Space Shuttle Challenger Accident - Research Paper Example

Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts 15 April Tableof Contents I. Abstract. II. Introduction. III. Body. IV. Conclusion. V. Reference. Abstract The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded into flames last 1986. The accident unnecessarily took the lives of the seven astronauts instantly. The officers of NASA and its related agencies are to blame for the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion. The officers did not heed warning of the whistle blowers to postpone the launch until all repairs are made. The Space Shuttle Challenger explosion precipitates to recommendations to stop a repeat of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. The cause of the explosion included the tank being refueled with super cooled propellants. The process caused the ice to crust on the space vehicles exterior. It was the Space Shuttle Team and the NASA teams job to determine if the current amount ice would cause the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, killing all seven astronauts instantly. Indeed, the Domino effect theory proves the Space Shuttle Challengers explosion could have been prevented. Introduction/background The Space Shuttle Challenger burst into flames last 1986 killing seven astronauts instantly. The research focuses on the causes of the unexpected global tragedy. The research aims to focus recommendations to prevent another Space Shuttle explosion. The Domino effect theory shows the Space Shuttle Challengers explosion could have been prevented. Main Body of Report The Space Shuttle Challengers explosion can be explained using the domino effect theory. Colin Burgess (2000; page 3) reiterated the Space Shuttle Challenger’s launch environment was characterized as freezing cold. The dull and wintry sunrise shone over the Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Station. There were several flood lights adding vividness to the launch area as the Space Shuttle was about to begin its ill-fated journey into space. The space craft blew up on Tuesday, 28 January 1986 (Burgess 2000; p 3). Analysis: the people from the NASA could have done better than what they had done. The people were too self centered that they failed to heed the warnings of the engineers who presented an unexpected report. The unexpected report states that some parts of the Space Shuttle Challenger would not function well. However, the managers of NASA were banking on their many years of experience on Space Shuttle launches. In fact, the Space Shuttle Challenger had made several launches with flying colors. The managers believed that the launch should not be stopped. For, stopping the launches would mean a failure to meet schedules. The managers felt that the original launch date had been postponed for several times too long. The Space Shuttle Challenger was already postponed from its original launch data. Thus, the NASA managers that prolonging the Space Shuttle Challenger launch again should not be done. After the launch, the NASA managers should pay for the deaths of the seven astronauts. However, the astronauts are already dead. No amount of cash or damages will bring back the life of the astronauts. In addition, the astronauts are partly to blame for their deaths. The astronauts should have checked if all the parts will work as scheduled. The astronauts are scientists. They are trained to resolve any problems that crop up when they are in space. Thus, the astronauts could have checked if all flight activities will so smoothly, as scheduled. In addition, the astronauts could have envisioned of an escape plan, in case something wrong happens. The astronauts could have contacted the engineers of NASA to check if the parts were okay. By doing so, the astronauts could have contacted the Boisjoly engineer for a more informed comment on whether to push through with the scheduled Space Shuttle Challenger flight. In addition, the Space Shuttle Challenger astronauts died in an explosion. The explosion occurred when the Space Shuttle Challenger took of from Cape Canaveral last January 28, 1986. There were seven astronauts who died while inside the Space Shuttle Challenger. After the accident, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decided to stop the regular shuttle flights for two years. (Watson2011; p 1). Further, the gloomy Space Shuttle had been launched from the Kennedy Space Center strategically placed in Florida, United States. The cargoes included two scientific satellites. The cargoes section also carried scientific equipment in the crew compartment. The equipments were supposed to continue related space experiments (Neal, 2011; p. 1). Space Shuttle Challenger Mission 51 L History Furthermore, the launch was delayed 24 hours again when the ground servicing equipment hatch closing fixture could not be taken from the orbiter hatch. The fixture was removed and an attaching bolt placed before closeout was completed. During the delay, the winds exceeded the return limits at KSCs Shuttle Landing Facility. The launch had been delayed by two hours. The delay was due to defects in the engines, including the liquid hydrogen tanks (Harrold 2011, p 1). In addition, after many delays in the original launch schedules, The NASA officials disapproved the recommended concerns of the engineers to postpone the Space Shuttle Challenger scheduled launch. The NASA officers proceeded with the lift off on a very low temperature morning, at 11:38:00 am. The final launch took off with history stating the Space Shuttle mission precipitated to its unexpected explosive show. The costly show precipitated to the untimely death of its Space Shuttle astronauts. The Space Shuttle Challenger shattered into thin air, with a big blast seen from the ground. The unexpected and avoidable Space Shuttle explosion happened within two minutes from the launch takeoff. The burst occurred under visible eyes from the spectators (Harrold 2011; p 1). Specifically, the Space Shuttle Challenger did not literally blow up. What happened was that many of the structural parts of the Space Shuttle Challenger precipitated to the orbiter to break down, dismemberment. Even the Challenger broke up without any early warning signs. The crew members of the Space Shuttle Challenger had ill feelings that something gravely wrong was happening. The Space Shuttle Challenger crew cabin broke away from the Space Shuttle Challenger and flew away into the atmosphere. Within three minutes, the Space Shuttle Challenger cabin fell like a dead log into the waters of the waiting Atlantic Ocean. Upon touching the Oceans surface, the cabin smashed. In an instant, all seven members of the Space Shuttle Challenger lost their dear lives (Watson 2011). After one year of rigorous investigation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration found one possible reason for the explosion. The research team proposed that a major fault was found in the design of the solid rocket boosters (SRB) as the main culprit. The two huge rocket parts were tied to the side of the External Tank. The parts were used to help increase the acceleration the shuttle clear of the Earths atmosphere. Within two minutes after Space Shuttle Challenger launch, the SRBs jacking out of the Space Shuttle Challenger, falling into the cold ocean surface and are gathered for reuse. The SRBs had been constructed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by its construction contractor, Morton Thiokol, Inc. Because of the Space Shuttle Challengers unexpected demise, proposed future shuttle missions had to be placed in abeyance, pending the results of the explosions investigation. Because of the unexpected Space Shuttle Challenger demise, a special investigative commission was created by former President Reagan to uncover the cause or causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy. The investigative task force was instructed to come up with recommendations to prevent a repeat of the shocking Space Shuttle Challenger debacle. The research team was spearheaded by the prior Secretary of State William Rogers. The commission included former Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong. The investigation team also included an expert test pilot, Chuck Yeager. In the investigation teams June 1986 report, the spokesperson of the commission emphasized that the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion was triggered by a failure of O rings spare parts located in the Space Shuttle Challengers right solid rocket booster. The ineffective rubber rings closed the joint connecting the two lower portions of the booster. The Space Shuttle Challengers design defects located in the joint as well as the infrequent cold weather occurring when the Space Shuttle Challenger launch forced the O rings to permit the hot gases to creep out of the booster through the booster joint. The unexpected deadly flames from inside the Space Shuttle Challenger booster traveled past the ineffective seal. The flames quickly spread and increased the small hole. As expected, the increasing fury of the expanding and increasing flaming gases burned a huge gaping hole in the shuttles external fuel tank. Consequently, the flames also cut away one of the supporting beams that held the booster to the side of the external tank. Next, the failed booster tore loose and breached the tank. The propellants from the gas tank created huge fireball. The fireball precipitated from the structural failures tearing the Space Shuttle Challenger into several small pieces. The O rings are clearly to blame. The O rings did not function well. Had the O rings been replaced before the scheduled Space Shuttle Challenger flight, the disaster of 1986 could have been avoided. However, each person is entitled to one’s opinion. The NASA managers did not believe the doomsday scenario of the O rings not function was too good to be true. Thus the NASA managers proceeded with the planned 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger launch to ensure the general public watching the live launch in Florida as well as satisfying the eager eyes of people watching the flight around the world. The whole world stopped when they saw the Space Shuttle Challenger blow up in midday just like what occurs during new years eve, explosion of rockets in the midnight sky to usher in the new year. In addition, the research commission mentioned that the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations decision to launch the shuttle was erroneous. The top level management officers or decision makers were not presented with the problems with the joints and O rings or the possible damaging freezing effects of the snowy weather enveloping the Space Shuttle Challenger launch environment. In addition, the research commission gave a conclusion that there was a very serious defect flaw in the decision making activities that were implemented leading up to the launch of Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. In terms of shuttle modifications, Shuttle designers made several technical modifications, including an improved O ring design and the addition of a crew bail-out system. Although such a system would not work in all cases, it could save lives of shuttle crew members in certain situations. Procedural changes included stricter safety reviews and more restrictive launching conditions. After the Space Shuttle Challenger was concluded, the recommendations of the research commission were implemented. The entire space shuttle program had been placed on hold during the research commissions investigation. The Space Shuttle program did not activate any launches until the shuttle designers implemented several technical modifications as well as National Aeronautics and Space Administration management placed into motion stricter rules pertaining to the quality control and safety policies. (Watson 2011; p 1). Correlation of accident facts to one or more accident causation methods. The Challenger explosion was caused by domino effect. The July 8 article Challenger, Columbia Tragedies Stunned Fans (Harrold 2011; p 16) shows the unexpected demise and another one in 2003 had taken the lives of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew with its seven-person crew as soon as the Shuttle returned to its home planet, Earth. Carey recalled that the teacher had continued to keep his class together and everyone talked about what had occurred during that fateful time period. Further, A U.S. presidential commission discovered that the cause of the Challenger explosion was indeed true. The truth is that the malfunctioning O-ring seal should have been replaced with a more effective and efficient O ring. The defect was enough to release the ill effects of the hot gases leak out and continue to burn the entire Space Shuttle Challenger fuel tank, triggering the unwanted explosion (Watson 2011; p 1). Significant Findings. There are significant findings in the Space Shuttle Challenger research. A civilian is part of the crew. John Martin (2012 p.1) mentioned in the January 27 issue of the Christa McAuliffee Day article 26 years ago that he was home from school when he remembered the Space Shuttle disaster. He watched as the Space Shuttle Challenger carry and kill the teacher in midair. Their flight only lasted an estimated 70 seconds and ended with a life- snapping bang. The bang ended McAuliffes legacy as a pioneer and a teacher. Only her memories remain. During the Challenger mission, teacher McAuliffe was assigned to implement a number of experiments and for report to her classroom back on earth, below. Specifically, McAuliffe was supposed to do scientific experiments in the areas of microgravity, demonstrating magnetism, physics and hydroponics. The teacher was ready to present the experiments’ findings to the world, upon her return to earth (Martin 2012 p.1). Engineer warned of impending Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Don Martin (2012; p 4) mentioned that Roger Boisjoly had sent a memo warning of possible irreparable dangers six months before the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion over Florida on Jan. 28, 1986.. The engineer warned if the weather was too cold, seals connecting sections of the shuttles huge rocket boosters could fail. Boisjoly mentioned that the effect of the cold weather could be a catastrophe of the highest order, including the loss of human life. The letter had been intended to jolt the spare parts manufacturer, Morton Thiokol. The company was the manufacturer of the failed boosters and. Six months prior, a work force was created, partly on Boisjolys suggestions, to test the influence of cold on the Space Shuttle Challengers boosters. The boosters, however, was damaged. Likewise, purchase delays and a hastening to blastoff the Space Shuttle Challenger precipitated to the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, according to Space Shuttle Challenger explosion investigations. In addition, his apprehensions became more intense. The night before the Challengers launch, the temperature had dropped drastically below the freezing levels. Unfamiliar for the Florida environment, the cold temperature had been unprecedented for a shuttle launching. It had persuaded the uneasy Boisjoly and other engineers to beg that the flight to be set to a later safe launch date. However, their immediate bosses, under constant pressure from NASA leaders, disapproved their urgent requests for the launch postponement (Martin 2012; p 4). As history shows, the shuttle exploded more than 70 seconds after launching, killing its entire seven passenger. One of its astronaut passengers is Christa McAuliffe, an eager high school mentor from a small community. Engineer Boisjolys letters for urgent postponement had been made public. He was immediately tagged as a whistleblower in a U.S. federal investigation of the disaster. Even though he was congratulated for his unsuccessful tries to save the people from their awaiting death, he was also made to suffer for his whistle blowing act. The whistle-blower had died from cancer at 73 years of age. Consequently, the whistleblower, spoke to more than 300 universities and other groups about corporate ethics, including the ethical acts relating to the failed Space Shuttle explosion (Patterson 2012; p1). In addition, Thom Patterson (2012; p1) states in the February 24 article “They are nightmarish images that are burned into the national consciousness: the ominous twin exhaust trails of the exploding space shuttle Challenger. Further, an February 9 article His Warnings on Challenger Went Unheard (2012; p12) indicates Roger Boisjoly, a NASA contractor who repeatedly voiced concerns about the space shuttle Challenger before it exploded, has died at the age of 73. Boisjoly, the whistle-blower wrote the explosion could have been prevented if his requests were not left on the closed ears of NASA management. Boisjoly was insisting that the ill-fated flight should be checked to ensure accidents will not happen. The February 21 article Engineer Who Tried to Stop 1986 Shuttle Disaster Dies at 73 (No author, 2012; p 21) shows that that the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger’s explosive finale destroyed the space shuttle Challenger and killed seven astronauts, shocking the entire world. However, one rocket engineer had warned that the Space Shuttle Challenger’s avoidable explosion tragedy should be blamed on the management of NASA for not heading their calculated warnings. In terms of accident causation theory into the analysis the whistle blower, Mr. Boisjoly and four other space shuttle engineers argued that the cold weather would be dangerous to the launch. In cold temperatures, the whistle blower insists that O-rings in the joints may not perform perfectly. Consequently, flames will crop up to reach the rockets metal casing. The whistle blowers pleas and technical theories was disapproved by the senior managers at the company and NASA who mentioned they had failed to given convincing proof that their apprehensions are correct or justifiable. In addition, another whistle-blower, Allan J. McDonald was Thiokols program manager for the solid-rocket booster. McDonald was very vocal and most important critic of a possible accident. When he was influenced by NASA the night before liftoff to fill up a written recommendation affirming the launch, he did not agree and debated late into the night for cancellation of the projected launch. Further, when McDonald informed the secret debate to the members of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident investigators, he was isolated and his career was mired by his disgruntled and revengeful superiors. In a 2003 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Boisjoly recalled that NASA made every effort to blackball him from the industry, relegating Mr. Boisjoly to live 17 years of his remaining life as a forensic engineer and a lecturer on engineering ethics. Likewise, the July 9 article Shuttle Program Paid Steep Price in Lost Lives (Anonymous 2011 p 1) indicates that the Space Shuttle Challenger also exploded less than two minutes after its launch on. Jan 28, 1986 when it exploded, killing all its passenger astronauts onboard - stunning space enthusiasts still entranced with the novelty of the almost five-year-old shuttle program. The author remembers the explosion as an educational opportunity seized upon by his teacher stating that it was not science because there were mechanical as well as other errors that could have been avoided. Carey mentioned his teacher divided the class together and everyone talked about what happened. The immense soul searching brought about by the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion generated certain stories, according to James Oberg, who had been relocated to be a NASA mission control employee for more than 21 years. Also, the July 6 article Shuttle Tragedies Left Space Fans Stunned, Questioning, Despite the Horror, Program Continued with Many Successes (2011 p1) indicates one of the major reasons for the Space Shuttle explosion was a failure of science. Another reason given was mechanical error. The author insists the U.S. presidential commission found the fault for the Challenger explosion to be a mechanical failure. One was the issues raised was that the crew members instantly died when the explosion occurred. Upon the Space Shuttle Challengers re-entry into the earths atmosphere, hot gases stared seeping in and triggered the shuttle to explode. Immediately after the explosion occurred, NASA wanted a way to inspect under the space shuttle vehicles belly and wings while the NASA vehicle was hovering in deep space. Because of NASAs concerns, MDA Corp., the Brampton, Ont.-based manufacturer of the Canadarm, created the more improved Orbiter Boom and Sensor System. Adam Crisp (2011; p1) mentions in the January 28 article Lessons, hope linger 25 years after Challenger that the explosion accident as one of the shining moments of patriotic sacrifice for those who died in an accident that has inspired millions to explore great unknowns as her husband did. Rodgers mentioned that the Challenger demise, that horrific explosion in the sky, made space pioneers of seven Space Shuttle Challenger crew members. In terms of accident causation theory into the analysis, the Space Shuttle Challenger did not explode by itself, but various structural failures caused the orbiter to break apart. Although the Challenger disintegrated almost without warning, the crew may have briefly been aware that something was wrong. The crew cabin tore lose from the rest of the shuttle and soared through the air. It took almost three minutes for the cabin to fall into the Atlantic Ocean, where it smashed on impact, killing the seven crew members. Summary of regulations, industry practices or corrective actions that resulted from the incident that made a positive contribution to safety for the applicable industry. There were corrective actions implemented by NASA and its related agencies to prevent a repeat of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. The July 6 article NASA Shuttle Tragedies Devastated Space Fans (2011; p 16) indicates that a United States presidential commission convincingly found the cause of the Challenger explosion to be a failure of an o-ring seal in the right solid rocket booster, letting hot gases burn through the shuttles external fuel tank. The nation’s increasing soul-searching after the explosion perpetuated certain myths, according to James Oberg, who worked as a NASA mission control operator for 22 years and discussed the Challenger explosive disintegration, on the 25th anniversary. To reiterate, Watson (2011; p.1) mentioned in the same January 26 article How Challenger Brought NASA Down to Earth; 25 years after the Tragedy, Lessons Still Hang Over Space Program that the Space Shuttle Challenger bursting into flames within two minutes from launch Jan. 28, 1986. The accident took the lives of all seven adventure-loving astronauts onboard, Oberg discussed for MSNBC news that the launch was very horrifying. Seeing the space shuttle burst into flames was not a lovely sight to see. Despite the negative comments and a possible explosion repeat, the space shuttle program started with other Space Shuttle launches on Sept. 28, 1998. However, more quality procedures were implemented to ensure the Space Shuttle Challenger is not repeated, causing the death of other astronauts’ lives. Yet the worst-case scenario happened a second time, when Columbia disintegrated on re-entry after a 16-day mission (Harrold 2011 p.16). The cause was discovered to be a weakness in the tiles that form the heat shield on Columbias left wing leading edge. Consequently, the suppliers of the space shuttle spare parts were asked to replace the failed ones with more reliable spare parts. Short comings/limitations of the investigation and report. The investigation and report is based on secondary resources. The secondary resources are gathered to complement or contradict other references on the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Because of the limitation, there is some probability that the findings may not be 100 percent accurate. However, the aim of the study is not accuracy. The aim of the study is determine the most popular or most realistic cause of the Space Shuttle Challengers explosion, in terms of domino effect. CONCLUSION: Based on the above discussion, the Space Shuttle Challenger burst into flames last 1986 unnecessarily taking out the life of the seven astronauts instantly. In addition, the managers of NASA and its related agencies should be blamed for the Space Shuttle Challenger demise. The Space Shuttle Challenger explosion could have been prevented if the voices of Boisjoly and other engineers were heard. The engineers requested for the postponement of the Space Shuttle Challenger flight in order to fix the ineffective spare parts. However, the NASA managers refuse to postpone the flight because the schedule could no longer be move to a future date. Indeed, the Domino effect theory shows the Space Shuttle Challengers explosion could have been prevented. REFERENCES: Anonymous, (2011). Shuttle Program Paid Steep Price in Lost Lives. Star Phoenix. Norfolk. July 9 page 1 No author, (2012). Engineer Who Tried to stop 1986 Shuttle Disaster Dies at Age of 73. The Province. Vancouver. Feb 8 page 21 Burgess, C., (2000). Teacher in Space: Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger Legacy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. P 3. Harrold, M., (2011). Challenger, Columbia Tragedies Stunned Fans. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton. July 8, p 16 Harrold, M., (2011). NASA Shuttle Tragedies Devastated Space Fans. Calgary Herald. Calgary. July 6 P. 8 Harrold, M., (2011). Shuttle Tragedies Left Space Fans Stunned, Questioning. Nanimo Daily News. Nanaimo.July 6. P.1 Martin, D., (2012). Engineer Warned of Shuttle Danger: Employee of Rocket-booster Company became Whistle-blower in Challengers Probe. Edmonton Journal. New York. Feb 12, p 4 Martin, J., (2012). Christa McAuliffee Day. New York: CNN Press. Jan 27 P1 Neal, M., (2011). Educators Recall Legacy of Teacher Who Died in Challenger Disaster. Tribune Business News. Washington Jan 28 page 1 Patterson, T., (2012). Rare Challenger Disaster Video Surfaces. St. Joseph News. New York: CNN Press. Feb 24, p 1 No author, (2011). His Warnings on Challenger Went Unheard. Virginian Pilot. New York: Sakatoon Press. Feb 9, Page. 12 Crisp, A., (2011). Lessons, Hope Linger 25 years After Challenger. Tribune Business News. Washington. Jan 28 p 1 Watson, T., (2011). How Challenger Brought NASA Down to Earth; 25 years after the Tragedy, Lessons Still Hang Over Space Program. USA Today. McLean. Jan 26 p. 1 Read More