NASA Challenger Disaster - Essay Example

Insert your name here Year: 2008 Title: NASA Challenger Disaster: Crisis Management By: Michael Wacheke Date: 4th November 2008 The NASA space shuttle, Challenger was involved in a disaster on the 28th January 1986 and it killed seven crew members. This is a great case study of disaster management mostly because there are many lessons that are learnt from the disaster. The space shuttle exploded 73 seconds after it was launched and there were speculations that there were certain issues that were not cleared by the time of launch and these are to blame for the tragedy. The crisis was mainly as result of ignorance by the authorities involved in ensuring that the space shuttle was in a good condition for flight. For the Challenger disaster, the crisis could not have been managed after the launch of the flight since it was almost impossible to stop the craft midair. If the problem had been detected in time to save the situation, at least the crew would have managed but coping with the crisis and planning different strategies that would have enabled them to move on despite the crisis they were facing (About.com). A flight problem for a space shuttle mainly happens when the weather conditions do not favour the flight. These include low temperatures and also faulty tracking and navigator systems as well as detectors. Any system failure in the shuttle may cause a disaster since when one system fails, it is impossible to predict the problems that are caused without it. The ways of dealing with crisis are mainly dependent of the magnitude of the crisis and the time of discovery that there is a problem. If a crisis is detected early enough, it may be managed by coping with the current conditions that are characterizing the conditions. This could be a slight deviation from the route for a spacecraft but in most cases the problems of space shuttles are mainly faulty systems. These ones are managed by getting rid of the faulty system by putting it off. Managing a crisis needs a plan of action to ensure that every action that is done is for the good of the situation and this is mainly done by a specialist who has been working with the system for along time and they are experienced with the systems (Oberg 2006). The crisis was a slow onset since there were the delays that characterized the launch. The first lift off was supposed to at 3:43 pm EST on the 22nd of January but it was postponed to January 23rd and then it moved to January 24th. The delays in the mission 61-C, lift was rescheduled to the 25th of January. All this time it was problems that were causing the postponing of the flights. The problems that were causing the delays were mainly, bad weather in Dakar, Senegal at the transoceanic abort landing, failure to meet the morning launch time and the last problem that characterized the delays was the immovable service equipment on the ground that was the fixture that was used to close the hatch. It could not be lifted off the orbiter hatch. The astronauts had to wait for the fixture to be cut with a saw and for the bolt that attached the hatch to be drilled out before they were set to lift off. As all this was taking place, the astronauts were unaware that the crosswinds were increasing in intensity at the landing facility of the shuttle at the Kennedy Space Centre. There was a failure in the hardware interface module that is the main fire detection system. This was two hours before lift off and it happened when the procedures of liquid hydrogen tanking were taking place. All these problems could have sent a signal to the management that the challenger was not ready to set off. There was pressure from [politicians in the white house who wanted the challenger to be proof of safe space flight s and they were sending a space teacher along with the crew and this was making the NASA management uneasy and they had to launch the space craft whatsoever. This was the main reason why they decided that they could launch the Challenger when the temperature was colder than any other launch temperature that had taken place prior to the challenger (About.com). The crisis was mainly triggered by the rising of many problems that were not favouring the lift off of the space craft. From the discoveries that there were no favourable weather conditions to the erosion of the O-Ring, all these events added to the causes of the tragedy. There was a series of breakdowns in the communication systems between the engineers and the NASA staff. As the communication hitches caused delays, the weather conditions were becoming worse each day and at the time of launch, the temperature was low as described by the engineers and therefore it was unfit for liftoff. The delays were causing pressure among the staff at NASA and the media was becoming suspicious as to the success of the launch of the Challenger (Elix). The only trigger event that was noted from the untimely explosion was a large puff of black and grey smoke that was coming from the right solid rocket booster 58 seconds after lift-off. The other trigger events that raised suspicions about the disaster were the previous delays that were mainly blamed on the unfavourable weather conditions (Youtube). The O-ring erosion was visible even when the Hydrogen was being charged into the shuttle and this many of the post disaster blames to be pointed at the NASA management that was on duty at the time of the disaster. After liftoff, the black smoke showed that there was a leak also in the grease reservoir and there were other leakages on the connection of the lower rocket sections on the right and this was discovered to be the major cause of the disaster (Elix). The management played a major role in the crisis since they knew that the space shuttle was not fit to fly based on the advice of the engineers and there were the internal problems that were known like the O-ring erosions and the fire monitor failure. The engineered failed on their servicing part since they would have ensured that the shuttle had no fault at all since it had been involved in other space journeys. The NASA family was well aware that the temperatures at which lift off was done were well below any other launch temperatures and this had even caused a dispute between them and the contract engineers. The politicians at The White House and the media were to blame for the external pressure that made NASA hasten the launch of the Challenger (Panse 2007). The management allowed lift off of the Challenger were the people who were in charge of making the decisions of when to launch the space shuttle and since they gave the astronauts a go ahead; they made the wrong decisions that lead to the disaster. The NASA management was aimed at making the Americans happy for being the first nation to take a teacher to space. They were inconsiderate of the other conditions that were affected the launching of the space shuttle. The voices of the politicians and their anxiousness made the NASA management to work against time and within deadlines and they had to release the shuttle before the temperatures had raised enough to make it favourable for liftoff. The management’s argument was mainly based on the fact that the space shuttle had been involved in other voyages and therefore some of the problems it had when it was going for the other missions could be ignored since they had no effect earlier on (Elix). The management responded to the crisis by sending out 22 ships to the Atlantic Ocean to gather the debris and there were investigations that were done and these were aimed at collecting all the information they could get. The management learnt lessons from the Challenger that before any launch of a space shuttle they had to be sure that every condition was favouring the flight and this was the only way they could avoid other accidents (Domoulin 2001). The steps that were taken to limit the crisis were mainly the delays but some of the delays were not due to the bad weather but due to the failure on the side of the NASA management to keep time. There were no major steps that were taken to limit the crisis. This was a major indicator that there were many assumptions that since the space shuttle had been involved in other successful journeys, this too would have been successful (Barelett School 2000). There were various problems that characterized the challenger disaster and these include: A poor weather condition since at the time of lift off the temperature was 36 degrees Fahrenheit and this was 15 degrees colder than any other temperature of launch. The engineers expressed their concern about the cold conditions but the NASA managers still allowed the flight to launch. Poor preparation strategies that were mainly due to assumptions that the shuttle was fine since it had been through other successful missions. The people who were in charge of the preparation just did the routine checks and the ignored the extensive checks and this was why there was a failure in some of the systems like the fire detectors. It was known even before the flight that there was an O-ring erosion problem in the shuttle but this too was ignored (Elix). The major decisions for the Launch were made by the NASA managers and the engineers were mainly concerned with decisions that involved their specific sections of work. The engineers’ decisions had to pass through the NASA Family for approval and this is the reason why their recommendations were assumed and the liftoff was allowed by the NASA managers. The engineers had detected that the weather was not right for the launch of the shuttle but the managers ignored their speculations and they allowed lift off even with the unfavourable conditions (Asktog). Most of the events that were leading to the accident show that there were disputes about launching the space shuttle and these began from the politicians to the outside engineers to the NASA family and the media. All these forces that were pressuring for the launch of the Challenger made the engineers to overlook some of the faults like the O-ring overflow in the booster rocket and the NASA management was particularly ignorant of the weather. Perhaps it was because the space shuttle was meant to be the pioneer of the space lessons and this was a reason why most of the people in the United States were ambitious about the launch. After the launch, the smoke on the right rocket booster would have indicated that the O-ring erosion was the cause of the accident but again the weather condition was not favourable at all. Most of the engineers who were involved had warned that the temperature was not favourable for liftoff. The external tank failure also contributed to the accident since the spillage of the liquid hydrogen was the major cause of the explosion (Domoulin 2001). In conclusion, the Challenger Space Shuttle was not prevented form the crisis since most of the reports have shown that there was a problem in the connection of the right sections of the wing where there was the outbreak of smoke and later fore after the liftoff. The management also played a role in allowing the launch to take place when the temperatures were very low and this too was a contribution to the disaster. Since after the disaster most of the debris had been devastated by the fire, there was very little to be salvaged and therefore there was no much procedural work done after the disaster. The system failures in the shuttle would have relayed signals to the engineers and to the managers that the rocket was not fit for voyage. This too was ignored and with all the assumptions, they led to the cause of the disaster. References Steve Elix, The “Challenger Disaster” Available from: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DcfMfEFcTS4J:studenthome.nku.edu/~elixs/pages/~%24allenged2%255B1%255D.doc+Cause+of+challenger+disaster&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ke [1st December 2008] About pages Space shuttle challenge disaster – A NASA tragedy Available from: http://space.about.com/cs/challenger/a/challenger.htm [1st December 2008] Asktog The Challenger An information disaster Available from: http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html [1st December 2008] Bartlett Elementary School 2000 Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Available from: http://library.thinkquest.org/J002040F/space_shuttle_challenger_disaster.htm [1st December 2008] Jim Dumoulin 2001 51L- (25) Available from: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/mission-51-l.html [1st December 2008] Sonal Panse 2007 The Challenger Space Tragedy Available from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/challenger-space-tragedy.html [1st December 2008] James Oberg 2006 7 myths about the Challenger Shuttle Disaster Available from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/ [1st December 2008] Columbia Accident Investigation Board History as Cause: Columbia and Challenger Available from http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:ltjSfH-wG98J:anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/anon.nasa-global/CAIB/CAIB_lowres_chapter8.pdf+Challenger+causes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ke [1st December 2008] R.P. Feynman Personal Observation on the reliability of the shuttle Available from http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html [4th December 2008] Youtube Challenger Disaster live on CNN Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE [4th December 2008] Read More