...The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida at 11:38 EST (16:38 UTC). Disintegration of the vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The O-ring failure caused a breach in the SRB joint it sealed, allowing pressurized hot gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB attachment hardware and external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft attachment and the structural failure of the external tank. Aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter. The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown; several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The shuttle had no escape system, and the impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable. The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed byUnited States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational...
Words: 2145 - Pages: 9
...Federal Government Investigative Agency 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C, 02210 Dear Mr. Cummings: RE: Challenger shuttle; solid-propellant booster O-ring failure I am writing to inform you about my concerns regarding the launch of space shuttle Challenger which is scheduled to launch on January, 28 1986. I have already attempted to voice my concerns to my engineering supervisor through an interoffice memorandum, but my concerns were promptly dismissed in a manner that failed to resolve my concerns. For this reason, I am writing to ask for your help in averting what could potentially be a fatal accident if these concerns are not addressed. I am an engineer working the space shuttle Challenger project. My job is to observe every part of the shuttle before and after it has been launched. I make detailed documentations of every part of the shuttle and ensure they are functioning according to its manual. The space shuttle is designed to be a reusable launch vehicle with two solid-propellant boosters, and a single liquid-propellant booster. My main concern is with regards to the solid-propellant booster. Unlike its liquid counterpart, a solid-propellant booster has the disadvantage that once it is ignited, there is no immediate method to shut it off or to control the amount of thrust coming from it. For this reason, O-rings had to be installed inside the boosters in order to prevent hot gases from the combustion from escaping. Unfortunately, the rings are not particularly...
Words: 1154 - Pages: 5
...The best explanation for a Solid Rocket Motor Joint I could find came from The Online Ethics Center. It gives us a colorized diagram of all components. The “pink is the tang, which joins the clevis, colored orange. 177 huge steel pins (yellow) hold the joint in place. The O-rings shield the joint from 5800-degree gases inside the booster. On the left scenario, hot gases (red arrows) are shielded from the joint by the zinc-chromate putty. On the right, immense pressure creates a blowhole in the putty, allowing the O-rings to move into the positions needed to seal the joint as the gap between tang and clevis expands. Through the blowhole, gases penetrate and wear away the O-rings.” As seen in the diagram the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) has two O-rings, working in series. This means that when the primary O-Ring fails the Secondary O-ring will protect the system from the outside, increasing the reliability of the system. Or at least that was the intent of the design; which worked during testing. The main problem was that all testing was conducted at warmer temperatures between 65 – 80°F and the launch day was about 50 degrees colder than the temperature during testing. In preparation to the Challenger mission testing on the SRB system was performed and it was noted during testing that the O-rings eroded to an extent. It was also noted that the erosion was not to the point of failure, therefore NASA decided the risk was minimal. The problem with this approach was that the...
Words: 1351 - Pages: 6
...The Challenger disaster could have easily been avoided. STS-51L (Challenger's last mission) was originally scheduled to launch on January 22. However a vast ammount of delays and aborts pushed thelaunch to the 28th. The morning on the 28th had been particularly cold, with temperatures close to 31 degrees Fahrenheit, the minimum temperature allowed for launch. The low temperature brought up concerns from engineers at Morton Thiokol, the manufacturers of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). They were concerned about the effects of the cold weather on the space shuttle'srubber O-rings, which prevent hot gases from escaping the joints in the shuttle's SRBs. On previous shuttle missions, cold weather had caused the O-rings to fail, allowing hot gases to escape. Thoughthis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athat had already taken place, NASA did not want to delay the mission any longer. Not only were Thiokol engineers worried about the cold temperatures, but Rockwell International (The manufacturers ofthe Space Shuttle orbiters) were also concerned. When they saw the large amount of ice formed on the shuttle launch pad, they expressed...
Words: 533 - Pages: 3
...6/30/2014 2 The science of Decision-making 1 6/30/2014 3 Speed ventures Instructions Get into groups Reach a group decision to race or not race Assumptions Speed Ventures gets to keep the oil contract except if the engine blows Goodstone has given $40,000 for the Pocono Race, But your racing teams gets 1 Million if you finish in top 5 Rules You have 30 minutes to reach a decision Person with most gadgets on their watch is timekeeper As a group you must decide whether to race or not race! 4 Four possibilities Finish Top 5 $1,500,000 Finish but NOT in the top 5 $500,000 $500,000 Race and blow engine $0 2 6/30/2014 Sec 62: Speed Ventures Groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Group 11 Group 12 Group 13 Francisco Larrain Echeverria Nicolo Parravicini Cameron Murphy Eric Haddenhorst Paksikorn Tubtimthong Jose Lopez Lecube Jutatit Pumarin Alexander Bourdeau Javier Bernuy Giraudi Fuentes Mo Wang Kangseok Ji Piotr Bielaczyc Anja Zhao Ramakrishna Sayoji Rao Goli Nicolas Izquierdo Chadwick Lauren Zsigray Nicholas McGann Varun Mathur Ty Findley Michal Krowinski Daryl Brown Johann Narvekar Nathan Bell Laura Luedke Adam Tollefson David Nichols Taylor Hougland Jaskaran Bakshi...
Words: 3194 - Pages: 13
...marked the morning of the 28th of January 1986 as a terribly tragic disaster. What it sadder is that this disaster was mainly due to inhumane practices conducted by the NASA and the management bodies of companies associated with this project than natural reasons. The whistleblowing led to the loss of billions of dollars and more importantly loss of 7 innocent lives. The space shuttle was propelled by the two attached Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and an external fuel tank. The SRBs were joined to the External Tank. aOnce the SRBs ignited, hot gases heated the rubber O rings and they eroded to seal the joints. SRB joint design had a serious flaw in it and the engineers knew it meant a catastrophe and yet they passed the design for flight. The O rings worked only down to a temperature limit of 12 ̊ C, but the morning of the launch saw temperatures as low as -1 ̊ C which was much lower than the prescribed limit. Many engineers voiced to postpone the launch and wait for the weather to be stable but the management turned down these arguments and the challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 A.M. As the shuttle took off, the right SRB emitted puffs of smoke which meant that a gap was punched into the SRB and hot gases were escaping it. The O ring was supposed to seal the gap off but it was frozen so it failed and the secondary O...
Words: 2491 - Pages: 10
...making process? The Challenger Launch decision on January 28th 1986, proved to be one of the crucial decisions ever made as it lead to one of space science's most talked about disasters. The Challenger launch project was faced by a major financial constraint owing to the ongoing Vietnam War. Thiokol won the contract to build the SRBs since they asked for a lower emolument that their competitors and also provided an innovative modular design for the SRBs that would ease the transportation. There were many reasons NASA was pressured to launch, one being the need to launch the 51L space shutter without any delays so the launch pad could be restored in time for the next mission. Also, any delay in the mission would only result in negative publicity through the media. Under such pressurised circumstances, NASA and Thiokol could not look in the right direction and lacked consensus. So, communication breakdown was perhaps the major contributor in the decision making process here. It is evident that Thiokol was not prepared for the Teleconference since it did not have all the necessary statistical inputs required to arrive at a conclusion. This lead to an internal communication failure within Thiokol. The primary factor for such a communication failure was the lack of structured data and no proper way of seeking the data. Apart from this there was NASA and Thiokol were not on the same side and there was a continuous argument between Roger Boisjoly (The Booster seal expert) and Larry...
Words: 1338 - Pages: 6
...Challenger case study analysis Facts 1. Space shuttle challenger disaster leads to the death of its crew members 7. 2. NASA’S organizational culture and decision making process is a key contributing factor of the accident. 3. NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRB contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the o-rings since 1977. 4. NASA disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posted by the low temperature of that morning. 5. The ROGER”S commission offered NASA 9 recommendations that were to be implemented before shuttle flight resumed. 6. The o-rings had no test data to support any expectation of successful launch in such conditions. 7. Challenger was originally set to launch from Kennedy space center in Florida at 2:42 EST Jan 22. 8. Launch was delayed 1st to Jan 23 then 2nd to Jan 24, 3rd to Jan 25 due the bad weather at the TAL site in Senegal. NASA decided to use Casablanca as TAL site but it wasn’t equipped for night landings so they had to move it to the morning to Florida. 4th to Jan 27 9:37 as of unaccepted weather at Kennedy space center and5th to Jan 28 as by problems with the exterior access hatch. 9. Delayed 5 times shows lack of good decision making and management of NASA’s managers. 10. Morton Thiokol is the contractor responsible for the construction and maintenance of the shuttle’s SRBs. 11. Rockwell international is the shuttle’s prime contractor. ...
Words: 1586 - Pages: 7
...NASA's safety office play? 13 Was NASA or Thiokol pressured to launch? 14 Why didn't they talk to each other? 14 How about NASA's past success? 15 What lessons have been learned? 15 Defining terms 16 Figures Figure 1: The Launch Decision Chain 17 Figure 2: Anatomy Of A Booster Field Joint 18 Figure 3: Joint Rotation 18 Figure 4: Titan Joints vs. Shuttle Booster Joints 19 Figure 5: Joint Putty 19 Figure 6: O-Ring Distress 20 Figure 7: Joint Distress vs. Temperature At Launch 20 Figure 8: 7/31/85 Memo, Boisjoly 21 Figure 9: 10/1/85 Memo, Ebeling 22 Figure 10: 10/1/85 Memo, Stein 24 Figure 11: 10/4/85 Activity Report, Boisjoly 25 Instructions On the first day of the workshop, we will discuss the management system failures associated with the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Please read the attached article[?],[?] before the workshop and be prepared to discuss the study questions listed below. Study Questions | |Media reports at the time typically implicated individual managers within the launch decision chain as single points of failure. | | |Others have described Challenger as a long lead-time, incremental...
Words: 11483 - Pages: 46
...amount of risk NASA tolerated with the Challenger launch is absurd. NASA acted as though it were a busing system going to and from space. This high tolerance towards risk may have been caused by NASA falling into an overconfidence psychological trap. An overconfidence psychological trap is the process of estimating an overly narrow range of possible values, caused by initial impressions or past events (Hammond, Keeney & Raiffa, 1999). Prior to the Challenger, NASA had been extremely successful in its launches and achievements. NASA safely had launched shuttles 24 times before, and a sense of routine had crept in. This led to overconfidence and an unhealthy level of risk tolerance (Osgood, 2011). NASA was so confident in the safety of the mission that they allowed a school teacher to join the crew. The biggest risk of all is loss of life. It seems completely inappropriate that NASA allowed non astronauts on this mission. According to the NASA website, three conditions that can cause mission and safety failures are finite resources, task and organizational uncertainty, and changing, dynamic environments. Specific features common to all high-risk environments also include mission and systems complexity and distributed teams (engaged in both design and operations). Both features require huge amounts of coordination and information sharing, which are potential sources of risk (Mission, 2008). All three conditions occurred during the Challenger launch. The O-rings on the shuttle were...
Words: 1410 - Pages: 6
...According to Charles Darwin “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” One best way to be adaptable to change is learning all the amazing things that have marked the scientific evolution. You can learn about these things in some books, researches. However, what is better than a museum to see with his own eyes the evidences of all these evolutions? The Tellus Museum, situated in Georgia, is engaged to educate, and inspire visitors to make scientific connections through dynamic exhibits and enriching experiences. It is a Smithsonian Institution-affiliate natural history and science museum. Tellus was founded as the Weinman Mineral Museum in 1983, which closed in 2007 and was reopened as the Tellus Science Museum in 2008. If you decide to go to this museum, your tour will be focus on four permanent galleries. The first one is the Weinman Mineral Gallery to discover how the Earth was formed billions of years ago and to walk among hundreds of beautiful gems and minerals. Featured exhibits include more than fifty cases with a variety of gems, gold, and some Georgia’s most prized minerals. The second one is the Fossil Gallery. Stare into the mouth of a Tyrannosaurus rex, catch a glimpse of a saber-tooth cat and discover how life on Earth began in the Tellus Fossil Gallery. This walk through history will take visitors past millions of years of dinosaurs, reptiles and giant...
Words: 876 - Pages: 4
...faster orbiter. Nasa needed a test vehicle to make sure that the lighter airframe could handle the pressure of Space Travel. First called STA-099, the Challenger was designed and planned to be a test shuttle for the Space Shuttle Program. At this time computer software wasn’t yet developed enough to accurately predict how the STA-099’s newly designed airframe would respond to heat, stress and pressure. The best tests that NASA could run on the shuttle were intense vibration and thermal heat testing. These tests worked...
Words: 2129 - Pages: 9
...Challenger Disaster Research Paper Space Shuttle Challenger was first called as STA-099, and was built as a test vehicle for the space program. But despite its Earth-bound beginnings, STA-099 was destined for space. In 1979, NASA awarded a contract to Rockwell, a space shuttle manufacturer to convert the STA-099 to a space orbiter OV-099. After completion of OV-099, it arrived at the at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida in July 1982, bearing the name "Challenger." Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger was named after the British Naval vessel HMS Challenger that sailed the Atlantic and Pacific oceans during the 1870s. Challenger launched on her maiden voyage, STS-6, on April 4, 1983. That mission saw the first spacewalk of the Space Shuttle program. The NASA had planned for a six day flight, and their mission was to release and retrieve one satellite to study Haley’s comet, and to launch another satellite that would become part of the space communications network. Challenger was originally set to launch from Florida on January 22nd. But delays in STS-61-C and bad weather caused it to reschedule to January 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 27th. On January 28th 1986, the space shuttle was set to take off, but the launch time was delayed due to problems with the...
Words: 5390 - Pages: 22
...The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster American History Semester 2 Term Paper By: Dhiren Reddy The space shuttle Challenger disaster was a very important event in our countries history. It was a terrible accident which gave it kind of infamy of being a failed space mission. People see an explosion and don’t think twice about the tremendous amount of work, over the years, and the number of aspects that went in to the mission. These included the extreme pre-launch training that consisted of strenuous physical exercises and hundreds of hours of reading and studying, the work NASA put in after the explosion to prevent any incident of this kind from happening again, and finally what actually took place on launch day. All of these thing were...
Words: 2417 - Pages: 10
...The Challenger’s Memory Remains but NASA Never Changes On January 28th, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger erupted into a ball of fire and broke apart after seventy-three seconds of its launch. Ending its tenth mission into space and killing all seven crew members, including a New Hampshire school teacher named Christa McAuliffe. Despite the warnings of engineers that warned NASA before the liftoff date of the dangers and risks of the cold air temperatures could produce, they were ignored and NASA ended up paying the ultimate price. The effects of space travel learned from the Challenger accident can guide NASA to enhance its system on safety, protocol, and emergencies, to actually be concerned about the shuttle's design and training for astronauts,...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
