To: Professor Raisor From: Haris ShafiSubject: Rhetorical Analysis Memo

Executive SummaryThe purpose of this memo is to explain how technical communication failures contributed to the Challenger disaster. In the investigations conducted by the presidential commission following the disaster, a number of factors such as pressure to launch, miscommunication, and low temperature of the O-rings were considered to be causes of the disaster. However, I believe the reason for this disaster was failure of proper communication. From watching the Challenger movie to reading the challenger packet and documentaries, I believe that this whole ordeal could have been avoided if the communication of the workers was not minimal and ineffective. Effective communication is very difficult to do, but once communication is effective, everything is clear. To make communication clear, use things such as purpose, style, tone, ethics, etc. To me, the main points the Challenger disaster occurred were the following: writing style, confidentiality, communication hierarchy, and ethics.Writing styleEven through all the mistakes of horrible communication throughout NASA, there are some effective communication styles that were used in most of the challenger documents. Every single letter, memo, and report in the packet given has a clearly stated purpose. If the purpose is given, the reader(s) knows what to expect from the letter, memo, or report. Even though some of the purposes were not stated upfront, the purpose was told in some fashion or another. Also, the use of Passive voice in these documents, make the results and data of the O-ring problem more emphatic. For example, in the Boisjoly memo to Lund, Mr.Boisjoly makes use of emotions (for example, the result would be a catastrophe of the highest order) and jargon (e.g jump ball) in order to emphasize his points. Boisjoly attains this while maintaining a direct and authoritative tone. Also in the Boisjoly memo to Lund, it can be seen that information was clearly and well organized. Mr. Boisjoly (peace to his soul), deserves recognition for his adequate communication style. Overall, the engineers at both MTI and NASA experienced weakness expressing their ideas in writing; especially while writing to people in different discourse communities.ConfidentialityThe level of confidentiality of some of the documents such as the Boisjoly memo to Lund questioned not only the ethics of MTI but also its communication.According to the United States ethical code of conduct for engineers, it was the responsibility of engineers at MTI to make known the O-ring problem to NASA and other third parties involved. They had to be transparent, but they failed. It was unethical for them to cover up the O-ring problem without NASAs concern. Because the life of the crew members was at stake, it was MTIs responsibility to make known to the crew members that they had problems with the O-rings. However, they covered it up. Documents such as the Boisjoly memo should not have been company private given that the O-ring problem extended well beyond just MTI. This is shows that communication within the various organisations was very poor. In the future, during my engineering career, ensuring transparency in sharing data with the public will be one of my priorities.Communication HierarchyMost of the documents regarding the O-ring problem that were sent within NASA never reached upper management. This clearly shows a poor communication hierarchy. For example, the memo from Miller Ray to the distribution department in 1979 was never sent up the ladder to upper management. In this memo, Ray documents his visit to parker Seal Company and makes a recommendation that more time should be allocated for proper testing of the O-rings given the temperature and charring problem. However, because this document never got to upper management, NASA managers were not aware of this problem until 1985 when MTI began to raise concerns with the re-sealing ability of the O-rings at low temperatures. Sending this information up the chain might have saved the Challenger. In my future workplace, it will be my responsibility to ensure that any documentation that I make goes to the appropriate people in charge.EthicsIt is very clear that ethical responsibilities were compromised during the Challenger project. The engineers should have been willing to resign over an issue where the stakes were so high. During the 1985 teleconference between MTI and NASA, when MTI was asked if anybody had an objection to the launch, the engineers should have said something; even if that may have cost them their jobs. Every engineer and decision maker needs to draw a line between ethical and managerial decisions. This is fundamentally a question of value based on integrity.Conclusively, although the low temperature of the O-ring caused leakage which in turn led to the explosion of the shuttle, poor communication was the primary cause of this disaster. If communication problems had been overcome, if NASA engineers as well as MTI engineers communicated more effectively with upper management, the Challenger would have been the U.S 25thsuccessful launch. Therefore, it is extremely important to communicate effectively and ethically in the work place.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, Haris Shafi, atharis1@tamu.edu or979-299-9169if you have any additional questions.