Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

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).

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

Seventy three seconds into its 10th flight, on January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart over the Atlantic Ocean, killing the seven crew members on board [1]. The Challenger was the second space shuttle constructed by NASA and had completed nine successful missions prior to the disaster. Following the accident, the shuttle program was suspended for 32 months as President Ronald Regan appointed a Commission, chaired by William P. Rogers and known as the Rogers Commission, to investigate the cause of the accident [1].

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.

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.

It holds true that government organizations gradually decline; the enthusiasm is replaced with bureaucracy, employees are resistant to change and overall performance is decreased. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is no exception to this. NASA is an example of bureaucracy having a detrimental effect on an organization. The lines of communication became skewed and were often broken while the organization was locked in an internal battle over who exactly was in charge. While there were heads of each department and heads of each branch, critical information often slipped through the cracks. It was this breakdown in communication and the failure to address known issues that was the direct cause for both the Challenger and Columbia explosions. The explosions, though separated by seventeen years, were incredibly similar. Concerns had been brought to the table and similarly dismissed as “acceptable risk.” This acceptable risk proved fatal for the crews of both space shuttles. Bureaucracy and financial expediency led to reduced federal funding, general distrust from the public, and growing disinterest. The organization that sent men to the moon is vastly different than the organization in charge today. NASA’s beginnings were less clouded in red tape and bureaucratic policies. Ideas were

odds of disaster were realized. Every shuttle has a 1/24 chance of disaster. NASA 's

When Apollo 13 mission was launched by NASA, which was to take crew of seasoned astronauts to the moon headed by Jim Lovell. On the way to the moon, one of the liquid oxygen tanks exploded, and the other one began leaking. In addition, there were the problem of inadequate air and electricity to get them back because of all these problem. The mission team headed by Gene Kranz rose to the occasion , by taking calculated risks to ensure that the survival of the crew members. Both parties never allowed themselves to consider possibility that the crew members would not make it home.

The Challenger Space Shuttle launched on January 28, 1986, but sadly never reached the atmosphere of space. (History.com) The Challenger’s sections disassembled 73 seconds after liftoff. (History.com) The Challenger disaster killed six astronauts as well as a teacher. Christa McAuliffe was a teacher from New Hampshire who was awarded the honor of going on the the spacecraft’s 10th mission to teach lessons in space for students around the world. (History.com) It was determined later on that the two rubber O-rings, that were designed to separate the rocket booster sections, had failed because of the temperature the morning of the launch, causing the disaster. (History.com) Even though the Challenger Shuttle tragedy is very sad, it has improved the technology of the NASA Space Center and minimized the number of

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.

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.

INTRODUCTION: This is Jenna Jackson reporting live from Kirksville, MO. Breaking news tragedy has struck Space Shuttle Challenger, killing all passengers, including a high school teacher.

This week’s assignment brought back a lot of memories for me. It made me think back to what I was doing and how this tragedy impacted not only me, but also the United States as a whole. Going through this simulation gave me a little more insight into what actually happened and how this tragedy could have possibly been avoided had NASA’s management team taken heed to the engineers and others who advised them to bring in someone to do a complete inspection of the shuttle. During this simulation, I viewed this tragedy through the eyes of one of the many engineers that were employed at NASA during this tragic time. I feel that this tragedy was the result of a combination of leadership and process failures.

“Mr. Ebeling never recovered from the disaster, ‘I’ve been under terrible stress since the accident,’ he told The Houston Chronicle in 1987. ‘I have headaches. I cry. I have bad dreams. I go into a hypnotic trance almost daily.’ He soon left Thiokol and the engineering profession. For the rest of his life he faulted himself for not doing enough to prevent the launch” (Grimes p.2). Robert Ebeling was one of the Morton Thiokol engineers who knew that the Challenger space shuttle would explode. The Challenger disaster occurred in 1986, and in the early 1980s, earlier versions of the shuttle had been launched. There were signs of problems with the O-rings, but they were never resolved, resulting in a catastrophe. Engineers from Morton Thiokol,

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