blog
media download page
Essay / The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster emergency safety checksReferences: In January 1986, 7 astronauts were killed when the space shuttle Challenger exploded just over a minute into flight. The propellant's O-rings failed to seal properly, allowing hot combustible gases to escape from the propellant side, burning through the external fuel tank. There were several factors causing the O-ring to fail; including faulty design of solid rocket boosters, insufficient low temperature testing of the O-ring material, and the gaskets with which the O-ring is sealed. The lack of proper communication between different management levels at NASA and various ethical issues ultimately lead to disaster. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essaySRBs (solid rocket boosters) are key components in the operation of the Space Shuttle. Without them, the shuttle produces insufficient thrust to overcome Earth's force. gravitational pull to reach orbit. An SRB is attached to each side of the external fuel tank; each SRB joint is sealed by two O-rings; the lower and upper rings are called primary and secondary rings, respectively. The purpose of O-rings is to prevent hot combustion gases from escaping from inside the engine. To create a barrier between the rubber O-rings and the combustion gases, a heat-resistant sealant is applied to the inside of the seal. In general, solid rockets produce more thrust per pound than their liquid-fueled counterparts. There is, however, a downside. Once the rocket's solid fuel has been ignited, it cannot be extinguished, much less controlled. It is therefore crucial that the Shuttle SRBs are properly designed. Launch Delays The first delay of the Challenger mission was due to a weather front that was expected to move through that area, bringing rain and cold temperatures. Usually, a mission is not postponed until the weather settles in the area, however, the vice president had to be present for the launch, and NASA officials wanted to spare the vice president from having to take an unnecessary trip to Florida. and so they postponed the launch earlier. The vice president was a key spokesperson for the president on the space program, and NASA coveted his goodwill. The weather front has stopped; the launch window had perfect conditions, but the launch had already been postponed. As shown in Figure 2², the lowest temperature recorded by the O-rings on all previous missions was 53℉, showing no temperature data lower than this recorded temperature. Bob Lund concluded that 53 ℉ was the only low temperature data Morton-Tiokol had. for the effects of cold temperatures on operational boosters, so because its engineers did not have data on low temperatures below 53 ℉, they could not prove that it was dangerous to launch at lower temperatures. Another delay was caused by a faulty microswitch in the hatch lock. mechanism and problems with removing the handle from thehatch. However, by the time these issues were resolved, the winds became too strong and the weather front began moving again, bringing record temperatures to the Florida area. Analysis of the LaunchAccording to the book "The Final Voyage", temperatures during the night before the launch, the temperature dropped to 8 ℉, much lower than expected. Safety showers and fire hoses had been activated to prevent water pipes on the launch platform from freezing. Ice had formed all over the platform, and so there was concern that ice might fall off the platform during launch and damage the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles. Ice inspection saw this as a big concern, but the launch director decided to move forward. The countdown. Post-launch analysis At launch, the impact of the ignition dropped a ice rain from the platform, hitting the left booster. Although there is no evidence of ice damage to the Orbiter itself, NASA's analysis of the ice problem was flawed. The main O-ring was too cold to seal properly, the heat-resistant sealant that protected the O-rings from the fuel collapsed, and thus gases of over 5,000℉ burned past both O-rings. Eight hundredths of a second after ignition, the shuttle took off. The camera focused on the right booster and showed approximately 9 puffs of smoke coming from the booster at the rear field seam. Oxides from the burned propellant temporarily sealed the field joint before the flames could escape. Issues arising from the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster As young engineering students, what future do we see for professional responsibilities as engineers? Public welfare? Stay true to your work? It is important that experienced engineers, such as those placed in management positions, do not completely ignore their own experience and take into account the decisions and understandings of younger practicing engineers. For technical questions, practicing engineers will be more up to date. Another problem is that managers encouraged the launch, due to insufficient data on low temperatures. As there was not enough data available to make an informed decision, they said there was no need to stop the launch. Earlier in a previous issue, NASA was alerted to problems in the thruster design, but it did not halt the program until the problem was resolved. On the one hand, testing the implications of the designs is always a major priority to ensure the safety of the shuttle. . However, they must also be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. The public provided engineers, through the tax base and legislation. In turn, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of the public in all their efforts. According to the ASME Code of Ethics, the first canon urges engineers to “give priority to the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.” The well-being and safety of the public should be at the top of their priority list. While loyalty to the company is important, it should not override the engineer's obligations to the public. If engineers show selfish or selfless loyalty to engineering, it can lead to the most unfortunate consequences. Ethical Issues Related to the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Professional Responsibility One of themain ethical issues was the professional responsibility of design engineers. Design engineers are responsible for keeping designs impeccable and professional. However, there are implications such as the cost of construction and obtaining the necessary items to complete the project. Since the design team's project had the potential to delay the Challenger shuttle from completing its intended mission, the execution window was very short. From an ethical standpoint, it seemed like the busy schedule made it seem like the management team didn't even care about the astronaut's safety. According to software and recent Challenger historian Richard Feynman, it seemed that engineering could only be as good as management. . For the Challenger to become a more successful project, management would have to agree and listen to the problems encountered by the engineers; they simply brushed aside the problems. Yes, the engineers had to work under a time constraint, but the management team prevented them from doing what they were capable of. Effective Communication Another major ethical factor contributing to the disaster was the lack of effective communication between engineers and management. . After the incident, Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who had worked for Morton-Thiokol, said the meetings leading up to the challenger had been filled with "intense customer intimidation."⁴ The atmosphere was also under pressure to be able to express all their concerns regarding the CRU. The failure of Morton-Tiokol engineers to communicate their concerns to NASA management and convince them to postpone the launch was a significant factor that ultimately led to disaster. Choosing to hide their concerns, perhaps out of fear that leaders will not listen to them anyway. There was also a major communication problem between the ground team and NASA management. The ground team measured the thickness and temperature of the ice on the shuttle before launch. The temperature recorded was 8℉, much lower than the O-rings were designed for. However, this vital information was never relayed to NASA officials or engineers because the ground team was only instructed to report thickness, not temperature. Pressure on an unrealistic goal NASA has been under undue pressure to increase its flight cadence, the increase would ultimately reduce NASA's ability to resolve pressing issues due to fewer employees dedicated to launch schedules specific. It would also create pressure on NASA's leadership team to rush judgment on critical issues that could potentially delay launch schedules. The difficult flight plan made the management team feel that staying on schedule was more important than the astronaut's safety. This is unethical because people's safety should always be the number one priority, especially when it comes to a situation as immense as going to space. Unsafe Launch Conditions As previously mentioned, the lack of communication between Morton Thiokol's engineers and NASA's management team in making decisions played a large role in the challenger disaster. The inability to reach consensus between the two is what ultimately led to the launch of the shuttle. The ethical issue is that NASA chose to take a risk by launching the shuttle despite numerous requests for delay. Although delaying the launch would certainly not please anyone, this decision was necessary to prioritize safety)
Navigation
« Prev
1
2
3
4
5
Next »
Get In Touch