Essay Diagnosing the Needs for Change in the Aftermath

President Regan ordered an immediate postponement of the Space Shuttle Program. The U.S. Congress then authorized an investigation of the Challenger disaster. It was a cold morning when Challenger was supposed to fly into space. Several NASA officials urged that the launch be postponed for warmer weather conditions. Since the NASA Launch Decision Team had okayed several space shuttles launches at and below that present temperature and had gotten away with it, the order was ignored (Howell). Seventy-three seconds later NASA realized that their luck had finally run out. President Ronald Regan tasked the Disaster Authority Commission with the investigation of the destructive incident. They concluded that there was two causes leading to the Challenger

During the year of 1986, on January the twenty sixth, a horrific shock was felt around the country. After Neil Armstrong’s landing on the moon, Americans felt a great sense of national pride and invincibility but many Americans learned on that fateful day that nobody is invincible; one of the worst catastrophes of the United States space program occurred on that day. About forty five seconds after liftoff, Americans witnessed the destruction of the breathtaking challenger space shuttle. Even though the disaster caused nationwide sadness, the reasons for its failure are clear. Named after the British ship that sailed across the Atlantic hundreds of years, could carry more than two thousand pounds the challenger was truly a glorious achievement.

On an unusually cool Florida morning in January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 50,000 feet above ground just moments after liftoff killing seven crew members onboard (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). A presidential commission, dubbed “the Rogers Commission” (hereafter, the Commission) after former Secretary of State William Rogers, was appointed to investigate the cause of the disaster. Although mechanical failure of an O-ring seal in one of the rocket boosters was identified as the physical cause, the investigation revealed something much more disheartening; organizational deficiencies at NASA had allowed potential safety hazards to be disregarded. The disastrous consequences of NASA’s organizational failure prompted calls

Each of the four orbiters in the armada - Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis - were flown. Be that as it may, 1 minute, 13 seconds after liftoff - amid the 25th dispatch - on Jan. 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle blasted. The orbiter Challenger was obliterated and its team of seven murdered. The mishap had an extensive effect on the Space Shuttle program. Launchings were suspended for over 2 years, while proposals of a Presidential Commission which researched the mishap were executed, alongside changes called for by NASA

On January 28, 1986, the shuttle Challenger broke up after liftoff, bringing a devastating end to the spacecraft’s 10th mission. The disaster claimed the lives of all seven astronauts aboard. Seventy-three seconds later, hundreds on the ground, including the families of the astronauts on board, stared in disbelief as the shuttle exploded in a forking plume of smoke and fire. Millions more watched the wrenching tragedy unfold on live television. Within instants, the spacecraft broke apart and plunged into the ocean, killing the entire crew, traumatizing the nation and throwing NASA’s shuttle program into turmoil.

After the disaster, President Ronald Reagan arranged a commission to determine what happened to the Challenger Space Shuttle. (History.com) The commission was comprised of former astronaut Neil Armstrong and former test pilot Chuck Yeager. (History.com) The commission concluded that the O-rings were defective because of the cold weather. They also found that the company that designed the rocket boosters, Morton Thiokol, had disregarded warnings about potential issues.

Wall, Mike, and SPACE.com. "Challenger Disaster 30 Years Ago Shocked the World, Changed NASA." Scientific American. N.p., 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 09 Apr.

Statistically, space travel is too worrisome and dangerous for private industries to maintain. Rather, of the 536 people who have travelled into space, 3.4 percent, or 18 astronauts, have died during missions (Silver 1). While this number may appear statistically insignificant, these sets of fatalities do not consider the overall risk potential, and the many other lives taken from astronaut training and non-astronaut deaths that resulted from spaceflight-related activities. In 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds into its flight, killing its entire crew. Many years later, the shuttle Columbia experienced a disastrous event on February 1, 2003, when the shuttle disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana upon reentrance of the mesosphere, killing another team. Now, Emery reports in his article that privately contributed space exploration continues this deadly trend, stating, “The crash of the SpaceShipTwo was the second catastrophe in a gloomy week for the commercial space industry. On Tuesday, an unmanned Antares rocket exploded over Wallops Island, in Virginia.” As illustrated, the frequent rate of failure with unmanned missions—government or privately ran—begs that, if any, the government should regulate these projects in a modern world with better

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.

NASA was informed that they needed to realize that there was a disconnect between management and their working engineers (Feynman Leighton Pg. 236). The public deserved for NASA to inform them of what was happening and to know that NASA had changed their approach to the space shuttle campaign. There had to be a change in schedule, there had to be an update in technology, and there had to be a change in how design and application were approached (Feynman Leighton Pg. 236). All Morton Thiokol did was suggest the addition of a third O-ring and did not seek to improve the current design or find better materials for the seal. However, they took responsibility for their part and their data that had not been tested enough. It was also their responsibility to pay retribution for the accident as well as accept any and all liability charges. NASA should have taken some of the liability due to the fact that it was essentially their final decision to launch the shuttle despite all of the evidence against so doing. The managers that made the decision to launch should have been held accountable for the lives of the astronauts. Mr. Malloy and Mr. Hardy should have been taken to trial for homicide but, due to the scope and fact that it was the fault of multiple people and companies, they were never tried. However, they gave the go for the launch so they should have at least been fired from NASA and have their

On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia was just coming in for re-entry after being in space for almost a month, when it had spontaneously exploded over Texas. The seven crew members on the shuttle had lost their lives and an unforgettable image is burned into the memory of the American people. I will be discussing mainly about how USA Today has covered the disaster and provide examples as to how the agency makes it seem as though NASA was the one responsible for the disaster and how the news agency tries to make it seem as though NASA wasn’t concerned about the safety of its employees. I will also provide a small summary about each article that I mention.

The Space Shuttle Challenger and the Coulmbia Accidents present the risks involved with spacecraft. Both disaster were different outwardly.

17 minutes after entering the Earth’s atmosphere in the Columbia Space Shuttle, 7 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) astronauts were disintegrated above Texas. On February 01, 2003, the mission, STS-107 was nearly complete. The Columbia Space Shuttle crew of Rick Douglas Husband, William “Willie” Cameron McCool, Michael P. Anderson, Ilan Ramon, David McDowell Brown, Kalpana “KC” Chawla, and Laurel Blair Salton Clark were in the midst of a routine landing and completion of their mission at the Kennedy Space Center. The shuttle and it’s crew began entry into the atmosphere at 8:43 a.m. EST and within 17 minutes, the shuttle was destroyed all were dead. Initial reaction to the tragedy sparked rumors of a terrorist plot; nevertheless, an investigation was launched to determine the true cause and the events leading up to the catastrophe. Unbeknownst to the public, a section of foam insulation had fragmented from the propellant tank and struck the left wing during takeoff, 15 days prior. NASA management drew fierce criticism and condemnation, as the flaw was detected by NASA immediately after takeoff, but nothing was attempted to correct it. During their descent through Earth’s atmosphere, the crew aboard the Columbia Space Shuttle were relaxed, even joking and filming videos—completely oblivious to their impending, imminent deaths at the result of human and technical failures.

We referred www.nasa.gov and many other websites to learn more about the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster and gather domain knowledge. We referred the NASA report “http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm” to go in depth of the Space Shuttle concept and development phases. We understood the need for reusable Space and how it became the focus of NASA's near-term future. We studied the elements of the Space Shuttle and how all parts are sealed together. We studied the stakeholders which were involved in the project. After gathering all the necessary information and information to identify the root cause of the Challenger space shuttle explosion, we assumed that the information about the project was measured

One of the greatest tragedies in history occurred on January 8, 1986. Shortly after it was launched, the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing seven astronauts, including Christa McAuliffe, a New Hampshire schoolteacher chosen to be the first teacher in space (“Challenger Disaster, n.d.). The explosion was caused by a failure of the O-rings of the solid rocket boosters. The O-rings were unable to seat properly, causing the leaking of hot combustion gases, which burnt through the external fuel tank. The malfunction was not any one person’s or organization’s fault; it was caused by many factors including the decision to launch despite the cold weather, the poor communication between management levels of the National Aeronautics and