Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster - Case Study Example

Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster Name and ID Course Name & Code Instructor’s Name 16 December 2009 Introduction Advancement of technology has resulted in human beings looking for new ventures that they can maximise their technological potential and derive the benefits that are associated. An example of technological exploration that scientists and researchers have been associated with is the space exploration. Space exploration is utilising space technology to explore the outer space, an approach that is conducted by humans’ spaceflights and robotic spacecraft. The idea of shuttle design has been developed even before inception of NASA. NASA is an important organisation that explores space exploration. Sometimes, in any technology advancement, numerous threats, risks and drawbacks are associated with incorporating technology and requirements of human beings. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster that occurred on February 1, 20031. The space shuttle disintegrated over Texas when it tried to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere leading to the death of seven crewmembers onboard. Some known space accidents are shown in the table2 Year Date/ Spacecraft Cause/Consequence 1967 Jan 27, Apollo 1 There was fire on the space capsule resulting in the death of astronauts April 23-24 Soyuz 1 Craft crashed after its parachute lines became snarled 1971 June 6-30, Soyuz 11 Deaths if three cosmonauts attributed to loss of pressurisation after the craft automatically landed 1980 March 18, USSR Fifty people were killed when Vostok rocket exploded while it was been fuelled 1986 Jan. 28 Challenger Space Shuttle It explored after take off killing the seven-crew members. The accident was attributed to a booster leak that ignited the fuel resulting in the explosion 2003 Feb. 1 Columbia Space Shuttle The spacecraft broke up after re-entering the atmosphere. A factor that is attributed to foam insulation that broke off during launch, which then damaged the left wing. Thus, on re-entry hot gases entered the wing through the broken foam location that lead to disintegration of the shuttle. History of Columbia Space Shuttle In 1975, the construction of Columbia began at the Rockwell International, which is currently known as Boeing North America. The name of the spacecraft was based on sloop Columbia that was captained by Robert Gray, who was able to explore the Pacific Northwest. It became the first vessel that was able to circumnavigate the world; the same name is used in the Command Module of Apollo 11, which was the first manned vessel that successfully landed on another celestial body. After the construction of the shuttle, the Orbiter then arrived on March 25, 1979 at the John F. Kennedy Space Centre to be prepared for its first lift off. The first internal incident occurred on March 19, 1981 in which two workers were asphyxiated (because of nitrogen purge) when they were preparing for a ground tests3. Columbia first flight was commanded by John Young who was the ninth person to step on the moon, was piloted by Robert Crippen, an astronaut who initially was supposed to fly on Manned Orbiting Laboratory, and also had initially served as a support crewmember for the Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab missions. Its first successful launch was on April 12, 1981 and returned on April 14, 1981 after it orbited the Earth 36 times and it landed at the Edwards Air Force Base in California4. The shuttle was tested to determine its technical characteristics and performance, and its first operational mission took place on November 11, 1982. In 1983, undertook its second operational mission and it was its sixth spaceflight, in which the first Spacelab science laboratory was carried. For the next three years, Columbia was modified introducing new Orbiter specifications. It returned to space on January 12, 1986. Generally, the shuttle was able to fly 27 times before been destroyed in its 28th mission on February 1, 2003, and the incident killed all seven crewmembers. Organisation Involvement National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) control the development and research of any space program. National Aeronautics and Space Act that re-established this organisation on July 29, 1958 had replaced the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The agency then started operating on October 1, 1958. NASA an agency of United States government has explored the moon through missions of Apollo, Space Shuttle and Skylab Space Station. Apart from space program, NASA is exploring long-term military and civilian aerospace research. NASA has successfully completed 150 manned missions famous of which are Apollo II, and Space Shuttle Program. However, NASA has experienced setbacks and loss especially on the three major accidents, which are challenger, Space Shuttles and Columbia. Columbia Space accident that occurred in 2003 illustrates numerous organisational causes that are rooted in the culture and history of the Space Shuttle Program. Some of these causes may be attributed to resource constraints, original compromises that were required before any approval, schedule pressures, fluctuating priorities, lack of agreed framework for human space flight and mischaracterisation of the shuttle as operational rather than developmental. Moreover, organisational practices and cultural traits detrimental to the safety developed without the organisation employing appropriate corrective measures. These detrimental factors include organisational barriers such as those prevented effective communication and thus critical safety information was not shared and hence stifled professional differences, depending on past success rather than championing good engineering practices, for example, they did not tests systems in accordance with the requirements. Moreover, command structure that was informal in chain and decision process that was not within the organisation but operated outside the organisation’s rules contributed to weaknesses in managing the organisation. Additionally, the lack of integrated management attributed to complexities on command structure was common across program elements. Accident Analysis The aim of any accident analysis is to try to identify the chain of circumstances that caused the accident such as the Columbia accident5. Analysis of Colombia accident was challenging because the breakup of the Orbiter occurred at hypersonic velocities doubled up with the high altitudes, and the debris was extensively scattered. Collection and analysis of debris provided an opportunity in which the investigators and determine the cause of the accident. Generally, the most common components that controlled to occurrence of the accident include one of the Orbiter’s wings and External Tank6. The physical cause that was attributed to the accident is traced to the breach in the Thermal Protection System on the edge of the left wing. This breach resulted from a piece of insulating foam that separated from the External Tank bibop ramp and then it struck Reinforced Carbon-carbon Panel 8.Thus, during re-entry superheated air penetrated the leading-edge insulation resulting in the melting of the aluminium structure. This physical impact resulted in the weakening of the structure and decreased the aerodynamic forces that resulted in the loss of control, then failure of the wing that resulted in the entire breakup of the Orbiter. The External Tank is the largest component that can be found in the Space Shuttle because it is connected to the Orbiter and the Solid Rocket Boosters, and it also serves as the main structural component during ascent, launch and assembly. It is capable to hold large amounts of liquid oxygen and other elements that are important for the any space exploration7. Sprayed on foam insulation is important in ensuring that ice does not form on the surface of the spacecraft. In this incident, foam is trivial component8. The influence of foam in this incident is a combination of elements or factors that contributed to the loss of the left bipod foam ramp. The External Tank was designed more than 30 years ago in which different engineers developed facets of the design and in isolation relative to other engineers. Technological development has resulted in different facets been completed by single engineers. During the application of foam, it is evident that the engineers experienced numerous application problems because of structurally optimum fitting design. Moreover, foam itself does not have the same composition and it is difficult for it to physically or analytically be analysed. Generally, foam played a major role indirectly in causing the accident9. NASA’s shuttle regulations clearly stipulates that external tank shedding and the subsequent debris strike upon the space shuttle itself postulated some safety issues that were supposed to be resolved before launching was cleared, however, in most instances, engineers allowed lifts off because the engineers had continuously studied the problem without definite success. Numerous incidents of foam strikes during launches have been recorded and the lift offs have continuously accepted and it is generally a violation of safety regulations. Columbia 28th exploration was the 113th space shuttle launch but it had to be delayed eighteen times spanning two years. The delay was attributed to cracks that were found in the shuttle’s propellant distribution system. The entire Colombia disaster is attributed to failure of both technical and organisational requirements10. Cause Effect Diagram Brainstorming In the analysis of any accident, there are factors that may be associated with the accident, and they may include: Evidence of low quality training program Safety and health regulations were ignored Poor maintenance Lack of appropriate education and research approaches Most of the equipments were not fully tested They did not take into consideration the impact of errors and means of rectifying The organisation ignored small programs Poor time management Organisational responsibility & structure Planning Human Beings Machine Materials and Equipments Method and approach Organisational responsibility & structure (5) Inspection (4) Quality assurance (4) Organisational responsibility & structure (5) Poor time management (3) Specifications (3) Poor analysis of errors (5) Inspection (4) Organisation ignored small problems (4) Technical errors (5) Specifications (3) Specifications (3) Poor analysis of errors (5) Safety and health regulations were ignored (3) Evidence of low quality testing (3) Evidence of low quality testing (3) Lack of appropriate education and research (4) Safety and health regulations were ignored(3) Poor time management (3) Quality assurance (4) Lack of appropriate education and research (4) Total (31) (15) (15) (19) Conclusion Technological development is accompanied with numerous threats and risks that may be devastative to human beings. The aim of technology is to aid the way that duties and tasks are accomplished easily but sometimes poses numerous consequences. These consequences include death and loss of property affecting economy, society and environment. Space shuttle disasters are unpredictable and usually disastrous in nature. It results in the loss of many people plus the investment that was put forth. Columbia space shuttle disaster resulted in the death of seven crewmembers and destroyed the entire shuttle. A piece of foam split from the shuttle and the it struck on the external tank that left a space in which when the space shuttle re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere, it resulted in sucking of hot air and thus the space shuttle disintegrated. Some of the factors that contributed to this accident are organisational culture and technological inappropriateness. Decision making, inappropriate and ineffective safety standards, basing decisions of past success rather than on engineering design, and poor maintenance approach. This disaster illustrates the importance of following laid down procedures factoring into consideration professionals views, and ensuring that all team members are involved in formulating and implementing any strategic requirements. Reference Cole, M The Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster: From First Liftoff to Tragic Final Flight. Enslow Publishers, London, 2003. Fahey, H Challenger and Columbia. Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2005. Koestler-Grack, R The Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster. ABDO Daughters, London, 2004. Klerkx, G Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New space Age, Vintage Books, Chicago, 2005. Kerzner, H Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2009. Starbuck W & Farjoun, M Organisation at the Limit: Lessons from the Columbia Disaster. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, 2005. Vogt, G Disasters in Space Exploration. Twenty-First Century Books, New York, 2003. Read More