Industrial andHuman Factors Engineering from WrightState University. She has been a part of theHuman Engineering Modeling and

Performance (HEMAP) Lab since 2007.

Robert Mills is currently working for UnitedSpace Alliance at Kennedy Space Center inthe Data Systems Engineering Department ofthe Data and Ground Systems Directorate.Prior to working for United Space Alliance,he worked for Lockheed Space OperationsCompany, also at Kennedy Space Center.His expertise is in the areas of ComputerScience and Engineering. He is one of the

founding members of the Human Engineering Modeling andPerformance (HEMAP) team. He has been instrumental in thedevelopment and integration of the current systems andcapabilities ofthe HEMAP Lab.

Gena Henderson Ph.D., serves as chief ofthe Engineering Support Services Branchwithin the Engineering Directorate at JohnF. Kennedy Space Center. This office isresponsible for generation and managementof business processes and documentation;generation and management of businessmetrics; records management; management

of design and development technical reviews; export control;management of business reviews; management of office,laboratory and shop space database; knowledge management;management of the Kennedy Engineering Academy; andmanagement of the Agency Lessons Learned program as adelegated function from the NASA Headquarters Office of ChiefEngineer.

9

Donald Tran is currently working in theKSC Engineering and TechnologyDirectorate at Kennedy Space Center. Hiswork human factors work includes;improving the over 40 ground sub-systemsdesigns for the Constellation ProgramGround Operations Project, and improvingthe local and remote Control and Displayscreens for these subsystems. His work as a

human factors engineer is aimed at improving ground processingoperations, i.e., processing, maintenance, testing and inspection offlight hardware using ground systems.

Tim Barth is a systems engineer in theNASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), which wasestablished to improve safety across NASA programs and projectsby focusing on technical rigor and engineering excellence. Timhas worked at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in a variety ofengineering and technology management positions, and has ledmany successful teams and projects to improve the safety,efficiency, and effectiveness ofspace launch operations. Also Timhas led efforts to establish industrial and human factorsengineering capabilities within NASA and contractororganizations at KSC.