Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Prof.

Richard Wilson

PHIL 251 1

November 16, 2009

Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster: Ethical Case Analysis

Case Recap

Established as an organization in 1958, NASA has been affluent in conducting successful

space missions, but disparaged for its failures. The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster proved to

be a key for its belittlement. On Jan 28th, 1986, space shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds

into flight, after an O-ring in the shuttles right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed to seal. O-rings

leave their ruts and seal themselves into place on lift off while hot gas leaks into the SRB. On the

day of the launch, the O-rings had hardened due to cold temperatures, causing a prolonged

sealing process. Hot gas from the rocket motor infringed the SRB joint that was expected to be

sealed and caused major breaches in the other SRB attachment hardware, separating its aft

attachment while causing external fuel tank failures. This unprecedented catastrophe led to the

creation of the Rogers Commission to investigate the event and an immediate grounding of all

missions for two years. The incident could have been avoided if NASA managers had accounted

for Morton Thiokols O-ring failures from pervious missions and considered the dangers of

launching at cold temperatures as suggested by Rockwell engineers. These communication

difficulties coupled with O-ring failures in cold temperatures contributed into making this

mission unsuccessful and unethical in numerous ways.

Stakeholders
We analyze stakeholders from NASAs perspective. This perspective is the most important

because the cases technical problems are most associated with the administration. Primary

stakeholders are ones who have had an immediate impact/influence from Challengers

disintegration. Other/Secondary stake holders are those who have no direct effect from the

disaster.

Primary Stakeholders

The primary stakeholders in the case include NASA, Morton-Thiokol, Rockwell

International and astronauts and their families. NASA has responsibilities in keeping the

astronauts safe and in turn receives a successful mission from the astronaut. They must minimize

the cost to maximize the profits/outcomes, which NASA is held liable for. Another primary

stakeholder, Morton-Thiokol has been the principal producer of O-rings for the Challenger

mission. Flaws in its manufacturing could be fatal, and the company knew it would be

responsible for any outcome from its product. Morton-Thiokol takes a major blow to its

reputation in the rocket sciences and rubber industries; its future bidding prospects seem quite

miniscule now. As the shuttles prime contractor, Rockwell Internationals engineers had a large

say in Challengers readiness. Rockwells responsibility is to NASA and to the astronauts. It

must produce the safest method of space travel in the most inexpensive way. Rockwell engineers

should have trusted their calculations and predictions in making decisions pertaining to the

launch, particularly the temperature dangers. Their reputation as a contractor has been tarnished

due to the shuttles disintegration. Arguably the most affected primary stakeholders however, are

the astronauts and their families. Astronauts and their families entrust their lives with the mission

production and management personnel. Witnessing an accidental loss in life is an unfair feeling.
The emotional grief of the families must have moral effects against the other primary stake

holders.

Other/Secondary Stakeholders

Commercial interests and Taxpayers form the other/secondary stakeholders group.

Morton Thiokols commercial impact due to these events is greatly negative. It should see to lose

numerous contracts in the future. Rockwell Internationals chances on obtaining future affairs or

projects also look slim. Finally, NASAs grounding results in a stoppage of its commercial

capabilities. This includes producing, selling or buying any products and amenities. Another

secondary stakeholder, Taxpayers, often become irate when hard earned money is taken aside for

taxes. Unfortunately, it is an even gloomier situation when something like the Challenger disaster

occurs and we lose not only our money, but our astronauts as well.

Technical Problem

Straight forward, the central technical problem is the failure of the O-rings, which

presents itself as a design failure. Each SRB contained six sections, three joined in factory joints

and three in field joints. These field joints were sealed using two O-rings, where one was a

backup in case of failure of the first. These seals were required to suppress hot gasses during lift-

off that would leak into the SRBs.

Where a major problem came in had to do with cold launching temperatures. Morton-

Thiokol had not tested O-rings at temperatures below 533 F and could not determine if the joint

would seal properly, with dependency on the backup O-ring as well. Along with Thiokol

engineer suggestions and Rockwell engineers, Roger Boisjoly iterated the dangers of launching

at cold temperatures to the NASA administration.


Unfortunately, there was major difficulty of communication between organizational lines,

between Rockwells engineers at the base and their supervisors, who advised against the launch.

At some point in this launching process, NASA management overtook the engineers views and

influenced them to feel as though a launch would be inevitable and safe nonetheless. Lack of

technical evidence, communication and rushing to launch are major technical problems related to

this case.

Ethical Problem(s) & Principle(s)

There are several ethical problems in this case including decisions based on management

team, not the engineers; duties of NASA, Rockwell and Morton-Thiokol staff and protection of

the interests of astronauts. The main ethical problem is NASAs incorrect decision making in

launch readiness. The main duty of NASA, Rockwell and Morton-Thiokol staff is to do their best

to protect astronauts, which was not performed. These problems are related to virtue ethics,

consequentialism, and deontology.

Virtue ethics stresses the nature, or character, of the moral agent as the main aspect of

ethical philosophy. Rockwell engineers determined that proceeding with a launch was ill-

advised, yet agreed with the NASA management on the base, in the end, to ensue the process.

This may have been in fear of being shunned as the only group barricading the launch.

Consequentialism on the other hand, imparts on the fact that consequences of an action

are the foundations for moral judgment of that action. Informed about the O-ring temperature

flaws and engineering advice, NASA should have postponed the launch. O-ring temperature

dangers being NASAs primary concern, the launch decisions fatal consequences could have

been avoided; as it now has to live with the consequences. Also, astronauts want
utilitarianism, which is their main interest; something that will bring them the greatest amount of

happiness. Mission success would clearly fulfill this desire, as would pre-knowledge of safety. It

is easy to say that they were unlucky, but this accident could have been avoided. If the actions

were different, so would be its consequences.

Finally, deontology determines what is right by observing acts, rather than consequences

of the act or looking at a persons intentions when the actions were performed. Men like Roger

Boisjoly had voiced their opinions about the launch, stepping apart from the rest of his group. He

had the integrity and moral rightness to fulfill his duty in protecting the astronauts before

protecting the success of the mission. He abides by one of Kants Categorical perspectives: treat

human beings as an end, not as a means. NASA should have abided by Kants perspectives to

signify its deontology by postponing the launch.

Recommendations

Based upon this ethical analysis, many recommendations are obvious, such as extra O-

rings. But, an analysis should give suggestions for future cases, whether it is a space project or

something completely different. For any problem, you must analyze the facts, first and foremost.

There has to be some thought process to fulfill a goal, but in a way that applies the principle of

happiness to all; which includes personnel safety. Secondly, the solution to the problem must be

ethical and moral by virtue and deontology. One cannot completely voice his/her opinion if the

consequence would leave that person shunned. Finally, the solution must provide an achievement

in desired goals.

For this case, the facts presented included O-ring flaws with temperature problems. To

solve this problem, Morton-Thiokol could have produced better O-rings that could be sustained
at any temperature. Due to monetary constraints, NASA would just have to use more O-rings to

reduce chances of the accident or recruit more companies in its project. Also, launching at safe

temperatures would further reduce the chance of fatal consequences as O-ring testing proves

their safe use in those situations. The solutions maximize happiness for astronauts and mission

controllers as well as achieve the desired goals. Obvious solutions like these are rarely

overlooked, rather just labeled as unimportant to the success of a mission.


Works Cited

"Space Shuttle Challenger disaster."


Wikipedia. 15 Nov 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster&oldid=325948712>.

S-ar putea să vă placă și