Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision


Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision

The Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision was the decision-making process that led to the launch of the Space Shuttle "Challenger" on January 28, 1986 despite inclement weather conditions and the warnings of many engineers working both for NASA and for NASA contractors Morton Thiokol and Rockwell International. The Shuttle was destroyed as a consequence of the failure of one of the O-ring joints in its right solid rocket booster (SRB). After the loss of "Challenger", the engineering decisions, organizational problems and inadequate safety culture that led to its launch were criticized by the Rogers Commission and by the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, as well as by independent commentators such as Edward Tufte.

Background

As originally designed by Thiokol, the O-ring joints in the Shuttle's SRBs were supposed to close more tightly due to forces generated at ignition. However, a 1977 test showed that when pressurized water was used to simulate the effects of booster combustion, the metal parts bent "away" from each other, opening a gap through which gases could leak. This phenomenon, known as "joint rotation," caused a momentary drop in air pressure. This made it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings. In the event of widespread erosion, an actual flame path could develop, causing the joint to burst—which would have destroyed the booster and the shuttle. [McConnell, Malcolm. "Challenger: A Major Malfunction," page 118.]

Engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center wrote to the manager of the Solid Rocket Booster project, George Hardy, on several occasions suggesting that Thiokol's field joint design was unacceptable. For example, one engineer suggested that joint rotation would render the secondary O-ring useless. However, Hardy did not forward these memos to Thiokol, and the field joints were accepted for flight in 1980.cite web |author=Rogers Commission report |title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle "Challenger" Accident, Volume 1, chapter 6 |year=1986 |url=http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm]

Evidence of serious O-ring erosion was present as early as the second space shuttle mission, STS-2, which was flown by "Columbia." However, contrary to NASA regulations, the Marshall Center did not report this problem to senior management at NASA, but opted to keep the problem within their reporting channels with Thiokol. Even after the O-rings were redesignated as "Criticality 1"—meaning that their failure would result in the destruction of the Orbiter—no one at Marshall suggested that the shuttles be grounded until the flaw could be fixed.

By 1985, Marshall and Thiokol realized that they had a potentially catastrophic problem on their hands. They began the process of redesigning the joint with three inches (76 mm) of additional steel around the tang. This tang would grip the inner face of the joint and prevent it from rotating. However, they did not call for a halt to shuttle flights until the joints could be redesigned. Rather, they treated the problem as an acceptable flight risk. For example, Lawrence Mulloy, Marshall's manager for the SRB project since 1982, issued and waived launch constraints for six consecutive flights. Thiokol even went as far as to persuade NASA to declare the O-ring problem "closed". Donald Kutyna, a member of the Rogers Commission, later likened this situation to an airline permitting one of its planes to continue to fly despite evidence that one of its wings was about to fall off.

Notes

References

*cite web | last = Boisjoly | first = Roger | authorlink = Roger Boisjoly| title = Ethical Decisions - Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle "Challenger" Disaster: Telecon Meeting| publisher = onlineethics.org | url = http://www.onlineethics.org/essays/shuttle/telecon.htm| accessdate = 2006-11-20
*McConnell, Malcolm. (1987) "Challenger: A Major Malfunction." Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-23877-0.
*cite web| author=Rogers Commission report| title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle "Challenger" Accident| year=1986| url=http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm
*Tufte, Edward. (1997) "Visual Explanations", ISBN 0-9613921-2-6.
*cite web| last=U.S House Committee on Science and Technology | title = Investigation of the Challenger Accident; Report of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives. | publisher = US Government Printing Office| date = October 29 1986.| url = http://www.gpoaccess.gov/challenger/64_420.pdf | format = PDF
*Vaughan, Diane. (1996) "The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA". Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-85176-1.


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Space Shuttle Challenger — Challenger OV 099 Challenger landing after its first mission, STS 6 OV designation OV 099 …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle Challenger disaster — For more information about the final mission and crew of the Challenger, see STS 51 L. Space Shuttle Challenger s smoke plume after the in flight breakup that killed all seven crew members …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle — STS redirects here. For other uses, see STS (disambiguation). This article is about the NASA Space Transportation System vehicle. For the associated NASA STS program, see Space Shuttle program. For other shuttles and aerospace vehicles, see… …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle Columbia disaster — For further information about Columbia s mission and crew, see STS 107. STS 107 mission patch The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, when shortly before it was scheduled to conclude its 28th mission, STS 107, the Space… …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle Atlantis — Atlantis OV 104 Atlantis launching STS 122 mission to dock with the International Space Station OV designation OV 104 Country United States …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle program — This article is about the United States Space Shuttle program. For the shuttle itself, see Space Shuttle. For information on the Soviet space shuttle program, see the article Buran program. Space Shuttle program Duration 1981 2011 …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle abort modes — A Space Shuttle abort is an emergency procedure due to equipment failure on NASA s Space Shuttle, most commonly during ascent. A main engine failure is a typical abort scenario. There are fewer abort options during reentry and descent. For… …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster — The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are the pair of large solid rockets used by the Space Shuttle during the first two minutes of powered flight. They are located on either side of the orange external propellant tank. Each SRB produces …   Wikipedia

  • Space Shuttle design process — See also Space Shuttle program Conception and development North American Rockwell Shuttle, 1969 Even before the Apollo moon landing in 1969, in October 1968, NASA began early studies of space shuttle designs. The early studies were denoted Phase… …   Wikipedia

  • Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle — The Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle, or simply Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV), is a term describing one of a wide array of concepts that have been developed for creating space launch vehicles from the components, technology and/or infrastructure of …   Wikipedia