DOCSLIB.ORG

Mark Maier NASA Challenger Disaster A/V Collection Identifier/Call Number: 2010.02.R Contributing Institution: Frank Mt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mark Maier NASA Challenger Disaster A/V Collection Identifier/Call Number: 2010.02.R Contributing Institution: Frank Mt http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt3580374v No online items Finding Aid for the Mark Maier NASA Challenger Disaster Collection 2010.02.r Finding aid prepared by Jenny Esteron, Rand Boyd Frank Mt. Pleasant Library of Special Collections and Archives, Leatherby Libraries Chapman University One University Drive Orange, CA, 92866 (714) 532 - 7711 [email protected] 2/16/2010 Finding Aid for the Mark Maier 2010.02.r 1 NASA Challenger Disaster Collection 2010.02.r Title: Mark Maier NASA Challenger Disaster A/V Collection Identifier/Call Number: 2010.02.r Contributing Institution: Frank Mt. Pleasant Library of Special Collections and Archives, Leatherby Libraries One University Drive Orange, CA, 92866 (714) 532 - 7711 [email protected] Language of Material: English Physical Description: 8.8 Linear feet(4 file boxes, 1 document box, 1 flat box) Date (bulk): Bulk, 1986 Date (inclusive): 1985-2006 Location note: Leatherby Libraries Abstract: This collection consists of a number of videotapes and some text material collected by Professor Mark Maier that deals with the NASA Challenger disaster and its aftermath. Conditions Governing Use note There are no restrictions on the use of this material except where previously copyrighted material is concerned. It is the responsibility of the researcher to obtain all permissions. Biographical/Historical note The NASA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986 when Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. Disintegration of the entire vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster failed at liftoff. The disaster resulted in the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Presidential Commission found that NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident. NASA managers had known that contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the solid rocket boosters contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but they failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who worked for Morton Thiokol, raised objections to the launch of the Challenger. In July 1985, Boisjoly wrote a memo to his superiors concerning the faulty design of the solid rocket boosters that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a catastrophic event, which was apparently ignored. Following the announcement that the Challenger mission was confirmed for January 28, 1986, Boisjoly and his colleagues tried to stop the flight. Temperatures were due to be −1 °C overnight. He felt that this would severely compromise the safety of the O-Ring. Boisjoly was one of the witnesses called during the Presidential Commission hearings. He gave accounts of how and why he felt the O-Rings had failed. Boisjoly later became a speaker on workplace ethics. Richard C. Cook was a Resource Analyst at NASA's Comptroller's Office. NASA officials ignored a memo Cook wrote which detailed engineering concerns and warnings from the shuttle builders at Morton Thiokol regarding a flaw in the SRB O-rings. In 2007, his memoirs of the tragedy were published in a book entitled, Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age. Mark Maier, Ph. D is Associate Professor and Program Chair, Leadership & Organization Studies; Director, The Chapman Leadership Project; Director, Chapman Human Diversity Program. As a professor at Chapman University, his areas of teaching and consulting expertise include: servant-leadership, diversity, team development and ethical decision making. Related Archival Materials note Researchers will also find of interest the Roger Boisjoly NASA Challenger Disaster Collection (2010.17.r) as it contains his personal papers as well as extensive material on the Challenger investigation. Scope and Contents note This collection holds videos, images, and transcripts regarding the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. A/V materials comprise of NASA footage and programs on the Challenger accident. It also consists of videos of the Presidential Commission hearings from February 25 to February 27, 1986, as well as transcripts from the Presidential Commission Report. Various lectures and interviews by Roger Boisjoly are included on workplace ethics. Other materials in the collection are an interview and article by Richard Cook, and papers from Professor Mark Maier regarding the disaster. A noteworthy item is an O-Ring sample. Posters with various Challenger images and a Florida license plate are also contained. Finding Aid for the Mark Maier 2010.02.r 2 NASA Challenger Disaster Collection 2010.02.r Conditions Governing Access note This collection is open for research. Preferred Citation note [identify item], Mark Maier NASA Challenger Disaster Collection (2010.02.r)], Frank Mt. Pleasant Library of Special Collections and Archives, Chapman University, CA. Arrangement note This collection is organized by material type series except for series 3-5 which are organized by the subject/creator of the material. Subjects and Indexing Terms Boisjoly, R. M., (Roger M.), 1938- -- History Cook, Richard C., 1946- Maier, Mark, Ph.D., Prof., (John Marcus) Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Faculty papers Box 1-3 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. 1986 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 3.75 Linear feet(3 file boxes) Scope and Contents note Box 1) 10 video cassettes, Presidential Commission Hearings (4 VHS, 6 3/4" tapes) 2/25/1986, 7 video cassettes, Presidential Commission Hearings (4 VHS, 3 3/4" tapes) 2/26/1986 Box 2) 3 3/4" video cassettes, Presidential Commission Hearings 2/26/1986, 4 3/4" video cassettes, Presidential Commission Hearings 2/27/1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commission Report Vol. IV, pg. 1-321, 1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commission Report Vol. IV, pg. 322-588, 1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commission Report Vol. IV, pg. 589-823, 1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commission Report Vol. V, pg. 824-1077, 1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commission Report Vol. V, pg. 1364-1703, 1986, 1 printed copy, Presidential Commision Report, Vol. II, Appendix E-J, 1986, 1 printed copy, excerpts of Presidential Commission Report 1986, Box 3) 3 VHS video cassettes, Presidential Commission Hearings 2/27/1986, 1 3/4" video cassette, Presidential Commission Hearings 4/3/1986, Subjects and Indexing Terms Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Box 3, 4 Challenger Disaster Videos. 1985-2006 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 2.5 Linear feet(2 file boxes) Scope and Contents note Box 3) 7 3/4" video cassettes, misc. NASA footage 1985-1986, 11 video cassettes, Challenger disaster television programs (10 VHS, 1 3/4" tape) 1985-2006, Box 4) 3 3/4" video cassettes, Challenger disaster program, "A Major Malfunction" Subjects and Indexing Terms Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Finding Aid for the Mark Maier 2010.02.r 3 NASA Challenger Disaster Collection 2010.02.r Roger Boisjoly Interviews and Lectures. 1986-2002 Box 4, 5 Roger Boisjoly Interviews and Lectures. 1986-2002 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 1.67 Linear feet(1 file box, 1 document box) Scope and Contents note Box 4) 24 video cassettes, Roger Boisjoly interviews and lectures (22 VHS, 2 3/4" tapes) 1986-2002 Box 5) Folder 1. 2 transcripts, Roger Boisjoly interviews 1989, Folder 2. 2 articles, Roger Boisjoly 1987, 1989 Subjects and Indexing Terms Boisjoly, R. M., (Roger M.), 1938- Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Box 5 Richard Cook Interviews and Articles. 1986-1991 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 0.417 Linear feet(1 document box) Scope and Contents note Box 5) 1 3/4" video cassette, Richard Cook Commission testimony 1986 Folder 3) 1 photograph, Richard Cook 1990, 1 magazine, The Washington Monthly November 1986, 2 articles, Richard Cook 1986, 2 transcripts, Richard Cook interviews 1991, Misc. typed notes, Richard Cook 1985-1990 Subjects and Indexing Terms Cook, Richard C., 1946- Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Box 5, Folder 4 Mark Maier Challenger Disaster Papers. 1987-2003 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 0.25 Linear feet(1 folder, 1 object) creator: Maier, Mark, Ph.D., Prof., (John Marcus) Scope and Contents note Box 5) O-Ring Sample, 3 booklets, "A Major Malfunction..." material 1992-2003 Folder 4) 1 article, "The Engineer's Responsibility for Safety: Intergrating Ethics Teaching Into Courses in Engineering Design" by Caroline Whitbeck 1987 Subjects and Indexing Terms Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Box 6 Space Shuttle Challenger Ephemera. Bulk, 1986 1986-1991 Language of Material: English Physical Description: 0.25 Linear feet(1 flat box) Scope and Contents note Box 6) License plate, Florida with Challenger image, 9 posters, misc. Space Shuttle Challenger images Subjects and Indexing Terms Challenger (Spacecraft) -- Accidents Finding Aid for the Mark Maier 2010.02.r 4 NASA Challenger Disaster Collection 2010.02.r.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Challenger Disaster
    Engineering Ethics Case Study: The Challenger Disaster Course No: LE3-001 Credit: 3 PDH Mark Rossow, PhD, PE, Retired Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] Engineering Ethics Case Study: The Challenger Disaster Mark P. Rossow, P.E., Ph.D. © 2015 Mark P. Rossow All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the author. 2 Preface On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed in a disastrous fire shortly after liftoff. All passengers aboard the vehicle were killed. A presidential commission was formed to investigate the cause of the accident and found that the O-ring seals had failed, and, furthermore, that the seals had been recognized as a potential hazard for several years prior to the disaster. The commission’s report, Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, stated that because managers and engineers had known in advance of the O-ring danger, the accident was principally caused by a lack of communication between engineers and management and by poor management practices. This became the standard interpretation of the cause of the Challenger disaster and routinely appears in popular articles and books about engineering, management, and ethical issues. But the interpretation ignores much of the history of how NASA and the contractor’s engineers had actually recognized and dealt with the O-ring problems in advance of the disaster. When this history is considered in more detail, the conclusions of the Report to the President become far less convincing.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Disaster
    EARLY WARNINGS 0. EARLY WARNINGS - Story Preface 1. EARLY WARNINGS 2. AN ACCIDENT ROOTED IN HISTORY 3. WARNINGS IGNORED 4. LAST-MINUTE PLEAS 5. THE FINAL MINUTES 6. THE EXPLOSION 7. THE LAST WORDS 8. THE HORROR OF DESTRUCTION 9. THE UNTHINKABLE 10. THE TRANSCRIPTS 11. CHALLENGER'S AFTERMATH The official insignia, for Challenger’s STS 51-L mission, includes something unusual: an apple. It symbolizes that a teacher was part of the shuttle’s 7-member crew. A potential disaster had loomed long before that fateful January day. Although NASA had flown twenty-four successful shuttle missions before STS 51-L (the official name for the January 1986 Challenger mission), other flights had experienced lesser versions of the same problem which caused the Challenger explosion. Neither the astronauts, nor their families, knew about it. But the manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket booster (SRB) and solid rocket motor (SRM) knew. So did some of the management officials at NASA. Roger Boisjoly a Morton Thiokol engineer, did his best to warn both his employer and NASA. He, and others, knew about the design flaw. But the people Boisjoly reported to wouldn't listen. And the people who made the ultimate decisions at NASA weren't told. See Alignments to State and Common Core standards for this story online at: http://www.awesomestories.com/asset/AcademicAlignment/EARLY-WARNINGS-Challenger-Disaster See Learning Tasks for this story online at: http://www.awesomestories.com/asset/AcademicActivities/EARLY-WARNINGS-Challenger-Disaster Media Stream Challenger Mission STS 51-L NASA image, online via National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian.
    [Show full text]
  • What Lessons Can We Learn from the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board for Engineering Ethics?
    Technè 10:1 Fall 2006 Murata, From the Challenger to Columbia/...35 From Challenger to Columbia: What lessons can we learn from the report of the Columbia accident investigation board for engineering ethics? Junichi Murata University of Tokyo, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan phone: +81 3 5454 6693, fax: +81 3 5454 6978 email: [email protected] Abstract: One of the most important tasks of engineering ethics is to give engineers the tools required to act ethically to prevent possible disastrous accidents which could result from engineers’ decisions and actions. The space shuttle Challenger disaster is referred to as a typical case in almost every textbook. This case is seen as one from which engineers can learn important lessons, as it shows impressively how engineers should act as professionals, to prevent accidents. The Columbia disaster came seventeen years later in 2003. According to the report of the Columbia accident investigation board, the main cause of the accident was not individual actions which violated certain safety rules but rather was to be found in the history and culture of NASA. A culture is seen as one which desensitized managers and engineers to potential hazards as they dealt with problems of uncertainty. This view of the disaster is based on Dian Vaughan’s analysis of the Challenger disaster, where inherent organizational factors and culture within NASA had been highlighted as contributing to the disaster. Based on the insightful analysis of the Columbia report and the work of Diane Vaughan, we search for an alternative view of engineering ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Whistleblowers: Corporate Anarchists Or Heroes? Towards a Judicial Perspective David Culp
    Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal Volume 13 | Issue 1 Article 3 1995 Whistleblowers: Corporate Anarchists or Heroes? Towards a Judicial Perspective David Culp Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Culp, David (1995) "Whistleblowers: Corporate Anarchists or Heroes? Towards a Judicial Perspective," Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal: Vol. 13: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol13/iss1/3 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Culp: Whistleblowers: Corporate Anarchists or Heroes? Towards a Judicia WHISTLEBLOWERS: CORPORATE ANARCHISTS OR HEROES? TOWARDS A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE David Culp' This article explores the whistleblower's plight.' Inside the corpora- tion, everyone, or almost everyone, hates them. They are reviled by corporatemanagement and shunned by co-workers. This article exam- ines whether the legal system adequatelyprotects whistleblowers and delineates the direction the law should take to safeguardthem while at the same time protect companies againstmalicious or badfaith actions by disgruntledemployees. I. THE CHALLENGER LAUNCH - DISASTER IN THE EMERALD CITY We all know the story. On January 28, 1986, in sub-freezing weather, the space shuttle Challenger began its lift-off from the Kennedy Space Center and exploded just seventy-three seconds into its flight, killing all seven astronauts trapped inside the inferno.2 The Rogers Commission, formed to investigate the disaster, concluded that the explosion occurred due to the seal failure of a solid rocket booster joint.3 The death of the astronauts should never have happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Challenger Launch Decision Additional Resources
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Case Study Resources GSFC-1041R-1 Rev. 07/22/2011 Lessons from the Challenger Launch Decision Additional Resources NASA Resources • Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. 1986. URL: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm • NASA History Program Office – Challenger STS 51-L Accident (Multiple links to relevant resources on NASA and Non-NASA sites) URL: http://history.nasa.gov/sts51l.html Other Challenger Case Studies • The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: A Study in Organizational Ethics (7 pages) URL: http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/pdfs/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Challenger%20Disaster. pdf • The Final Voyage of the Challenger, by Oscar Hauptman & George Iwaki. Harvard Business School. November 1990. URL: http://hbr.org/product/final-voyage-of-the-challenger/an/691037-PDF-ENG Copyright © 2011 by United States Government as represented by the Administrator of NASA. All Rights Reserved. Feedback may be sent to Dr. Ed Rogers, Chief Knowledge Officer, at [email protected] or (301) 286-4467. Related documents available: http://gsfcir.gsfc.nasa.gov/casestudies. Challenger Launch Decision GSFC-1041T-1 Papers & Articles Arnold, Vanessa D., Mailey, John C. 1988. “Communication: the Missing Link in the Challenger Disaster.” Business Communication Quarterly 51(4):12-14. Boisjoly, Russell P., Curtis, Ellen Foster, and Mellican, Eugene. 1989. “Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions.” Journal of Business Ethics 8(4):217-230. Abstract: This case study focuses on Roger Boisjoly's attempt to prevent the launch of the Challenger and subsequent quest to set the record straight despite negative consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Ethical Findings in the Challenger Disaster Presenter: Francisco Lara the NASA Situation
    Our Ethical Findings in the Challenger Disaster Presenter: Francisco Lara The NASA Situation • Cost efficient space transport system. • Compete with Russian Space Program. • US Government pressure to see results. • Gain public interest. • NASA came up with the Space Shuttle Transport System. Space Shuttle Transport System • Reusable manned vehicle. • Transport payloads into orbit and back. • Consists of three main Parts: – The Orbiter – The External Tank (ET) – Solid-Rocket Boosters (SRBs) The Orbiter • Resembles an Aircraft. • Three different operational modes: – Launched as a Rocket. – Operates as a Spacecraft. – Lands as an Aircraft. External Tank (ET) • Only part that is not recycled. • Carries fuel for space shuttle’s 3 main engines. • Feeds orbiter with fuel. Solid-Rocket Boosters (SRBs) • Responsible for takeoff. • 11 individual segments. • Recovered, maintained and reused. • Segments reinforced with: – Fiber glass tape. – Rubber seal bands known as O-Rings. • Major part of Challenger Disaster Investigation A Formula For Disaster • Reasons for catastrophe: – Faulty design of O-rings. – Low temperatures at launch time. – “No Launch” recommendation overruled. – Negligence of technical problems. – Re-usage of SRBs. The O-Ring Situation at Morton Thiokol • Morton Thiokol (MT): Builder of the SRB. • Knew about O-ring problems for over a year. • Roger Boisjoly: MT Employee, discovers O-ring malfunction. • Concluded that hot gases were seeping through during rocket’s burn. • Deformation of O-rings in low temperatures. Roger Boisjoly’s Course of Action Jan 1985, discovers Consulted colleague, Jun 1985, post flight problems & reports suggested to test his inspection, found to superior findings primary seals eroded Feb 1985, presented Mar 1985, Resiliency July 1985, presented problem to NASA.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: Disloyal Employee Or Courageous Whistle-Blow>Er?
    Ethical Treatment of Employees 175 Part of BP's training problems, the panel "horrendously expensive" but has become more concluded, stems from a lack of financial back­ affordable in recent years, Erickson said. ing and workforce. That was especially evident Union officials hope to finalize new training at Texas City, where the training budget plum­ agreements with BP at a meeting at the end of meted from $2.8 million in 1998 to $1.7 mil­ this month, said Kim Nibarger, coordinator of lion in 2005, the year of the blast, the report the United Steelworkers' Triangle of Prevention stated. Full-time employees devoted to training Program. He said the union safety trainers have also dipped from 28 to 9 in the same period. long favored a more hands-on approach to train­ Even then, some of those training coordinators ing than the use of computer programs and test­ spent as little as 5 percent of their time actually ing. "We train on the small-group level," he said. training, the report said. Steve Erickson, exec­ "That's the way adults learn." utive director of the Gulf Coast Process Tech­ nology Alliance, said BP isn't the only oil Questions company that has reduced training positions in recent years as more training has been done 1. What would Faden and Beauchamp say by computer. Erickson, whose alliance advo­ about BP's worker safety practices? Explain. cates the hiring of degreed process technicians, 2. What would Boatright say about BP's said computer training is a good alternative to worker safety practices? Explain.
    [Show full text]
  • PUB TYPE Reports-Research/Technical (143) Speeches/Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Accountability; Communication Research
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 288 229 CS 505 810 AUTHOR Stewart, Lea P. TITLE Where Were the Whistleblowers? The Case of Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly. PUB DATE Nov 87 NOTE 18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (73rd, Boston, MA, November 5-8, 19;7). PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) Speeches /Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Accountability; Communication Research; Employee Responsibility; *Employer Employee Relationship; Management Systems; *Organizational Communication; *Power Structure; Public Relations; Space Exploration; Work Environment IDENTIFIERS Challenger Disaster; *Whistleblowing ABSTRACT Employees who "blow the whistle" on their company because they believe it is engaged in practices that are illegal, immoral, or harmful to the public, often face grave consequences for their actions, in:auding demotion, harassment, forced resignation, or termination. The case of Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly, engineers who blew the whistle on Morton Thiokol's poor management practices when the company agreed to launch the shuttle Challenger even after concerns for safety had been expressed, illustrates the problems involved in whistleblowing. McDonald was reassigned and Boisjoly took disability leave to recover from depression over the Challenger disaster. The whistleblower, if his or her charges are correct, characterizes one of the dilemmas of complex organizations: how to restrict the flow of information up the organizational hierarchy and still insure that accurate, useful information reaches organizational decision makers. NASA has since instituted au anonymous whistleblowing system, retaining an outside firm to investigate the claim before it reaches NASA personnel. However, it is naive to think that "a message sent is a message received," and it does not appear as though the new system will avert such disasters as the Challenger explosion.
    [Show full text]
  • ACR 51 Page 1
    ACR 51 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 19, 2021 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Laura Friedman, Chair ACR 51 (Gabriel) – As Introduced March 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Dr. Sally Ride Memorial Highway SUMMARY: Designates the portion of State Highway 101 between the junction with Interstate 405, at postmarker 17.165 and Balboa Boulevard, at postmarker 19.217, as the Dr. Sally Ride Memorial Highway. EXISTING LAW: Assigns the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the responsibility of operating and maintaining state highways. This includes the installation and maintenance of highway signs. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, but the measure requests that Caltrans only erect the appropriate signage upon receiving donations from non-state sources covering the cost. COMMENTS: Sally Kristen Ride was born on May 26, 1951, in Encino, California. Her father was a political science professor at Santa Monica College, and her mother worked as a volunteer counselor at women’s correctional facility. Both parents were elders in the Presbyterian Church. From an early age, Dr. Ride gravitated toward math and science. She was strong-willed and athletic, and became so obsessed with playing football in the street that her parents pushed her into tennis lessons because it was a safer sport. She was soon playing in tournaments. Dr. Ride attended Westlake School for Girls, a prep school in Los Angeles. Dr. Okie was her schoolmate, and wrote that she and Dr. Ride, both on scholarship, felt out of place among the actors’ daughters and “Bel Air belles” at the school. Dr. Ride did not have to work hard for good grades, called herself an underachiever and refused to feign interest if she was bored in class.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Space Shuttle by Dave Potter, Palousemindfulness.Com
    Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Space Shuttle by Dave Potter, palousemindfulness.com In the fall of 2000, I had a series of conversations with Roger Boisjoly one of the Morton-Thiokol engineers who worked on the Challenger Space Shuttle which exploded on January 28, 1986, shortly after launch, killing all seven crew members. This is his story: Tuesday 11:40am EST, Jan 28, 1986 - Roger Boisjoly was walking past the door to the viewing room when Bob Ebeling, another engineer in the Solid Rocket Motor group, popped out to ask if he was coming in to watch the launch. It was common for the engineers to gather to see the lift-off, because their employer, Morton Thiokol, supplied NASA with the booster rockets for the Space Shuttle. But Roger had a sick feeling about this one. He told Bob he didn’t want to see the launch, but Bob kept prodding, and they went in together. Roger remembers: “The room was filled so I seated myself on the floor close to the screen and leaned against Bob’s legs, as he was seated in a chair. The boosters ignited and as the vehicle cleared the support tower, I whispered to Bob, “We just dodged a bullet.” The reason I made this statement was that the propellant experts had told us that the boosters would explode at ignition if we developed a leak in the case. At approximately T+60 seconds, Bob leaned over and whispered to me that he had just completed a prayer of thanks to the Lord for a successful launch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenger Disaster [The Information Given Below Is from the Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, Pages 945-957, December, 1989
    22S:101 Biostatistics: J. Huang 1 The Challenger Disaster [The information given below is from the Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, pages 945-957, December, 1989. Available in the Math Library.] On January 28, 1986 the space shuttle Challenger exploded. Seven astronauts died because two large rubber O-rings leaked during takeoff. These rings had lost their resiliency because of the low temperature at the time of the flight. The air temperature was about 0o Celsius, and the temperature of the O-rings about 6 degrees below that. 22S:101 Biostatistics: J. Huang 2 On the night of January 27, 1986, the night before the space shuttle Challenger accident, there was a three-hour teleconference among people at Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid rocket motor), Marshall Space Flight Center [NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) center for motor design control], and Kennedy Space Center. The discussion focused on the forecast of a 31o F temperature for launch time the next morning, and the effect of low temperature on O-ring performance. A data set, Figure 1 below, played an important role in the discussion. Each plotted point represents a shuttle flight that experienced thermal distress in the field-joint O-rings; the x axis shows the temperature at launch and the y axis shows the the damage index to the O-rings. The O- rings seal the field joints of the solid rocket motors, which boost the shuttle into orbit. Based on the U-shaped configuration of points it was concluded that there was no evidence from the historical data about a temperature effect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenger Disaster: Making It Personal Richard Kunz1
    The Challenger Disaster: Making it Personal Richard Kunz1 Abstract – Few of our current engineering students were born when, 25 years ago, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. Since then, the disaster has been the subject of countless case studies in courses on engineering ethics, technical communication, and management systems. With the passage of time, the relevance of these studies to today’s students may be open to question. The author, as a 15-year employee at Thiokol Corporation, worked alongside several individuals closely involved in the Challenger launch decision. As such, he was second-hand witness to a uniquely human side of engineering that applies today as it did a quarter century ago. Keywords: Space Shuttle Challenger, engineering ethics, professional practices, technical communication INTRODUCTION The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster fundamentally changed the way the public views NASA, the way the public perceives the engineering profession, and the way engineers view themselves. The decision to launch, the technical reasons for the failure, and the management culture at the time of the accident have all been the subject of intense scrutiny, a Presidential Commission, congressional investigations, and numerous reports, papers and books. From an educational perspective, the incident has provided the opportunity to explore questions of engineering ethics, the relation between engineering and management, and the effective use of technical communication in conveying risk. It is a rare engineering curriculum that does not expose its students to at least one case study on the subject of Challenger. The year 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of the Challenger tragedy. Few of our current engineering undergraduates were born when Challenger went down.
    [Show full text]