Describe the ethical concerns in the Space Shuttle Challenger case study. What arguments did each side make? What information was critical in the decision-making process? How would you have handled the situation if you were McDonald? Provide examples and incorporate findings from the readings.
Your initial response should be at least 150 words in length.
Reply to at least two classmates’ posts. Your response to your classmate’s discussion should be at least 50 words each.
1st Classmate’s post:
“Prior to the launch of the Challenger, it was reported that a cold front would lower temperatures to 18 degrees Fahrenheit. Allan McDonald and his team were concerned that the O-rings would fail if the launch were to take place at those temperatures. McDonald wanted the engineering team to review the data concerning the lowest and safest temperature the O-rings could be exposed to at the time of launch. The president of engineering for Morton-Thiokol reviewed the information and made a decision that the shuttle should not be launched at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit. Disregarding this assessment, the program manager for Morton-Thiokol spoke with NASA and determined it was safe to launch the shuttle. Ultimately, the safety concerns were set aside with the knowledge that the O-rings would be subjected to temperatures outside a range it was qualified to fly.
NASA acted unethically by putting the engineers in a position to prove the launch would be unsafe rather than assuming it was unsafe because the hardware would be subject to temperatures outside its qualification limits. The first canon of the engineering code of ethics was violated by NASA and the Morton-Thiokol program manager. After the launch an O-ring failed. To make the situation worse NASA attempted to coverup the poor decisions made.
I feel that with his knowledge I would have made decisions similar to McDonald. I deeply respect his integrity to stick with his decision even though his supervisor expressed a very different opinion and likely expected that McDonald would sign off on his recommendation. With such a critical high-risk situation I am surprised that the consensus was to move forward with the launch and ignore the reasonable doubts.”
2nd Classmate’s post:
“There are many ethical concerns found in the challenger launch. The main ethical concern goes to the first code of ethics which holds safety first. The engineering team and McDonald both felt that the safety of the launch was at risk. Since NASA was pressuring for a launch, they ignored the first and most important rule of ethics amongst engineers. They also broke 2nd ethic code by launching without competence. The launch condition were unknown, and the engineering team did not feel comfort with o rings ability to work in such conditions because of the unknown the engineers could not faithfully advise on the subject. The last act, of trying to cover up the actual cause, broke the last two codes of ethics because they were intentionally deceptive and ignored their role of being responsible. The argument from the engineers perspective was that the condition were unknown and could lead to disaster. The management gathered engineers to prove that would fail, so they could launch regardless. In doing so, the engineers couldn’t voice a realistic concern which they had about the launch. The critical information was the o-ring readiness for cold temperature.
If I was McDonald, I would of done a very similar approach of not signing off, but I would also have demanded that my concern be voiced. I would have asked whether or not they had talked about my concern and not assumed so. I say this all in hindsight of the matter, but I generally do not trust people to remember things. I also would have told the astronauts getting on while the ice was being cleared that they would be risking there lives.”
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|