Everything about The Space Shuttle Challenger Launch Decision totally explained
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.
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 didn't forward these memos to Thiokol, and the field joints were accepted for flight in
1980.
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 didn't 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'd 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 didn't 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".
, 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.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Space Shuttle Challenger Launch Decision'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://space_shuttle_challenger_launch_decision.totallyexplained.com">Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
