ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 1

Analysis of the 1986 Challenger Disaster

Sydni A. Baker

Arkansas Tech University

EAM 4013-001: Mitigation & Continuity Operations

Dr. Ekong Peters

April 4th, 2022

ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 2

Analysis of the 1986 Challenger Disaster

This essay seeks to analyze the 1986 Challenger explosion by reviewing the event as it

has been recorded by various sources. The crucial elements to the analysis are: the background

knowledge and context of the event, the failures that led to the accident, the response activities

needed for such an event, and the lessons that can be learned along with the improvements that

can be implemented in the future. Each of these elements will be broken down and discussed

throughout the essay.

Background Information of the Incident

The failed launch that caused the Challenger Disaster took place January 28, 1986 in

Cape Canaveral, Florida. The purpose of this launch was to deploy a second Tracking and Data

Relay Satellite (TDRS-B) and the Spartan Halley Spacecraft that was going to be retrieved after

it had observed and collected data of Halley’s Comet as it was in the midst of its closest travel to

the Sun (Britannica, 2022). The launch had already been delayed several days and Florida also

suffered and could snap right before the launch. The launch was, however, carried out, but it

failed miserably. This led to a massive explosion that destroyed the shuttle and was fatal to all

seven members of the crew. The most known member of the crew was Christa McAuliffe who

was the winner of a national screening that took place in 1984 (Britannica, 2022). This failure

was quite the blow to the American people as it was a high profile and a highly anticipated event.

The technical cause for the accident was determined to be the erosion of the o-

ring on one of the solid rocket boosters, which allowed the passage of hot gases.
ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 3

This caused the release of hydrogen into the external tank, which deflagrated and

caused the shuttle to blow up (Altabbakh et al., 2013, p. 13).

The quote above captures the main cause of equipment failure; however, there are other flaws

that took place that allowed the faulty o-ring to be present during the launch. These flaws relate

to poor management and human error. These flaws were sadly avoidable or at least manageable

and will be discussed in the next section.

Issues that led to the event

There were several issues and as mentioned above they could have been prevented or at

least lessened. “Managers need to consider a wide range of risks, including risks related to

products’ component failure, human error, and operational failure” (Altabbakh et al., 2013, p.

13). These errors build on each other. The faulty o-ring may have caused the shuttle to fail

during the launch and explode, but there were mistakes that led to that part’s presence in the

launch.

The most well known error is the failure of the o-ring in one of the boosters of the rocket.

During the investigation, they found that the o-rings had not been tested for the cold

temperatures that were present the night before and the day of the launch. The weather is what

caused the damage to the parts and those parts had not been tested or rated for that weather.

There was also a lack of proper communication between Thiokol and NASA. Thiokol is the

company that manufactured the o-rings. They were located far apart from each other and

meetings were not always feasible. Furthermore, Thiokol engineers expressed concern about the

part, but management of both companies kept the launch from being canceled. This is the next
ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 4

flaw. Management pressure to overlook the concerns caused the parts to not be checked and kept

the launch proceeding as planned. Had the concerns been listened to the launch would have most

likely been canceled. This pressure from NASA management was probably caused by the global

interest in space travel and NASA had competitors. This may have put a lot of pressure on

keeping the preceding launch as scheduled. President Regan was also going to be announcing the

inclusion of Christa McAuliffe. The inclusion of the current President in the launch affairs may

have also put unnecessary pressure on the launch occurring as scheduled. There was also a lack

of proper risk assessments. “Process-based risk assessment techniques were not common prior to

the Challenger Disaster” (Altabbakh et al., 2013, p.14). The importance of the o-ring had been

degraded without sufficient evidence. A pattern of issuing waivers for issues so things could

proceed as schedule had become the norm (Altabbakh et al., 2013). This led to problems, such as

the o-ring, to not be addressed, but even worse ignored. NASA, as many organizations, was on a

tight budget and spent more money on flights and launches than on research and development

(Altabbakh et al., 2013). It is also expensive to have excessive risk assessments done, so those

kinds of assessments were unpopular at the time. The final issue that will be mentioned in this

analysis is the lack of worth placed on human lives. The above issues clearly show where

NASA’s priorities were and it was not human life. If NASA truly valued human life, the launch

would have been delayed and the rocket would have been inspected again and lives would have

been saved.

Response Activities

Before response activities can be discussed, the term response needs to be defined as it

relates to emergency management and disasters. The definition used here is,
ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 5

Response typically centers on efforts that promote life safety such as deploying

police, fire, and ambulance services, conducting search and rescue, erecting

barricades, securing unstable or dangerous sites, and initiating efforts to safeguard

or repair utilities and key infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, airports, and

railways (Phillips, 2015, p. 5).

Based on the definition used above, it is clear to see what the response activities for this kind of

incident may include. The shuttle exploded so there was an immediate need to extinguish any

fire and contain any hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, and other substances used in the

rocket. Due to the nature of space launches no one should have been close enough to have been

injured, but emergency medical services should still be deployed to see if any of the crew

survived or in the chance that injuries were sustained. The above point would make securing the

site easier by either security personnel or police. This would be the case because reporters and

journalists would already be contained in a specific area. However, debris kept falling for over

an hour into the Atlantic ocean (Britannica, 2022). This would necessitate the communication to

civilians to avoid such areas and for the recovery of such debris would require those sites to be

secured. After the initial operations to make the scene safe and secure, search and rescue

personnel would need to be deployed along with the agency(ies) responsible for gathering the

debris. Such a disaster requires the affected/responsible party (in this case NASA) to release an

initial public statement and keep the public up to date and aware of the situation. To keep the

public aware and also discover the cause for such an incident a thorough investigation would

have to take place. In this case, “an intensive investigation by the National Aeronautics and
ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 6

Space Administration (NASA) and a commission appointed by U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan”

(Britannica, 2022). This is important to note, because the event was public enough and held such

sway over the United States space programs, the president stepped in. This won’t be true in all

incidents, but it is something that major companies should be aware of and prepared for. There

also should be an internal investigation and preparations and plans made to welcome and

facilitate an external investigation from other companies, organizations, and government

agencies.

What was learned

There are several things that can and have been learned from the 1986 Challenger

disaster. Looking at the issues that caused the failure and explosion, there are a few needed

improvements that are readily seen. There needs to be more redundancy with inspections and

risk assessments. Redundancy creates a greater chance in discovering damaged or faulty

equipment and increases the chances that all threats, hazards, and accepted risks are accounted

for. Next, there needs to be accountability for and discouragement of pressure from management

and from the national and/or global competition. These pressures should not have a massive

effect on operations. A department such as human resources should defend employees when they

have noticed an error and management wants it to be ignored. Management needs just as much if

not more accountability than the employees. Unfortunately, not much can help tight budgets than

more money. However, with the increase in technology and increase in the use of risk

assessments, people who know how to conduct them, and standards that require such

assessments hopefully those services are more affordable or at least prioritized more. Lastly, to

change how a company values people there needs to be a culture change. There needs to be a
ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 7

culture of safety and concern. Human resource departments could play a huge role in this. More

importantly the employees need to know that you won’t cut corners that could endanger them.

To do this meetings will need to be held that discuss safety and the outcomes of inspections. If a

problem was found it should be reported, fixed, and reported that it was indeed fixed. Changing

the culture of a company takes time, but it better ensures safety and builds trust between

employers and employees.

ANALYSIS OF THE 1986 CHALLENGER DISASTER 8

References

Altabbakh, H., Murray, S., Grantham, K., & Damle, S. (2013). Variations in risk management
models: A comparative study of the space shuttle challenger disasters. Engineering
Management Journal, 25(2), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2013.11431971

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022, January 21). Challenger disaster. Encyclopedia

Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster.

NASA. (n.d.). Challenger explosion. NASA. Retrieved April 3, 2022, from

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/explode.html

Phillips, B. D. (2015). Disaster recovery. CRC press. ISBN: 9781466583849.

Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Challenger: Fine-tuning the odds until something
breaks. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.1988.tb00040.x