This document provides an overview of lessons learned from past NASA programs regarding human factors considerations for ground processing operations. It discusses the importance of applying human factors engineering to ground tasks and outlines several key human factors analyses and tools that were developed, including the Human Factors Engineering Analysis Tool, motion capture studies, and virtual modeling. The presentation recommends that NASA continue developing human factors requirements, processes, and collaborations to improve ground operations and reduce costs.

1. NASA PM CHALLENGE
LESSONS LEARNED
KSC Human Factors Lessons Learned
Damon B. Stambolian
NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
Engineering and Technology Directorate
Katrine Stelges
NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
United Space Alliance
Donald H. Tran
NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
Engineering and Technology Directorate

2. KSC Human Factors Group
Gena Henderson Ph.D. Darcy Miller Tim Barth Ph.D. Barbara Kanki Ph.D.

3. Sections of Presentation
 Importance of Human Factors for
Ground Processing
 Human Factors Lessons Learned and
Accomplishments
 Recommendations

4. The Importance of Ground Human
Factors for Ground Processing

5. The Importance of Ground Human
Factors for Ground Processing
Courtesy to Tim Barth for these slides

6. Summary of Lessons Learned
 Lessons Learned Entries:
 1801 Human Factors Engineering; Acceptance, Implementation, and Verification as a
System.
 1831 Human Engineering should be considered a Systems Engineering and Integration
function
 2136 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and Operability of Constellation
Ground Systems
 5200 Synchronization of Vehicle Development with Ground Systems Development
 5376 No clear communication between the Apollo program and the Shuttle program
 5377 The use of human factors and the Space Flight Awareness (SFA) in the Apollo
development
 5378 Improved Quick Disconnect (QD) Interface Through – Visual Indicators and
Labeling
 5416 Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Human Factors
Engineering Pathfinder
 5480 Human Factors Review in the Critical Review Board (CRB)
44 recommendations implemented
6 partially implemented
9 have not been implemented

7. Human Factors Accomplishments
from Lessons Learned
 The Human Factors Engineering Analysis (HFEA) Tool
 Orion Human Factors Timeline Analysis
 Spacecraft Requirements for Ground Processing
 Ares I Forward Skirt Mockup Analysis
 Biomechanical Analysis of Installing Avionics Boxes
 Assessing Human Factors using Motion Capture
 Pro E Manikin
 KSC Design Visualization
 KSC Display/Control Screens

8. The Human Factors
Engineering Analysis (HFEA)
Tool

9. The Human Factors Engineering Analysis
(HFEA) Tool
 KSC Design Engineering;
 Define the human factors Level 5 requirements from the
FAA HFDS for each CxP GOP subsystems (Over 40
Subsystems)
 Develop a process for developing these requirements and
improve the design for ground operations
Examples of subsystems:
 Crew Access Arm  Hypergol
 Breathing Air  LO2
 Cold Gas Helium  LH2
 Crew Module Ammonia  GHE
 Environmental Control  Ignition Overpressure/Sound
 Electrical Ground Support  Vehicle Access Arms
Equipment  Umbilicals

10. HFEA Process
 Human factors engineering analysis was required to be performed by
qualified human factors engineers
 Human Factors Engineering Analysis (HFEA) Tool was used to
develop a dedicated subset of requirements from FAA
requirements for each subsystem
 Meetings were held between the human factors engineers, lead
design engineers, and systems engineers:
 To understand the human interfaces of the subsystem
 To understand the task at these interfaces
 To determine the human factors considerations/issues with
these task interfaces
 To get agreement on the allocation of requirement on these
task interface issues
 And to derive human engineered design solutions for these
requirements

11. HFEAT
Human/System Issues Requirement (Source, Title, Sub
Interface Section, and requirement words)

12. HFEAT
Type of processing,
Conditions Consequences Assembly, Nominal,
inspection, Emergency, etc.

13. HFEAT
Requirement Satisfied, Verification, Consequence, Likelihood,
Priority Rank, Why Non-Compliant, Recommendation, Notes.
Each Tab is a FAA Chapter: Design equipment for maintenance, Controls
and visual indicators, etc.

14. Example Actuator Motor
Mobile Launcher
Crew Access Arm
Actuator Motor
Actuator motor Complete visual and physical access
Access for maintenance Move the motor

15. HFEA Report for Crew Access Arm
Actuator Motor Issue

16. Orion Human Factors
Timeline Analysis
Multi Purpose
Vehicle Assembly Launch Pad
Processing Facility
Building

17. Orion Human Factors Timeline Analysis
 Orion vehicle goes through several areas and stages of
processing before its launched at the Kennedy Space
Center
 In order to have efficient and effective processing, all
of the activities need have a human factors engineering
analysis
 Corresponding Human factors requirements and design
solutions needed to be defined
 Areas of Processing
 MPPF (Crew module and Service module)
 Vehicle Integration Building (VAB) (Crew
module/Service module to Launch Vehicle and Ground
Support Equipment
 Launch Pad

18. Modification of HFEAT for Timeline
Analysis
 The HFEAT was modified to analyze the task in a
timeline, and additional input columns were added.
 Location
 FFBD Event and Number
 Tasks, Issues and Actions
 Team Actions
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3

19. Example of Establishing Access in
Multi Purpose Processing Facility
Functional flow block diagram at MPPF
Short stack pallet

20. Development of Human Factors
Requirements for Ground
Processing of Flight Hardware
Janis Connolly
Charles, Jr. H. Dischinger
Keith V. Holubec
Barry Tillman

21. Development of Human Factors Engineering Requirements for
Application to Ground Task Design for a NASA Flight Program
 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has long
employed human factors requirements for development of flight systems.
 The Level 1 NASA-STD-3000, Man Systems Integration Requirements,
does not include human factors design requirements for ground tasks, and
therefore, programs have not been required to develop human factors
requirements for ground crew tasks.
 The result has been that ground crews have had to develop complicated
strategies for accomplishment of ground assembly and maintenance of
flight systems.
 The Constellation Program (the execution program for the Exploration
Vision) has accepted the responsibility, imposed by the NASA Administrator,
to find ways to reduce ground operations costs. One of the ways the
Program is doing this is through the application of human factors design
requirements for the ground processing to flight systems. This is in the
Level 2, Human Systems Integration Requirements document (HSIR)

22. Human Systems Integration Requirements
(HSIR)
1.2 SCOPE AND PRECEDENCE
The requirements in this document are applicable to the Constellation Systems,
including but not limited to Orion, Ares I, Ares V, Altair, Mission Systems (MS),
Ground Operations (GO), Extravehicular Activity (EVA), and Flight Crew Equipment
(FCE)
The requirements in this document address the needs of the flight crew during all
phases of flight. These requirements also address the needs of ground personnel
during pre-flight preparation, maintenance, and post-flight activities on the flight
vehicles where there is a common interface with the flight crew
3.9 GROUND MAINTENANCE AND ASSEMBLY
This section addresses tasks to be performed by NASA and its launch site
contractors in accomplishment of launch site processing and ground maintenance.
Launch site processing includes vehicle assembly (e.g., Ares I + Orion) activities
that occur within the Outer Mold Line of the Launch Stack, Launch Stack physical
integration (e.g., umbilical integration), and launch preparation (e.g., propellant
loading). Ground maintenance includes corrective and preventive maintenance
activities associated with Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) removal and replacement.

23. NASA-STD-3001, VOLUME 2
Section 13, Ground Maintenance and Assembly, will address
the requirements for the configuration of interfaces that are
common to both flight crew and ground personnel. This
section is currently marked reserved and will be developed
during Fiscal Year 2010.
https://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315785/3315

24. Ares I Forward Skirt
Mockup Analysis
Upper Stage
MOCKUP
Forward Skirt
First Stage

25. Example Ground Support Equipment
 There is little that can be done to change
these cramped dimensions in rocket
design, so adjustments were made to:
 the ground support equipment
 box placement locations and heights
SEAT  The ground support equipment acts as a
seat, and foot rest.
 Ground support equipment installed to:
 protect the technician from injury
 protect the flight hardware from
damage
Foot Rest

26. Avionics Boxes
 The analysis determined the best locations of avionics
boxes based on the technicians location capabilities
and:
 Box weight
 Tool access
 Hand volumes
 Cable routes

27. Hatch

28. Biomechanical Analysis of
Installing Avionics Boxes
Placing Box Accurately L5/S1 spinal stress

29. Biomechanical Analysis of Avionics
Box Installation
Cold plate
damage
Box in restricted space
EMG and
reflective
markers
Force
Plate

30. Assessing Human Factors
using Motion Capture

31. KSC Human Engineering Modeling and Performance Laboratory
(HEMAP) Human Factors Analysis Process
Motion Captured Task Real time
(Actual Techs & Biomechanical
Biomechanical Data) Model
CAD and Human
Real Task Real time
Simulations
Human Factors Analyses and Real time Ergonomic
Recommendations Analysis
HEMAP supports multiple person/object tracking into live ergonomic analyses

32. Orion Seat Removal & Replacement
Motion Capture
CAD Models with Human Models
SEAT

33. Orion Avionics Box Installation

34. Self-Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble
SCAPE Suit
Markers placed on
SCAPE suits to create
actual life size and
motion of suits

35. Interactive Virtual collaboration
 Interactive virtual collaboration of motion capture data
among KSC and MSFC
 The web sharing of motion capture tasks within the
shared virtual environment provides real-time ability
to update designs based on actual human-system
interfaces being evaluated.
Combined Design
Environment
Motion Capture at KSC Motion Capture at MSFC

36. Head-Mounted Displays
 Incorporation of wearable Head-Mounted Displays
(HMDs):
 Negates need for physical mockups.
 Familiarization/training benefits
 Collaborative web sharing of models and live motion
tracking among NASA centers
 Immersing the HMD wearers in simple physical
mockups

37. Pro E Manikin

38. Pro E Manikin PRO E MANIKIN
for Verification

39. Pro E Manikin

40. Pro E Manikin

41. Solution
NASA Internal Only

42. Solution

43. KSC Design Visualization
KSC Design Visualization has the capability to analyze
human factors.
These factors include sight lines, visibility, reach, motion,
joint loading, repetition, calories and any additional
impediments caused by safety or life support systems.

44. KSC Design Visualization
LAS safe and arm
access at PAD
SCAPE fueling
SCAPE access
Astronaut
emergency egress

45. KSC Design Visualization
Pryo access
Water filter access
Astronaut egress post flight
Access arm assessment

46. KSC Display/Control Screens

47. Display and Control Screen Requirements
 Human Machine Interface (HMI) Programming Guidelines,
(KGCS) local screen guidelines document
 Ground Elements Integrated Launch Operations Application
Software Implementation Standards (ILOA) human factors
section for local and remote screen design.
 Screens currently under development
 GSP (Ground Special Power)
 ECS (Environmental Control System)
 CMASS (Crew Module Ammonia Servicing System)
 FLDS (Fire Detection)
 LH2/LO2
 IOPSS (Ignition Overpressure Sound Suppression)

48. IOPSS Screen Shot

49. Screen Shot With HFEA Notes

50. Screen Shot With HFEA Notes

51. HFEA Report

52. Recommendations

53. Recommendations to Agency
 Continue to develop Human Factors requirements
at all SE&I levels (1 to 5). E.g. NASA STD 3001.
 Continue to develop human factors processes,
tools, motion capture and other mockups and
human modeling.
 Continue the Human factors collaborations between
centers for our missions and programs, tools,
requirements, and processes.
 Continue to revisit and improve upon these lessons
from the past. And develop new lessons as we go
through these incremental developments.

54. Thanks to the folks across the
NASA Agency, and at KSC, for
your contributions towards the
human factors achievements for
improving ground processing for
launch and crewed space
vehicles.

55. References
 Dr., Kanki, B,; Dr., Barth, T,; Ms, Miller, D,; Mr, King, J,; Mr., Stambolian, D,; Ms, Hawkins, J,; Mr, Westphal, J,; Ms,
Dippolito, P; Mr, Dinally, J,; Ms, Blunt, M. “ Human Factors Issues in the Design of Ground Systems: A Pathfinder
Activity” http://www.congrex.nl/08a11/programme.asp
 Jeffrey S. Osterlund & Brad A. Lawrence. 61st Virtual Reality: Avatars in Human Spaceflight Training. International
Astronautical Congress, Prague, CZ. Copyright ©2010 by the International Astronautical Federation.
http://kave.ksc.nasa.gov/HEMAP/HEMAP2010/HEMAP2010.mp4
 Damon B. Stambolian, Dr. Gena Henderson, Ms. Darcy Miller, Mr. Gary Prevost, Mr. Donald Tran, and Dr. Tim Barth.“1-G
Human Factors for Optimal Processing and Operability of Ground Systems up to CxP PDR” 2011 IEEEAC paper#1007
 Gregory M. Dippolito & Damon B. Stambolian. Co-authors; Bao Nguyen, Charles Dischinger, Donald Tran, Gena
Henderson, Dr. Tim Barth. Human Factors Analysis to Improve the Processing of Ares-1 Launch Vehicle. 2011
IEEEACpaper#1022
 Roland Schlierf & Damon B. Stambolian; co-authors Darcy Miller, Juan Posada, Mike Haddock, Mike Haddad, Mr.
Donald Tran, Dr. Gena Henderson, and Dr. Tim Barth, Human Factors Operability Timeline Analysis to Improve the
Processing Flow of the Orion Spacecraft. 2011 IEEEACpaper#1021
 Damon B. Stambolian, Shihab S. Asfour, Moataz Eltoukhy, and Stephanie Bonin. Avionics Box Precision Placement in
Restricted Space. XXIIIrd Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference. June 9-10, 2011
 United Space Alliance Human Engineering Modeling and Performance (HEMAP) Laboratory. OFT-1 Backbone Avionics
Installation/Removal Assessment. Baseline Report (Overall Access, Gross Motor Tasks
 Damon B. Stambolian., Marie-Jeanne O. Steady Ndiaye., Brad A. Lawrence., Katrine S Stelges., Lora C. Ridgwell., Mary
K. Osterhout., Robert E. Mills., Gena Henderson., Donald Tran., and Tim Barth. Human Modeling for Ground Processing
Human Factors Engineering Analysis. 2012 IEEEACpaper#0175
 NASA Lesson Learned Entry: 3696. 2010. Avionics Cooling. https://nen.nasa.gov/web/ll/home/llis-doc-viwer?
url=https://nen.nasa.gov/llis_content/imported_content/lesson_3696.html
 Damon B. Stambolian., Steven W. Larcher., Gena Henderson., Donald Tran., and Tim Barth. Avionics Box Cold Plate
Damage Prevention. 2012 IEEEACpaper#1074
 Stambolian, D., Eltoukhy, M., Asfour, S., & Bonin, S. (2011, July). Investigation of avionics box precision placement
using motion capturing and thermal imaging techniques. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
2(7)

56. BACKUP

57. No clear communication between the Apollo
program and the Shuttle program 5376
Description of Driving Event:
During the transition from the Apollo program to the Shuttle program, concerning
ground processing human factors, there was no clear review of what they learned
from the Apollo and how it could assist their efforts in the Shuttle Program.
Lesson(s) Learned:
 It is extremely important from the beginning of a program to review and use what
you have learned from the program before it.
 The entire agency needs to be coordinated in the development of a program, and
the agency needs to look everything they learned from previous program. One
center may be able to learn from a situation at another center that could assist
them in the development process of a program.
Recommendation(s):
 At the pre beginning stages of a program or a project, review situations
that evolved from previous programs and see if you can implement and
incorporate these solutions in the new program or project.
 Human Factors and other lessons from flight crew can be applied to ground
crews, and ground crew lessons can be applied to flight crews. Also, a
lesson from launch vehicle systems, ground systems, or crewed vehicle
systems; may be applicable to all three systems.

58. The use of human factors and the Space Flight
Awareness (SFA) in the Apollo development 5377
Description of Driving Event:
o Since there was not a dedicated human factors section in the Apollo reference
materials, there were no formal human factors lessons learned as well. However,
there were several methods used to analysis human factors and provide proper
training for the human interacting with the hardware that was developed.
Lesson(s) Learned:
o With the increase of new technologies and untried methods, and the importance that
spacecraft processing operations play in the success of each mission, more emphasis
in human factors will be required. The 0-G human factors practices for the flight crew
are well in place and will be easily accepted in future programs, but 1-G human
factors for the ground personnel will need special attention because there
has not been an emphasis for this in previous spacecraft development.
Recommendation(s):
 As the use and development increases, ensure that the new designs are
assessed by a human factors engineer.
 Provide proper training for the new technology and systems established
immediately to reduce confusion and human error.


Continue to use the SFA program as a training tool.
Coordination between the flight and ground crew are essential to mission
success.

59. Human Engineering should be considered a
Systems Engineering and Integration function 1831
Lesson(s) Learned:
Human Engineering contributions are best considered if integrated during the design
process. Failure to involve Human Engineering at the System level ultimately leads to
design that are less then optimal from a maintainability, supportability, and operability
standpoint. Recommendation(s):
 1. Future Programs should place more emphasis on Human Engineering
effects for design, development, and operation.
 2. An effective approach would be to include Human Engineering under
Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I).
 3. Ensure data products are in place up front to address Human Engineering
Functions at the Systems level.
 4. To ensure that Human Engineering is not overlooked within each system,
e.g., Mechanical, Electrical, Fluids, etc., each system should have its own
Human Engineering section to confirm that this particular system has been
addressed by Human Engineering. Within this section, useful parts of MIL-
STD-1472 and other applicable Human Engineering documents that apply to
this system should be listed.

60. Human Factors Engineering; Acceptance,
Implementation, and Verification as a System 1801
 Lesson(s) Learned:
 Include Human Factors Engineering as an essential system for human spaceflight. Human
Factors Engineering impacts all systems having interfaces and interactions with humans,
including: hardware, software, flight preparation, mission operations, and maintenance for both
ground and flight.
How Solved:
The Human Engineering Office was established within the Spacecraft Project Office. Human
Engineering was included at a visible level for RFPs and WBSs.
Recommendation(s):
 1. Human Factors Engineering requirements that are carried as applicable
requirements should not be ignored; rather they should be (a) adequately funded,
(b) implemented in the design definition, and (c) properly verified.
 2. Human Factors Engineering personnel with training, experience, and expertise
should be hired and retained at NASA and at the contractors as key personnel.
 3. Human Factors Engineering design tools should be funded to enable spacecraft-
specific research and design development, providing actual data from trade-off
studies. Include 1-g full-scale mockups and multi-degrees-of-freedom simulators as
well as virtual simulators.

61. Human Factors Engineering; Acceptance,
Implementation, and Verification as a System
Lesson(s) Learned:
 4. Human Factors Engineering awareness training and re-education should be
provided to NASA and contractor management, budget controllers, contracting
officers, design discipline leads, as well as to legislative and executive branch
government leaders.
 5. Emphasize that Human Factors Engineering is a primary systems discipline
necessary for safe and efficient spaceflight.
 6. Human Factors Engineering scope and language at NASA and among the
contractors must be standardized with the overall Human Factors Engineering
community. For example, does Human Factors Engineering include everything
in NASA-STD-3000 or is it limited to what might be funded for crew systems
and cockpit layout? For example, does habitable volume mean the same thing
to each NASA and contractor player?
 7. Human Factors Engineering should be included in the work breakdown
structure (WBS) of the new program, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).
Preferably this should be done in the Systems Engineering / Systems
Integration section; alternatively a standard Human Factors Engineering
statement should be called out in every WBS callout for deliverables having
human interfaces.

62. Human Factors Engineering; Acceptance,
Implementation, and Verification as a System
Lesson(s) Learned:
 8. Spaceflight proposals should include a stand-alone section on Human
Factors Engineering, with emphasis on scope, personnel, resources, and
facilities all with sufficient funding to accomplish a successful Human Factors
Engineering design. In addition, the introduction and executive summary
should make it clear that Human Factors Engineering is a primary system.
 9. Data from Human Factors Engineering assessments and tests should drive
lower level requirements and resulting design.
 10. Human Factors Engineering should be involved and integrated in the daily
engineering problem solving and integration process.
 11. Human Factors Engineering should have signature authority on all designs
and drawings affecting human environments, interfaces, and interactions.
 12. Human Factors Engineers with training, experience, and expertise should
be the ones making decisions on Human Factors Engineering. This should be
done with participation, but not domination, by users (crew, ground support
personnel, mission controllers) and managers.

63. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Support
Equipment (GSE) Human Factors Engineering
Pathfinder 5416
Description of Driving Event:
Opportunity to improve KSC designs by optimizing flight and ground crew interfaces with ground
systems and GSE. The expected outcomes are: Ground systems/GSE that are safer and easier
(and therefore cheaper) for ground crews to operate and maintain. Fewer mishaps during
ground operations where ground system/GSE designs are cited as contributing factors or
causes.
Lesson(s) Learned:
 HFE expertise should be embedded in the design teams and various engineering
organizations.
 Prioritize limited Human Factors Engineering (HFE) resources by ranking systems
based on assessments of human-system integration technical risks (complexity,
criticality/hazards, and frequency of human-system interactions) and schedule risks.
 HFEs should have adequate training and relevant spacecraft (launch vehicle,
payload) processing experience.
 Supplement HFE expertise with the experiences and expertise of technicians,
operations engineers, systems engineers, quality engineers and inspectors,
engineers from other disciplines, and Safety and Mission Assurance(S&MA) as
needed.

64. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Support
Equipment (GSE) Human Factors Engineering
Pathfinder
Description of Driving Event:
Opportunity to improve KSC designs by optimizing flight and ground crew interfaces with ground
systems and GSE. The expected outcomes are: Ground systems/GSE that are safer and easier
(and therefore cheaper) for ground crews to operate and maintain. Fewer mishaps during
ground operations where ground system/GSE designs are cited as contributing factors or
causes.
Lesson(s) Learned:
 HFE methods, processes, and tools need to be part of the systems engineering
process over the entire system life-cycle.
 Use human interface modeling and simulation capabilities for evaluating designs
from a HFE perspective Integrate human factors engineering into the systems
engineering process.
 Taking a systems engineering perspective also promotes consideration of
common/shared HFE issues across multiple design teams.
 Develop a HFE process to accept and adapt heritage ground systems and GSE designs
from one program to the next.
Use mishap, close call, and process escape data from comparable systems to improve

65. Lessons Learned Entry 5416
 HFE concepts need to be infused as early as possible during the design phases and
reinforced during all milestone reviews. Require human factors assessments as
part of 30, 60, and 90% design review packages.
 Determine criteria for a complete, valid human factors assessment at each design
phase. A centralized authority or Point of Contact (chief human factors engineer
function)
 and common assessment tools can help ensure accurate, consistent, valid, and
value-added human factors engineering assessments.
 14. Engineers need to exercise good engineering judgment in addition to
satisfying human factors requirements. Provide training on applicable HFE
standards and program/project requirements that are specifically tailored for
ground system/GSE design teams.
 15. Provide practical guidance materials handbooks and workbooks for ground
system/GSE design teams. Provide as many relevant ground system/GSE
examples and design case studies in the training materials and handbooks as
possible.

66. 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and
Operability of Constellation Ground Systems 2136
Description of Driving Event:
The early work of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) focused on human
factors engineering (i.e., applying what is known about human capabilities and
limitations to the design of products, processes, systems, and work environments) as it
related to human spaceflight, particularly crew health and performance. During the
transition from the Orbital Space Plane Project (OSP) Program to the Constellation
Program, the requirements for applying human factors engineering to the design of
tasks related to the ground processing of space vehicles were not well-defined.
Lesson(s) Learned:
 Use available experiences and lessons from prior programs to optimize ground
processing operability by leveraging human capabilities, not exceeding them.
 Employ people qualified in human factors engineering on the team from the
beginning of the project.
 Make human factors a proactive part of the design process with well-defined
requirements that add value to the design.
 Voice the need for human factors accommodations where appropriate. Even if
these comments are not accepted, the effort is worthwhile because it helps to
develop a better awareness of the importance of human factors.

67. 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and
Operability of Constellation Ground Systems
Lesson(s) Learned:
 In document reviews, look at previous successful human factors program
documentation such as Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lessons learned
publications, and make comments to promote consideration of human factors.
 Try to incorporate human factors into the design proactively, reactively, and
everywhere. When resources are limited (which is often the case when using
human factors engineering in a particular engineering culture for the first
time), apply them to the areas that will produce the best results. Also, build on
past successes and combine the work done on multiple successful projects.
 Creating human factors requirements at a higher level is important in gaining
acceptance of human factors requirements at lower levels.
 Future NASA programs should consider incorporating all Level 2 (L2) human
factors requirements into one document such as CxP 70024, Constellation
Program: Human-Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR), i.e., include the
ground processing human factors requirements for ground hardware with the
ground processing human factors requirements for flight hardware.
 Recommend that pilot testing of new processes be done as soon as possible,
but make sure that the pilot test will produce added value.

68. 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and
Operability of Constellation Ground Systems
Lesson(s) Learned:
 Because MIL-STD-1472 was used as a human factors standard in the past, it is
hard to adopt a requirements document with less content, even though
complying with the more than 1,700 requirements in MIL-STD-1472 would
have been very difficult.
 Human factors engineers should perform the human factors assessment as
embedded members of the design team.
 When processes already exist, try to modify them to incorporate the human
factors design considerations.
 Exercise patience and be ready to compromise in gaining acceptance of new
requirements.
 From the beginning, make sure existing documentation is understood. Work
early to improve the existing documentation or obtain a buy-in from all parties
that the human factors requirements document can supersede existing
documentation.
 Do not disregard work that is not accepted when first proposed. To add value
for the stakeholders, the work may need to be adjusted or used at a later time.

69. 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and
Operability of Constellation Ground Systems
Recommendation(s):
 Leverage the use of human factors to improve the design for the human aspect
of nominal operability, including assembly, maintenance, inspection, and the
integrated and stand-alone testing required for initial flight tests.
 Develop and refine the Human Factors Engineering Analysis (HFEA) Tool and
processes as an efficient and effective means to develop design packages for
30%, 60%, and 90% design reviews, and as a tool for final design reviews.
 Formally document the human factors assessment process and tool in the L3,
L4, and L5 System Engineering Management Plans (SEMPs).
 Once the requirements used in the HFEA Tool mature, do the following:
- Incorporate a complete set of the high-level (parent) ground systems human
factors requirements into NASA STD-5005 and KSC-DE-512-SM.
- Incorporate these requirements into revisions of the L3 document, CxP
72006, Ground Systems: System Requirements Document (GS-SRD).
- Revise CxP 72210, Ground Systems: Human Factors Requirements Document
(GS-HFRD) to develop a stand-alone human factors requirements and
assessment process document.
- Work to have these ground human factors requirements written into CxP
70024, HSIR, or future L2 NASA human factors documents.

70. 1-G Human Factors for Optimal Processing and
Operability of Constellation Ground Systems
Recommendation(s):
 Once the revised NASA-STD-5005C is accepted by the Constellation Program
(CxP), incorporate the FAA’s Human Factors Design Standard into the HFEA
Tool.
 Apply human factors principles and analysis during the design of ground
processing activities to prepare flight hardware for CxP test flights.
 Prove the usefulness of human factors engineering so that it will be commonly
accepted as part of the work breakdown structure of projects at KSC.
 As future work for the HFEA Tool, identify associated HF standards and lessons
learned from previous NASA programs and industry as well as identify
solutions and analysis methods proven from use of the HFEA Tool, design of
subsystems, and from other sources. Incorporate this information into the
HFEA Tool so the human factors engineer may better select requirements and
methods when designing ground processing systems.
 Employ the human factors systems engineering processes and lessons learned
from development of Ares I ground systems to the development of ground
systems for Ares V.