Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Space shuttle disasters challenger
Timeline of events and causes of the challenger space shuttle accident
The history space shuttle challenger disaster
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Space shuttle disasters challenger
On the morning of January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated in midair as the nation watched in disbelief and sadness. The cause of the Challenger accident was determined to be a system design failure on one of the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters. Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are a pair of large solid strap-on rockets that were utilized by NASA during the first two minutes of the Challenger’s Space Shuttle launch. The pair of SRBs was applied to provide an extra liftoff boost for the Space Shuttle during takeoff. Each SRB were located on each side of the external propellant tank of the spacecraft. Once they began to operate, “the boosters separate from the orbiter/external tank, descend on parachutes, and land in the Atlantic Ocean” (Wilson, 2006). NASA would then send ships into the Atlantic Ocean to retrieve the boosters. The boosters were refurbished so they can be used again. According to NASA officials, “the SRBs were the largest solid-fuel rocket motors ever flown, and the first to be used for primary propulsion on human spaceflight missions” (Wilson, 2006).
During the time of preparation, NASA administration was very adamant about launching the Challenger because of “economic consideration, political pressures, and scheduling backlogs” (The Engineer, 2006). There were prior missions that were delayed due to various reasons associated with the weather and mechanical factors. Several mechanisms on the Challenger were not as suitable as they should have been due to decisions made during the design process. These decisions were determined by the lack of timely funding during the design and development process of the shuttle. However, when it came to the launch of Challenger, NASA wanted to press fo...
... middle of paper ...
...uld have never been launched by NASA. The proper analyses and testing should have been conducted to ensure that the SRBs were going to be safe for the launch.
References
Fritts, D. (2004, June 29). Testability on the Shuttle Program. Retrieved from http://www.testability.com/Reference/Tales.aspx?Story=Shuttle
Lethridge, C. (2012). The Challenger Legacy. Retrieved from Spaceline-Covering the Past, Present and Future of Cape Canaveral - Challenger: http://www.spaceline.org/challenger.html
The Engineer. (2006, October 24). The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster. Retrieved from http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/170/The-Space-Shuttle-Challenger-Disaster.aspx
Wilson, J. (2006, March 5). Solid Rocket Boosters. Retrieved from Space Shuttle: http://web.archive.org/web/20130406193019/http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html
Hamilton, John A. Blazing Skies: Air Defense Artillery on Fort Bliss, 1940 - 2009. Defense
Airmen: An Illustrated History: 1939-1949.” Oct. 2012. Vol. 65 Issue 4, pg. 316-319. 4p. Ebsco Host. Tucker, Phillip Thomas, 1953. Web.2014.
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.
"Cuban Missile Crisis." - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
middle of paper ... ...2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The "NASA History" Congressional Digest 90.7 (2011): 196-224. Academic Search Premier -. Web.
Was the "Hindenburg disaster" a result of sabotage committed by the opponents of the Nazi organization? Did a bolt of lightning strike the zeppelin? Or was one of the most devastating accidents in aviation history nothing but a cunningly planned insurance fraud?
Works Cited The "Apollo Investigation" - "The 'Apollo Investigation'" Aulis is online at http://www.aulis.com/. 11 Feb. 2001. 9 Dec. 2001 <http://www.aulis.com/>. Dumoulin, Jim. A. The "Apollo 11" Kennedy Space Center Launching A Vision!
Since the presidency of George Washington, the people of The United States have turned to the commander in chief in times of distress to receive assurance and hope. Kurt Ritter comments on President Reagan’s address to the nation given on January 28, 1986 saying, “Perhaps no president could have fulfilled the country’s need to mourn and, then, to begin to heal as skillfully as Ronald Reagan (Ritter, 3).” On that morning the space shuttle “Challenger” violently exploded while the nation watched live televised coverage of the shuttle’s launch. President Reagan was scheduled to give his State of the Union Address on that date, but instead he reached out the country in this time of mourning. He spoke from his oval office to heartbroken teachers, children, NASA Space Engineers, and the entire country. President Reagan’s reaction to the tragedy of the challenger guided the United States out of despair and into a new light of hope behind seven fallen heroes. In this essay I will show that Reagan gave our country a new light of hope through his emphasis on Pathos but also incorporating Ethos and Logos in this memorable presentation.
This blow to national pride along with the fear that the Soviets could potentially launch ICBMs from space led to “Rocket fever”. The sudden wave of nationalism and the desire to build a space program worthier to that of the Soviet Union led to the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under President Eisenhower, the investment of billions of dollars in missile development, and the expansion of the National Academy of Science’s charter.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Cold War presented the United States with a unique decision. The Soviet Union had created a space program and the United States needed to decide if a space program would be beneficial for them. The Soviets sent probes out to space, and soon American probes followed. There are many reasons that the U.S. could have made this decision, but two reasons are more prominent that the others. Firstly the United States found it necessary to compete with the Soviets, and they could not accept the fact that the U.S.S.R had something that they didn’t. Secondly, JFK and his administration thought that space was the final frontier, and it would provide valuable scientific research. Ultimately, John F Kennedy and the United States decided to create a space
Collins and Pinch draw a distinctive line between what actually happened and the public’s perspective on what happened. The public had a compulsive desire to create a moral lesson and provide heroes and villains. Many people misconstrued this as a conflict between the knowledgeable engineers and the greedy management. The public believed that NASA and Thiokol’s managers were ignorant to the engineering, but this is not true, since they were all engineers before their promotion to management. The authors stress the phrase “after the event” to show that hindsight bias is contributing to the public’s view on what actually happened. The physicist, Richard Feynman, awed the public with a demonstration of putting rubber, the material of the O-ring, in icy water. Th...
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.
From countdown to splashdown, Apollo 11's mission was filled with some surprising twists and turns. It took a combination of luck, determination and guts for the crew of Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong to get the Eagle to the surface of the moon with only 30 seconds of fuel remaining! Experience the moments leading up to the lunar landing with me.
The history behind the quick development of the space program has always been a little bit hazy and is unbeknownst to most...