Even though there were many factors contributing to the Challenger disaster, the most important issue was the lack of an effective risk management plan. The factors leading to the Challenger disaster are:
• Lack of authority and direction at NASA: The agency did not have a permanent administrator for almost four months and there was a high turnover rate among the high level management employees.
• Lack of support from the Democratic Congress: To effectively complete any type of project, time and money are very important in order to solve any project risks. There was limited funding due to budgetary cuts and no support from the Democratic Congress.
• Political pressure: Due to the limited funding and political pressure, NASA had to make many
…show more content…
This turned out to be a serious safety hazard with the expected loss of life. But they labelled it as an Acceptable risk, instead of finding a solution.
• Lack of proper risk management process: NASA was using a simple risk classification system and the methods used were only qualitative. There was a lack of proper technical and quantitative risk management methods that could have helped them identify the risks and eliminate them.
• Teleconferencing most of the meetings: In high risk and magnitude projects like the space shuttle program, most of the important decision makers and workers such as the project managers and the contractors should be co-located. However, most of the meetings were virtual and there was poor communication between the personnel.
• Unrealistic schedule promises: As this program was a Teacher in space program, there was a lot of attention given to the program. NASA was promising unrealistic schedules, even with numerous space shuttle issues.
• Ineffective Flight Readiness Review meetings: The reviews were not conducted properly and issues were ignored in the FRR
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was booming in the late 1960 's because the U.S. invested over 4.5 percent of the Federal Budget (Bolden). Unfortunately, in the recent years the Government has slashed funding for many of NASA’s projects in an attempt to cut back on the deficit and boost the economy. Despite the plummet in NASA 's budget, the program has proved that it 's prominence in the U.S., space programs like NASA continue to face difficulty in increasing its funds. Although, NASA leads Evidently, the government doesn 't think NASA is worth more than 0.47 percent of the federal budget. NASA is being underfunded and its funding should be substantially increased to make ends meet. This trend needs
An article on NASA's website shows me a testimony by NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, who spoke before the U.S. House of Representative's subcommittee after the NASA budget received an eleven-percent reduction in funding. Mr. Goldin feels outrage that the space program would be expected to function on such restricted funding. Goldin states this kind of cut would "gut space exploration." With closures of NASA centers and significant layoffs, Mr. Goldin predicts this budget cut will affect employee morale. Mr. Goldin poignantly states, "Perhaps most sadly, we will lose the opportunity to inspire a future generation of children." (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/Goldin/2000/testimony) Goldin's issue is the reduction in his budget. In my experience with budgets, reduction of the budget means, Goldin and his team are going to have to cut costs. Reading between the lines of his argument, I presume the eleven-percent are costs he does not want to cut. It must be his beli...
It took NASA a couple years to resume its flight to orbit. The catastrophe of the space shuttle challenger shook them up and have rethink their procedures and methods of operation. NASA, improve or I should say worked on developing its shuttle management structure, its shuttle safety panel, critical review and hazard policy, communication, safety organization and many more.
NASA has faced many tragedies during their time; but one can question if two of the tragedies were preventable by changing some critical decisions made by the organization. The investigation board looking at the decisions made for the space shuttle tragedies of the Columbia and Challenger noted that the “loss resulted as much from organizational as from technical failures” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 191). The two space shuttle tragedies were about twenty years apart, they both had technical failures but politics also played a factor in to these two tragedies.
Some of the factors that contributed to the crash include pilot’s error, Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Cockpit Resource Management (CRM).
The Challenger disaster of 1986 was a shock felt around the country. During liftoff, the shuttle exploded, creating a fireball in the sky. The seven astronauts on board were killed and the shuttle was obliterated. Immediately after the catastrophe, blame was spread to various people who were in charge of creating the shuttle and the parts of the shuttle itself. The Presidential Commission was decisive in blaming the disaster on a faulty O-ring, used to connect the pieces of the craft. On the other hand, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, in The Golem at Large, believe that blame cannot be isolated to any person or reason of failure. The authors prove that there are too many factors to decide concretely as to why the Challenger exploded. Collins and Pinch do believe that it was the organizational culture of NASA and Morton Thiokol that allowed the disaster. While NASA and Thiokol were deciding whether to launch, there was not a concrete reason to postpone the mission.
It’s very hard to say what steps, if any, could have been taken to prevent the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster from occurring. When mankind continues to “push the envelope” in the interest of bettering humanity, there will always be risks. In the manned spaceflight business, we have always had to live with trade-offs. All programs do not carry equal risk nor do they offer the same benefits. The acceptable risk for a given program or operation should be worth the potential benefits to be gained. The goal should be a management system that puts safety first, but not safety at any price. As of Sept 7th, 2003, NASA has ordered extensive factory inspections of wing panels between flights that could add as much as three months to the time it takes to prepare a space shuttle orbiter for launch. NASA does all it can to safely bring its astronauts back to earth, but as stated earlier, risks are expected.
Before President Kennedy’s 1961 speech funding for the Apollo program was less than 1 percent of NASA’s total budget. In the years following his speech Apollo’s share of the budget grew to 70 percent. Without that income it would not have been possible for NASA scientists and engineers, contractors and the entire country to put in the hours and energy to make this dream a reality.
Two tragic incidents, the Challenger Space Shuttle crash of 1986, and the Three Mile Island near meltdown of 1979, have greatly devastated our nation. Both these disasters involved failures of communication among ordinary professional people, working in largely bureaucratic companies. Two memos called the “Smoking Gun Memos,” authored by R. M. Boisjoly, of Morton Thiokol, and D. F. Hallman, of Babcook and Wilcox, will always be associated these two incidents. Unfortunately, neither of these memos were successful in preventing the accidents of the Challenger and the Three Mile Island near meltdown.
There was so many costs when it came to accomplish this goal. J.F.K had said “No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” He was right, there would be all sorts of expenses/costs such as time/effort, loss of life , or beating the soviet union in the space race, and lastly money . This program
The United States of America currently faces a predicament. The country appears divided when it comes to the dispute over the continuation of the great space race. Ever since NASA began, the association has made tremendous strides in the exploration of space. Established on October 1, 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration began operation. The administration is an executive branch agency responsible for the United States’ civilian space program and aeronautics and aerospace research. The mission statement of NASA is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research” (NASA). President John F. Kennedy continued President Eisenhower’s
Before we look at the images of managing change that were present in the NASA case study let us review a few of the key events in this case study. The case study for this assignment looks at Challenger and Columbia NASA space shuttle disasters and the commission findings on the disasters/recommendations. Now with a short review of the case study what image(s) of change are present in the case study? From the case study the changes introduced are images of managing. These changes are both management of control and shaping. As NASA recovered from the 1986 Challenger disaster, it used the classic Fayol characterization of management such as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling to correct from the top-down the issues that had caused the Challenger disaster (Palmer Dunford, Akin, pg.24, 2009). NASA approached the changes that need to be enacted as a result of the Challenger and also the Columbia disasters from the change image of a director. NASA ...
The challenges of change implementation are employee resistance, communication gaps, lack of proper planning, no contingency plan alternatives and not getting all the relevant people and stakeholders involved. Within this case study the main challenges were around the lack of proper planning by NASA. In addition, other challenges face was the fact that there was a lack of consensus and communication which is an in house problem of NASA. NASA tried its best to implement changes in order to make safety, reliability, and management stronger, but it did not work out due to the resistance to change. Although NASA had deputed people to quality assurance functions, safety changes were not properly implemented. The safety breach
The history behind the quick development of the space program has always been a little bit hazy and is unbeknownst to most...
There was a huge and a high pressure government project which had to be completed in a short span of time. It had several teams associated with different