Lessons Learnt From Engineering Failure

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).

Every employee of NASA should known the tragic event of Apollo 13; At that time in 1970 the three astronauts James Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert had to abort their mission to flight to the moon due to an explosion of an oxygen tank. They had to fight against, carbon dioxide, coldness, a lack of energy and the almost certain death. Despite of a distance of 205,000 miles the three men made it back to earth alive in the Lunar Module Aquarius (Lovell et al. 2006). This was only possible with the help of the Mission Control and the Flight Director Gene Kranz which worked together as an excellent team and came up with a richness of ideas to save the

The Columbia mission, STS-107, was interesting because the public was more aware of the risk that was being taken upon re-entry. During the launch a piece of insulating foam broke away from the external tank surface, striking the left wing. In previous missions there had been evidence of this occurring which to engineers was seen as minor. In the case of the Columbia craft failure, it was more serious because the damaged section of the wing was damaged to the extent of which it allowed hot atmospheric gases to penetrate the structure of the wing, pulling it apart, rendering the craft unstable.

Evaluate how implementing best practices would have reduced the chances for failure. Provide support for your rationale.

The article includes background information on the event as well as many quotes from people who followed the Challenger mission and remember the tragedy. Many of the quotes express the viewer’s shock at the disaster while others convey a sense of loss. The article also touches on the complacency of NASA leading up to the disaster and refers to a quote which states that “one of the biggest outcomes from the tragedy was the recommendation that NASA needed a stronger safety organization.”

The astronauts onboard had to figure out an intelligent and safe way to make it back to the ground in one piece. While on their way down to Earth, the three men were ambushed by tons of obstacles and problems that were caused due to the explosion. The LEM didn’t have enough water or power to last them while on their journey back home. The temperature was freezing cold, the ship kept drifting off course, the LEM’s filters stopped working causing the air to be intoxicated with CO2, and they barely slept. All these problems they had were not making this new mission any easier, but all they were able to do is stay calm and hope for the

Even though technology has been developing at an exponential rate since the past 50 years, there are still some technical problems that are encountering human beings when discovering the outside world, and we have not found solutions to these problems yet. As we all know, Apollo 13 which was designed by NASA, was the seventh manned mission to go on the moon in 1970. The trip took 5 days, 22 hours, 54 minutes, and 41 seconds. The trip encountered the biggest problem when one of the oxygen tanks exploded; air was being circulated at a very specific rate, and the tank explosion led to an increase in the amount of Carbon dioxide and a reduction in circulating the air. Despite the explosion, Apollo 13 made it back on our planet after scientists

“Live and learn”: a classic saying that applies to everyone and everything. Sometimes people mess up on small things but, other times one flaw could lead to a huge mistake that people must learn from. NASA’s Challenger was no exception to this saying. Many lives were lost on the space shuttle including a teacher from Concord. However, this tragedy holds a story worth being told.

With seven ‒ novice as well as seasoned ‒ astronauts on board, they were going to space to deploy a satellite “into orbit to observe Halley’s comet”(“The Space Shuttle Challenger Accident” 256). The first affirmation of a problem was gray smoke, this was detected 678 seconds into flight. Shortly after the smoke there was a small flame and “at 73 seconds, the Challenger reached an altitude of 46,000 feet and exploded”(“The Space Shuttle Challenger Accident” 256). That evening, President Ronald Reagan said: “We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye”(“The Space Shuttle Challenger Accident” 256). Five months later, in June 1986, it was conjectured “that a fuel leak through faulty rubber O-rings that sealed joint sections of the rocket booster caused the accident”(“The Space Shuttle Challenger Accident”

Did you know that one flip of a switch almost cost the lives of three astronauts? On April 13, 1970 three astronauts were blasted into space to go on a mission to explore a section of the moon called Fra Mauro. Every thing was perfect until they were preparing to land on the moon. Faulty wiring caused an explosion in their spacecraft, which drained their oxygen and power. The three men then had to move back and forth between two different space crafts. There were many problems along the way, but they eventually made it home. Though they never completed their original mission, they did complete the mission took make it back to Earth alive. There are many reasons why this mission ended up being a success.

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.

Then it came time for the Apollo missions. Eleven manned launches into space, 6 of which landing on the moon, carried man farther than ever before. Apollo 1 was scheduled to be the first in the series. Just 4 days before the launch, there was a problem. During a test flight, a fire broke out inside the sealed capsule from faulty wiring. The fire suffocated the 3 astronauts inside. NASA launched a full investigation (Aldrin 3). “It exposed deep flaws in our capsules and procedures”, said Gene Kranz, the retired chief flight director at NASA during the Gemini and Apollo missions (When).

There are many causes of project failure and every failed project will have its own set of issues. Sometimes it is a single trigger event that leads to failure, but more often than not, it is a complex entwined set of problems that combine and cumulatively result in failure. In case of Avon, though implementation of SMT model was a the next logic step which would give a tremendous boost to its direct marketing structure, there were some pretty drastic errors made which led to catastrophic failure of the project. The prime causes of failure in case of Avon were:

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

Obstacles had never been obstructing my effort to succeed in life. As an engineer to be, it is important to me to be prepared for the hurdles in the real world. The world nowadays needs a person who could compete and has great abilities to stand on the same level as others. Multiple skills and critical opinion of an issue are essential for an engineer to jump into this challenging career. For me, a strategic planning and full preparation need to achieve the aim of being an expert engineer.