EMGT 506 Challenger Case Study

1
EMGT 506Challenger Case Study

• Question 2
• Group B

2
Team B

• Alex
• Ephraim
• Eric
• Jesse
• Pablo
• Raghava

3
Question 1.6

• What were the similarities and differences
  between Challenger and Columbia?
• Include technical and systemic issues

4
Technical Similarities

• Damage to surface of "vehicle" caused disaster.
• Processes were in place to identify damage before
  or while it incurred. Cameras captured the foam
  falling off Columbia measurements captured the
  degradation and previous failures of O-rings on
  Challenger.

5
Technical Similarities

• The Solid Rocket Boosters which caused the
  Challenger accident and the External Tank which
  caused the Columbia accident were both the
  responsibility of NASA's Marshall Spaceflight
  Center in Huntsville Alabama.

6
Systemic Similarities

• Opinions or warnings of danger, offered by
  engineers and other technical staff, were not
  acted upon by management.
• Damage seen or presumed was deemed
  inconsequential to safety of vehicle or crew. A
  false sense of security prevailed.
• Tight budgets contributed to both disasters,
  though this cause was more significant for the
  Challenger than the Columbia.

7
Technical Differences

• Damage to Columbia wasn't inspected by satellite
  or space-walk inspection while O-rings were known
  to be degraded on Challenger.
• Challenger involved damage to SRB while Columbia
  was to Shuttle.
• Technical problems for Challenger more were more
  severe than for the Columbia.

8
Systemic Differences

• Columbia did not have any opposition to launch
  due to safety concerns.
• Budget constraints were a more direct cause of
  the Challenger disaster than in the Columbia
  disaster where a tight timeline and a tolerance
  for unsafe conditions were more influential
  attitudes.