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.
For the first article, titled “A year after Columbia, weaknesses remain at NASA” by Alcestis "Cooky" Oberg of USA Today, the author writes that NASA has not learned from its past mistakes with the Columbia disaster and continue to put people in danger. This is an exaggeration by USA Today in an effort to demote the image of NASA to the public. In the beginning paragraph of the article, the author writes “We always knew that overconfidence, carelessness and flawed decision-making by NASA leaders were recipes for doom.” This is prove that the writer is trying to make NASA look guilty by exaggerating the issue. Another aspect the author mentions is that “In other words, there are few clear signs that our space program is leaving past weaknesses behind, even after this second kick of a mule.” What this means is that
The audience’s probable attitude and personality with respect to the Board and its findings are all addressed in the document. The attitude that the audience has is one of grief and distrust in both NASA and the Government. This is made evident in the statement, “The loss of Columbia and her crew represents a turning point, calling for a renewed public policy debate and commitment regarding human space exploration.” By stating that there is a need for renewed public policy regarding NASA’s missions, it is clear that the public opinion about NASA has been tarnished by the accident. They also have the probable objections that the Board was biased and that they do not have any effective results that could help reduce the risk that another accident like this will ever occur. However, the likely attitude that the audiences will have toward the writer are that of hope for the future and America’s return to space. This is shown when the document states, “These recommendations reflect both the Boardʼs strong support for
The speech “Address to the Nation on the Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy” has a very clear context. The author of this speech is American president Ronald Reagan in 1980s. The purpose of the speech is to announce a tragedy of the Space Challenger to the whole country, especially for their families and schoolchildren and people who worked in NASA. Meanwhile, president also wanted to memorize these seven persons and cheer up the space program. Finally, the audience of the speech is the whole Americans. The speech is given in Washington, and given by President Reagan; we can see this must a big accident in America. This speech tried to pacify all Americans
On January 28th, 1986, Ronald Reagan, president of the United States, in his speech entitled “Challenger Disaster,” discusses the space shuttle tragedy. He supports this claim by first mourning the accident, then promoting NASA, tries to make sense of the disaster, and finally honors the astronauts. Through Reagan’s use of tone, rhetorical appeals, and rhetorical tools he effectively persuades Americans to mourn the loss, but also continue to move forward and support advancement.
On January 28, 1986, as millions of Americans watched on live television and in person, the Challenger space shuttle exploded and broke up over the Atlantic Ocean just moments after its launch. This space mission was significant for several reason, among them was that it would be the first time where the space shuttle would carry a civilian into outer space. Also, there was a frenzy of interest for Americans as the U.S. and Russians were locked in a space race for space exploration supremacy. Instead. President Ronald Reagan was left with the unenviable duty of consoling a nation that had just witnessed the most significant disaster in American history.
Baskin, Robert E. "10 Years after Shuttle Columbia Tragedy, Crew's Kids, Spouses Still Struggle ..." Dallas Morning News. N.p., 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 5 Feb. 2013
President, Ronald W. Reagan, in his speech, “Explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger Address to the Nation,” Reagan expresses the grief and loss due to the tragedy that has occurred to the Challenger. Regan’s purpose was to acknowledge the terrible explosion of the Challenger, witnessed by majority of the people including children and killed all seven crew members: Michael Smith, Dick, Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa MC Auliffe; although despite such horrible incident, Regan had insisted that the nation should continue the space program. He adopts a empathetic and encouraging tone in order to show his consideration to the victimized families and to promote the continuation of the space program as a sign of moving forward. Therefore, in Reagan’s speech, he conveyed his empathy and the will to go on with the use of rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, allusion, and anaphora.
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.
January 28, 1986, marks the day of the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion. A day that will go down in history as a horrible tragedy for both NASA and America. Seven lives were lost that day, including the life of a high school teacher from New Hampshire. Former President Ronald Reagan was tasked with explaining this tragic event to the US people. Because of this, Reagan postponed the State of the Union Address and spoke about the Challenger Explosion instead. In his address to the nation about the explosion of the space shuttle, Challenger, President Ronald Reagan effectively commemorates the loss of the Challenger crew while also celebrating the crew’s achievements and encouraging further space travel by establishing pathos through his show of empathy, employing strong positive connotation, and alluding to the great explorer, Sir Francis Drake.
The first perceptual bias that is relevant to the Columbia disaster is the escalation of commitment. This bias in the Columbia disaster was observed when NASA found out about the crater in the shuttle and found the serious risks in landing the shuttle back on earth. However, NASA was already too committed to the mission and didn’t listen to the negatives they simply followed through with their campaign. The second bias is the availability bias. This bias is shown when NASA doesn’t push for additional pictures of the crater and doesn’t look for ways to gain additional information from the astronauts themselves. The final bias is the anchoring bias. This bias plays a part in the disaster when the threat of the crater was deemed as not a problem
On February 1,2003, the Columbia was set to return to the Earth from its 16 day mission conducting medical experiments. The return was televised, but instead of our nation watching the 7 crew members safely land, the nation watched the shuttle explode, killing all 7 crew members. In a televised address from the White House, George W. Bush stated, “The cause in which they died will continue. Mankind was led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and a longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on” (Gatehouse, “A Nation Mourns”). George W. Bush explains that even though the nation will mourn those 7 crewmen, the need for those medical experiments is still crucial. He believes that the curiosity of not knowing what is in space is more important than the safety of our people. An article in Maclean’s, written by Jonathon Gatehouse,
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.
On January 28th, 1986, Ronald Reagan used his stature as president to show sympathy for the country in the light of tragedy, in his speech entitled “Speech on the Challenger Disaster.” His main point expounds on the importance of the Challenger Disaster in the history of space exploration. He supports this claim by first explaining the effect the disaster had on the public, then offering his sympathy for the families of the astronauts as well as the entire nation, and finally declaring that the country must continue to explore space so the deaths of the astronauts were not in vain. Through Reagan’s use of rhetorical appeals, tone, and rhetorical tools he effectively persuades the American people to maintain confidence in NASA and in space exploration,
Ronald Dittemore, manager of Shuttle Program, received reports directly from Wayne Hale (manager of Launch Integration) and Linda Ham (manager of Space Shuttle Program Integration). It is clear that decision about foam issue was made based on communication with Linda Ham, stating that in previous flights had no critical problems with foam. Dittemore did not attempt to receive a professional opinion from the engineers. Furthermore, Rocha sent an e-mail to Dittemore in order to determine whether Columbia’s crew could make a space walk to perform an inspection of the wing. Answer to this e-mail was never received suggesting that communication attempts directly from engineers to high-level managers were rejected. NASA is a complex organization that maintains strict reporting relationship. Information exchange is built on hierarchy and rules did not facilitate fast informal communication between employees and high-level management. This filtering process diminished the information flow to the key decision-makers. To solve this hierarchical structure managers like Dittemore should exaggerate their ambiguous threats, avoid status differences and build trust among employees. Managers ought to communicate with specialists in order to obtain reliable information and understand the situation.
On the morning of Janurary 28th 1986, the world witnessed in shock and horror what was known as the Challenger disaster as the space shuttle exploded only 73 seconds after its launch, killing all seven crew members onboard including one teacher Christa McAuliffe. Approximately 17 percent of Americans watched the live broadcast of this launch, many of them schoolchildren including those from McAuliffe’s school. From this grave moment emerged an exigency that demands immediate action by the president. Later on that same day, President Ronald Reagan delivered his Challenger address to the nation.
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