The Challenger Shuttle Disaster, Thirty Years Later

Challenger_flight_51-l_crew
The Crew of the Challenger

W.J. Astore

When the Challenger blew up thirty years ago this January, I was a young Air Force lieutenant working an exercise in Cheyenne Mountain Command Center near Colorado Springs, Colorado.  I remember the call coming in to the colonel behind me.  I heard him say something like, “Is this real world?”  In other words, is this really happening, or is it part of the exercise?  The answer at the other end was grim, our exercise was promptly cancelled, and we turned on the TV and watched the explosion.

Our initial speculation that day was that an engine had malfunctioned (the explosion appeared to have occurred when the shuttle’s engines were reaching maximum thrust).  But it turned out the shuttle had a known technical flaw that had not been adequately addressed.  Something similar would happen to the Columbia in 2003: a known technical flaw, inadequately addressed, ended up crippling the shuttle.

When I taught a course on “technology and society” at the collegiate level, I had my students address the non-technical causes of the Challenger and Columbia disasters.  Here is the question I put to them in the course syllabus:

NASA lost two space shuttles: the Challenger in 1986 and the Columbia in 2003.  Tragically, both these accidents were preventable.  Both had clear technical causes.  In 1986, faulty O-rings on the solid rocket boosters allowed gas to escape, leading to an explosion of the center fuel tank.  In 2003, insulation foam that detached from the shuttle upon liftoff damaged the heat insulation tiles that protect the shuttle from the intense heat of reentry, leading to internal explosions as the Columbia reentered the atmosphere.

Both accidents also highlighted wider issues involving risk management, institutional culture, and control of highly complex machinery.  Before each accident, NASA engineers had warned managers of preexisting dangers.  In the case of the Challenger, it was the risk of launching in low temperatures, as shown by previous data of gas leakage at O-ring seals when the air temperature was below sixty degrees Fahrenheit.  In the case of the Columbia, visual data suggested the shuttle had sustained damage soon after liftoff, a fact that could have been confirmed by cameras and/or a space walk.  In both cases, managers overruled or disregarded the engineers’ concerns, leading to catastrophe.

Question: What do you think were the key non-technical factors that interacted with the technical flaws?  What lessons can we learn from these accidents about controlling complex technical systems?

I wanted my students to focus on issues such as group think, on management concerns about cost and schedule and how those might cloud judgment, on the difficulty of managing risk, on the possibilities of miscommunication among well-intentioned people operating under stress.

I ended the lesson with a quote from Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who had served on the Challenger board of inquiry after the accident.  Feynman’s honest assessment of the critical flaws in NASA’s scheme of management was shunted to an appendix of the official report.  It’s available in his book, “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”

This is what Feynman had to say:

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

It was a devastating conclusion – a much needed one then, and arguably even more needed today.

6 thoughts on “The Challenger Shuttle Disaster, Thirty Years Later

  1. And now there are driverless cars on the road …in the name of technological progress which has become synonymous with what it means to be civilized.It’s not technology per se that’s the problem. It’s the very uncivilized aspects of our culture which encourages accumulation, monetary gain, winning at all costs..After all, winning is the only thing, as the great NFL coach once told us.

    Like

  2. When I was still a Big City Firefighter, and the Brockton Fire dept. had a major conflagration invariably the News Media with film crews were on scene in Force. Which begged the Question especially for such a prestigious department when water pressures were low on the Hydrants- feeding the Engines “Pumpers” What can we do to Show our Fire Streams off to the Public at large!!?? Well we had a little In-Joke Lets put on the PR Tip!! “Public Relations Fire Tip” A Smaller orifice fitting appliance at the end of the Master Stream Devices we used on our Heavy Attack “Deck Guns” & Ladder Pipes” Well this Tip looked great shooting off an albeit smaller stream, but what reach!! Hence the PR Tip!. It could fool the Public, but not anyone who really knew Hydraulics!! Fenyman & Nature wouldn’t be fooled…!

    Like

  3. Reblogged this on Bracing Views and commented:

    In memory of the Challenger crew, lost 31 years ago today. A good way to honor them is to learn from the mistakes made in the decision to launch that cold morning.

    Like

  4. “Loss of 2 count em 2 Shuttles and both preventable”– if only they had the Money during Apollo!. So instead lets think of the Shuttle as a common “Spaceplane” I still remember the Public not even barely looking up from their Newspapers as another Shuttle Launch got underway!. The Crew of Challenger survived the break-up of Challenger and if only had an Escape Rocket at the nosecone of the crew compartment & Shutes probably would have survived, but cost got in the way!. Only hitting the Water at 200 m.p.h.! did they all 7 tragically perish… Now onto Columbia “IF” only there was another Shuttle on Standby they also could have been Rescued. Shameful that one was. Now, We can only hope that someday we can recover a viable Space Program allocating the lost dollars that made Apollo in comparison such a success. Until then better stick to “Un-manned” Exploration!.

    Like

    1. I worked at the L. B. Johnson Space Center (originally the Manned Spacecraft Center) from 1963 to 1998. After the Challenger accident, we had to consider the development of a procedure to do ‘manned’ vacuum tests of a proposed “Rescue Sphere” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rescue_Enclosure ), but the project was dropped before it actually reached the testing stage. It would have been an extremely difficult test to perform. I haven’t read the online articles about the “sphere,” in fact, I only just now searched for “shuttle rescue sphere,” but I see that this Wikipedia article has lots of flags.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s