On January 28 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded over the Atlantic Ocean only seventy-three seconds after takeoff, killing all seven astronauts on board. The Challenger was the second space shuttle constructed by NASA. Also, it had completed nine successful missions before the disaster. Following the accident, the shuttle program was suspended for 32 months as President Ronald Regan appointed a Commission, chaired by William P. Rogers and known as the Rogers Commission, to investigate the cause of the accident. The challenger, the space shuttle that exploded few minutes after its launch, marking the history as the most significant disaster in the history of space travel. The challenger’s explosion changed the course of history and
…show more content…
Receiving a claim from one of their engineers they had to analyze it, redo the tests and even invite experts to be thorough. This story shows the implication of technicians and engineers, and the complete detachment of leaders, directors, and managers. In fact, Roger Boisjoly’s memo addressed the memo with “Help” and “red flag”, the board took it lightly. In conclusion, the catastrophe happened. The director board should’ve been held morally responsible for the loss of lives, and the explosion of the spaceship. Roger, as an engineer, fulfilled his duties and explained his …show more content…
Who should take the blame? Looking backward at the situation, the problem was created in Morton Thiokol’s factory, reported by the engineer testing the O-ring; the people who should take the blame are the ones who shut Roger. The safety team at NASA should always be blamed; the trials and tests made should’ve detected the defect and a claim should’ve been made to avoid the disaster. However, they were not relevant enough to show the problems that the ship could have experienced. Going back to every step of the ship’s construction, testing and maintenance, every technician, engineer, team leader, manager, and director are ethically responsible for every part they touch. The sense of responsibility is a sense that needs development and nothing, to avoid problems and trouble like the in the challenger’s case. The complexity of the challenger’s case is a serious ethical case, using the ethical theories in the analysis : The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should conform to their duties when engaged in decision making, we see that clearly in the challenger case, Roger Boisjoly made the right decision from a deontological point of view, However the board members, as well as the NASA did not, which make the guilty side in the case really clear, they’re the ones to blame for not thinking about the safety of their
Receiving a claim from one of their engineers they had to analyze it, redo the tests and even invite experts to be thorough. This story shows the implication of technicians and engineers, and the complete detachment of leaders, directors, and managers. In fact, Roger Boisjoly’s memo addressed the memo with “Help” and “red flag”, the board took it lightly. In conclusion, the catastrophe happened. The director board should’ve been held morally responsible for the loss of lives, and the explosion of the spaceship. Roger, as an engineer, fulfilled his duties and explained his …show more content…
Who should take the blame? Looking backward at the situation, the problem was created in Morton Thiokol’s factory, reported by the engineer testing the O-ring; the people who should take the blame are the ones who shut Roger. The safety team at NASA should always be blamed; the trials and tests made should’ve detected the defect and a claim should’ve been made to avoid the disaster. However, they were not relevant enough to show the problems that the ship could have experienced. Going back to every step of the ship’s construction, testing and maintenance, every technician, engineer, team leader, manager, and director are ethically responsible for every part they touch. The sense of responsibility is a sense that needs development and nothing, to avoid problems and trouble like the in the challenger’s case. The complexity of the challenger’s case is a serious ethical case, using the ethical theories in the analysis : The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should conform to their duties when engaged in decision making, we see that clearly in the challenger case, Roger Boisjoly made the right decision from a deontological point of view, However the board members, as well as the NASA did not, which make the guilty side in the case really clear, they’re the ones to blame for not thinking about the safety of their