NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Engineering Failure

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster
Shuttle Challenger Disaster
In March, 1970, President Richard Milhous Nixon "opted for the shuttle–tended space base as a long–range goal but deferred going ahead with the
space station pending development of the shuttle vehicle" (NASA,1986). Thus the Space Shuttle, which was considered as merely the transport
element of a broad earlier, was reused and became the concentration of NASA's near– term future. Challenger, as NASA's second orbiter which was put
into service after Columbia in Space Shuttle program, began its maiden flight on April 4th, 1983. It made nine flights in total prior to 1986. Owing to
payload changes, cold weather, and other technical problems, Challenger was rescheduled continually and finally determined to launch from ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Since the Challenger event of 1986, Orbiter abort capabilities, improvement of these capabilities, options for crew escape, and the performance of the
range safety system became significant concerns of Commission. The event caused following important shuttle missions to be put on hold or canceled
in a certain period and plunged NASA into a soul–searching. Because investigators of soul–searching found that NASA had continually ignored serious
technical problems, they criticized that NASA has a "silent safety program" (NASA, 1986). Prior to occurrence of the event, several safety waivers
had been granted or were pending owing to lack of time and funds. After the event, some of approved safety waivers were required to reconsider.
Furthermore, compared to $15.5 billion in fiscal 1986, the budget of NASA increased to approximately $21 billion in 1987 and continued to trend
upward for the next half–decade (NASA, 1986). Even so, Norman Augustine, who is appointed by the Obama administration to lead a panel to
examine plans of NASA, states that NASA has usually faced a situation that identified goals disconnects with funds that carrying out the goals since the
Challenger event. (NASA, 1986). Because the Challenger accident led to a series of changes at NASA and drew national attention from the number of
flights launched each year to NASA space shuttle safety system, it played an important role in the history of
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter: Challenger-Engineering...
The NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter: Challenger – Engineering Disaster
On January 28, 1986, NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter: Challenger launched from the Kennedy Space Center, only to break apart 73 seconds into its
flight. Challenger carried five NASA astronauts as well as two payload specialists. Its destruction was widely recognized as one of the worst disasters
in the US space programs history. The Challenger shuttle disaster wasn't a freak accident. There were many factors which resulted in the ultimate
deaths of the seven passengers. These factors ranged from management to miscommunication, poor engineering, and negligence.
The Challenger mission was set up to fail from the beginning, starting with an impossible schedule NASA committed to, in order to ensure funding for
the mission. Additionally, NASA management had become very impatient with the technical complications which arise in constructing aspace shuttle
and demanded haste. This haste forced engineers to work quickly, and not fully test and analyze parts and equipment.
One of these parts were called O–rings. The primary function of O–rings were to seal field joints, which were a section of Challenger's two solid
rocket boosters, to the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission was formed to investigate the disaster.
The Rogers Commission released a report several months later of its findings. Primarily, the commission found that the Challenger accident was caused
by 'A failure in the O–rings sealing a joint on the right solid rocket booster, which allowed pressurized hot gases and eventually flame to blow by the
O–ring and make contact with the adjacent external tank, causing structural failure. The failure of the O–rings was attributed to a faulty design, whose
performance could be too easily compromised by facts including the low temperature on the day of the

Finding The Difference Between Excellence And Disaster On...
Executive summary The objective of this literature review was to study quality could mean the difference between excellence and disaster on a real
life project The Challenger shuttle disaster. The first part of the literature revive discussed the Vaughan's (1996) analysis, which found the human
errors are one of the main reasons of resulting the Challenger shuttle disaster. Also, by outlining Perrow's (1999) Normal Accident theory, it argues
that complex interaction system caused the inevitability of this accident. The second part of the literature review outlined seven points related to the
Challenger shuttle disaster of Deming's (1986) 14 points. These points were guidelines of improvements of quality management. He suggested errors
in the Challenger shuttle project could be reduced but not eliminates them completely. This literature review focused on the disaster and pinpointed
how the quality project management should be executed in this case. Table of Contents Executive summary2 CHAPTER 1 Introduction4 CHAPTER
2 Backgrounds4 CHAPTER 3 Review of the literature4 Chapter 4 Discussions6 CHAPTER 5 Conclusion7 References8 CHAPTER 2 Backgrounds
On 28th January 1986, the whole world focused on the Challenger shuttle project, which was an evolution of carrying first person into space.
However, after 73 seconds into the flight, the Challenger was ripped apart above Cape Canaveral in Florida. As a result, the launch of this shuttle
exploded and killed seven

Challenger Disaster Essay
The initial threat to the ability of NASA to sustain the dramatic changes in the wake of the Challenger disaster started well before the lives of the
astronauts were lost. The lack of centralization of management and the fact that different aspects of the organization had locations ranging from D.C.
to Florida allowed for no one to really accept and own up to the fact that they were at fault. No one group or person took responsibility, so it was cast
upon the entire NASA organization and no one took it upon themselves to make sure that a disaster of this caliber would ever happen again.
Furthermore, other than the desire to recover reputation, there was a lack of incentive on the organization to change. The only compensatory change
that was invoked was a consistent lack of funding which only magnified the existing problems. There was even a program implemented that was titled,
'Faster, Better, Cheaper.' After NASA failed to meet the initial expedited launch schedule in the early 1980's, resulting in managerial oversight and the
loss of life, there should have been a focus on thoroughness and not speed of completion. Additionally, there was a continued lack of respect and trust
from sector to sector and the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The company is so decentralized that there is no sense of camaraderie or accountability to other locations. This needs to change. When the project needs
to have a sense of fluidity throughout, such as the building and launch of a space shuttle, every subsequent sector needs to be able to check the work of
the previous one. Also, upper–level management cannot continue to intimidate lower–level or adjacent employees in order to push their own personal
agendas. The concerns of one group, especially regarding safety need to be investigated thoroughly. One person should never be capable of
overhauling the ideas and concerns of

The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Essay
1.0Introduction
Seventy three seconds into its 10th flight, on January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart over the Atlantic Ocean, killing the seven
crew members on board [1]. The Challenger was the second space shuttle constructed by NASA and had completed nine successful missions prior to
the disaster. Following the accident, the shuttle program was suspended for 32 months as President Ronald Regan appointed a Commission, chaired by
William P. Rogers and known as the Rogers Commission, to investigate the cause of the accident [1].
The analysis in this report will include a summary of the sequence of events leading up to the disaster, analysis of the professional ethical behaviours
and responsibilities that were ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the time, NASA's goal was two reach two launches per month, a goal that well exceeded the budget and training facilities available [2].
The night before the launch, a teleconference between Thiokol and NASA was held to address the concerns regarding the performance of the SRB
O–ring seal in cold weather. Thiokol recommended that the launch be postponed since there was no data available for temperatures below 53В°F [2].
After internal discussions in the Thiokol group, senior management eventually endorsed the launch, recommending it to proceed, reversing their
original decision [2]. Rockwell, the shuttle's primary contractor, did not support the launch due to the possibility of ice leaving the structure and
damaging the thermal shield tiles during takeoff. Their concerns were relayed to NASA, but in such a way that NASA chose to proceed with the
launch [2]. Though this was eventually determined to be a non–issue in the Challenger launch, the true nature of the problems that can occur when an
object strikes the shuttle during takeoff would not be learned until 2003, when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re–entry due to damage of a
heat shield tile that occurred during takeoff [2]––[3].
Despite the concerns raised, the Challenger was launched on January 28, 1986 [4]. Seventy three seconds after takeoff, the shuttle broke apart after the
O–ring seal failed causing

Ethical Issues In The Challenger Disaster
The Challenger Disaster was a major incident occurring on January 28, 1986, in which seven astronauts lost their lives, and the public's trust in NASA
was rocked. It was revealed over time however, that an engineering flaw caused the incident– two rubber "O–rings"– that not only were advised against
prior to launch, but inevitably failed to serve their purpose. Nevertheless, one may question what ethical values the engineers and their superiors were
considering as they were launching the shuttle, and why they launched the shuttle regardless of the warning. This is clearly stated in a doctrine called
the NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers), as one of their "Fundamental Canons" is to "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, after further investigations from a special commission by the president, another factor in play was NASA itself, who allowed the launch
despite the warnings from its engineers. The warnings of the engineers were blatantly ignored as they were proclaiming that the O–rings may not be
able to stand the cold temperatures of that day, and launched the shuttle regardless (Cite About Education). In terms of the NSPE, the engineers were
serving their duty by warning the superiors, thus attempting to bring concern to the issue at hand, but sadly to no avail. Without their warning, it may
have been substantially more difficult to decipher the cause behind the shuttle's rapid disintegration. As a necessity however, another investigation that
Reagan ordered had to be thorough, so that his team could maximize their potential of finding another potential problem with the challenger.
Coincidentally they did, with the initial cause being the O–ring, but the secondary cause being a booster that slammed into the fuel tank, causing the
liquid hydrogen and oxygen to mix and combust, thus causing the shuttle's rapid deterioration. With this information, the shuttle designers were
obligated to make several changes to the shuttle for the future, and the NASA program was grounded until they did so (Cite About Education). It can
be said that in this particular

Rhetorical Analysis Of Ronald Reagan's Speech On The...
On January 28th, 1986, Ronald Reagan used his stature as president to show sympathy for the country in the light of tragedy, in his speech entitled
"Speech on the Challenger Disaster." His main point expounds on the importance of the Challenger Disaster in the history of space exploration. He
supports this claim by first explaining the effect the disaster had on the public, then offering his sympathy for the families of the astronauts as well as
the entire nation, and finally declaring that the country must continue to explore space so the deaths of the astronauts were not in vain. Through
Reagan's use of rhetorical appeals, tone, and rhetorical tools he effectively persuades the American people to maintain confidence in NASA and in space
exploration, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Reagan carefully chose his words during his speech on the Challenger Disaster, using specific pronouns completely changed the way the country
received the message. It was initiated when he said, "we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this" (5). Later he also
stated: "We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun" (7). Reagan's use of "we" throughout the speech
shows the nation that even high figures such as celebrities and political figure, in which Reagan represented both, also feel as the common people
do in times of struggle and devastation. Allowing the citizens of America a shoulder to cry on for a dark and challenging time in the history of the
country. Towards the end of the text Reagan started to create allusions for the American people to compare the fallen astronauts to. Such as when
Reagan stated: "the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans,
and a historian later said, "He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it"" (10). Also he makes reference to the religious figures at the end
when he says, ""slipped the surly bongs of earth" to "touch the face of God"" (11). Using these allusions, Reagan was able to effectively convince
the audience that the astronauts died for a reason and a cause, to expand our knowledge of space and explore what it could possibly contain. In the
case that Reagan had not given this speech it could be possible that many people around the world would want to back off from exploring space
because it could kill people that attempt to travel into it. But Reagan's speech was able to revoke confidence in NASA and other space programs,
letting moms let their kids become astronauts and not saying no because of how dangerous it could be.

The Challenger Disaster : Engineering Ethics : The...
Jake Hall
Professor Ripley
Engineering Ethics
29 May 2017
The Challenger Disaster Unfortunately, there is always risk when it comes to space flight. This makes it difficult to determine what constitutes an
"Acceptable" risk. A space agency has many worries such as their reputation with the public and the world, the success of their missions, and most
importantly the lives of their staff and astronauts. Engineers are usually technically gifted but lacking in organization. This spawns a need for
non–technical managers to oversee the day to day operations of projects and companies. While the engineers worry about the functionality of the
project (in this case, a space shuttle), the managers worry about the cost to the company and the infamous pick 2 triangle of good, cheap, fast. This
causes a disconnect between the engineers and the management where pressure from anything whether it be the public or CEO, can cause concerns to
be overlooked.
Ultimately the fault lies with every person who was a part of the project, except Roger Boisjoly, 3 of his colleagues, and the manager who refused to
sign the ok to launch. According to a broadcast by NPR in 1986, Boisjoly's and his colleague's concerns were escalated to top management. They
explained their worries and gave their evidence to the Vice President of Morton Thiokol, Robert Lund. This was then escalated to another meeting with
more engineers and managers, which resulted in the conclusion that launching could be catastrophic

Essay On Challenger Disaster
The Challenger Disaster: Fated Before Liftoff
In 1986 when the space shuttle Challenger launched from Kennedy Space Center people watched in awe for a little more than a minute before the
shuttle exploded in flight. This was the first of only two major accidents that occurred during over two decades of NASA's shuttle program and many
would consider it to be a fluke that could not have been prevented or predicted. In truth the Challenger disaster was an accident waiting to happen and
was a symptom of systemic problems that were occurring at NASA during that era. The 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster was cause by a number
of factors including structural failure of the shuttle, a change in NASA's work environment from the days of the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Of the four bids put in to build the booster Aerojet proposed a solid welded case on the grounds that sealed cases would be safer than segmented
cases. (Hunley 268) Morton Thiokol, the company that actually built the boosters with a segmented case, came in second to last in the bidding but won
the contract for scoring best in the cost category of the evaluation. (Hunley 269) According to J. Hunley Author of The Development of Propulsion
Technology for U.S. Space –Launch Vehicles, "Since Thiokol had plants in Utah, NASA administrator James C. Fletcher's home state, the decision was
controversial." (Hunley 269)
In addition to controversial bidding practices the solid rocket booster had a design flaw that was known to be an issue for years before the
Challenger's final flight took place. The First flight using the booster was in 1980. (Hunley 275) Since the boosters are recovered after every
mission, by 1981 NASA could tell that the booster's segment seals were already showing signs of wear. (Petroski 271) They were not parts that were
designed to wear out. (Petroski 271) Evidently NASA knew that there was a seal problem with the boosters and continued using them for the next five
years until an accident occurred. Another matter entirely is that the booster seals made to flex and seal properly in cold temperatures. (Petroski 271) At
the hearings during the presidential commission's

During the year of 1986, on January the twenty sixth, a horrific shock was felt around the country. After Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon,
Americans felt a great sense of national pride and invincibility but many Americans learned on that fateful day that nobody is invincible; one of the
worst catastrophes of the United States space program occurred on that day. About forty five seconds after liftoff, Americans witnessed the destruction
of the breathtaking challenger space shuttle. Even though the disaster caused nationwide sadness, the reasons for its failure are clear. Named after the
British ship that sailed across the Atlantic hundreds of years, could carry more than two thousand pounds the challenger was truly a glorious
achievement. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At first NASA demonstrated a lack of ethnics by trying to cover up the story by calling the challenger disaster an strange accident, but eventually
people started to come forward, like Richard cook, and the public finally found out the truth that the real reason behind the disaster was a combination
of poor management and bad temperature conditions. The space shuttle used rubber o rings as a seal between the different rocket booster sections. The
people who built the boosters, Morton– Thiokol, built the o rings in certain way to be only used when the temperatures are above freezing; however,
the challenger was launched after a very cold night. The cold temperature caused the o rings to become very stiff, fragile and unable to properly seal
well. In response to the fragile o rings hot gas from the booster was able to escape. The hot gas acted like a blow torch by burning through the fuel
tank. This caused liquid hydrogen to escape and damage one of the supports of the orbiter. When the challenger entered higher altitudes the support
broke and the orbiter broke away hit the fuel tank, which set of an explosion that destroyed the challenger. Unacceptable management skills were also

Challenger Disaster Summary
Despite the Chrysler Bailout and Challenger Disaster being distinct situations, both required a judgmental decision–making approach. The lack of this
approach in the Challenger disaster could be attributed to the fact that the face of failure was invisible to the decision makers compared to the Chrysler
Bailout. The highest Chrysler's sales numbers indicated to the decision makers that if a swift and effective decision was not implemented their
existence would be short–lived. The highest level of managers at NASA had no idea of the engineer's concerns about the Challenger.
In preparation for the launch, the Challenger's decision makers were anxious to uphold the prominent capabilities of NASA, while disregarding the
possibility of an unfavorable

Rhetorical Analysis Of Ronald Reagan Challenger Disaster
Ronald Reagan Challenger Disaster Address to the Nation After the seven astronauts, engineers, and Christa McAuliffe, a history teacher selected to be
part of the mission, were killed in the terrible shuttle Challenger explosion, Ronald Reagan had the unbelievable job of explaining it to the country.
Millions across the country were watching as the shuttle caught in flames and then exploded only 73 seconds after lift off. It was later determined that
two rubber O–rings, designed to separate the sections of the rocket booster, had failed due to cold temperatures on the morning of the launch (http:/
/www.history.com/topics/challenger–disaster). Reagan gave his speech at 5 pm on January 28, 1986 from the Oval Office at the White House,
broadcasted live on nationwide radio and television. Reagan knew that he had to "make it plain to them that life does go on and you don't back up
and quit some worthwhile endeavor because of tragedy". Reagan called in a relatively unknown speechwriter who would go on to pen some of the
most famous phrases uttered by presidents, like President George H.W Bush's "thousand points of light", Peggy Noonan. Reagan started his speech
simply with, "Today is a day for... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
President Reagan uses his position as President to inform people about his trust in the NASA space program, and the true bravery of the astronauts
on their journey to lead us into the future. This is an example of the rhetorical device ethos, and the audience trusted that the President knew what he
was talking about! The overall tone of the speech was very solemn and melancholy, but the added use of pathos really made the listeners feel the true
sorrow of the nation's despair. Using words like mourning and loss produced a dismal feeling, however, words like daring, brave, freedom and
dedication, made the audience sense a feeling of recovery and

World History: The Challenger Disaster
The Challenger Disaster
Weather can play an enormous role in historical events that are remembered decades, and even centuries, after they happen. It can turn small events that
would go unnoticed in history to events that are remembered as some of the most important in world history. Until relatively recently, when theWeather
Bureau was formed in 1870, we lacked the capability to forecast the weather and prevent incidents like these (Robbins). Even though weather reporting
from that moment on would become widespread across the country, it would not be enough to prevent disasters such as the Challenger disaster that
rocked the country on a chilly day in 1986. The Challenger space shuttle was one of America's best shuttles to ever be launched

Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster Summary
A)Do you think that the most critical issues that contributed to the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 were primarily data quality issues (i.e.
data in poor condition that did not meet requirements) or information quality issues (i.e. information products that did not meet expectations or deliver
value)? Explain your answer and support your reasons with quotations from the paper.
In my view, Challenger space shuttle disaster was primarily due to the data quality issues. There are various reasons to support my statement from the
article. The variables which are responsible for quality of data has been violated in this case such as accuracy, consistency, completeness, fitness for
use, data relevance etc. In addition to this, there are some moderator variable violations also such as experience levels and time ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
This has happened because he was a novice or the one who has little bit of experience. We can say this from the statement that he lacked confidence
due to the inexperience and followed his higher grade officers who has no knowledge regarding the O–rings. This was one of the major violations of
data quality.
пѓ The problems associated with NASA database is also one of the major violations. Here, the O–rings are misclassified and misreported and in some
cases it is shown as redundant.
This lead to the serious accuracy and consistency violations.
пѓ There was no completeness in this whole process. The critical components were not cross referenced with the test plans hence it became tough for
the management. This was one of the major failures.
пѓ In addition to it also lacked the interaction between fitness for use and specific experience hence there are no insight developed on this issue.
пѓ As a whole this disaster was mainly due to the data quality issues occurred at various levels and various

Space Shuttle Challenger Disasters
Space shuttle Challenger disaster, one of the worst things the could have every happened to those poor people. The disaster occurred on January
28th 1986, The bird broke apart in 73 seconds, Bleeding in the death of the seven crew members which included 5 NASA astronauts and two payload
scientific Specialists, The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, cape canle lower Florida region at 11:39 estimated time. These fragments
rained over these parts, Family stood parel, what to do Suns loss "soldiers" gone best friend could have been on this bird.
The disaster resulted in 32 months hiatus in the space shuttle program information of Rogers compromise. Who's the special compromise appointed
none only then United States President

Challenger Disaster Speech Speeches
Challenger Tragedy Who would have thought when seven souls set out on a journey to space such a tragedy would have happened 73 seconds after the
takeoff? On January 28th, 1986, the American shuttle Orbiter Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff, killing astronauts: Michael Smith, Dick
Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and school teacher Sharon McAuliffe, who was supposed to teach lessons to
schoolchildren all across the country. The launch was viewed by thousands of people across the nation and the world, including numerous
schoolchildren. The tragedy of the event called for former President Ronald Reagan to address the nation. The president called the famous speech,
"Shuttle Challenger Disaster... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He talks how they were brave and full of aspiration by saying, "give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy." In other words, he makes sure that
everyone knows that we will not forget the men and women who lost their lives and that they will remain in our memory and hearts forever. He
addresses the school children as well so that they have a better understanding of what happened and how hard it was to view such a tragedy. As a
result, he wants for the children to understand that things do happen and he does not want them to give up on their future with what they have seen
no matter how bad the devastation. "The future doesn 't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave." He does not want them to be timid, he
wants them to continue on the journey forward. Further, that part of the speech that addressed the schoolchildren was meant to make them less afraid
of the events that they saw. In other words, he wanted to try to explain things to them that would be at a level that they would understand and make
them feel better about what they seen. The great respect and ambition that the president has for the program is at the upmost respect. This brought
him great credibility by addressing NASA for what they have accomplished and moving forward with the space program. "We don 't hide our space
program. We don 't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public." Indeed, he wants everyone to know that

The Challenger disaster was not only a disaster in terms of the destruction of the spacecraft and the death of its crew but also in terms of the
decision–making process that led to the launch and in terms of the subsequent investigation into the "causes" of the disaster. The decision
to recommend for launch was made by lower–level management officials over the objections of technical experts who opposed the launch under the
environmental conditions that existed on the launch pad at the time. Furthermore, the lower–level managers who made this decision––both NASA and
contractor personnel––chose not to report the objections of the technical experts in their recommendations to higher levels in the management chain–
of–command to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A more appropriate ethical analysis would seek to understand the ways in which the decision–making process itself fostered or hindered responsibility
among individuals within the organization and of the organization itself. In this respect, when viewed as a problem of responsibility, the Challenger
disaster presents a much more insightful lesson on the nature of decision–making in a large organization such as NASA. While it seems clear that the
decision that led to the explosion of the Challenger was made by those lower–level managers who chose to ignore the objections of technical experts
who opposed the launch, the subsequent investigation revealed how the decision–making processes within NASA (and it contractors) worked to limit
the agency of decision–makers and to obscure accountability for their decision–making. The problem of responsibility in the decision–making process
focuses upon three issues: the availability of information, the role of technical specifications and formal regulations, and the management
chain–of–command. Each of these factors contributed to the exercise of poor judgment and to the obscuring of accountability in the decision–making
process. The availability of information––more precisely the lack of information––had an impact upon the decision–making process in three different
ways. The technical experts who recommended against launching were not aware of the nature of the

The Challenger Disaster And Its Impact On Space Travel
The Challenger Disaster was one of the biggest events of the 1980's. It symbolized that space travel is a challenging endeavor which bears it's own
set of risks, especially when the entirety of the shuttle program was plagued with issues up until the Challenger incident. Initially, America put a ton of
resources into the space program in order to achieve the goal of winning the Space Race. Once that goal was achieved, America's space program was
scaled down to a fraction of the previous budget (space.com article). Out of the small budget, the shuttle program came into existence. During it's
conception, various bedget cuts and
Right at the dawn of the Space program, the Soviet Union had launched their first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 [History channel].
Many Americans were fearful that the Soviet Union would be able to posses the ability to launch missiles from space[History Channel]. As a result of
these fears, the US launched their own satellite and President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a public order creating the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) in 1958. In 1961, another blow was taken by the US space program when the Soviet Union launched the first manned
spaceflight [History]. This caused US policy makers to fear that they were starting to fall behind the Soviet Union, which lead to major investments in
better education in math and science[CFR]. Shortly thereafter, President John F Kennedy made a bold claim that declared the US would land a

By: Kathy Neuner & Jeremy Rider
Executive Summary Many factors must be examined to find the underlying reason for the horrible disaster of the space shuttle Challenger. We will
cover both the technical causes to the disaster and the communication breakdown with NASA. We will also look at the outside pressure that NASA
was receiving from the media, congress and the military. Recommendations for NASA and anyone in the communication field will be given. These
recommendations will help to avoid any further problems with communication in any organization. The O–rings failed to properly seal the gap in the
joint seal. Failure of the Orings was the ultimate mechanical cause to the explosion of the Challenger. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If the Orings do not properly seal these gaps it is possible for exhaust gasses to get into the internal structure of the joint field. The extreme
temperatures of the exhaust gasses are too high for the internal joint, known as the Tang and Clevis, to handle. The Tang and Clevis are the two main
parts of the joint. They are mating sections that are held together with one hundred seventy–seven pins. Without the O–rings, the Tang and Clevis are
not able to withstand the extreme pressure of exhaust gasses.
3
Figure 1. Cross section view of field joint located in the Solid Rocket Booster
Four Technical Problems First let's look at the four mechanical aspects of the Challengers problems, blow holes, O–Ring erosion, joint rotation, and the
response of O–Rings during low temperature. The condition of the primary seal is essential to the successful operation of the rocket booster. Engineers
had to make sure that the seal was not damaged, so they increased the pressure of the leak test to above the pressure that the putty could withstand.
This was supposed to make sure the O–ring was correctly covering the gap without the help of the putty. Blow holes were tiny tunnel–like holes that
were left in the zinc chromate putty of the rocket booster insulation. The putty was supposed to protect the O–rings from the hot exhaust. The holes
were a result of pressurized test known as the leak check port. The leak test left engineers worried; they didn't think that the

Challenger Disaster Research Paper
Challenger Disaster and Impacts Space exploration is and always will be an expensive and dangerous ordeal. Before the Challenger accident, it was
widely believed that space exploration was an easy and safe. However, as we see with the Challenger accident, that is not always the case. The
primary fault for the failure to launch Challenger in orbit was deduced to be because of a defective O–ring. This defective component allowed hot
gasses and flames to seep out, that subsequently created a blowtorch that was aimed at the spacecraft. This paved the way for one of the early
disastrous accident ever to occur in the space exploration program. Seven people died instantly as the space shuttle spiraled out of the preflight plan. 73
seconds after liftoff, people watched in horror as white spiral smokes filled the sky.
Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA boasted about how easy and simple it is to send humans to space. To prove this, they selected Sharon... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
in the incident of explosion of their spacecraft during the launch of STS–51–L from the Center of Kennedy Space about eleven forty am on January
28, 1986. The explosion happened after 73 seconds inside the spacecraft because of a leak that occurred in one of the two solid rocket Boosters that
ignited the main liquid fuel tank.
Since the direct cause of the Challenger explosion was technical– faulty O–rings. including the ethics of organizational structure and culture as it
promotes or discourages necessary communication, the ethics of whistle blowing, and an excellent study of group think. We will examine at least two
aspects of this case: the ethics of organizational structure and culture, and the ethics of group think. And, as our discussions develop, perhaps some of
the other related issues as well and what should have been

Rhetorical Analysis Of Ronald Reagan's Challenger Disaster...
On January 28th, 1986, the Challenger shuttle exploded shortly after liftoff killing all seven of the crew members. Almost everyone in America,
including hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren were watching. This disaster meant that Ronald Reagan would have to address the issue. He
answered this call with the Challenger Disaster Address. In this speech, he not only comforted the families of the astronauts, but also the rest of the
nation by rebuilding faith in the space program. Reagan exibited empathy in his tone, while keeping a strong demeanor. He demonstrated empathy
in many ways. The first is when he says "Nancy and I are pained to the core." He not only shows that he is hurt by this statement, but also his wife,
First Lady Nancy. From there, he goes on to say "We share this pain with all of the people of our country." Reagan expands his subject to all of
America as he also shows that even though he is the president, he still feels pain. He then talks about the significance of the Challenger Disaster and
how, in the past 19 years, Americans never witnessed anything like this happen to an American shuttle after it had been launched. He does, however,
point out that the "Challenger Seven" knew what the risks of having this job were. Further into his... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To comfort the homes of the seven, he talks about how the seven died doing something bold and brave, as well as their passions. He called them
"pioneers", which by doing so, was encouraging the nation while maintaining his empathetic tone. He then turns his attention to the youth that saw this
horrific event. He addresses them because, although many of them may not understand what happened, it created a small feeling of comfort to the
American

Challenger Disaster Research Paper
Spencer Kenley Mrs. Efaw American Literature, P5 29 January 2018 The Effect of the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster The Challenger
malfunctioned on January 28, 1986, at 11:38 AM. The temperature was thirty–six degrees Fahrenheit in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and after
seventy–three seconds of flight, the O–rings failed and the Challenger exploded into a giant cloud in the sky. All seven astronauts died, including
Christa McAuliffe, a teacher in Concord, New Hampshire, chosen by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from thousands of applicants
to go into space and preform school lessons. Since Christa McAuliffe was going to be the first civilian in space, course camera crews were filming
and just about every classroom in America... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The ball was found on display at Clear Lake High School for the past thirty years, an artifact long forgotten in the halls (Roberts). Shane Kimbrough,
Commander of Expedition Fifty, who has a son that goes to Clear Lake High School offered to take it to the International Space station. After reaching
the International Space Station, Kimbrough posted a photo of the ball floating by the Cupola window which then sparked some interest, and reminded
us of the Challenger for some, for the first time since it happened. The fact that small miscalculations can have large effects was illustrated by the
Challenger disaster through its effect on Investigation, Reputation, and Future. Wether it be something good, like a nonprofit education center for the
promotion of science or something horrible, like people being scared for their life, you can not deny that the Challenger Disaster impacted the United
States history. The Challenger Disaster will be remembered in history as the disaster that changed NASA forever, create a line between confidence and
questioning of the program.Works

President Regan ordered an immediate postponement of the Space Shuttle Program. The U.S. Congress then authorized an investigation of the
Challenger disaster. It was a cold morning when Challenger was supposed to fly into space. Several NASA officials urged that the launch be postponed
for warmer weather conditions. Since the NASA Launch Decision Team had okayed several space shuttles launches at and below that present
temperature and had gotten away with it, the order was ignored (Howell). Seventy–three seconds later NASA realized that their luck had finally run
out. President Ronald Regan tasked the Disaster Authority Commission with the investigation of the destructive incident. They concluded that there
was two causes leading to the Challenger ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mostly because of humans instincts, with the Apollo 1 disaster, those who worked for NASA could of welcomed the Navy engineers tips; and
would of prevented the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew. Then as we look to the Apollo 13 disaster, where it says in the safety rule book that if a piece of
equipment is damaged or malfunctions it is to be replaced. Again this was ignored only because NASA engineers had gotten away with it in the past.
Shortly after Challenger disaster would arise. Launch Comand knew what could happen if they launched the space shuttle bellow or above certain
temperatures; and only because they had gotten away launches in the past were they ok with the situation. Finally, it took the lives of seven
astronauts to cause a course of action. Though only seventeen short years later the lesson of the Challenger would be forgotten, and the United
States would loose seven more astronauts' only because NASA became lazy and started to cut corners just to get by. Nevertheless, when we get
away with something the first time and there are no consequences to for our actions, why would we ever stop? Normalization of Deviance is a
silent killer. Just as NASA slowly moved away from their saftey proticols, we as humans do the same, such as texting and or drinking and driving. The
reason they are ilegal is because people died, the reason NASA had saftey proticols is because people

Challenger Space Shuttle Disasters
During the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster, many professional responsibilities were neglected. First, engineers did not "hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public" (Ethics Code II. 1. a.). For example, although the ice inspection team found the launch situation to be of great
concern, the launch director authorized it anyway (Texas A&M University 5). At this point, professional bodies or public authorities should have been
notified.
Second, it was every engineer's responsibility to contact relevant officials on the matter. They should have "cooperate with the proper authorities in
furnishing such information [and provided] assistance as may be required" (Ethics Code II. 1. f.). Third, there is an ethics violation when the
recommendation to launch is passed along without engineer support and signature. According to the Ethics Code, in section II. 2. B., "Engineers shall
not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not
prepared under their direction and control." Thiokol's management ignored this code and misrepresented the dissent among the qualified engineers
(Texas A&M University 5). On a... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Furthermore, after receiving no support with management on the subject, Boisjoly should have approached the appropriate authorities with the matter.
Such response would be warranted as the matter concerned public safety, the upmost priority for engineers. Also, since Thiokol' management ended up
disregarding the engineer's judgment, Boisjoly should have removed himself from the project and ceased all work on it. Such response is unaffected
by Boisjoly's age, job status, or personal life. While those factors may be important to him, as an engineer, matters concerned with the public safety,
health, and welfare come

NASA's Incompetence: The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle...
On an unusually cool Florida morning in January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 50,000 feet above ground just moments after liftoff
killing seven crew members onboard (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). A presidential commission, dubbed "the Rogers Commission" (hereafter, the
Commission) after former Secretary of State William Rogers, was appointed to investigate the cause of the disaster. Although mechanical failure of an
O–ring seal in one of the rocket boosters was identified as the physical cause, the investigation revealed something much more disheartening;
organizational deficiencies at NASA had allowed potential safety hazards to be disregarded. The disastrous consequences of NASA's organizational
failure prompted calls... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An overarching distinction in the perceptions of managing change is the desire to either control or shape change outcomes. The images are further
differentiated based on assumptions about the degree to which change managers influence change outcomes. Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2009) state
that these images guide change leaders in certain directions as they make sense of events unfolding around them. The caretaking image, as an ideal,
maintains a controlling view of management, but also recognizes that control is acutely limited by numerous internal and external forces (Palmer and
Dunford, 2008). Consequently, change unfolds independently of managers' intentions and the objective is to "shepherd" the organization to the best of
their ability (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). In this vein, NASA took on the caretaking image in its tolerance for and eventual normalization of
safety hazards. Moreover, this image can be perceived in NASA's assumption that nothing could be done to repair the space shuttle Columbia or prevent
the disaster that occurred upon its return. Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2009) state that the director image deflects organizations' attention away from
whether outcomes are achievable. Indication of the directing image, which views management as control and intended outcomes as achievable, can be
found in NASA's commitment to an unrealistic launch schedule while sacrificing

NASA Challenger and Columbia Disaster
Post– Challenger NASA Structural and Cultural Changes
The challenger disaster called for certain changes in the NASA organizational structure, culture and operations. The Rogers Commission carried out a
full investigation into the causes of the disaster and recommended to NASA certain actions to mitigate future incidents. First of all, there was a
creation of a Solid Rocket Motor Joint redesign team who would also analyse the sealing system (NATA Technical Reports Centre, 2010).
Procedures would have to be put in place for assembly and inspection activities before the next flight. There was the creation of an oversight committee
that would report directly to the NASA administrator to increase independence in the flight operations. The team would oversee the operations
concerning inflight loads, assembly processing and the redesign process (Launius & Garber, 2000).
There was a complete review of the safety procedures and controls were tightened when it came to the granting of waivers. The flight rate was
reviewed to ensure that is suitable for the resources that NASA had at that time. There were improved landing safety activities especially in orbiter
brakes and nose wheel steering. It was important to enhance the communication within NASA organization.
Effective management communication was implemented at all levels. There would be more participation of the flight crew members. There would be
meetings by the Flight Readiness

Rhetorical Analysis Of Speech On The Challenger Disaster
On January 28, 1986, Ronald Reagan, comforting and empathetic in his speech entitled "Speech on the Challenger disaster", facilitates the mourning
process of the American people following the Challenger Disaster. He is able to accomplish this by connecting on a personal level with everyone
affected by the tragedy: the school children, family of the deceased, and the entire American population. In addition, he explains specifically addresses
the children with lessons to be learned, and how to move forward. Finally, He applauds NASA for their hard work and commitment to the space
program. Through Reagan's use of empathy, optimism, and composure, he effectively persuades America that we can mourn together and there is a
bright future ahead of... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Knowing many Americans were lost in the wake of this disaster, Reagan sympathizes by using pathos in multiple forms. One example is where
Reagan says, "But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much"(Reagan 3). His use of the word "we" helps the audience unite and
mourn together as a country. When he states, "we feel the loss"(Reagan 3), it makes those who feel alone feel comforted and feel like they are
included. Reagan later says, "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them"(Reagan 8). This directly puts thoughts of the crew into the
minds of the audience in a positive and remembering fashion. Reagan leaves the emotions of the audience in a mournful but stable state by putting
thoughts of the crew in their minds. Reagan is also able to connect with the audience by adding specific details, making him seem more authentic.
Right from the start Reagan uses ethos when he says, "Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the Shuttle Challenger"(Reagan 1). Using
his wife's first name makes it seem more authentic by personalizing the situation to his own life. He is showing that the Challenger Disaster affects
him on a personal level, making whatever he says pertaining to the disaster more credible. Later, he goes on to explain the situation to the school
children and says, "I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Essay
Next on the list is Cleveland East Ohio Gas Explosion of 1944. "On October 20, 1944, a storage tank holding liquefied natural gas, that was kept
above ground as was common at the time, began leaking. The liquefied gas dropped into the sewer lines, mixed with air and sewer gas, and
consequently ignited. A series of fires and explosions killed 130 people in Cleveland, Ohio. The catastrophe event made a significant impact on the
natural gas industry, that started to store the tanks below ground" (Engineering Disasters, 2017, p. 1). Again, it is obvious the lesson learned here but
that doesn't take away from how important it is. The lesson was to store such gas below ground and to make calculations for the unexpected. The
sixth in this series was the Hyatt Regency Hotel Walkway Collapse of 1981. "On July 17, 1981, two vertically walkways collapsed at the Hyatt
Regency in Kansas City, falling into the hotel's lobby. 114 people... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"On January 28, 1986 the NASA Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all 7 astronauts on board. The investigation
showed aerodynamics forces broke the shuttle apart, after a structural failure that began with a specific gasket that failed at the very liftoff. The
entire event was broadcast live on TV" (Engineering Disasters, 2017, p. 1). This disaster occurred after a gasket failure in an attempt to rush a
launch date by the administration. Refusing the request of an administration figure due to a danger is one of the most difficult situations an engineer
can be placed in because it can jeopardize their job and as a result, their family is affected. Well it is one of the hardest situations it is one of the most
important to speak up and make sure your option is not only heard but is documented as well because if it isn't then it shall be your engineering license
on the line and without that and a bad reputation your career life is pretty much

Rhetorical Analysis Of Challenger Disaster By Ronald Reagan
Rhetorical Analysis On January 28th, 1986, Ronald Reagan, president of the United States, in his speech entitled "Challenger Disaster," discusses the
space shuttle tragedy. He supports this claim by first mourning the accident, then promoting NASA, tries to make sense of the disaster, and finally
honors the astronauts. Through Reagan's use of tone, rhetorical appeals, and rhetorical tools he effectively persuades Americans to mourn the loss, but
also continue to move forward and support advancement. Reagan brings the nation together with his supportive and sympathetic tone to mourn and
honor the astronauts and America's space program. The President first displays support through his tone by promoting NASA.
"We'll continue our quest into space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers
in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue" (6).
By saying this, Reagan tells the American public that there will be more explorations in space, and NASA ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He states, "Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground" (2). The President makes these
connections to show the American people that other famous voyages have gone wrong as well. Great explorers have also died when learning more
about the world. These astronauts will also be remembered like these explorers were, and they will be honored and known as great pioneers. Ronald
Reagan includes the use of pronouns to include the audience in his speech. For example, Reagan says, "We've never had a tragedy like this" (2).
When he says the word "we," it pulls them into the speech to feel more personal and connected. He refers to the country as a whole. He wraps up the
speech with sentences that can bring peace to the audience that he pulled in within the speech. The end of the speech

Before the Challenger disaster NASA was a company that once was never prepared to handle disaster. NASA experienced it's first disaster in
October of 1968 known as the Apollo. When the Apollo occurred NASA wasn't prepared and failed at protecting it's company and discussing the
publics concerns for the disaster. NASA at this time had no exact protocol on handling disasters and acted on impulse which contributed to NASA
losing their reputation. After the Apollo disaster NASA made it best efforts to create direct protocols to follow when a disaster occurs that they later
was able to use when disaster struck again in the Apollo 13 disaster of 1971. It was at this time that NASA followed the protocol they set fourth for
disaster that helped them handle the crisis in a manner that would protect both the company and... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I argue this because NASA was not honest in all their disasters and tried to make coverups that the public later found out about and when trust is lost
its hard to regain it back. The public believes they have the right to know about crisis and companies are responsible for keeping them informed so by
NASA refusing to give instant and direct information about there crisis they felt NASA neglected there right to know. NASA failing to let the public
know about a crisis many would argue they weren't being sensitive to how the crisis affected others besides them directly. Today NASA would need to
be more honest about the disaster that occurred and make instant statement about what is happening to keep the public informed so the public can feel
NASA is considering how they feel. With the change in technology since 1986 NASA would be able to discuss their crisis through media outlets such
as Print,Film,Recording,Television,Radio, and most importantly the internet where they could use Social Media outlet which are huge

The Power Of The Challenger Disaster Speech
The office of President of the United States has become one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world. A president has the power to
set a legislative agenda, to veto a law, and to make crucial foreign policy decisions. While all these capabilities are important, the most significant
power of the presidency resides in his or her ability to respond to a national tragedy. Specifically, the president must provide comfort to a demoralized
nation, commemorate the fallen Americans, and inspire hope. No president fulfilled these tasks better than President Ronald Reagan during his "Space
Shuttle Challenger Disaster Address" to the nation. President Reagan comforted the nation, memorialized the seven casualties, and culminated hope for
the future of space exploration all in a four–and–a–half–minute national address. President Reagan's address not only demonstrated the most important
task of the President of the United States, but it also became a template from which future tragedy addresses would be given. President Reagan
accomplished the first component of this vital role by successfully consoling the nation for, in what he calls, a "national loss." The President stated,
"Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this
pain with all the people of our country. This is truly a national loss" (Reagan). Reagan was able to paint himself as one of the many

The, 12 Angry Men, And Nasa 's Challenger Disaster
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes", a quote made famous by Maggie Kuhn, is the foundation of how I conduct my life. While the
fundamentals of being an open–minded, educated, and well–rounded individual involve considering the opinions of others and evaluating both sides of
the argument, too often people become complacent and lose the ability to think for themselves. The common term that refers to this type of herd
mentality is "sheeple". The play, 12 Angry Men, and NASA's Challenger disaster are two prime examples of the downfalls of groupthink. Below, I will
discuss both the helpful and harmful aspects of groupthink surrounding both 12 Angry Men, and the Challenger disaster, as well as the effects of
groupthink on today's voting young adults.
In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11–1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory
as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone
siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict,
merely stating "It just is". This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered
by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect

Technology and progress have inherent risks associated with them. Developing a new technology requires funding,testing, and the ethical decisions of
individuals before it becomes usable. Unfortunately, ethics and consumer interest often become clouded with the idea of the bottom line. Companies
make less than ideal ethical choices about the inherent dangers of technology for reasons other than safety. Throughout history companies have made
decisions that directly put lives at risk for the sake of their own bottom line. The organizational idea of putting the company before the consumer can
be seen with Chevrolet's Corvair, NASA's Challenger shuttle, and Uber's self driving cars. Ralph Nader deemed Chevrolet's Corvair as being "Unsafe
at Any... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mant skeptics wonder how do you go about programming ethics into a car? These people cite the trolley problem as a thought experiment in
automated vehicular decision making. Noah J Goodall who works with the Virginia Transportation Services wrote an article on the difficulties of
having to quite literally program ethics into a car. Driving involves inherent risk and these self driving vehicles must be a comprehensive exercise
in risk management. However, doing so can have unintended consequences. Goodall explains that self driving cars make judgement calls as it is
to break the law. For example, Google allows their cars to go faster than designated speed limits to keep up with the flow of traffic as going slower
might be dangerous to the vehicle and its occupants. Even in following the law Google's cars make small ethical decisions. A 2014 patent was filed
describing how Google's cars position themselves within a lane closer to a small vehicle than a large one to maximize the vehicle's safety. However,
in programming cars to behave a certain way, humans are creating unintentional consequences in a device that takes everything literally. A simple
example of this is what if cars were designed to prioritize the life of the pedestrian over all others. In the event a crash is imminent with a pedestrian
the car is forced to swerve, this could kill the passenger or other people in society. In

Challenger Disaster-Pathos And Logos Healed A Nation
Pathos and Logos Healed a Nation
The "Challenger Disaster" happened January 28th, 1986. Ronald Reagan delivered a speech emphasizing the nation's strength and to honor the 7–crew
members who died. President Ronald Reagan's "Challenger Disaster" speech shows a confident and somber state of the nation regarding the Challenger
that went down. In his speech he justifies that everything is okay and to honor those who died. The "Challenger Disaster" effectively repairs the nation
with it's tone, rhetorical appeals, and rhetorical tools.
Ronald Reagan's tone is somber but he confidently explains the impact to the nation with the ability to recover and become stronger. A quote from the
speech that displays the somber tone is, "Today is a day of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One rhetorical tool he used in his speech was negative connotation. "We lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground (paragraph 2)",
this was a negative event that happened but it didn't stop us. As a nation we weren't easily fazed and that can be cruel because then we think
nothing can go wrong for us, "It's hard to dazzle us (paragraph 4)". The negative connotation in this speech brings out the somber tone. He
confidently speaks about each of these things even though they are sad. He doesn't let the negative connotation take away from the confident tone
of his speech. A second rhetorical tool he used was the use of pronouns to include the audience. He is always using pronouns to make the audience
feel like they are a part of it, "we've grown to used to wonders in this century (paragraph 4)". "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw
them (paragraph 8)", he could have said he will never forget them but instead he said we and that one word changes the whole idea of the statement.
The second quote really expresses the purpose of honoring the crewmembers. He uses a lot of pronouns in the speech to include the audience, which
brings together the tone of confidence and the purpose letting everyone know it will be okay and that we will get through it together as a nation.
Reagan's speech has a strong message he achieved that through the use of rhetorical

The Space Shuttle 'Challenger' Disaster
The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Case 1: Case study of Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster Table of Contents Abstract 4 Overview 5
Background Information 5 Problem Statement 6 Initial Investigation 6 Detailed Analysis 6 Recommendation 10 References 11 Abstract In this paper
we will study the Challenger space shuttle disaster in detail. Our focus will be on different aspects of this event such as the many purposes which
were served by the Challenger space shuttle; we will also specifically focus on the media's role regarding this event and see how it affected the entire
situation. Overview When a disastrous event like the Challenger (which was also known as STS–51L) shuttle explosion occurs, the reaction from the
media greatly affects the public opinion. In any disaster event the public support for the mission is greatly affected and this factor can greatly
jeopardize any further missions since the public has a huge amount of interest where their funding goes. It is also seen that the media skew its reports
just for the sake of higher ratings. Background Information The space shuttle challenger disaster took place on January 28, 1986. It was a space
launch mission conducted by NASA which failed and exploded in air just 73 seconds after liftoff. The seven member crew in the space died. It is said
that they did not die on the initial explosion but later after the Challenger landed. The tragedy and its consequences attracted wide media attention

Challenger And Columbia Shuttle Disasters Essay
Portfolio Project: The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disasters Introduction While driving frantically through the lush farmland of the Livermore
Valley to rescue a 9–year who, along with her classmates had just witnessed the destruction of the Challenger on live television, the question of why
was all consuming. Growing up in the sixties and witnessing the moon landing led many to believe NASA was infallible. However, nearly twenty
years before Challenger, this proved untrue, as the dangers of space travel were tragically demonstrated when the crew of the Apollo 1 died in an
onboard fire during a test run (Howell, 2012). Following the Challenger tragedy, President Reagan (1986, para. 8) stated, 'We will never forget them,
nor the last... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While root cause analysis of both sentinel events revealed mechanical and debris problems as causative factors, the underlying problem was much
worse–NASA's lax safety oversight and slipshod management. These findings uncovered what dozens, and likely lucky, successful missions had hid
from the public. The country mourned the first tragedy, but demanded change, which made the loss of Columbia for similar reasons so stunning.
Therefore, much of this paper concentrated on change resistance, as the inability to change organizations is usually attributed to the difficulties in
changing people. Despite the distractions, leadership must push through this resistance or risk irrelevance in the marketplace. It is for good reasons,
organizations use the lessons of the Challenger and Columbia disasters in all levels of leadership as a warning of the potential for harm when budget
constraints, tight schedules, and deadlines allow flawed reasoning and egos to undermine safety and the decision–making

Analysis of Ronald Reagan's Sppech, The Challenger Disaster
While seated in the Oval Office of the White house, January 28, 1986 President Ronald Reagan delivers his speech The Challenger Disaster; hours
after the space shuttle The Challenger explodes while in take off. Thousands witnessed this horrifying event live in person and on television. This
mission was very unique allowing the first civilian to ever be allowed in space during a mission. She was aboard The Challenger as an observer in the
NASA Teacher in Space Program. Ironically, nineteen years before thisdisaster, three astronauts were tragically lost in an accident on the ground.
President Reagan remembers those astronauts that were lost not only the day of the disaster, but also those who were lost nineteen years before. He
conducts ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This speech has meaning, excites emotions and reaches out to all, which makes it a great speech. Although Reagan chooses to ignore his
administrations responsibility in The Challenger disaster, he concentrates instead on reassurance of the nation which makes this speech uplifting to the
American people.
Invention
To do a rhetorical analysis of this speech we would follow the Neo–Aristotelian approach. The Neo–Aristotelian approach consists of five canons which
are invention, organization, style, memory and delivery. First I will start off with Invention. According to Foss "the critic's concern in applying the
canon of invention is with the speaker's major ideas, line of argument, or content" (29). Invention is divided into two categories: external proofs and
internal proofs. External proofs "include sources used by the author but does not create, including testimony of eyewitnesses" (Foss 29). I will focus
on the internal proofs of this speech, which are logos or logical argument; ethos, the appeal of the speaker's character and pathos, emotional appeal. In
the speech of The Challenger Disaster Reagan does not necessarily present an argument, but rather a speech to console and find meaning. He starts the
speech by recognizing the terrible accident that happened nineteen years ago and relates it to The Challenger disaster. The events are factual and
therefore are logical to be included in the opening of this speech. To begin the

Ronald Reagan Challenger Disaster Analysis
On the morning of January 28, 1986, a tragedy struck the United States when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded just moments after liftoff on
national television. Approximately 74 seconds into its flight, the shuttle erupted into flame and "was totally enveloped in the explosive burn" before
breaking apart, killing all seven astronauts aboard. The Rogers Commission, appointed by President Ronald Reagan to investigate the disaster, later
concluded that the accident occurred due to the failure of an O–ring seal in the right solid rocket booster of the shuttle.1 Saddened by the event, Reagan
postponed his annual State of the Union address and instead gave a national address on the disaster the night of the incident. Within his address,
Reagan expresses his condolences to the families of the crew and reminds everyone that "we're still pioneers" despite that "we've grown used to the
idea of space." Notably, he spoke to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The article includes background information on the event as well as many quotes from people who followed the Challenger mission and remember
the tragedy. Many of the quotes express the viewer's shock at the disaster while others convey a sense of loss. The article also touches on the
complacency of NASA leading up to the disaster and refers to a quote which states that "one of the biggest outcomes from the tragedy was the
recommendation that NASA needed a stronger safety organization." Though Cindy and Tom did not recall specific details of conversations they had
with others about the Challenger disaster, their feelings and opinions are mirrored in many of the quotes found in Vaidyanathan's article. The article
portrays a "national grief,"8 which came across when Cindy described the event as a "horrible tragedy,"3 and when Tom said "it was just a shocking

NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Engineering Failure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Engineering Failure

Similar to NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Engineering Failure (7)

More from April Blount

More from April Blount (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NASA Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Engineering Failure