Launching Into the ethical Learnings from the Challenger Disaster
DR.Anima Bose & Darshit Khuthiya
Keywords: Responsibility for safety, Conflict of interest, Ethical Dilemma
Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics Class project : electrical and mechanical view (as in IEEE code standard)
State the Problem: Clearly define what the ethical engineering problem is.
Get the facts: Obtain all relevant facts to the matter(i.e., the different moral viewpoints) and then analyze them all.
Identify and Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints: Analyse the pro and cons of different moral viewpoints and pick the best course of action.
Come up with a Course of Action: Pick the best course of action and answer all un-answered questions.
Qualify the Course of Actions: Back up the course of action with facts or statistics
Abstract
In order to understand the reasons that caused the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster at Kennedy Space Center on January 28th ,1986 a series of reports and related data was analysed and stated. Among the many technical issues that led to the disaster, many problems related to unethical practises and misconduct of power and position was discovered. Inability of an organisation to follow the rules and regulation and misinterpretation of the data let to the disaster that caused tragic death of 7 astronauts.[5][2]
Disaster Summary
“The Challenger shuttle crew, of seven astronauts — including the specialties of pilot, aerospace engineers, and scientists– died tragically in the explosion of their spacecraft during the launch of STS-51-L from the Kennedy Space Center about 11:40 a.m., EST, on January 28, 1986. The explosion occurred 73 seconds into the flight because of a leak in one of two Solid Rocket Boosters that ignited the main liquid fuel tank.”[2]
Ethical Engineering Problems[2]
Promoting Responsible Conduct.
Responsibility for Safety.
Conflict of Interest.
Effective Communication.
Ethical Dilemma.
Primary Causes of the Disaster(Problem statement)
Ignorance of problem with O-Rings.[2][4][5]
Lack of decision making ; Effectiveness of temperature at time of launch.[2][4][5][6]
Lack of effective communication[2]
Ignorance of problem with O-Rings(Get the facts)
The main reason was the issues with the O-rings required to form a seal between two sections of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). [2][3][5]
Morton Thiokol and NASA were both aware of the problems six months before the launch date. [2][3][5]
The situation was deemed not critical because there was a secondary O-ring, which was originally intended as a backup safety control measure in the event of the primary seal failing.[2][3][5]
2. Lack of decision making ; Effectiveness of temperature at time of launch. (Get the facts)
Temperatures were expected to be in the low 20s on the launch date. Thiokol engineers were tasked with creating a presentation on the effects of cold temperature on booster performance. [2-7]
In an hour-long presentation, they attempted to persuade that the cold weather would exacerbate the problems of joint rotation and delayed O-ring seating.[2-7]
The main conclusion being that 53°F was the only low temperature data they had for the effects of cold on the operational boosters. The boosters had experienced O-ring erosion at this temperature.[2-7]
However, NASA managers approved the launch stating that the presented data showed no correlation between blow of gasses which eroded O-rings in previous mission.[2-7] (Add relevant photo is available)
3.Lack of effective communication (Get the facts)
One factor that contributed to the disastrous outcome was the Morton Thiokol engineers' inability to effectively communicate their concerns to NASA management and persuade them to postpone the shuttle's launch. [2]
On the morning of the shuttle's launch, the grounds crew was out measuring the thickness of the ice on the shuttle. Only hours before the launch, they measured a temperature of 8 °F on the right Solid Rocket Booster. This is far below the temperature range for which the O-rings were designed. [2]
However, because the grounds crew was only instructed to report on the thickness of the ice on the shuttle, this critical information was never conveyed to NASA's managers or engineers.[2] (Add relevant photo is available)
What went wrong? (Identify and Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints)
Recognizing a problem with the main seal and relying on the second seal's emergency safety control to prevent a catastrophic failure does not seem very ethical decision to take.[1-6]
The launch was carried at the temperatures which were beyond the known safe temperature range for the launch. The dynamic tests of the boosters had never been performed below 40°F. [1-6]
The decision for conflict of interest between Morton Thiokol engineers and NASA management was taken on basis of lack data and misunderstanding.[2-3]
Even after knowing about the temperatures no secondary check for the same was carried out even though the data could have been derived easily from the ground crew.[2]
The flight crew were aware of the ice on the launch pad but were not informed of the teleconference discussion that had taken place the evening before. Nor were they aware of the technical[2]
The Ethical course of action
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of public. Any action taken should be evaluated with unbiased views and fully evaluation as life of people could be affected by the actions taken.[7]
Any known technical problem, irrespective of its serious should be resolved as soon as possible. Only fully tested and verified machined should be allowed to operate.[7][2]
If the feasibility of machine is unknown in a particular environment range than it should not be operated. It should only be operated when conditions are favourable.[7][5]
If conflict of interest arise in a particular organization, then the issue should be resolved based on the decision leading to safe and ethical outcomes. .[7][2]
People involved in any scientific experiment should be made aware of all the latest development or complication in the experiment which could lead to damage or loss of life. .[7][2]
Changes after the Incident
After the Challenger disaster, NASA has started to prioritize astronaut's safety protection prior to and during launch. With some of the latest advances in technology NASA engineers have developed a Personal Cabin Pressure Altitude Monitor and Warning System that monitors cabin pressure when supplemental oxygen should be used, according to the Federal Aviation Regulations and is one of many examples of new innovations that were implemented to ensure that NASA's astronauts are no longer “sky diving without a parachute.”[2]
Conclusion (Qualify the Course of Actions)
The findings discussed above after careful evaluation of various investigations and reports put light on various issues that let to the disaster. Ethical principles such as promoting responsible conduct in the workplace, responsibility for safety of employees, conflict of interest and effective communication between the organizations were not practised both at NASA and Morton Thiokol. The incident could have been avoided if problems such as the concerns regarding the O-Rings were solved after having the knowledge of the problem, the temperatures in the rocket boosters at the launch were monitored properly and launch was allowed only after the required temperature was obtained and all the concerns were effectively communicated in the organization.[1-7]
References
Vaseline and Gunn, Alastair, “Hold Paramount. The Engineer’s Responsibility to Society”, Cengage Learning Third Ed.
Instructions
The presentation is for your reference only. Your presentation can have a different flow and structure.
It should have all the references linked to the content as shown in the presentation.
There is no limit to the number of slides per presentation, but it should effectively cover all the required points.
Total time of 20mins will be given for the presentation, followed by the discussion on the presented topic.
The report should have no more than 5 pages , Font size-12 and 1.5 Line Spacing.
The format of the report should be as discussed in the class.
Each team has to submit peer review on the day of presentation.
Two hardcopies of the presentation and report each have to be submitted on the day of presentation.
