Abstract
The NASA Challenger STS 51-L accident is an archetypal example of a disaster with no clear scapegoat. While it is easy to simply blame the management for disregarding engineers’ warnings about the safety of the mission, this analysis of the Challenger Disaster is erroneous because it fails to consider other factors such as a flawed communication system. In order to comprehensively analyze the ethical violations that led to the Challenger accident, we must consider the scenario holistically. This means we must take into account not only the mistake of some engineers who did not strongly protest the launch and management who did not heed the engineers’ warnings, but also the tense atmosphere surrounding the launch of Challenger in addition to the flaws of the structure of the NASA communication system. By rigorously and completely analyzing the Challenger situation, we can then formulate preventive measures for future missions based upon the ethical violations that occurred on the Challenger mission in order to minimize the possibility of human, economic, dignity, and safety loss for missions in the future.
Introduction
On January 28th, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 72 seconds after launch, killing six astronauts as well as schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe (“Challenger Disaster”, n.d.). This disaster incited public shock, disbelief, and disappointment in NASA (“Engineering Ethics”, n.d.). This disaster was a huge wake-up call for NASA which had begun to sacrifice safety in favor of punctual mission launches due to the tense atmosphere at the time. As the Challenger disaster shocked Americans all over the country, they all wanted to the answer to one glaring question: Who do we blame? The Blame Game The primary reason for the Challenger disaster seems to be structural strains within NASA as well as a weak communication system (“Engineering Ethics”, n.d.). Both of these issues cannot be blamed on one specific person or one specific group of people. They were primarily a result of the tense atmosphere that surrounded the launching of Challenger (“The Space Shuttle”, n.d.). However, specific ethical violations can be traced. It should be noted, however, that in this technical report, I will solely be focusing on the ethical violations of engineers and therefore will largely refrain from commenting on the ethical violations of the management or non-engineers. For example, the main ethical violation was NSPE Code II.1, which says that engineers shall “hold paramount the safety, healthy, and welfare of the public.” Clearly, not all engineers involved upheld this code because of the pressure placed on NASA to launch Challenger. In addition, NSPE Code II.1a, which says “If engineers’ judgement is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” While Robert Ebeline, manager of the …show more content…
However, their efforts did not meet the standards listed in the NSPE Code of Ethics. As a result, the engineers share some of the blame in the Challenger Disaster. However, while identifying the key issues and causes of the disaster is very important, searching for a specific group of people to blame will not help prevent future disasters. While it may be tempting to place all of the blame on the management or the engineers or even NASA in general, this approach simplifies the case and is simply erroneous. The only way to prevent future disasters like this one is to
The NASA Challenger STS 51-L accident is an archetypal example of a disaster with no clear scapegoat. While it is easy to simply blame the management for disregarding engineers’ warnings about the safety of the mission, this analysis of the Challenger Disaster is erroneous because it fails to consider other factors such as a flawed communication system. In order to comprehensively analyze the ethical violations that led to the Challenger accident, we must consider the scenario holistically. This means we must take into account not only the mistake of some engineers who did not strongly protest the launch and management who did not heed the engineers’ warnings, but also the tense atmosphere surrounding the launch of Challenger in addition to the flaws of the structure of the NASA communication system. By rigorously and completely analyzing the Challenger situation, we can then formulate preventive measures for future missions based upon the ethical violations that occurred on the Challenger mission in order to minimize the possibility of human, economic, dignity, and safety loss for missions in the future.
Introduction
On January 28th, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 72 seconds after launch, killing six astronauts as well as schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe (“Challenger Disaster”, n.d.). This disaster incited public shock, disbelief, and disappointment in NASA (“Engineering Ethics”, n.d.). This disaster was a huge wake-up call for NASA which had begun to sacrifice safety in favor of punctual mission launches due to the tense atmosphere at the time. As the Challenger disaster shocked Americans all over the country, they all wanted to the answer to one glaring question: Who do we blame? The Blame Game The primary reason for the Challenger disaster seems to be structural strains within NASA as well as a weak communication system (“Engineering Ethics”, n.d.). Both of these issues cannot be blamed on one specific person or one specific group of people. They were primarily a result of the tense atmosphere that surrounded the launching of Challenger (“The Space Shuttle”, n.d.). However, specific ethical violations can be traced. It should be noted, however, that in this technical report, I will solely be focusing on the ethical violations of engineers and therefore will largely refrain from commenting on the ethical violations of the management or non-engineers. For example, the main ethical violation was NSPE Code II.1, which says that engineers shall “hold paramount the safety, healthy, and welfare of the public.” Clearly, not all engineers involved upheld this code because of the pressure placed on NASA to launch Challenger. In addition, NSPE Code II.1a, which says “If engineers’ judgement is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” While Robert Ebeline, manager of the …show more content…
However, their efforts did not meet the standards listed in the NSPE Code of Ethics. As a result, the engineers share some of the blame in the Challenger Disaster. However, while identifying the key issues and causes of the disaster is very important, searching for a specific group of people to blame will not help prevent future disasters. While it may be tempting to place all of the blame on the management or the engineers or even NASA in general, this approach simplifies the case and is simply erroneous. The only way to prevent future disasters like this one is to