You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 2 (502 words)
In 2003 of February 1, millions of observers were taken aback by the explosion of Columbia Space Shuttle as it approached the earth's environment. The disaster was found to be caused by a busted section of tubing containing padding suds at the outer side of the tank.
Even without physical examination, a break on the tubing means an inappropriate strength of materials used, as it was not able to withstand the pressure. One could quickly suggest poor estimation, poor quality of materials, and the aircraft mechanics were not really proficient or experts, or simply that the material engineers and management were simply experimenting on strength of materials having taken the risk. In the first place, before the materials were used it should have been accurately tried and tested to efficiently serve the function from launch time to the time when the spacecraft could have safely landed back on its pad on earth
Definitely, the tragedy of Columbia Space Shuttle in 2003 was a learning lesson for the National Aeronautics Space Administration. But, it could have been prevented. Obviously, minor problems should be given the highest attention for resolution. This means that considering the extreme risk of a space travel by a space craft, no single edge of flaw should be tolerated. In other words, there should be a zero flaw on space shuttle structure and function. Moreover, a spacecraft should not have been attempted launched even for a single or minor imperfection. ...
Not exactly what you need?