Challenger Disaster
It would be difficult to argue the fact that the events of the brief flight of the Challenger that took place on January 28, 1986 was not an "accident". By definition, an accident is "an unexpected, undesirable event". The violent loss of one human life was in this case, an "accident". Not only were the lives of the astronauts on board the Challenger lost, but members of their families were permanently altered as a result of the Challenger. Not only were the individuals on board the Challenger astronauts, but they were also spouses and parents to some and children and siblings to others. Although the consequences were anticipated, the emotional affects of that day will never escape the lives of those involved.Beyond the personal affects of the Challenger, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), the George C, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Morton Thiokol (the prime contractor for the two solid-fuel boosters used to blast the shuttle into space) cannot refuse to admit that the results of the January 28, 1986 launch of the Challenger was an "accident". But to admit that the results of the January 28, 1986 launch of the Challenger were an "accident" is not an explanation. It is safe to assume that,
The first element being communication, Boisjoly clearly stated that he did not recommend the launch. The tragedy of the Challenger has forced NASA to evaluate the importance and the meaning of success. The basic concept was that this craft was being blasted into space by solid-fuel boosters. The text did not emphasize Reagan's direct involvement in the Challenger decision as vividly as the video. Direct feedback on job performance is mandatory. The question regarding the possibility of the Challenger explosion being an "accident" does not require as much consideration as does the question regarding how did this lack of proper communication result in such a tremendous loss? Communication, or lack of proper communication, can be a partial explanation for the event. Risk is a part of daily living, however how much risk an individual is willing to take is more the issue to be considered. Every employee may participate with suggestions and concerns. It was also "too late" to call off the launch because of the amount of money placed into the launch date and media coverage. Recommendations to postpone the launch would have, perhaps, caused question to the credibility of NASA and the monies spent on the program. The president lacked two-way communication skills completely. Compensation for successful production and cohesiveness is the motivator. Lucas selectively chose to disregard unfavorable information regarding launch recommendations in order to justify the launch. Had decisions been made based completely and solely on the facts, the Challenger would have been successful and the lives of the families involved would have not been impacted so tremendously.
Common topics in this essay:
Nucor's Crawfordsville,
Morton Thiokol,
Thiokol NASA,
Ronald Reagan,
Challenger January,
Challenger Lucas,
John Kennedy,
Challenger Disaster,
Marshall Center,
Lessons Space,
launch challenger,
space program,
organizational communication,
lack proper,
28 1986,
launch successful,
january 28 1986,
morton thiokol,
january 28,
admit results january,
results january 28,
research development,
result challenger,
1986 launch challenger,
launch challenger accident,
|
Acceptance Essays
