TITLE: CASE STUDY OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER

INTRODUCTION
On January 28, 1986, seven astronauts were killed when the space shuttle they were piloting, the
Challenger, exploded just over a minute into the flight. The failure of the solid rocket booster Orings to seat properly allowed hot combustion gases to leak from the side of the booster and burn
through the external fuel tank. The failure of the O-ring was attributed to several factors,
including faulty design of the solid rocket boosters, insufficient low- temperature testing of the
O-ring material and the joints that the O-ring sealed, and lack of proper communication between
different levels of NASA management.
BACKGROUND
This report I focus to study the case of the space shuttle challenger based on the criteria of:
I.

EARLY PROBLEMS WITH SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER

The Challenger space shuttle was explosion caused by solid rocket booster design together. Lap
joints occur due booster spent outside wall of the internal pressure. This joint is designed to help
the O-ring to seal the gap that can cause hot gases to escape. In 1977, NASA and Thiokol
discussed with changes to increase the thickness of the O-ring is made. In November 1981, after
the second shuttle flight, O-ring has been eroded by hot gases during launch. During January 24
1985, the first joint failure occurred which indicated that hot gases from boosters had blown by
O-ring seals. Thiokol found out that O-ring materials on reducing temperature is inadequate (not
too enough). During July 1985 Thiokol engineers redesigned the field joint without O-rings but

they used steel billets as it can withstand the hot gases. Unfortunately, that new design was not
ready during Challenger flight (explosion).
II.

THE POLITICAL CLIMATE

According to the political climate, NASA's budget was determined by Congress. Before this,
NASA always delays to launch space shuttle project because they not satisfied with the
improvement that they did now and want to improve it. Because of it, this causes the Congress
unhappy with the delay of the shuttle project and along with its performances. NASA had been
promised that the shuttle would be capable of frequent flights (several per year). So, because of
this, NASA was feeling urgent causing from the European Space Agency developed cheaper
alternative to the shuttle that might potentially lead the shuttle to out of business
To low the pressure facing, NASA schedule the launching of the shuttle flights in January 1986
since before had been delayed because of weather and mechanical failure. The Challenger shuttle
flights need to be launch as to allow the other shuttle on examine Halley's commet able to be
launched before Russian do the same thing. On the other hand, there also political pressure to
launch Challenger before upcoming state-of-the-union address as the President Reagan will be
able to mention the shuttle and a special astronaut; the first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.
III.

THE DAY BEFORE THE LAUNCH

This is a situation the day before the launch of the Challenger Shuttle. The first launch date had
to be delay due to cold front expected to move through the area, but the launch had already been
postponed in deference to Vice President George Bush, who was to attend. NASA didn't want to
antagonize Bush, a strong NASA supporter. NASA checked with all of the shuttle contractors to
determine if they foresaw any problems with launching the shuttle in cold temperature. A
2

teleconference was arranged between engineer and management to discuss the possible effects of
cold temperature on the performance of the solid rocket boosters. They discussed and give
presentation on how the cold weather cause problem to joint rotation and sealing of the joint by
the O-rings.
Bob Lund, president of engineering at Morton Thiokol say NASA should delay the launch until
the O-ring temperature could be at least 53 degree Fahrenheit. Larry Mulloy, the Solid Rocket
Booster project manager at Marshall and NASA employee disagree with Thiokol engineers. At
the end of discussion, they conclude that no trend in data indicating that a launch at expected at
the expected temperature would necessarily be unsafe. After discussion, Jerald Mason, a senior
manager with Thiokol, turned to Lund and said, ''Take off your engineering hat and put on your
management hat''. They do not want hear the opinion of Jerald Mason. Finally, Bob Lund, vice
president for engineering makes the decision that the launch proceed. Alan McDonald, director
of the solid rocket booster project attempted to convince NASA to delay the launch but not
successful.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The main cause of the explosion was the failure of the aft joint seal in the right SRB due to the
cold weather. A combustion gas leak through the right Solid Rocket Motor aft field joint initiated
at or shortly after ignition eventually weakened and penetrated the External Tank initiating
vehicle structural break-up and loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger during STS Mission 51-L.
The problem is why the NASA enforce the management to launch the Space Shuttle Challenger
and why in teleconference,they cannot follow Bob Lund, president of engineering at Morton

Thiokol say NASA should delay the launch until the O-ring temperature could be at least 53
degree Fahrenheit.
Space Shuttle SRB's. A full year before Challenger was launched; a major fault was discovered
in the design of the solid rocket boosters - the SRB's. These 2 immensely powerful rockets are
strapped to the side of the External Tank and accelerate the shuttle clear of the Earth's
atmosphere. 2 minutes after launch, the SRB's release from the Shuttle, dropping to the ocean
and are collected for reuse. The SRB's were built for NASA by a contractor, Morton Thiokol,
Inc. This question, why the management for space shuttle Challenger do not fully ready to
investigate the effect of temperature to booster.
OBJECTIVE
I.

To explain the effects and impact of technology on society, culture and environment

II.

based on the space shuttle challenger disaster.

To practice the professional, responsibilities and abide code of ethics, then relate to the

III.

space shuttle challenger disaster.

To Study critically and handle social, cultural and global environmental issues from the
space shuttle challenger disaster.

SIGNIFICANT OF STUDY
The issue covered includes the importance of an engineer's responsibility to public welfare, the
need for this responsibility to hold precedence over any other responsibilities the engineer might
have and the responsibilities of a manager or engineer. Besides that, the important is to know the
effects and impact of technology on society, culture and environment based on the space shuttle
challenger disaster. Furthermore, to practice the professional, responsibilities and abide code of
ethics, then relate to the space shuttle challenger disaster.
DISCUSSION
I.

Effects and Impact of Technology on Society, Culture and Environment

Challenger disaster has some issues related to the engineer. One of the most important issues
related to the engineers who are placed in management positions. This is effect for society
especially in management. It is important that these managers do not ignore their own
engineering experience, or expertise of their subordinate engineers. In culture of engineering,
even if engineer has engineering experience, is not as up to date on current engineering practices
as are the actual practicing engineers. Engineer should keep this in mind when making any sort
of decision that involves an understanding of technical matters. Another issue is the fact that
managers encouraged launching due to the fact that there was insufficient low temperature data.
Since there was not enough data available to make an informed decision, this was not, in their
opinion, grounds for stopping a launch. This is a change of direction in thinking that occurred in
the early years of the space program, and encouraged the launch until all the facts were known
about a problem. The same thinking can be traced back to an earlier phase in the shuttle program,
when the top-level NASA management was alerted to the problem in the design of booster, but
5

does not stop the program until the problem was solved. For effect on environment, challenger
disaster can pollute the air and water. When it explosion on the air, the smoke from tank can
pollute the air and the remaining fuel which drop in ocean can polute the water
II.

Practice Professional Responsibilities and Abide To Code of Ethics.

To better understand the responsibilities of engineers, several important elements of professional

responsibilities of engineers should be checked. This will be done from two perspectives which
are the implicit social contract between the engineer and the community, and the guidance of a
professional code of ethics of society. As an engineer to constantly improve the speed, load,
capacity and so on, they should always be aware of their responsibility to society to protect the
public welfare. These are the code of professional conduct or ethics set by Board of Engineers
Malaysia to prevent engineers from behaving and acting unethically. The first sections in the
BEM Code of Ethics according to this section a registered engineer shall at all-time hold
paramount safety, health and welfare of the public. Every major engineering code of ethics
reminds engineers of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and wellbeing of
the public at the top of their list of priorities. Although company loyalty is important, it must
ndot be allowed to override the engineer's obligation to the public.
III.

Study Critically And Handle Social, Cultural And Global Environmental Issues.

From the case study, we can see the Challenger shuttle flights need to be launch as to allow the
other shuttle on examine Halley's commet able to be launched before Russian do the same thing
in space. NASA is enforcing to launch as soon as possible, so this is a issue that political which
is global issue is more important than the safety launching of space shuttle. NASA also is
enforcing because many of delay during previous launching, so they get not enough time get the
6

best day to be launch. Furthermore, in social communication mostly we can see in teleconference
the day before the launch, Bob Lund, president of engineering at Morton Thiokol say NASA
should delay the launch until the O-ring temperature could be at least 53 degree Fahrenheit.
Larry Mulloy, the Solid Rocket Booster project manager at Marshall and NASA employee
disagree with Thiokol engineers. As an engineer, they need to follow Bob Lund Say because they
know all about the booster if it safety or not because it is in their field of profession to build the
booster. So, in social, we must to follow the idea and suggestion of other people without see their
status and career. For the culture, engineer must focusly on safety aplication basicly on this case,
managemeng must think about safety and make fully research to know the stage of safety before
launcing. The safety is a culture of being an engineering.
CONCLUSION
Challenger accident was not the story of moral criminals. No one has suggested that any
individuals whose actions causally contributed to the accident had evil intentions, or that they
were callously indifferent to human life. Perhaps some individuals could have idea prevented the
disaster. As we have seen, these individuals are subject to the pressures and constraints of the
organization. Various external control and monitoring mechanisms should be used if we want to
minimize the likelihood of future disasters in the field of technology risk.