...Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster happened on February 1st, 2003, which broke on the way back to the Earth. All the astronauts, including two women died in this disaster. The reason why this disaster happened was a piece of foam insulation broke off from the Space Shuttle external tank which damaged the left wing of the shuttle. Even though some engineers of NASA had doubted that the left wing of shuttle had been damaged, the administration staffs restricted to do advanced research. The engineers of NASA found that the foam shedding and debris strikes could not be avoided and solved, even though the previous design of space shuttle required that the external tank was not to shed foam or other debris. However, this situation was not account for security threat and regarded as the acceptable risk. Thus, the launch was given the go-head. Due to the broken left wing which caused the damage of Space Shuttle thermal protection system, hot gases penetrated and destroyed the internal wing structure which led to the disintegrate of the shuttle immediately over the area of south Dallas. Ignore the Feedback Control Even though the similar situation happened in the prior mission (in the 13th and 16th mission of Columbia, the foam went undetected as well), the administration department of NASA were getting used to those situation which did not cause the serious damage to the shuttle that led to the disaster of the 28th mission of Columbia. Just like...
Words: 752 - Pages: 4
...You may have heard of the Challenger explosion but have you heard of the Columbia disaster. This disaster happened due to human error and cost the lives of 7 people. This disaster changed the course of spaceflight for the future because of how bad it was. The first main key moment is on January 16 ,2003 space shuttle Columbia took off from Kennedy Space Center. 81 seconds into the flight a piece of insulating foam from the bipod attaching Columbia to the external tank broke off and hit Columbia’s left wing at around 540 mph and went unnoticed by NASA. NASA then informed the Columbia crew once they found out and said it was nothing to worry about. The second key moment of this event is while they were in space for sixteen days...
Words: 371 - Pages: 2
...0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.002 Lessons in Organizational Ethics from the Columbia Disaster: Can a Culture be Lethal? RICHARD O. MASON ‘‘Houston We Have a Problem.’’ A Message Never Sent or Received. On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia, on its way to its landing site in Florida, blew apart in the skies of East Texas. Its seven-member crew perished. The $2 billion ship was lost; some destruction occurred on the ground, and considerable cost was incurred to recover debris scattered over several states. The disaster sounded an eerie echo from the past. Seventeen years earlier the shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds into flight due to an O-ring malfunction. All seven crewmembers were also lost. And, about 11 years before that, the cabin of Apollo 1 burst into flames on its pad. Three crewmembers were killed. Within a day, as NASA policy requires, an internal investigation team of six ex officio members was formed. Harold Gehman Jr., a retired admiral who was NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, was appointed to chair it. A veteran of several military investigations, including the bombing of the U.S. Cole, Gehman, in an initially unpopular move, broadened the inquiry to include the agency’s organization, history and culture. Sean O’Keefe, NASA’s administrator, was incensed that the investigation would reach beyond the confines of the shuttle project alone, and his relations with Gehman became strained and stiff. Based on his experience, however...
Words: 8824 - Pages: 36
...English 101: College Composition 14 May 2015 The Columbia STS-107 Disaster: Why Did It Happen and Why Wasn’t It Prevented? At 9 a.m. on February 1st 2003 NASA’s (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Space Shuttle, Columbia STS-107 disintegrated over the southern United States upon re-entry. There was some controversy surrounded this disaster, mainly how the Mission Management Team (MMT) (leader, Linda Ham handled the entire situation. Could this disaster been prevented? NASA could have prevented the issue with all the new age technology that they posses. How are teams like Debris Assessment Team (DAT) and MMT prepared now to take action against problems that arise in the future? This disaster should not have occurred but it did, why did it? Who is responsible? Will it happen again? If more time was spend of trying to rectify the issue before it got out of hand, maybe the crew of the Columbia would have landed safely as it was supposed to. The space shuttle Columbia STS-107 launched on January 16, 2003 from Kennedy Space Center. During the launch a briefcase-size chunk of foam insulation fell away from a bi-pod ramp on the ships external tank 81.7 seconds after liftoff (Harwood). The foam chunk with velocity smashed a hole in one of the protective shields panels that make up the left wing leading edge. Photos and video shows this happening very clearly. What you cannot see is where the foam actually hit. The only thing that is visible is when the foam explodes...
Words: 1942 - Pages: 8
...Columbia Space Shuttle Simulation (LINDA HAM) 1. How would you characterize the culture of NASA? What are its strengths and weaknesses? NASA was created in 1958 to give the United States of America a position in the “space race” after the Soviet Union launched the satellite “Sputnik” into orbit. The goal of NASA was to put a man into orbit before any other country and shortly after that was completed, the new goal was to put a man on the moon. NASA gained recognition from all over the world for it’s success in space exploration but soon, the pressure from the government caused changes would lead to major problems. Culture can be defined as, “a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization.” During the time of the Columbia Mission I believe NASA’s culture was very static meaning it hadn’t changed in a long time. NASA’s culture focused on major values such as, safety, schedule efficiency, integrity, and communication. But out of these values, schedule efficiency took precedence over the others, which led to disaster. There are many strengths and weaknesses of NASA’s culture but the weaknesses caused the organization to become counterproductive in the long run. The strengths of NASA’s culture are that the organization has a very “can-do” attitude when it comes to task achievement, they have a legacy of excellence and technological advancement, the organization is bureaucratic, and there is a strong sense of pride and teamwork at NASA. There...
Words: 3056 - Pages: 13
...Discuss the changes that NASA implemented after the Challenger disaster Really developing an organization consist of finding needs for change within an organization. It is also the time to quickly grasp the nature of the organization, identify the appropriate decision maker, and build a trusting relationship. The next step is the . Start-up and contracting. In this step, a company identify critical success factors and the real issues, link into the organization's culture and processes, and clarify roles for the consultant(s) and employees. This is also the time to deal with resistance within the organization. A formal or informal contract will define the change process. 3. Assessment and diagnosis. In this case the president needed to sit down and process their main issues in order to avoid another strike.(Grusenmeyer,2009) The Challenger disaster occurred in the first moments of launch on an unusually cold January 28, 1986. Because of the cold weather, an O-ring seal between SRB segments leaked hot combustion gas, which quickly triggered the explosion that destroyed the vehicle. The dynamics of launch cause the joints between SRB segments to flex, and to prevent leaks the O-rings must be resilient enough to "follow" this flexure and maintain their seal. The cold O-rings were too stiff to follow the joint flexure. (Coffey 2010)The Columbia disaster culminated during reentry on February 1, 2003, after completion of the mission's on-orbit tasks. During launch the external...
Words: 1666 - Pages: 7
...On the 1st February 2003, a critical systems failure on the space shuttle Columbia on its re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere. This caused the disintegration of the shuttle leading to the death of all seven crew members. 1. Describe NASA's apparent approach to risk management after Challenger but before Columbia. On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger broke apart in 76 seconds after launch, killing all of its 7 crew members. On the day of launch engineers were concerned that the temperature was too low to launch (-2.2 C lowest launch temperatures recorded) and that there was too much ice on the shuttle. O-rings would not perform correctly at this temperature. NASA management was told of this issue but it was deemed an acceptable risk and launch went ahead. After the incident, a new safety office was created to allow better communication and risk assessment. NASA’s apparent approach to risk management at this time was probable risk management1. For the space shuttle, linear analysis might be sufficient between probability, impact, and frequency2, with probability addressing how likely the risk event or condition is to occur, impact detailing the extent of what could happen if the risk materialized, and frequency meaning likelihood of occurrence of an event whose values lie between zero and one. 2. What additional risk measures would you recommend to NASA? Justify your recommendations? Firstly, NASA may need to change the organizational attitude...
Words: 613 - Pages: 3
...Module 4 Discussion Questions Answer each of the following question with a substantive response. A substantive response is one that: 1) is a minimum of 125 words, 2) is a thoughtful and thorough response to all aspects of the question, 3) accurately applies information from the course material, and 4) utilizes appropriate grammar. You will be graded based upon length and grammar, your insight into the issue addressed, and demonstration of knowledge of the course material as found in the book and elsewhere. Please check the formatting before submitting your response. 1. Read the following scenario: Is there an ethical issue here? How should she act in this situation? How can she convince the marketers? Be sure to explicitly apply the rules of ethical decision-making in determining your answer. “A marketing team presents a children's cereal brand manager with a ‘Less Sugar’ ad campaign for three of her brands. Large print and dynamic type on the package exclaiming ‘75% LESS SUGAR’ will catch the parent’s eye and increase sales. Concerned about their children’s weight gain, parents will purchase the cereal. The carbohydrate content of the less sugar product, however, is the same as high sugar version, at best only10 fewer calories per bowl, so it offers no weight loss advantage. The brand manager’s immediate reaction is ‘This marketing campaign is unethical.’” (Hamilton, J.A., 2009). Yes there is an ethical issue in this scenario. The marketing team is advertising...
Words: 759 - Pages: 4
...communication is not to speak, but to be clearly understood. This saying can directly define what happened during the NASA Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. There are many things that contributed to those shuttle disasters; communication however played a substantial role in both. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the result of a number of things going wrong. The o-rings that were used on the solid rocket boosters seem to be the determining factor. Many Morton Thiokol engineers were worried that the o-rings would not perform well in low temperatures. They were not certain that the o-rings were going to work efficiently enough to have a successful launch. They attempted to escalate these concerns to upper management but without supported data nothing was done. Management continued the launch which resulted in the Space Shuttle Challenger crew losing their lives with complete loss of the shuttle. February 1, 2003, NASA saw another tragedy unfold because of erroneous communication. Columbia Shuttle flight 107 exploded after re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere. Part of the foam insulation that was used on the shuttle hit the left wing, damaging the Shuttle’s thermal system. While re-entering the earth’s atmosphere the thermal system experienced a lot of heat buildup and this caused the shuttle to explode. An investigation by the Columbia Accident Investigation determined that some engineers had doubts about the foam and tile used during launch. Since these areas...
Words: 706 - Pages: 3
...Underlying Cause(s) Superficially, the Columbia space shuttle explosion was caused by critical damage to the Orbiter sustained during launch. Upon ascent, a piece of insulating foam separated from the external fuel tank’s bipod ramp and struck the Orbiter’s left wing, causing a buildup of atmospheric gas in the wing. Which upon reentry compromised the Orbiter’s structural integrity. In-depth analysis of pre-launch decision-making revealed that NASA’s strict flight schedule placed unrealistic time pressures on the management team and engineers. The team was tasked with five launches in one year. As a result, they were constantly looking ahead to the next flight instead of focusing their full attention on the current flight, its mission, and its safe return. The pressure created a mindset that disregarded all concerns. A more realistic time schedule would have remedied this. After all, defying gravity takes time....
Words: 1402 - Pages: 6
...remarkable life and career. He spoke about his determination to become a naval aviator and a NASA astronaut despite several set-backs and his wife Gabrielle's undaunted will to recover from her injuries following an assassination attempt in January 2011. Kelly flew 39 combat missions from the USS Midway during Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf. In 1996 he and his twin brother Scott were selected by NASA to be shuttle pilots, the realization of a life-long dream for both of them. Capt. Kelly spent more than 50 days in space, finally culminating in his retirement in June 2011. Kelly’s wife, Rep. Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords had been shot in an attempted assassination in Tucson, Ariz. During the days, weeks, and months following that event Kelly carefully and methodically managed the aftermath, first caring for his wife and then arranging for her long-term rehabilitation. Rep. Giffords recovered so well that Capt. Kelly was able to return to commanding space shuttle missions until his retirement. He is distinguished for having commanded the last flight of the space shuttle Endeavor. During his presentation, Kelly said, “When I first met her [Giffords] I thought she was 10 women. She was the CEO of her family’s company, and a State Senator. She never did anything the easy way. While she was...
Words: 748 - Pages: 3
...team presents a children's cereal brand manager with a ‘Less Sugar’ ad campaign for three of her brands. Large print and dynamic type on the package exclaiming ‘75% LESS SUGAR’ will catch the parent’s eye and increase sales. Concerned about their children’s weight gain, parents will purchase the cereal. The carbohydrate content of the less sugar product, however, is the same as high sugar version, at best only10 fewer calories per bowl, so it offers no weight loss advantage. The brand manager’s immediate reaction is ‘This marketing campaign is unethical.’” (Hamilton, J.A., 2009). 2. Watch the video on the 2003 Columbia Space Shuttle disaster on the textbook website: http://www.mhhe.com/business/management/videos/NBC/Flash/NBC_Columbia_Space_Shuttle_Disaster.html . [You may also wish to research the 2003 Columbia disaster and the 1986 Challenger disaster for a complete picture]. Then, answer the following question using the terminology and concepts from the course: What seems to be the major decision-making problem(s) facing NASA? What types of...
Words: 347 - Pages: 2
...The 900 kilogram mars rover Curiosity took damage to its aluminum wheels back some during a mission in 2013. The rocks on mars are sharp and dangerous, showing that they can even break apart the wheels. These rocks plus the harsh winds and dust storms, the Curiosity would be in deep in trouble. However, using smaller robots, different technology and new tactics we can see why and how these wheels broke, and how we can fix them. It could be because of the wheel pattern and design, a fatal design flaw or just as simple as the thickness of that aluminum tire. Every wheel on the rover has one dedicated motor for itself and can turn a full 360 degrees with six wheels in total. The two wheels on the front of the rover can turn in this very way. At its top speed, the Curiosity rover can travel up to fourteen centimeters per second, very slow, but speed is not want NASA wants. Its needs to be resistant against rocks, sharp rocks, sadly it failed at this task. Although Curiosity can overcome obstacles as high as sixty-five centimeters high. The wheels are designed to be flat all around with triangular wavy grips making the rover stable enough to drive carefully without tipping over and breaking, or just getting stuck so the rover is a sitting duck. They must also be lightweight, since the heavy overall structure of the rover. These wheels on Curiosity are made of aluminum, and are fifty point eight centimeters in diameter and to some look kind of thin. At its thinnest point of point seventy-five...
Words: 1217 - Pages: 5
...TUI Module 5 – Case Resistance to Change- Columbia Tragedy Ronald Kroetsch 22 July 2014 Dr. McNaughton Resistance to Change: Overcoming Individual and Structural On 1st February, 2003, the Columbia space shuttle was expected to make its way back on earth without any mishaps. However, this never happened because the shuttle broke apart in the Texas skies. NASA had eagerly waited for the Columbia to bring back various important research results after completing its 16 day mission in space. NASA has faced three major crises that are well documented and accessible to the public. The first tragedy took place in 1967 involving the Apollo 1 Spacecraft. In 1986, exactly after two decades, the Challenger space shuttle tragically exploded off the Florida coast. The most worrying trend is that NASA has a well-documented history about the accidents and it was expected that they would have learned something from the previous crises. NASA has totally undermined its credibility with resistance to change. The Columbia mishap can be attributed to resistance to change the individual and structural culture of the organization. Individual and organizational sources of resistance The loss of lives and disintegration of the Columbia shuttle can be traced to the resistance of the NASA leaders to change. The cause of this accident can partly draw its roots to the policy environment that followed the turbulent post-Cold War era. In the period between 1960s and early 1980s, both the Soviet...
Words: 1474 - Pages: 6
... judgments, and experiences (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). In analyzing and comparing the characters and events in the movie, Armageddon, one sees many of the elements of a high performance team such as problem solving, goal setting, conflict resolution, and team dynamics. The traits of a leader were also visible through Bruce Willis’s character Harry Stamper. Hackman (2002) states that a leader must possess two critical skills; the first is skill in diagnosis and second skill in execution. Characteristics of a high performance team are evident throughout the movie. Armageddon is an action adventure film in which a meteor the size of Texas is careening towards the earth. NASA scientists discover it after a meteor shower destroys the Space Shuttle Atlantis, killing the entire crew. They only have 18 days before the asteroid destroys the earth. NASA devises a plan to insert a nuclear bomb 800 feet inside the asteroid, when detonated, will split the asteroid into two pieces that will safely fly past the Earth. Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis) is asked by NASA to help because he is considered the best deep sea oil driller in the world. After learning the details Harry tells NASA officials that the only way he will go on this mission is if he assembles his own team. According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993) there are three types of skills necessary to build a high-performance team and they are 1) technical and functional, 2) problem-solving, and 3) interpersonal. The team that Harry assembles...
Words: 1141 - Pages: 5
