Case Study Analysis Activity Title: Name: Date: Cause(s) of Accident The Challenger shuttle crash was a crash that touched the hearts of every American due to the televised coverage and the relate ability of the crew. There was concern from the engineers that the unusually cold weather the morning of the launch could have adverse affects on the rubber O-rings that sealed the joints of the shuttles solid rocket boosters. The cold weather on the morning of January 28, 1986 caused the O-rings to tear and leak fuel from the boosters. (Dunbar B, 2005) Structural and Mechanical Factors The investigation discovered that the cold weather affected the plasticity of the O-rings that sealed the solid rocket boosters, the O-rings where not designed …show more content…
Some of the earlier tests of the seals brought to the attention of the engineers that the seals where prone to failure when exposed to extreme temptures and due to the location of the seals not staying within the parameters of the seals would cause a catastrophic failure. Other warnings where not taken into account when the launch days drew closer, the unusually cold weather caused delays in the original launch date and the on the new launch day the temtures around the seals where estimated “to be 28degrees +/- 5 degrees Fahrenheit” (NASA, n.d). According to the NASA investigation …show more content…
The failure was due to a faulty design unacceptably sensitive to a number of factors. (NASA, n/d) Recommendations They’re where a lot of purposed recommendations from the commission to help ensure that any future shuttle missions would not experience the same catastrophic O-ring failure like the challenger shuttle. The first recommendation was to redesign the O-ring by improving “structural capability, seal redundancy, and thermal protection” (NASA, n/d). This change would also redesign the tang and clevis of the mating points of the rocket. The redesign not only used a third O-ring seal but also a newly redesigned “O-ring seals are designed to not leak under structural deflection of twice the expected values” (NASA, n/d) Outcomes The panel has held a number of full meetings and numerous subpanel and individual member meetings, and has submitted three written status reports to the NASA Administrator. Although NASA has not yet formally responded to these status reports, actions have been taken to implement most of the committee recommendations. NASA has held several meetings with the committee to discuss and review the status of the response to the recommendations. The NRC membership and a summary of the panel responsibilities are provided in Appendix
Some of my fellow students think this was good luck because ken had not gone with them since he turned out to be very helpful in the rescue mission. I fell it was bad luck, this was not expected it could have led to a tragic situation. It was just bad luck that this fault was not noticed prior to their launch and they were still experiencing bad luck even in the midst of bad luck. Fuel tanks leaking, increasing level of co2, freezing temperature etc. Even at the point of trying to make what reduced the co2 the bag they used got torn. One important factor is that in the midst of all this happening Jim calmed his crew; he was able to manage the change in situation and also deal with the conflicts that arose between jack and
On December 19th 2007, a small chemical manufacturer T2 Laboratories suffered a catastrophic failure and release while in production of a compound that is produced to increase octane in gasoline and is a common additive in fuel production Methyleclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl or MCMT. The failure occurred during production and resulted in the death of 4 and injuries to 32 people, 28 of which were members of the community. (CSB, 2009)
Before going any further with this paper, I would like to take a moment to thank the crew of the space shuttle challenger for their bravery, courage, determinations and and sacrifice for this great nation. Francis R. Scobee (2), Commander, Michael J. Smith (1), Pilot Judith A. Resnik (2), Mission Specialist 1, Ellison S. Onizuka (2), Mission Specialist 2, Ronald E. McNair (2), Mission Specialist 3, Gregory B. Jarvis (1), Payload Specialist 1, Sharon Christa McAuliffe (1), Payload Specialist 2 (science.ksc), were parents, friends, children, husbands and wives, heroes, smart human being that were killed on this tragic day. May God be with your soul and may your memories and courage and passion shall not be forgotten but instead drive future generation determination and passion. The crash of the space shuttle
The Colgan Air Flight 3407 was a very interesting case to look at. On February 12, 2009, at 10:17 pm, flight 3407 crashed at a house in New York after the pilots experience a stall. Flight 3407 was scheduled to fly from Newark, New Jersey to Buffalo, New York. The NTSB reported the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed some discrepancies both pilots were experience. The first officer did not have any experience with icing condition but icing was one of the reasons the plane went into a stall. On the other hand, the captain had some experience flying in icing condition. The captain was experiencing fatigue, which indeed, made him unfit to recover from a stall. With that in mind, the Human Factor Analysis Classification System (HFACS) will give insight of some errors both pilots made.
Countless engineering disasters have occurred in this world, many civilians lost their lives due to corrupted constructions. The most fatal and deadly engineering disaster that took place in our history was the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl catastrophe was a nuclear setback that happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in on April 26, 1986. It is seen as the most recognizable terrible nuclear power plant cataclysm ever. A nuclear crisis in one of the reactors caused a fire that sent a cluster of radioactive consequence that on the long run spread all over Europe.
is a set of O-rings that make a seal around the booster. Around the O-rings
No. 4 and No. 6 reactor. An inspection found a 6’ long crack had developed and reached the
The Challenger disaster of 1986 was a shock felt around the country. During liftoff, the shuttle exploded, creating a fireball in the sky. The seven astronauts on board were killed and the shuttle was obliterated. Immediately after the catastrophe, blame was spread to various people who were in charge of creating the shuttle and the parts of the shuttle itself. The Presidential Commission was decisive in blaming the disaster on a faulty O-ring, used to connect the pieces of the craft. On the other hand, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, in The Golem at Large, believe that blame cannot be isolated to any person or reason of failure. The authors prove that there are too many factors to decide concretely as to why the Challenger exploded. Collins and Pinch do believe that it was the organizational culture of NASA and Morton Thiokol that allowed the disaster. While NASA and Thiokol were deciding whether to launch, there was not a concrete reason to postpone the mission.
Harris, Tom. “How Building Implosions Work.” HowStuffWorks. A Discovery Co., 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 Jan. 2012. .
On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost due to structural failure in the left wing. On take-off, it was reported that a piece of foam insulation surrounding the shuttle fleet's 15-story external fuel tanks fell off of Columbia's tank and struck the shuttle's left wing. Extremely hot gas entered the front of Columbia's left wing just 16 seconds after the orbiter penetrated the hottest part of Earth's atmosphere on re-entry. The shuttle was equipped with hundreds of temperature sensors positioned at strategic locations. The salvaged flight recorded revealed that temperatures started to rise in the left wing leading edge a full minute before any trouble on the shuttle was noted. With a damaged left wing, Columbia started to drag left. The ships' flight control computers fought a losing battle trying to keep Columbia's nose pointed forward.
...nsion. When some one reads this article they will walk away feeling confident in the scientists in NASA and that they don’t just come up with answers to their hypothesis rather they have the ability to prove and explain how and why they came to their conclusions.
On January 28, 1986, the American shuttle Challenger was completely destroyed 73 seconds after liftoff, a catastrophic end to the shuttle's tenth mission. This disaster took the lives of all seven astronauts aboard. One of those astronauts was a teacher, Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to go on the mission and still teach but teach to students all over the United States from space. It was later determined that two rubber O-rings, which had been designed to separate the sections of the rocket booster, had failed because of cold temperatures on the morning of the launch. This tragedy and the aftermath received widespread media coverage and urged NASA to temporarily suspend all shuttle missions.
R. M. Boisjoly had over a quarter-century’s experience in the aerospace industry in 1985 when he became involved in an improvement effort on the O-ring which connect segments of Morton Thiokol’s Solid Rocket Booster. This was used to bring the Space Shuttle into orbit (OEC, 2006). Morton Thiokol is an aerospace company that manufactures the solid propellant rocket motors used to launch the Challenger (Skubik). Boisjoly authored a memo to R.L. Lund, Vice President of Engineering and four others, in regards to his concerns about the flawed O-ring erosion problem. His warnings were ignored leading to the deaths of six astronauts and one social studies teacher.
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion, the corrosion is exacerbated by the salt water and the age of the aircraft was already 19 years old as the plane operated in a salt water environment.