Failure Analysis: The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster
-
Introduction
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was one of the biggest space flight accidents and the result of a series of engineering failures. The Shuttle disintegrated after launch on its last mission, resulting in the death of its seven crew members. [1] The disaster happened on the Challenger program’s last launch on 28 January, 1986 at launch site Kennedy LC-39B. Later analysis showed that an O-ring, a seal on the right rocket boosted failed which was the cause of the accident. This incident is studied by engineers and organisations to see how effective communications can prevent engineering failures from causing catastrophic damages and how organisational ethics can be improved.
…show more content…
It first launched on 4 April, 1983, and had launched and landed eight more times before breaking apart on its last mission, STS-51-L, on 28 January, 1986. The crew of the STS-51-L mission consisted of commander Francis Scobee, pilot Mike Smith, payload specialists Greg Jarvis and Christa McAuliffe, and mission specialists Judy Resnik, Ellison Onizuka and Ron McNair. [2]
The morning of the launch was exceptionally cold, and warnings were sent by the engineers stating that the rubber O-ring seals were likely to fail at low temperatures. These warning were however ignored by NASA management and the launch proceeded as usual. [3] 72 seconds into the flight, an explosive burning of the hydrogen combined with liquid oxygen leaking from the fuel tank caused the shuttle to disintegrate, and Challenger broke apart 1 second later.
Most sources believe that the initial disintegration of the shuttle wasn’t the main cause of the death of the astronauts, as evidences collected from the wreckage showed that some of the astronauts may have survived when the spacecraft first broke apart. However, none of them survived the impact when the crew cabin fell into the Atlantic Ocean. The crew couldn’t have escaped the spacecraft as there wasn’t a launch escape system, all seven crew members died in the
The shuttle exploded less than two minutes after take-off. What caused the explosion? The cold temperatures caused the o-rings to be affected and a leak from the o-rings on the Challenger caused fuel to ignite. Millions of people and school students stared in shock at what had occurred just before their eyes. Before dying in the accident of the Challenger, Christa McAuliffe would have been the first teacher/civilian, other than astronaut, to fly into space.
In a person’s lifetime, many things can happen including death. In 1986 seven individuals, Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnic, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe, lost their lives doing what they loved most. The tragedy of the shuttle challenger brought much pain to the nation that day. Along with the pain comes grieving. The nation grieved the loss of these seven wonderful individuals and hoped to find peace and comfort for the days to come. As Ronald Reagan prepared to give the state of the union address, things changed for worse, he unexpectedly had to give a speech on a horrific event. Reagan was devastated at the loss of the seven men and women that were on that space shuttle challenger.
Contextual analysis is made up of three basic components; intended audience, setting and most importantly purpose. Authors often times consider and work each contextual piece into the construction of their given argument. An argument is not powerful if audience preference is not a main concern, if the setting isn’t taken into consideration, or if the purpose is not relevant to the current situation. On January 28th, 1986 the shuttle challenger exploded 73 seconds into its take off. President Ronald Reagan wrote a critical speech to address the tragedy that had struck our nation that day. It is highly evident in his address that kept audience, setting, and purpose in mind. He comforts a worried public using calm tone and simple yet effective diction to convince the American nation that it’s necessary to go on and continue the space program and ultimately the scientific revolution.
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.
Although the flight was scheduled to depart from JFK Airport at about 7:00 p.m., it was delayed due to a disabled piece of ground equipment and concerns about a suspected passenger mismatch with baggage. The airplane took off at 8:18 p.m., shortly at 8:25 p.m., Boston air route traffic control center (ARTCC) instructed the pilots to climb and maintain an altitude of 19,000 feet and then lower down to 15,000 feet. However, at 8:26 p.m., Boston ARTCC amended TWA flight 800's altitude clearance, advising the pilots to maintain an altitude of 13,000 feet. At 8:29 p.m., the captain stated, "Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four... see that?" One minute later Boston ARTCC advised them to climb and maintain 15,000 feet to which the pilot replied: “Climb thrust”. After an extremely loud and quick sound, the cockpit voice recorder stopped recording at 8:31 p.m. At that moment, the crew of an Eastwind Airlines Boeing 737 flying nearby reported an explosion in the sky. TWA Flight 800 aircraft had broken up and crashed into the sea, 8 miles south of East Moriches, killing all on board. (1,2)
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:
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.
Safety in the ethics and industry of aerospace technology is of prime importance for preventing tragic malfunctions and crashes. Opposed to automobiles for example, if an airplane breaks down while in mid-flight, it has nowhere to go but down. And sadly it will often go down “hard” and with a high probability of killing people. The Engineering Code of Ethics states first and foremost that, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.” In the aerospace industry, this as well holds very true, both in manufacturing and in air safety itself. Airline safety has recently become a much-debated topic, although arguments over air safety and travel have been going ...
The people on board the shuttle on January 28, 1986 were Lieutenant Ellison Onizuka, an Air Force Officer; Commander Michael Smith, a Navy officer; Christa McAuliffe, a high-school teacher in New Hampshire; Dick Scobe, a Navy officer; Greg Jarvis, an engineer; Judy Resnik, an astronaut; and Ronald McNair, an astronaut.
Another theory is that the pilot, Jason Dahl might have purposefully crashed the plane to prevent the hijackers from taking it over. Or perhaps that Dahl had cut off the planes fuel with out the hijackers being aware. It was said that the plane looked like it went straight down; and that the plane had almost completely disintegrated on impact leaving a hole several feet deep.
On May, 1937 The Hindenburg took of from Frankfurt, Germany. on it's way to New Jersey three days later people saw flames near the rear of the airship. In 37 seconds the whole ship was on fire and the only thing left was it's burnt inside. Nazi germany had made a huge rigid airship called the hindenburg. The hindenburg was an 804 ft long aircraft that could go 80 mph it was made to be filled with helium but it was filled with highly flammable gasses. It was in the process of landing in New jersey when it caught on fire from atmospheric electricity mixing with the gasses that filled the aircraft. It was completely destroyed, 36 of the 97 people on board the aircraft dies in the fire. That was the end of rigid aircraft use. The Hindenburg disaster could have been prevented if Germany was allowed to use helium instead of hydrogen.
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion, the corrosion is exacerbated by the salt water and the age of the aircraft was already 19 years old as the plane operated in a salt water environment.
Mechanical engineers have a responsibility of ensuring they abide by general ethics as that have been laid down by engineering bodies such as the American Society of Mechanical engineers. Engineers have to sound alarm whenever safety violations are breached or when the organization does not perform required procedures that may endanger lives. It is the engineer’s duty to inform members of the public whenever legal bodies fail to nullify projects which may cause disasters.