More handpicked essays just for you.
Space exploration: the past and the future
Space exploration: the past and the future
Space exploration: the past and the future
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY
SAFETY 335
SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER
ULISES CARTAYA
ERIC AIMEE TCHUIGOUA
OCTOBER 2015
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
…show more content…
challenger was a catastrophe, and yet a disaster that should have been avoided if adequate and proper safety precautions were taken during the space shuttle manufacturing. Also, play a big role in this crash was the excessive indulgence and tolerance of NASA towards some parts or components of the constructors of the space shuttle. Nevertheless, to try to comprehend what really happened and identify the causal factors of this crash, we will, turn after turns, review, the Cause(s) of Accident, the structural, mechanical factors, and contributing factors. Also, we will review investigation board findings, recommendations and finally and most importantly the outcomes of this incident because, it plays a big role in preventing other incident or accident like this happen. Like they say, for everything that happen in life, there is always a causal factor. Consequently, when an aircraft crash occurs, there has to be events or succession of events that cause the crash to happen. On the case of the space shuttle, according to the official report provided by NASA on chapter five, the crash was caused by a problem in the joint between the two lower segments of the right Solid Rocket of the motor. The problem was the damage of the O-ring that are designed to block hot gases from leaking when the propellant is burning. Just like in the car engine, when the combustion is in process, meaning the car engine is running, the engine compartment has to seal tight to allow the actual combustion to take place and to prevent explosion and hot gases to expand every where. So, we now know what the probable cause of the crash was. Let’s see or examine the structural and mechanical factors that might have been induce by the failure of this O-ring. According to aerospaceweb, the structural and mechanical factors that prevail the crash of the shuttle, occurred when the Challenger, after its 0-ring started showing signs of erosion, flew in the worst wind shear ever recorded in the history. Its loads on the shuttle lead the right booster to shift and separate the oxide plug made of aluminum that had sealed the O-rings that were damaged. This sudden event provoked a diminishing or lost in chamber pressure, and therefore lead to the appearance of a tiny flame from the aft field joint of the solid rocket booster. Another structural and mechanical factors could be the direction of the flame. The flame was pointing towards the external tank, which is filled with liquid fuel (very flammable if in contact with heat), it encroached on the solid rocket booster which in turn support the strut and the surface of the external tank, stress their external structure along with high temperature and cause them to weakened. This situation also causes the hydrogen tank to leak which result in a loss in pressure and as mechanic we all know what a loss of pressure could do to aircraft in flight. To me, the contributing factors to this crash was first the O-ring erosion that lead to escape of flame that cause an increase of temperature. And second, the non respect of working conditions of the shuttle components, winds shear and encroachment of the solid rocket booster. Additionally, premature detonation of the External tank range safety system, structural flaw, damage at lift-off, load exceedance, and overheating were factual causes (nasa.gov, chap-5). The investigation board, led by former secretary of state William Rogers, former astronauts and Apollo’s crews Neil Armstrong and pilot Chuck Yeager, concluded that the O-ring seal on Challenger’s solid rocket booster, brittle due super cold temperatures, that were recorded the day of the lift off and the days following it. Which then, let out the flames that then broke out of the booster and cause certain damages on the external fuel tank, which in turns caused the whole shuttle to it encroached and disintegrate (history.com). Furthermore, the commission found that, the firm that build the solid rocket boosters (Morton Thiokol), failed to warn NASA on potential issues that arise due to inclement weather or big change in temperature. Nevertheless, NASA management team knew about but failed to take action (history.com). I guess they rely on luck. Following this disaster, it was recommended that, the joints should be fully understood, tested and verified.
The integrity of the structure and of the seals of all joints should be not less than that of the case walls throughout the design envelope (rec 198, nasa.gov).
It took NASA a couple years to resume its flight to orbit. The catastrophe of the space shuttle challenger shook them up and have rethink their procedures and methods of operation. NASA, improve or I should say worked on developing its shuttle management structure, its shuttle safety panel, critical review and hazard policy, communication, safety organization and many more.
The crash of the space shuttle challenger could have been avoided and yet, the life of the crew members could have been spare if all the safety precaution were taken into considerations. We learn and improve ourselves from our mistakes, but we still have the choices to prevent those mistakes from happening by doing things right and the way there are supposed to be done. May they rest in
peace. References http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/q0122.shtml. Retrieved from google, on November 10,2015. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/mission-51-l.html. Retrieved on https://erau.instructure.com/courses/23995/assignments/278900?module_item_id=941846, on November 10,2015. nasa.gov, chap-5. Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm. Retrieved on https://erau.instructure.com/courses/23995/assignments/278900?module_item_id=941846, on November 10,2015. rec 198, nasa.gov. Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm. Retrieved on https://erau.instructure.com/courses/23995/assignments/278900?module_item_id=941846, on November 10,2015. http://www.history.com/topics/challenger-disaster. Retrieved on google, on November 10, 2015.
Soon after launch on January 28th, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger broke apart and shattered the nation. The tragedy was on the hearts and minds of the nation and President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan addressed the county, commemorating the men and woman whose lives were lost and offering hope to Americans and future exploration. Reagan begins his speech by getting on the same level as the audience by showing empathy and attempting to remind us that this was the job of the crew. He proceeds with using his credibility to promise future space travel. Ultimately, his attempt to appeal to the audience’s emotions made his argument much stronger. Reagan effectively addresses the public about the tragedy while comforting, acknowledging, honoring and motivating his audience all in an effort to move the mood from grief to hope for future exploration.
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.
On a cold winter’s morning on the 28th day of January in the year 1986, America was profoundly shaken and sent to its knees as the space shuttle Challenger gruesomely exploded just seconds after launching. The seven members of its crew, including one civilian teacher, were all lost. This was a game changer, we had never lost a single astronaut in flight. The United States by this time had unfortunately grown accustomed to successful space missions, and this reality check was all too sudden, too brutal for a complacent and oblivious nation (“Space”). The outbreak of sympathy that poured from its citizens had not been seen since President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. The disturbing scenes were shown repeatedly on news networks which undeniably made it troublesome to keep it from haunting the nation’s cognizance (“Space”). The current president had more than situation to address, he had the problematic undertaking of gracefully picking America back up by its boot straps.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," said by Neil Armstrong as he took his first steps on the moon during the NASA Apollo 11 expedition to the moon. No man has ever been to the moon before and NASA, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was the first to get someone to land on the moon. NASA has had many great accomplishments in exploring the "new frontier" that have affected the United States ever since it was first created in July 1958. The idea for NASA first started when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite on October 4, 1957. United States started up its own space travel program and started to work on its own projects that would be better in than the Soviet Union's. This all started the great space race. It was a big race between the Soviet Union and the United States to see who could learn and discover the most. The United States and Soviet Union started building and sending satellites and space ships. Then they tried to see who could make a suit and ship that would be able to allow a living thing to go up in space. They tested out all of the equipment with monkeys and dogs, seeing what would work. Many animals did die in the process but by the results of their testing they were able to build suits and ships that allow human beings to go up in space. Even though they were able to create these machines, that doesn't mean that they didn't have their difficulties and dangers. Two space shuttles were crashed or blown up. There were many key factors that they had learned to fix that resulted in the crashing of those ships. They have made many discoveries and accomplishments like having the first astronauts walk on the moon.
In a person’s lifetime, many things can happen including death. In 1986 seven individuals, Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnic, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe, lost their lives doing what they loved most. The tragedy of the shuttle challenger brought much pain to the nation that day. Along with the pain comes grieving. The nation grieved the loss of these seven wonderful individuals and hoped to find peace and comfort for the days to come. As Ronald Reagan prepared to give the state of the union address, things changed for worse, he unexpectedly had to give a speech on a horrific event. Reagan was devastated at the loss of the seven men and women that were on that space shuttle challenger.
It was on January 28, 1986 at 11:38 A.M. that the shuttle Challenger, NASA flight 51-L, the twenty-fifth shuttle flight, took off. It was the "Teacher in Space" mission. At lift-off, the temperature at ground level was 36° Fahrenheit, which was 15° Fahrenheit cooler than any previous launch by NASA. It was the Challenger's tenth flight. Take-off had been delayed several times. Finally the shuttle had taken off. The shuttle had climbed high in the sky thirty-five seconds after take-off, and it was getting hit by strong winds. The on board computers were making continuous adjustments so the shuttle would stay on course. About eight miles in the air, about seventy-two seconds after take-off, people watched in fear and horror as the shuttle was engulfed by a huge fire ball. All the crew members were killed instantly.
This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that “the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.” This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it.
Contextual analysis is made up of three basic components; intended audience, setting and most importantly purpose. Authors often times consider and work each contextual piece into the construction of their given argument. An argument is not powerful if audience preference is not a main concern, if the setting isn’t taken into consideration, or if the purpose is not relevant to the current situation. On January 28th, 1986 the shuttle challenger exploded 73 seconds into its take off. President Ronald Reagan wrote a critical speech to address the tragedy that had struck our nation that day. It is highly evident in his address that kept audience, setting, and purpose in mind. He comforts a worried public using calm tone and simple yet effective diction to convince the American nation that it’s necessary to go on and continue the space program and ultimately the scientific revolution.
Space travel began in the 1960s with sending humans on single missions into space. Rockets launched into the air and just the tip would land in the ocean after parachuting back to Earth ("Space Shuttle Program," par. 4). The focus of space exploration changed during the 1980s; shifting from the desire for human space flight to the desire to create a reusable spacecraft. Originally called Space Transportation System (STS), NASA created the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) (Heiney, par. 1-2). It wanted a shuttle that was more economical because it could be launched, landed and relaunched and could gather better information. The 1980s began a new era in space exploration and had one the biggest tragedies in the history of space travel.
When writing “In Event of Moon Disaster” William Safire acted as a comforting yet encouraging mother for a grieving nation. While acknowledging the need for the public to mourn and remember the deceased astronauts the writer also tries to boost the morale of the American people exclaiming that the astronaut's sacrifice will not be forgotten.
Lack of authority and direction at NASA: The agency did not have a permanent administrator for almost four months and there was a high turnover rate among the high level management employees.
...mpanies. The Structural Test Article simulated pressure on the vertical components during launch. After testing, Marshall concluded that the gap size was sufficient for both of the O-rings to be out of position. Again Thiokol rebutted Marshall’s claim by challenging the validity of the electrical components used to measure joint rotation. Thiokol believed that their test was superior to Marshall’s test, because it validated their conclusion. This is a fundamental problem know as experimenter’s regress. Since the true solution is unknown, the best test is the one that supports the experimenter’s view. Since this disagreement could not be solved between the two, the O-ring manufacturer was consulted. The manufacturer told the two that the O-ring was not designed for such high project specifications needed for the craft, but NASA decided to work with what they had.
It’s very hard to say what steps, if any, could have been taken to prevent the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster from occurring. When mankind continues to “push the envelope” in the interest of bettering humanity, there will always be risks. In the manned spaceflight business, we have always had to live with trade-offs. All programs do not carry equal risk nor do they offer the same benefits. The acceptable risk for a given program or operation should be worth the potential benefits to be gained. The goal should be a management system that puts safety first, but not safety at any price. As of Sept 7th, 2003, NASA has ordered extensive factory inspections of wing panels between flights that could add as much as three months to the time it takes to prepare a space shuttle orbiter for launch. NASA does all it can to safely bring its astronauts back to earth, but as stated earlier, risks are expected.
NASA has built its newest space shuttle which is made to set records and take humans further than they have ever gone before to explore unmapped territory, asteroids, and the Red Planet, Mars. There was a test flight scheduled for this amazing machine to fly on Thursday December 4, 2014 but the launch time continued being delayed for multiple reasons. The new apparent launch date is Friday December 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM ET.
By being in a very technologically advanced era, scientists can invent revolutionary devices never thought of. NASA is doing that right now and has been doing that since it began. They are not only climbing the stairs in space exploration but in the medical industry, too. Nevertheless, they are forever changing millions of lives by using all they have discovered. Most of all, they are teaching people a life lesson, to always use the things you have for the greater good. NASA has achieved profound success ever since their start in 1958 and they will continue to make discovery and innovation their first and foremost goal for years to come.