Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster 3

The challenger disaster called for certain changes in the NASA organizational structure, culture and operations. The Rogers Commission carried out a full investigation into the causes of the disaster and recommended to NASA certain actions to mitigate future incidents. First of all, there was a creation of a Solid Rocket Motor Joint redesign team who would also analyse the sealing system (NATA Technical Reports Centre, 2010).

For Andrei Octavian PARASCHIVESCU and Florin Mihai CAPRIOARA, organizations that desire to implement a strategic quality management approach should consider both the strategic dimension of quality and the management strategy (2014, p 19). In fact, both writers stipulate ”Quality Management” aims to advance quality to meet patron’s requirements by controlling processes (Paraschivescu & Caprioara, 2014, p 21). Likewise, their ideas confirm that the production approach demands a strict input from workers. In doing so, quality improvement teams can measure and spot

The case study of the two shuttle disasters, the Challenger occurred on January 28th 1986, and the Columbia occurred on February 1st, 2003. Both majestic and yet mournful due to the loss of life on both mission. The Challenger shuttle flight, OV-099 mission STS-51-L, broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of all crew members which included five astronauts and two payload specialists. The Challenger disaster was especially traumatic because young students watched television that were placed in their classrooms so they could watch the launch that day. It was fascinating that a school teacher was on-board as a payload specialist (NASA, 1986.) With a school teacher aboard the flight, it had sparked many interests because at several at young age, understood that education was vital as to why there was such a failure and prevent future disasters.

To begin with, quality management is defined as, “the act of overseeing all activities and tasks needed to maintain a desired level

Senior leadership must determine and direct the level of quality that is acceptable within the organization. Leadership should prioritize areas of quality and use data based on benchmarks from other facilities. (Dlugacz, 2006). In addition the author states there are some important areas that must be monitored for quality. Compliance must be followed by leaders and all

During the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster, many professional responsibilities were neglected. First, engineers did not “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” (Ethics Code II. 1. a.). For example, although the ice inspection team found the launch situation to be of great concern, the launch director authorized it anyway (Texas A&M University 5). At this point, professional bodies or public authorities should have been notified.

Space shuttle Challenger disaster, one of the worst things the could have every happened to those poor people. The disaster occurred on January 28th 1986, The bird broke apart in 73 seconds, Bleeding in the death of the seven crew members which included 5 NASA astronauts and two payload scientific Specialists, The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, cape canle lower Florida region at 11:39 estimated time. These fragments rained over these parts, Family stood parel, what to do Suns loss “soldiers” gone best friend could have been on this bird.

Joey was astonished that the Columbia shuttle disintegrated. He had been taking notes and watching the shuttle be prepared. Researching all day to find new facts of the people going, experiments being conducted, and other facts they were going to find. Then when it took off he was happy and follow the trip for all 16 days. Finally on the last day, Saturday, he went to school to watch it land. When it was coming out of space it was in 3 pieces. He said that something is wrong with the shuttle. Later he new it disintegrated. All the work they did and that they were bringing back were gone. All the research Joey did meant not as much now. He was devastated that it had disintegrated.

The first space shuttle, Enterprise, launched in 1977. NASA couldn’t have been more proud of their accomplishments and looked forward to the years to come with many new ideas, experiments to try and space to explore. While this might have been the case for a few years following, NASA couldn’t have predicted what was to happen on the mornings of January 28, 1986 and February 1, 2003… or could they? Disaster struck for both the Challenger and the Columbus space shuttles. Even though both scenarios were different, they were one in the same when it came to the reasoning behind why it happened. The ideas of cultural change, ethics of organization and decision making were all to blame.

On 1st of February, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia exploded when it re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere after finished a 16 days mission in space. All seven astronauts were dead because of this incident. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had stopped the space shuttle program for more than two years to investigate this tragedy. In the 16 days period, the astronauts did approximately 80 experiments on different categories, for example, life science and material science [1]. An investigation later has found out that the disaster was caused by a problem on the day that took off on 16th of January.

The fragile of complex and large systems, it is argued, is addressed through the catastrophic events that happened in different fields. This report looks at three serious systemic failures in engineering and finance domains among the history, including the Disaster of Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, the Japanese asset bubble in late 1980s and the explosion of Deepwater Horizon in 2010. The research draws upon final reports of NASA, related magazines and published books. Looking through the lenses of those catastrophes, the analysis reveals the tremendous loss and effect of system failures and gives a lesson to avoid similar disasters in the future.

as it re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere. NASA knew why, but now after this disaster the

Actually it is cool to watch him, but I would not jump from space. It is more than nightmare because, I am afraid of heights and I would be heart attack.

The Organizations use quality administration frameworks to enhance the effectiveness of their procedures and systems, which can help build peacefulness. Complete Quality Management frameworks utilize a mixture of apparatuses and speculations to enable workers, construct a group climate and concentrate on the voice of the client to convey quality items on time to the customers which can make better and proper formula of work.

Quality Management deals with controlling product material quality including the sub contractors. They develop records and forms for the project. Establishing documents and submitting them. Evaluating the sub contractors is also the work of quality management. They perform audits for the project and prepare the monthly quality reports by applying the following tools: