Space Shuttle Challenger And Coulmbia Case Study

Rockwell, the shuttle’s primary contractor, did not support the launch due to the possibility of ice leaving the structure and damaging the thermal shield tiles during takeoff. Their concerns were relayed to NASA, but in such a way that NASA chose to proceed with the launch [2]. Though this was eventually determined to be a non-issue in the Challenger launch, the true nature of the problems that can occur when an object strikes the shuttle during takeoff would not be learned until 2003, when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry due to damage of a heat shield tile that occurred during takeoff [2]--[3].

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.

Shuttle Challenger exploded just moments after liftoff on national television. Approximately 74 seconds into its flight, the shuttle erupted into flame and “was totally enveloped in the explosive burn” before breaking apart, killing all seven astronauts aboard. The Rogers Commission, appointed by President Ronald Reagan to investigate the disaster, later concluded that the accident occurred due to the failure of an O-ring seal in the right solid rocket booster of the shuttle.1 Saddened by the event, Reagan postponed his annual State of the Union address and instead gave a national address on the disaster the night of the incident.

In November of 1986 when the space shuttle Challenger launched for its voyage it broke apart in the atmosphere after 73 seconds; because the O-rings could not hold at the cold temperatures. This was an issue brought up by scientists and later

In 28 January 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger was launched for the Last time and exploded less than 2 minutes after the lift-off resulting in the deaths of all seven crew members on board (Space shuttle challenger: Wikipedia, 2006).

9. Risk associated with any chosen method should be classified based on cost (budget), safety and technology (design) and overall impact on the mission. Challenger did not have either solid political support or direction. Cost became the most critical component in decision making. Sold fuel systems were cheaper but also less safe. They

Post-crash studies acknowledged that the explosion was caused by an O-ring failed to seal on one of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters.

On January 28, 1986, NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter: Challenger launched from the Kennedy Space Center, only to break apart 73 seconds into its flight. Challenger carried five NASA astronauts as well as two payload specialists. Its destruction was widely recognized as one of the worst disasters in the US space programs history. The Challenger shuttle disaster wasn't a freak accident. There were many factors which resulted in the ultimate deaths of the seven passengers. These factors ranged from management to miscommunication, poor engineering, and negligence.

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.

On the icy morning of January 28, 1986, seven brave people boarded the Challenger space shuttle. All of America sat around their televisions watching and waiting for the space shuttle to finally lift off. One of the seven people aboard this shuttle was Christa McAuliffe, a teacher in the Teachers in Space program and would have been the first civilian to go into space. Her students were invited to come to NASA and watch. The engines roar sounded loudly and the shuttle finally left the ground. It was an illuminating sight to see, until a flame started at the base of the shuttle. The space shuttle caught on fire what seemed like instantly, and exploded within seconds. Due to this tragedy, the NASA space program has made several improvements to prevent tragedies like this one from ever happening again (Carreau). NASA may have made improvements, but the horrifying memory of this disaster will be embedded in the minds of the people of America and Christa 's class for the rest of their lives.

foam fell off of the main fuel tank hitting the left wing of the space shuttle. This damage,

Lecturer: Professor M.Kiru United States International University Name : Hassan Fauzia Hussein ID no: 637076 Lecturer: Professor M.Kirubi Course : Business Ethics and Values Assignment two.   Table of contents The space shuttle challenger disaster of 1986…………………………………………………………………….3 The ethical issues of the space shuttle challenger disaster of 1986 ……………………………………5-7 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER DISASTER OF 1986

In general, both Vaughan (1996) and Perrow (1999) represent the human and technical causes of the Challenger shuttle disaster, but they do not mention projects framework regards to how to avoid accident. Therefore, Deming (1986) agrees with Vaughan (1996), focusing on the human cause. He believes

Before the Challenger disaster NASA was a company that once was never prepared to handle disaster. NASA experienced it’s first disaster in October of 1968 known as the Apollo. When the Apollo occurred NASA wasn't prepared and failed at protecting it’s company and discussing the publics concerns for the disaster. NASA at this time had no exact protocol on handling disasters and acted on impulse which contributed to NASA losing their reputation. After the Apollo disaster NASA made it best efforts to create direct protocols to follow when a disaster occurs that they later was able to use when disaster struck again in the Apollo 13 disaster of 1971. It was at this time that NASA followed the protocol they set fourth for disaster that helped them handle the crisis in a manner that would protect both the company and