Challenger Ethical Case Study

Challenger Ethical Case Study - Prof. Richard Wilson PHIL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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 28 th , 1986, space shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds into flight, after an O-ring in the shuttle’s 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 Thiokol’s 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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
We analyze stakeholders from NASA’s perspective. This perspective is the most important because the case’s technical problems are most associated with the administration. Primary stakeholders are ones who have had an immediate impact/influence from Challenger’s 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
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2011 for the course PHIL 251 taught by Professor Richardwilson during the Fall '09 term at UMBC.

Page1 / 7

Challenger Ethical Case Study - Prof. Richard Wilson PHIL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online