Case Study Analysis: Space Shuttle Challenger

Case Study Analysis: Space Shuttle Challenger
Name
Institution
Find out what happened to this case "Space Shuttle Challenger,” what went wrong, and what to do to avoid in the future.
The National Aeronautics space Administration (NASA) initial plans of launching a space shuttle in Columbia in 2003 faced challenges in accomplishing a scientific research. Contrary to reports indicating that the launch was a success initially, some signs of malfunction were detected in January 17 after viewing a video clip to assess the launch progress (Lambright, 2008). The Inter-center Photo Working Group (IPWG) detected a dislodged fragment of foam insulation from the main tank suspected to have occurred during the launch and it got stuck on the left wing. The Mission Management Team Leader, The Mission Evaluation Room and selected engineers were updated about this detection. The video clip was interpreted differently, a clear indication of how an event can produce diverse viewpoint. These different viewpoints resulted to an accident killing seven Astronauts. Consequently, investigations commenced to find out the problem (Lambright, 2008).
For the managers the foam strike just needed to be dealt with by conducting routine maintenance activity while the engineers felt that there were possibilities of serious issue. They were of the opinion that foam strike meant complication hence requiring urgent action. Since the last decision depended on the managers the engineers opinion were ignored. Suggestions coming from the engineers of taking urgent measures were reasonable based on the fact that before the launch (NASA) had rectified a wiring problem noticed in the solid rocket booster. Furthermore, NASA did a thorough inspection of more than 6,000 other connections discovering four other loose connections. The space shuttle eventually fell to pieces in the sky causing a serious accident because of loose insulating foam that affected the panel door, which prevents the wings from heat generated from the atmosphere (Porter, 2011).
NASA was under criticism by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board for not observing safety arguing that when NASA initially discovered the problem before the launch it was rectified and this is the same way they could have done when such signs reappeared again from the video footage. Even though the video footage did not clearly show all the angles to ma...