challenger disaster
DESCRIPTION
project reportTRANSCRIPT
CHALLENGER DISASTER 1
Roger Boisjoly-The Challenger Disaster
Abdul Muqtadir Ansari [1559940]
Fairleigh Dickinson University
CHALLENGER DISASTER 2
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Thesis Statement
3. Introduction
4. Whistle Blowing [ Methods and dissents]
5. Results of Whistle Blowing
6. Justification of the dissents
7. Conclusion
8. References
CHALLENGER DISASTER 3
Abstract
This case study mainly focuses on the Roger Boisjoly's attempt to prevent the launch of
the Challenger and subsequent quest to follow Boisjoly's experiences before and after the
Challenger disaster raise numerous ethical issues that are integral to any explanation of the
disaster and applicable to other management situations. Underlying all these issues, Boisjoly was
targeted and was blamed for not whistle blowing before the launch of the challenger Shuttle. So
in this analysis, I will explain the reality and will answer the critics who were against Roger
Boijoly. “In analyzing this fundamental issue, this paper has two objectives: first, to demonstrate
the extent to which the ethical ambiguity that permeates the relationship between individual and
organizational responsibility contributed to the Challenger disaster; second, to reclaim the
meaning and importance of individual responsibility within the diluting context of large
organizations.” (Browning, Larry D. 1988, p. 211-227)
CHALLENGER DISASTER 4
Roger Boisjoly-The Challenger Disaster
After reading and analyzing in depth about the Challenger Disaster case, I agree with
the action taken by Roger Boisjoly case of the Challenger Disaster. At every step, he tried to
whistle blow whenever it was possible for him to do it. He also protested at the later stages
of launching of the shuttle. The main reason I support him is because, during the earlier
stages of development of the shuttle, at every point, where ever he felt, he cautioned his
senior authorities about the risks and dangers associated with the mechanism of the shuttle
and he didn’t stop and continued his protest at all stages in the development of the shuttle.
This is because of his ethical values and having a fear of loss of life of crew members, he just
tried to save humanity, he risked his career and livelihood only to prevent any fatal accident
and hence this proves that whatever Roger Boisjoly did was ethically right and in turn his
whistle blowing changed the future towards the safe side for the future generations to be
associated with it for a better tomorrow.
Roger Boisjoly didn’t loose his ethical values. Boisjoly did everything he was
ethically obligated to do, by speaking out at every possible level and from time to time
expressing his strong concerns and, at the end, his strong feelings against the launch. His
ethical values urged him to protest and caution NASA about the safety concerns associated
with the launch of the shuttle, even during Discovering Leaks in the Primary Seal, O- ring
problem or the unfavorable weather condition during the launch of the shuttle.
CHALLENGER DISASTER 5
Introduction
Definition of whistle-blower
“Whistle-blowers are seen as people who "sound an alarm from within the very
organization in which the work, because of a threat to public interest". The article "Whistle-
blowing and Trust: Some Lessons from the ADM Scandal " focuses on the question of
personal, corporate, and public trust.” [NC State University]
On 28 January, 1986 the Challenger space shuttle blew up 73 seconds after launch. 7
lives and three billion dollars worth of equipment were lost. The Challenger accident was the
result of a faulty sealing system which allowed exhaust flames from the Solid-Fuel Rocket
Boosters (SRB) to vent directly to the external tank, rupturing the tank and causing the
explosion. NASA identified the failure due to the improper sealing of the O-rings, the giant
black rubber loops that help seal the segments of the SRBs. The O-ring is made of a
fluoroelastomer, which seals the joint between two solid rocket booster sections. An
elastomer is a material that can be deformed dramatically and recover its shape completely.
A rubber band is an example of an elastomer.
Concerns were being voiced by Roger Boisjoly of Thiokol, the SRB manufacturing
company from time to time, as to whether the fatal launch should have taken place. The cold
weather, some of the coldest in Florida history, provided uncharted waters for the operation
of the SRBs. So in this case, we will try to get a clear picture about the role played by Roger
Boisjoly and to what extend he was responsible for the disaster and indeed whether he was
late in whistle blowing or not. All of these things will be discussed in our case.
CHALLENGER DISASTER 6
Whistle Blowing [Methods of disagreement and dissent]:
“Three things are required for whistle-blowing to occur in organizations:
wrongdoer(s) who commit the alleged wrongdoing; whistle-blower(s) who observe the
wrongdoing, define it as such and report it; and recipient(s) of the report of wrongdoing. In
other words, whistle-blowing is a dynamic process involving at least three social actors, each
of whom takes actions in response to the others. Whistle-blowing is in fact a series of steps,
as we saw in the case of Mr. Whitacre, where each player takes actions, possibly over a
number of years (Dozier & Miceli, 1985). At any point, then, decisions are made and
tradeoffs considered that causes variation in the process. As a result, no whistle-blowing case
can be described as typical.
“Elsewhere we have defined whistle-blowing as: "the disclosure by organization
members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of
their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action." (Near &
Miceli, 1985, p. 4). Although this definition has been widely used, by ourselves (Miceli &
Near, 1992) and others (e.g., Brewer & Selden, 1995; Perry, 1992), there are several
elements of it that are controversial (Near & Miceli, 1987), each of which we consider.
Further, we attempt here to determine the extent to which the definition can be improved
through consideration of other disciplines' perspectives.” [Near, Janet P., Miceli, Marcia, 96]
To start off with, in the early stages of the development of the shuttle, Roger Boisjoly
found out certain defects and errors in the hardware of the shuttle. It is evident from his
statement published by himself in a seminar 20 years after the disaster of the Challenger
shuttle. “The significance of starting with January, 1985, results from my observations made
CHALLENGER DISASTER 7
during the post flight inspection of hardware from Flight 51C which was launched on
January 14, 1985. I found that hot combustion gases had blown by the primary seals on two
field joints and had produced large arc lengths of blackened grease between the primary and
secondary seals. Subsequent to reporting my findings, I was ordered to MSFC to present a
preliminary report prior to formal FRR meetings.
I participated in the formal FRR's for flight 51E which was scheduled for an April
launch. The presentations were given at MSFC in February at three successively higher level
review boards with exclusions and refinements in content made at each board level. I spoke
about my belief that the low ambient temperature prior to launch was responsible for such a
large witness of hot gas (approximately 5500 °F [3040 °C]) blow-by but NASA Program
Management insisted on that position being softened for higher and final review board
presentations. The ambient temperature was 18 to 22 °F (-8 to -6 °C) several days prior to
launch and in the 60 - 65 °F (16 to 18 °C) range at launch time and resulted in a seal
temperature of 53 °F ( 12 °C) -which was calculated after the damage was found.” ( Boisjoly,
May’06).
This was during the early 1985 where he cautioned the management about the
problem with the hardware, there was another scenario where Boisjoly wrote in the form a
letter complaining about the O-Ring problem, it is quite evident from the following: “Again,
my concern about the joints increased due to the lack of attention being given to this problem
by MTI. My notebook entry on August 15,1985 reads as follows: "An attempt to form the
team (I was referring to the SIRM Seal Erosion Task Team) was made on 19 July 1985. This
attempt virtually failed and resulted in my writing memo 2870:FY86:073. This memo finally
got some response and a team was formed officially. The first meeting was held on August
CHALLENGER DISASTER 8
15, 1985 at 2:30 p.m." The memo I referred to is the one I wrote to the Vice President of
Engineering at MTI on July 31, 1985. The memo was stamped COMPANY PRIVATE by
my boss and had a very limited distribution until I read it to the Presidential Commission on
February 25, 1986. The memo reads as follows:
"Subject: SRM O-Ring Erosion/Potential Failure Criticality. This letter is written to
ensure that management is fully aware of the seriousness of the current O-ring erosion
problem in the SRM joints from an engineering standpoint. The mistakenly accepted a
position on the joint problem was to fly without fear of failure and to run a series of design
evaluations which would ultimately lead to a solution or at least a significant reduction of the
erosion problem. This position is now drastically changed as a result of the SRM 16A nozzle
joint erosion which eroded a secondary O-ring with the primary O-ring never sealing."
"If the same scenario should occur in a field joint (and it could), then it is a jump ball
as to the success or failure of the joint because the secondary O-ring cannot respond to the
clevis opening rate and may not be capable of pressurization. The result would be a
catastrophe of the highest order--loss of human life." ”. ( Boisjoly, May’05).
So from the above two statements made by Roger Boisjoly, we can conclude that
indeed he was worried about the life of people associated with the shuttle and thus proves
that ethically he was right and he showed his dissent in this way.
Let us now consider the ways Roger Boisjoly showed his dissent, both before ad after the
disaster of the Challenger Shuttle .Firstly, “ Thompson has identified and discussed four
distinct types of dissents. They are as follows:
CHALLENGER DISASTER 9
1) Protesting “within the organization”, while still doing one’s job
2) Expressing disagreement “outside the organization”, while continuing to do one’s job
3) The “open obstruction of policy”
4) “Covert obstruction” (e.g. Leaks).”[Thompson, p. 557-559 ].
From this, we can understand that, in Roger Biosjoly’s case, the first and second one
will be, i.e protesting within the organization while still doing one’s job during the
development process of the shuttle and the second one will be after the aftermath of the
shuttle, partially while he was still in the organization and after being outside the
organization.
In the beginning, it is quite evident that when it was discovered about the leaks in the
primary seal, Roger Boisjoly reported this to his supervisors and he was told to ignore the
problem. This type of dissent can be classified in the first form of dissent mentioned by
Thompson, i.e protesting within the organization while still doing one’s job. In the later
cases, i.e. when he met Arnie Thompson to discuss the blow-by scenario and the effect of
cold temperature on O-ring resiliency, again in this case too he was asked to soften and
ignore it.
As we can see from time to time, Roger Boisjoly along with his team were showing
concern, not for name or fame, but to protect the lives of the people involved with it. He even
wrote memos and gave presentations on the same, explaining them in detail, but to no avail.
The only reason I think he didn’t whistle blew the situation can be due to the fact that, he was
CHALLENGER DISASTER 10
not having solid full proof evidence for the same. Even during the time of the launch of the
shuttle, Roger and his team again recommended not to launch the shuttle and that too in the
bad weather which was again overlooked and finally the disaster which could have avoided,
occurred and thus took the lives of the crew members and thus reducing the value of life
which is unethical. If you look at this article, you will be more convinced about the efforts
and the dissent showed by Mr. Roger “Mr. Boisjoly worked for 27 years in the aerospace
industry. But it was one night and one moment that stood out. On the night of Jan. 27, 1986,
Mr. Boisjoly and four other Thiokol engineers used a teleconference with NASA to press the
case for delaying the next day’s launching because of the cold. At one point, Mr. Boisjoly
said, he slapped down photos showing the damage cold temperatures had caused to an earlier
shuttle. It had lifted off on a cold day, but not this cold.
“How the hell can you ignore this?” he demanded. At first this seemed persuasive,
according to commission testimony. Makers of critical components had the power to
postpone flights.
Four Thiokol vice presidents, all engineers themselves, went offline to huddle. They
later said that they had worried they lacked conclusive data to stop a launching that had
already been postponed twice. They thought the naysayers might be operating on gut
reaction, not science.
Jerry Mason, Thiokol’s general manager, told his fellow executives to take off their
engineering hats and put on management hats. They told NASA it was a go.”[Martin,
February, 2012]
CHALLENGER DISASTER 11
All these cases and examples can be classified in the first form of dissent classified
by Thompson.
“ The public servant is morally bound, just as are other persons, to tell the truth, to
keep promises, to respect the person and property of others, and to abide by the requirements
of the law.” [Wilibern, Y. (1984).] After the disaster of the Challenger Shuttle, this time
around, Roger Boisjoly went public for the first time openly accusing both his company and
NASA responsible for it. And he has to pay the consequences for it by resigning from the job
after President Ronald Reagan ordered a presidential commission to review completely about
the disaster, in which Boisjoly was one of the witnesses called. He gave explanations about
why he felt the O-rings had failed. After the commission gave its findings, Boisjoly found
himself shunned by colleagues and also by the managers and thus he resigned from the
company. So these are the two types of dissents present in the case and in the coming part of
it, I will talk about the results of those dissents.
Results/Consequences of the dissent shown:
In the case of Roger Boisjoly, there were certain bad effects for both Roger Boisjoly
and for NASA and the companies associated with it in the making of challenger shuttle. Both
whistle-blowers and people accused of wrongdoing suffer whether the allegations are
ultimately sustained or not. Though in our case study, we will throw more light on our main
character, i.e. Roger Boisjoly.
When Roger Boisjoly went public for the first time after the disaster, Mr. Boisjoly
gave the presidential commission who were investigating the disaster internal corporate
documents. The disclosure of the internal memo, which he had written six months before the
CHALLENGER DISASTER 12
disaster, was a bombshell which exploded on the NASA and the booster manufacturing company
he was associated with. As a result of it, he had to resign from his post and was left jobless and it
affected his livelihood. It was quite evident from the article published below:
“ Thiokol cut him off from space work, and he was shunned by colleagues and managers.
A former friend warned him, “If you wreck this company, I’m going to put my kids on your
doorstep,” Mr. Boisjoly told The Los Angeles Times in 1987.
He had headaches, double-vision and depression, he said. He yelled at his dog and his
daughters and skipped church to avoid people. He filed two suits against Thiokol; both were
dismissed.
He later said he was sustained by a single gesture of support. Sally Ride, the first
American woman in space, hugged him after his appearance before the commission.
“She was the only one,” he said in a whisper to a Newsday reporter in 1988. “The only
one.”” [Martin, February, 2012]
But his sacrifices and sincerity paid off and he lived up to his ethics. Because he was
right, much appreciated his efforts and as a result of it he got many recognitions and awards.
“Mr. Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and spoke to more than 300 universities and civic
groups about corporate ethics. He became sought after as an expert in forensic engineering.”
[Martin, February, 2012]
There was also one more positive result on the whole and it was on the bright side for the
future, an act called “Whistle blower Protection Act of 1989 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both
CHALLENGER DISASTER 13
House and Senate]” came into effect and we can say that Roger Boisjoly’s case played a
significant effect for that to happen.
So on the whole, if you look at the brighter side of the world, it played an important role
in everyone’s life in a safe, secure and free tomorrow.
Justification of the dissents:
Different people have different kind of thinking and upbringing. Code of ethics differs
from person to person and from culture to culture. So based on my view, I would appreciate his
actions and the efforts he has put into trying to stop from something bad to happen. Some people
disagree with him that he should have whistled blew earlier before the shuttle was launched, but I
would defend his action by saying that, he maintained a certain code of ethics, followed the rules
and regulations to an extend that it didn’t clash with his own personal values and standards which
he has set for himself. The main important ethical values and moral principles that were at
stake in this case were of not protesting against anything which can cause danger to humanity
in any form. An employee who is working in a company, should follow the standards
maintained by the company, but he should not go against the moral values which are present
in them. The various obligations or responsibilities of Roger Boisjoly were as follows:
1. To fulfill his duties and responsibilities of an engineer by making sure that the job
assigned to him of running the booster was implemented successfully. Ethically
speaking, if we see that what Mr. Roger did was not against the company, but it was
for the betterment of the company, because he was following the safety guidelines
which everyone should follow.
2. He has to obey the orders of the company and listen to them in any situation, but I
would like to defend his actions by saying that he wasn’t rude, he did it in a good
CHALLENGER DISASTER 14
way, he presented memo, consulted with his senior professionals and cautioned them
in a good way about the worst consequences that could happen if the shuttle was
launched. We can get to know more about it from the following statements:
“ His former employer does not share a Boisjoly's eagerness to discuss his actions and their
meaning. A spokesman for Morton Thiokol declined to comment on any matter relating to
Boisjoly, saying that the subject is closed. But colleagues applaud Boisjoly's efforts to raise
the issue of professional ethics and to stress its importance.
"He's one of a very small group of people who have had the courage of their
convictions," says William Middleton, chairman of the ethics committee for the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). "He took the matter into his own hands and dealt
with it by going public on a whistle-blowing campaign. And now he's sort of blacklisted. For
those of us who do work in the ethics area, he's a hero."
He has turned that experience into a campaign for stronger professional ethics and for the
need to speak out against risk. He visits college campuses about twice a month, where his
message is well-received. "The students see him as a role model," says William Middleton,
chairman of the ethics committee for IEEE USA. "I think he will do a great deal to change the
ethical perspective [of future engineers]."
Regardless of how Boisjoly is ultimately labeled, those like IEEE's William Middleton and
General Motors Corp. Consultant Ron Westrum (see accompanying story), who follow
professional ethics issues, says that society needs these so-called Chicken Littles. "I would
encourage people to be courageous, even if the penalty is stiff," says Westrum.”
[Pennisi, January, 1990]
CHALLENGER DISASTER 15
So from all the above points mentioned along with the references given, I can
conclude that Roger Boisjoly was a good nature person who had many good qualities and
was obliged to many ethical values and hence he should be given respect according to the
work and sacrifices he has done to abide by good ethical values.
I don’t think so that Roger Boisjoly should have acted differently as because during
the time of protest, he was not having a solid proof which could have made them understand
It. I would defend him by mentioning the fact that NASA and his company were just busy to
make the shuttle ready for the launch and ignored many of his warnings and also told him to
keep quiet in that case. I can justify his point with the following statements: “According to
the hierarchical model, responsibility for political outcomes falls on the person who stands
highest in the chain of authority.”[ Thompson, Page 906, Dec, 1980]. That is why in my eyes
Roger Boisjoly was a hero because of his never dying attitude towards the right thing.
CHALLENGER DISASTER 16
Conclusion
To conclude, I would like to salute Roger Boisjoly for his sincere efforts he put in to
save humanity while being at work and also after resigning from the company, he played a
very important role in spreading awareness about workplace ethics and how one should act in
any kind of situation and live a life with the head always towards the sky. He is a role model
to many people and brought awareness among people to protest against the wrong. To finish
my essay, I would like to share few points mentioned about him below:
Professor Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer for England’s National Health
System, wrote,
We should “applaud heroes, and hope they are among us, but to base our hope of
remedy in ordinary systems on the existence of extraordinary courage is insufficient.”
I pretty much scoured the literature, and no one addresses whistle-blowing, ostracism
and suicide. No one addresses the life ruination, the total and complete losses, and the
resultant world goes on while leaving the whistle-blower (and surviving family, if any) in
literal limbo.
And really, it’s the perfect crime. Because it’s like a Holmes’ dog that didn’t bark.
No one notices the absence of whistle-blowers. No one sees them missing in group photos,
nor misses their names in employee recognition events, nor has any notion at all about their
CHALLENGER DISASTER 17
well-being. Much better than Jimmy Hoffa’s demise with that pesky media and all keeping
his name alive and the issues addressed.
Whistle-blowers are disappearing much more cleanly and completely than any CIA
black site prison. The torture leaves no mark.” [Berkes, 1987]
References
1. “Interpreting the Challenger Disaster: Communication under Conditions of Risk and
Liability.” Published by Browning, Larry D. 1988. Organization Environment 2 (3):
211227.
2. "Pre-Disaster Background (Ethical Decisions - Morton Thiokol and the Challenger
Disaster)" Online Ethics Center for Engineering, 5/15/2006.
3. “The Possibility of Administrative Ethics,” Public Administration Review, published
by Dennis Thompson on September/October 1985, 45 (5), 555-561.
4. “ Whistle-blowing: Myth and Reality.” Published by: Near, Janet P., Miceli, Marcia
P., Journal of Management, 01492063, 1996 Special Issue, Vol. 22, Issue 3
5. “ Roger Boisjoly, 73, Dies; Warned of Shuttle Danger” published by Douglas Martin
Published on February 3, 2012. Retrieved from :
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-
danger.html?_r=0
6. “Challenger's Whistle-Blower: Hero And Outcast” published by Elizabeth Pennisi on
January 20, 1990 retrieved from :
CHALLENGER DISASTER 18
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10849/title/Challenger-s-
Whistle-Blower--Hero-And-Outcast/
7. “Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many Hands” published
by Dennis F. Thompson, Page 905 of 905-916 retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.fdu.edu/stable/1954312
8. Wilibern, Y. (1984). Types and Levels of Public Morality. Public Administration
Review, 44 (2), 102-108.
9. “Whistle-blowing” by NC State University retrieved from :
http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/basics/whistle/study.php
10. “The only one” published by Howard Berkes in 1987 retrieved from
: http://incompatiblewithlife.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-only-one/