Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of science in our lives
Challenger explosion explained
What is the importance of science in our life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
Two tragic incidents, the Challenger Space Shuttle crash of 1986, and the Three Mile Island near meltdown of 1979, have greatly devastated our nation. Both these disasters involved failures of communication among ordinary professional people, working in largely bureaucratic companies. Two memos called the “Smoking Gun Memos,” authored by R. M. Boisjoly, of Morton Thiokol, and D. F. Hallman, of Babcook and Wilcox, will always be associated these two incidents. Unfortunately, neither of these memos were successful in preventing the accidents of the Challenger and the Three Mile Island near meltdown.
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.
While seated in the Oval Office of the White House, January 28, 1986 President Ronald Reagan delivers his speech The Challenger Disaster hours after the space shuttle The Challenger explodes while in take off. Thousands witnessed this horrifying event live, in person and on television. This mission was very unique, allowing the first civilian to ever be allowed in space during a mission. She was aboard The Challenger as an observer in the NASA Teacher in Space Program. Ironically, nineteen years before this disaster, three astronauts were tragically lost in an accident on the ground.
Fuller, John. "Why Do Some People Believe the Moon Landings Were a Hoax?"HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 10 Mar. 2008. Web. 20 Feb. 2014.
If Apollo 11 had failed, if two of our nation's greatest heroes were left stranded on the Moon with only hours of oxygen, the President would have been asked to give a speech. This speech was written, but fortunately, was never required to be shared. In this never given speech, William Safire (President Nixon’s head speech-writer) puts into words a remarkably effective sentiment that truly serves what would have been its intended purpose, to comfort the American People, and reassure them that this is not the end of Apollo. Safire brilliantly uses rhetoric to further his argument, utilizing primarily pathos supplemented by logos. Safire knew that Nixon would have gone into this speech with a strongly established ethos, President of the United
The public affairs sector of NASA had learned from the Apollo 1 tragedy that withholding information from the public greatly affected the public’s image of the program. Not properly informing the public on current issues also goes against the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics third canon, ‘Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner” (National Society of Professional Engineers [NSPE], n.d., para. 2). The first statement in the rules of practice, section 2, states that all information should be disclosed to the public (NSPE, n.d.). During the Apollo 13 mission, NASA informed the public of the incident promptly and honestly. This is in direct agreement with the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics third canon. Effective communication and action after a crisis has a tremendous impact on the entity involved. One example is how Johnson and Johnson handled the Tylenol poisoning case in 1982. Because of their efforts, the public’s image of the company greatly improved (Kauffman, 2001). NASA was not only bound ethically to be completely transparent with the public, but they were also bound legally since they were a public entity and received funding from the
On April 13, 1970, NASA's Mission Control heard the five words that no control center ever wants to hear: "We've got a problem here." Jack Swigert, an astronaut aboard the Apollo 13 aircraft, reported the problem of broken down oxygen tanks to the Houston Control Center, less than two days after its takeoff on April 11th. Those at the Control Center in Houston were unsure what had happened to the spacecraft, but knew that some sort of explosion had occurred. This so-called explosion sent Apollo 13 spinning away from the Earth at 2,000 miles per hour, 75 percent of the way to the moon. In order to get the astronauts back to the Earth's atmosphere would be to utilize the moon's gravitational pull and send them back towards home, like a slingshot. However, this procedure would require three days, and this demanded more oxygen and electricity than the crew had available to them. Eugene "Gene" Kranz, head of this flight mission, although looking on in horror, began thinking of solutions to the problem immediately after the Controls were aware of the problem on board. Knowing that the options of refueling the spacecraft with oxygen or retrieve the astronauts himself, he needed to think of a strategy for a safe return. In this sense, if his solution fails, it could result in the biggest catastrophe in NASA history.
Are you focused on what you're doing and thinking during an emergency? Do you just give up if you’re stuck in a problem? In the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space,” it teaches us that in an emergency, we should remain calm and focused on the problem and to never give up, as the astronauts and engineers involved in the Apollo 13 mission did during an emergency on the spacecraft. These processes are exemplified in the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space” when it talks about how three astronauts handle an emergency that would have costed their lives. In conclusion, in the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space,” it teaches us that in an emergency, we should remain calm and focused on the problem, use our ingenuity, and never give up, as the astronauts and engineers involved in the Apollo 13 mission did during an emergency on the spacecraft.
NASA has faced many tragedies during their time; but one can question if two of the tragedies were preventable by changing some critical decisions made by the organization. The investigation board looking at the decisions made for the space shuttle tragedies of the Columbia and Challenger noted that the “loss resulted as much from organizational as from technical failures” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 191). The two space shuttle tragedies were about twenty years apart, they both had technical failures but politics also played a factor in to these two tragedies.
At the onset of this event, all of the people involved in the project really did not take into account of the pictures, fatalities and the overall devastation that the Trinity project would have led to. The reports from those involved said they suffered great remorse
Even though there were many factors contributing to the Challenger disaster, the most important issue was the lack of an effective risk management plan. The factors leading to the Challenger disaster are:
Diamond, J. (1987). The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover, 8(5), 64-66.
As stated above, unplanned occurrences made during experiments does not have to a really big one. After the "chocolate incident", it took Raytheon more twenty years, including many misshapes, to finally create a brand-new microwave in which the public can buy and use. In the article "In Praise of Careful Science", the author explained that most of the time, researchers make a few mistakes during works that reached decades, but may have caused problems. The small amount of problems could have helped the people know what errors are being made and how to make
For this assignment we will discuss some theories on organizational change learned during this class and how they relate to the case study of NASA (The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disaster). First we will look the images of managing change used by NASA in the case study. Then we will discuss the types of change(s) NASA under took. Next we will look at some of the challenges of change that NASA faced. Next we will discuss some of the resistance to change that NASA dealt with. Then we look at how NASA implemented change. Next we will discuss vision and change and the impact in the case study. Finally we will discuss sustaining change as it relates to the changes implemented by NASA in the case study.
Conflicts of interest are an inherent problem in any industry. In the case of the shuttle disaster, the biggest conflicts of interest occurred between the engineers and the management at both Morton-Thiakol and NASA. Engineers like Boisjoly are strictly concerned with the technical issues, so it is relatively easy for an engineer to point to a problem and ask that something be done about it. In the documentary, Boisjoly unabashedly describes himself as a “pain in the ass”, and a stickler for engineering, making him an effective member of the staff for isolating an issue with no regard to political matters. (Challenger) Management, however, must concern themselves with contracts, cash flow, public relations, and client