To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
On January 28, 1986, the Challenger exploded only seventy-two seconds after liftoff, resulting in the tragic death of the seven astronauts aboard the shuttle. The explosion of the shuttle stemmed from the failure of the O-rings, which resulted in the escape of combustion gases and the ignition of the fuel tank. Multiple causes have been linked to the Challenger disaster: failure of the O-rings, flaws in the solid rocket boosters, inadequate testing of the O-ring and joints, and ineffective communication between the different levels of NASA officials (Departments of Philosophy and Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, 2015).
During the process of contemplating whether or not to launch the shuttle and ultimately deciding to carry out the launch, NASA officials and Morton Thiokol demonstrated the abuse of Professional Obligation 5, which can be found in the NSPE’s Code of Ethics (2015).
As clearly outlined in the Code of Ethics, “engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.” This violation occurred due to the small timeframe for the Challenger’s launch, political pressures due to presidential expectations for NASA and its space shuttle program, and the pressure placed on Thiokol engineers to meet NASA’s commitments.
The small timeframe contributed to NASA and Thiokol’s infringement of Professional Obligation 5. NASA’s rivalry with the European Space Agency (ESA) played a role in the organization’s need to prove that its space shuttle was both economical and efficient, as seen in NASA’s competition with the ESA (Departments, 2015), and throughout the testing of the space shuttle (Dunbar, 2013).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Science
5 (234)
“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”
Due to multiple delays of the shuttle mission preceding the Challenger, the Challenger was expected to be launched in a quick, efficient manner.
In addition to the pressures placed on NASA and Thiokol and the small time window provided to successfully execute the launch of the Challenger, the launch pad required alterations that provided a faster turn-around time which in turn would give NASA the ability to launch and gather data regarding Halley’s Comet before the Russians, in a future mission where NASA would be directly competing against Russia (Departments, 2015). NASA and Thiokol managers involved in the Challenger’s launch dealt with an immense amount of pressure because of the inadequate time they were given to successfully execute the Challenger mission, which resulted in their poor decision and their abuse of Professional Obligation 5.
The managers faced two conflicting interests: safety and efficiency, both of which in reality and the current situation could not be met at the same time. As delaying the Challenger’s launch could potentially delay future missions and tarnish NASA’ s reputation, the managers prioritized efficiency over safety. The need for safety, although crucial in any situation, was unfortunately cast aside to achieve the ultimate goal- launch the Challenger on time. Rather than maintaining reason and integrity in their duties, as required by the Code of Ethics, the managers fell victim to these conflicting interests and made the decision to continue with the mission, even though they knew it could compromise the safety of others.
Political pressures placed on NASA and the space shuttle program also led to the violation of Professional Obligation 5. Due to financial reasons and the national budget, President Nixon decided to terminate most of NASA’s programs save for its space shuttle program. Since only the space shuttle program remained, NASA felt the need to invest more focus, time, and effort into its endeavors. Further stress and pressure was placed onto NASA when President Reagan announced his military, political, and economic goals for the space shuttle program, including building upon NASA’s current work and carrying out launches of communications satellites (McKenna, 2015). NASA was also expected to execute the launch fairly quickly in order for the Challenger to be in orbit by the time President Reagan delivered the State of the Union address. The central topic of Reagan’s address was education.
A teacher was one of the seven boarding the Challenger, which served as an opportunity for President Reagan to include NASA’s mission launch in his State of the Union address (Departments, 2015). Again, this placed a strain on the decision-making process regarding the Challenger’s launch, and presented another clash in the managers’ best interests: safety and the achievement of the political and economic goals surrounding the Challenger’s launch. Meeting the goals of the President majorly influenced the managers’ final decision and ultimately contributed to the abuse of the NSPE Code of Ethics. Reasonably, the managers felt that they needed to meet President Reagan’s expectations, as failure to do so could tarnish the reputation of both NASA and Morton Thiokol. Once again, safety was cast aside in order to make room for what the managers believed was the greater good.
Thiokol management in particular committed infringement of Professional Obligation 5. Rather than choosing to consider and address the concerns presented by the engineers at Thiokol, Thiokol management decided to move forward with the Challenger launch, and as a result ultimately disregarded those concerns because of their focus on pleasing their client. In other words, Thiokol managers valued pleasing a client over the safety of others. This only added fuel to the fire, as Thiokol’s final decision had already been swayed by clashing factors such as the timeliness, political pressure, integrity, quality of work, and the need for both safety and efficiency.
The conflicting interests of safety and success with a client only further influenced Thiokol management’s desire to continue to move forward in the Challenger mission. Managers at Thiokol most likely believed that successful cooperation with a famous, well-known client such as NASA would lead to Thiokol working with other influential clients in future endeavors and therefore economic benefit. Rather than considering the NSPE Code of Ethics and resisting the temptation of conflicting interests in the workplace, Thiokol management demonstrated that they valued potential benefit and profit rather than moral integrity or the safety of others through their actions and the final decision to carry through with the launch of the Challenger.
Time constraints, political pressure, These examples of circumstances of how the managers disobeyed the NSPE Code of Ethics were chosen, as a main contributing factor to the managers’ decision to clear the Challenger for launch was the external pressures placed on them to launch the vehicle. These various external pressures led to the breach of Professional Obligation 5 by the NASA and Thiokol managers. They were influenced by the conflicting interests of their situations, instead of resisting manipulation by these swaying elements.
Challenger Disaster: Violation of Professional Ethics in Launch Decision. (2024, Feb 20). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/document/challenger-disaster-violation-of-professional-ethics-in-launch-decision
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
