B______ B_______

UCCA 102.15

Dr. David Dedo

October 16, 1997

The Causes of an American Tragedy

It was a cold and icy morning uncharacteristic of the daybreaks along the coast of Florida. The temperature had fallen to a low of thirty-six degrees Fahrenheit, and in the cold early morning air an imposing beast stood high on the point of Cape Canaveral. This morning of January 28, 1986, was the morning that the world had waited for because this was the morning that the space shuttle Challenger would launch America’s first "teacher-naut," Christa McAuliffe, into space. As the world looked on, the Challenger was launched. Almost 73 seconds into the launch, the shuttle began smoking and exploded. Like all other American tragedies, we who watched will never forget the disaster. The Challenger explosion has been the topic of many television documentaries, newspaper articles, Congressional discussions, and press conferences. This explosion of American dreams was caused by human nature that, combined with technical failings, proved fatal to the seven crew members aboard the space shuttle Challenger.

Most people know only about the technical failings that caused the space shuttle crash, but in actuality, the technical problems stemmed from simple flaws in human nature. Political ambitions have been the cause of many problems in America, and the Challenger disaster is no exception to the rule. Even since the early days of the United States space program, there was a constant race to be first in space in every possible aspect. NASA

B______ 2

had, with the help of the government, set a goal of launching 24 space missions per year. This goal was set with a budget of 1.2 billion dollars per year, but the average cost of one mission was close to 61 billion dollars (United States). Pressure was put on NASA by the government to reduce the costs of space shuttle missions and at the same time increase the rate of missions. Launch schedules for 1986 and in the years prior to 1986 were not met. As a result, government officials began to get antsy and began to put pressure on NASA to get a shuttle up. Pressures to launch a mission caused unsafe procedures in planning for launch. These unsafe procedures would have continued had not the Challenger exploded because NASA’s launch dates were already beginning to overlap. The government overlooked the fact that an increased flight rate put extra demands on the employees and engineers, and in turn, kept these individuals from doing their jobs to the fullest extent. Each shuttle mission in itself was unique, and it was adamant that each be given ample time to meet the special requirements for launch (United States). Mission planning is a long process that is necessary to the success of the mission. Putting personnel on that tight of a schedule was not the answer to the problem of flight scheduling, especially not when these missions dealt with the lives of its crew members.

The rush of the shuttle launch was not only caused by external pressure, but also pressure within the walls of NASA and one of the engineering companies, Rockwell International. Intimidation could have been the answer to why at least one of the personnel did not come forward about the inadequacy of the flight preparations of the shuttle Challenger. Employees of Rockwell knew of a man by the name of Thomas

B______ 3

Baron who worked with the company in the 1961’s. Baron criticized the safety of the mission Apollo I, and he lost his job twenty days before the launch of this misison. The mission, of course, resulted in a crash and the loss of three lives. Baron went before the U.S. House of Representatives to tell his story, and six days after he did so he, his wife, and his children were killed by a train. It was never certain if anyone had had a hand in the death of Baron and his family, but simple speculation was enough in this case. Certainly, all space center and engineering company employees knew of this story, and it was enough to keep them silent regarding the internal affairs of the space program. "When communication is blurred and muffled because of a subordinate’s fear of being sanctioned, then management—and organizations—suffer, and disasters can occur" (Moore 275). Apparently the Challenger explosion is an example of the kind of disasters that can happen.

It seems that the press has played a role in many disasters of the past and of the present. The press put pressure in the right places at the right times and therefore contributed to the launch of the shuttle and subsequent crash. Prior to the actual launch of the Challenger, it was postponed several times. Since the mission Columbia was delayed seven times before it was actually launched on January 12, 1986, the press basically mocked NASA and all of the engineering companies involved with the shuttle program (Moore 277). Peter Jennings was quoted on the news as saying, "Once again a flawless lift-off proved to be too much of a challenge for the Challenger" (Moore 277). NASA, like any other government agency or company, did not want the negative publicity that

B______ 4

members of the press seemed to be giving them. This shuttle mission was supposed to be one to show the American people that space was a frontier for the ordinary American. What better way to show this than by allowing a teacher to become an astronaut. Tireless amounts of energy had gone into positively publicizing this space shuttle mission, and NASA did not need derogatory comments from the media.

Another factor that greatly contributed to the launch of Challenger was the lack of decisiveness of the top engineers of Rockwell. While these engineers shared their concerns with NASA about ice on the launch and cool temperatures, they were not adamant enough about a "no go" to actually stop the launch of the shuttle. Although it is doubtful that ice on the launch pad contributed to the disaster, the launch could have been stopped for even the wrong reason, and disaster would have been avoided. It is reported that Rockwell’s ambassadors to NASA were told to "make sure that NASA understands that Rockwell feels that it is not safe to launch" (Moore 279). Apparently, this idea got lost somewhere in the attempt to be diplomatic. It was hard for Rockwell to tell NASA what they did not want to hear. Instead of simply a yes or no answer, the representatives who met with Arnold Aldrich, who was in charge of launch, tried too hard to incorporate politeness into their advice of a "no go" and therefore did not get the point across to NASA officials.

Investigators of the shuttle disaster claim that it was obvious throughout the pre-launch activities that there were technical problems with the space shuttle Challenger. The problem of the technical difficulties arose when officials failed to deal with situations

B______ 5

properly. NASA and the engineering company Thiokol took a huge risk in launching a space shuttle that was not properly prepared. Investigations of the crash concluded that O-ring erosion had been a problem in previous flights, but nothing tragic had occurred up to this point. Commissioner Feynman in the Presidential report of the disaster, was quoted as saying that NASA and Thiokol’s mind sets were one of "we can lower our standards a little bit because we got away with it last time" (Report). It seems that this faulty design was chosen to be "treated (it) as an acceptable flight risk" (Report).

The Challenger’s technical problems began with flaws in the joint of the Solid Rocket Booster. Morton Thiokol, Incorporated, was the company responsible for the engineering and design of the space shuttle, and the findings of the investigators of the explosion revealed that there were faults in the construction of the shuttle’s O-rings and the joints. O-rings bridge the gap between two vital parts of the shuttle, the tang and the clevis. Part of the problem of the Challenger’s O-rings was the fact that they did not withstand the extreme cold well. O-rings were made to expand and contract, and the fact that these particular O-rings did not expand to fit the gap properly contributed to the explosion of the shuttle. The Presidential Commission’s investigation found that "a compressed O-ring at seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit is five times more responsive in returning to its uncompressed shape than a cold O-ring at thirty degrees Fahrenheit." Despite the fact that "O-ring resiliency is directly related to temperature" and the temperature at Cape Canaveral was considerably low on January 28, 1986, the shuttle was still launched, and in result, seven lives were taken (Report).

B______ 6

Approximately 2.733 seconds into the launch of the Challenger, black smoke was seen coming from near the right joint of the Solid Rocket Booster (Report). Because the O-rings failed to conform to the gap between the clevis and the tang, hot hydrogen gases leaked and burned the putty surrounding the O-rings and the O-rings themselves. This smoke was the first sign to the rest of the world that there were problems with the space shuttle Challenger.

The Challenger disaster was caused by many different factors including faulty O-ring and joint design on the shuttle, intimidation within the companies and agencies involved, Rockwell’s failure to stand up to NASA, and press and political pressure. All of these combined to contribute to a disaster that took the lives of seven American heroes. Maybe it was not only the lives of the astronauts that were lost in the sky above Cape Canaveral that day, but also a little bit of America’s faith in systems and the powers that be.

Works Cited

Moore, Patrick. "When Politeness Is Fatal—Technical Communications and the

Challenger Accident." Journal of Business and Technical Communication. Vol. 6

No. 3 1992: 269-291.

"Report of the Presidential Commission of the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident." U.S.

Government Printing Office: 1986.

United States. Natl. House Reports. Investigation of the Challenger Accident.

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.