Challenger Settlements Disclosed : U.S. and Rocket Maker Paid $7.7 Million to 4 FamiliesThe government and rocket manufacturer Morton Thiokol paid $7,735,000 in cash and annuities, dividing the cost 40-60, to settle all claims with the families of four of the crew members who died in the explosion of the shuttle Challenger, documents released Monday showed.
Source: latimes.com
55 Years Ago: The Apollo 1 Fire and its Aftermath - NASA“Three valiant young men have given their lives in the nation’s service. We mourn this great loss and our hearts go out to their families.” President Lyndon
Source: nasa.gov
imageChallenger Space Shuttle Disaster
sticky-blueIntroduction
sticky-blueStep 1: Identify the issue and the boundaries of the issue
sticky-blueStep 2: Research the facts and identify stakeholders
imagethe pressure seals in the booster rockets (o-rings) failed due freezing temperatures
sticky-blueStep 5: Implement, decline, or inform
sticky-blueStep 6: Reflect
40 Years Ago: President Reagan Announces Teacher in Space Project - NASAOn Aug. 27, 1984, President Ronald W. Reagan announced the Teacher in Space project as part of NASA’s Space Flight Participant Program to expand the space
Source: nasa.gov
sticky-blueStep 3: Identify possible solutions and evaluate
sticky-yellowThere were uneven benefits received, although these benefits were short lived, for the management level employees when the deadline for the launch was met. There were uneven benefits for the Vice President, whose travel plans were respected more than the lives of the astronauts in the shuttle on launch day. The Vice President was the cause of one delay for the Challenger launch, when inclement weather was expected and the launch was postponed to prevent the Vice President from having to make an unnecessary trip.
imageCommander Francis R. Scobee, Pilot Michael J. Smith, Mission Specialists Judith A. Resnik, Ellison S. Onizuka, and Ronald E. McNair, and Payload Specialists Gregory B. Jarvis and Christa McAuliffe
sticky-yellowThe initial issue presented in the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger,
When identifying the boundaries of an ethical case study, we look at two main factors: damage done and uneven benefits received. In this case, both come into play. First and foremost, there was incalculable damage done in loss of human life of the astronauts who died in the explosion. Further damage was done in the form of loss of reputation (and in some cases, loss of employment) for all employees involved in the decision to move forward with the launch when it was not guaranteed to be safe. Specifically for Morton Thiokol (who was contracted by NASA to build the Solid Rocket Booster), there was loss of reputation and money when he was blamed for the explosion. There was also loss of reputation for NASA and the USA as whole, given that the event had global attention due to competition between NASA and the European Space Agency.
sticky-redSimilar Case Studies
sticky-yellowThe following will be a list of stakeholders in order from most to least important: The entire Challenger Astronaut Crew died in this tragedy and was composed of the following: Francis R. Scoobee (the commander), Michael J. Smith (the pilot), Judith Resnik (Mission Specialist), Ronald McNair (Mission Specialist), Ellison Onizuka (Mission Specialist), Christa McAuliffe (a teacher). The Marshall Space Flight Center was in charge of developing the booster rocket. Larry Mulloy challenged the engineers' decision not to launch. Jerald Mason was the Senior Executive who encouraged Lund to reassess his decision not to launch. Morton Thiokol was contracted by NASA to build the Solid Rocket Booster. Alan McDonald was the Director of the Solid Rocket Motors Project. Bob Lund was the Engineering Vice President. Robert Ebeling was an engineer on this project. McDonald Roger Boisjoly was an engineer who worked under McDonald. Joe Kilminster was also an engineer in a management position. Gregory Bruce Jarvice (of Hughes Aircraft Company) was the payload specialist and fluid dynamics investigator. The families of the crew were also affected including Jane Smith (the widow of Michael J. Smith) who took more stake in the legal action by suing Morton Thiokol and NASA outside of the joint settlement. Political leaders, the government, and competitors also applied indirect pressure for the launch. The National Education Association promoted this new era of education and space exploration. The general public and taxpayers trusted NASA to act ethically as NASA was the main decisionmaker. The Rogers Commission under President Ronald Regan and the presidential administration launched the Rogers commission to investigate the case (executive order 12546) (Harris, 1992).
sticky-yellowDelay launch until temperatures exceed safe levels
sticky-yellowProceed with launch path as scheduled
sticky-yellowRedesign and patch SRB field Joint and Seal
sticky-yellowDecline - We recommend that all parties involved decline to move forward to meet the allotted launch date and redesigning and patching the SRB field joint
sticky-yellowThese solutions all have their downsides and benefits. One thing to realize from this ethical analysis is that if the launch had proceeded normally and not had any disaster, many people would consider the first option to be the best ethical framework. It is much easier to see the better option in hindsight. However, even if we look at these solutions from the point of view of the decision-making executives, the first solution carries too great a life cost to be viable. Either of the other two options would be viable from an ethical standpoint. However, redesigning and patching the SRB field joint seems to be the clear utilitarian winner.
sticky-yellowThis case was a clear failure of decision making under uncertainty and a demonstration of subordination of engineering judgement. In this case study, we will systematically analyze the events leading up to the Challenger Disaster using a structured ethical decision making framework. We define the core issue at stake and identify the boundaries, facts, and key stakeholders within the study. We will then evaluate the solutions discussed in the official Rogers Commission report, as well as one additional solution not discussed in the report using. We will pick a single solution and analyze it using a utilitarian lens, a rights lens, and the NSPE Code of Ethics. After analyzing this solution, we will collectively determine whether it should have been implemented or declined, and reflect on the lessons learned by this outcome. Finally, we will examine the situational pressures that may have influenced the decision makers.
sticky-yellowOn January 28, 1986, the American people were forced to stand shocked as they witnessed the Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51L) rapidly disintegrate into a widening scar across the Florida sky, just 73 seconds after takeoff, killing all seven astronauts on board. In an instant, the routine language of schedules, launch windows, and “acceptable risk” was replaced by a brutal realization that no schedule is worth the loss of human life. What the public did not see was that this tragedy could have been prevented, as NASA committee members had hours long discussions about the safety of the flight just hours before the launch, and concluded that they would not delay the flight due to a possibility of failure from cold conditions. Immediately after the disaster, even before any official investigation was released, engineers seemed to know what was going on: the pressure seals in the booster rockets (o-rings) failed because it was too cold. However, it took nearly 5 months for the Rogers Commission to officially conclude the technical cause of the explosion was from the failure of the pressure seals in the aft field joint of the right solid rocket booster, indicating a design that was unreasonably sensitive to multiple factors, prominently including temperature.
sticky-yellowWe must also consider the legal and ethical implications of the case. “The first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics urges engineers to "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties"” (Harris, 1992). There were clearly unethical decisions made when the result of those decisions was loss of human life.
Legally, there was action taken in the form of a settlement, “The government and rocket manufacturer Morton Thiokol paid $7,735,000 in cash and annuities, dividing the cost 40-60, to settle all claims with the families of four of the crew members who died in the explosion of the shuttle” (Challenger Settlements Disclosed : U.S. And Rocket Maker Paid $7.7 Million to 4 Families, 1988).