0% found this document useful (0 votes)
143 views3 pages

Challenger Memorandum

The memorandum recommends delaying the launch of the space shuttle Challenger due to safety concerns with the O-rings at low temperatures. Data from previous shuttle launches showed damage to the O-rings when temperatures were below 66°F, and a test of backup rings failed to reseal at 50°F. If damaged, the O-rings may fail to contain hot gases and cause complications. The forecast for the Challenger launch was 26-29°F, so proceeding could result in catastrophe and loss of life. The memo urges delaying the launch until temperatures reach at least 66°F to avoid disaster.

Uploaded by

api-412915586
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
143 views3 pages

Challenger Memorandum

The memorandum recommends delaying the launch of the space shuttle Challenger due to safety concerns with the O-rings at low temperatures. Data from previous shuttle launches showed damage to the O-rings when temperatures were below 66°F, and a test of backup rings failed to reseal at 50°F. If damaged, the O-rings may fail to contain hot gases and cause complications. The forecast for the Challenger launch was 26-29°F, so proceeding could result in catastrophe and loss of life. The memo urges delaying the launch until temperatures reach at least 66°F to avoid disaster.

Uploaded by

api-412915586
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MEMORANDUM

Luke Schwarz
Engineering Department
Morton Thiokol Inc.
2475 Washington Blvd.
Ogden, Utah 84401
(801) 629-2270

December 27, 1985

Todd May
Director of Marshall Space Flight Center
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL 35811
(256)-544-2121

Subject: ​Delaying the launch of the Challenger shuttle.

Problem:​ We strongly recommend that the launch of the Challenger shuttle be delayed.
Launches at lower temperatures have a tendency to sustain more damage to the O-rings. With
the temperature being forecasted at about 26-29 °F, launching the shuttle will result in a
catastrophic failure and likely loss of life.

Details: ​Data from previous shuttle launches shows that all shuttles launched at temperatures
lower than 66 °F suffered some level of O-ring erosion. The O-rings are made to seal under the
pressure of the gases, but they don’t always perform as intended in colder weather. A test on
secondary O-rings showed that “At 100 °F the o-ring maintained contact. At 75 °F the o-ring lost
contact for 2.4 seconds. At 50 °F the o-ring did not re-establish contact in ten minutes at which
time the test was terminated” (Winsor 1988). If the O-rings obtain too much erosion damage and
the secondary O-rings fail to make contact quick enough hot gases will leak from the SRB and
cause massive complications putting the shuttle and its passengers at risk.

Solution: ​It is crucial that the launch of the Challenger shuttle be delayed until the temperature
is at least 66 °F in order to avoid a major disaster resulting in the loss of the Challenger shuttle
and it’s passengers.
Key
= Forecasted Temperature Of The Challenger Launch (26-29 ​°F)

= Predicted Damage To The Challenger’s O-rings

= Shuttle Launches
= Trend Line
Damage Index = A system created by Tufte which is used to illustrate the severity of the
damage the O-rings insured. The score given to each launch is based upon O-ring erosion,
Heating, and blow-by which are weighted differently based upon their impact on the rocket’s
function (Tufte 1997).
References

Tufte, E. R. (1997). ​Visual and statistical thinking: Displays of evidence for making decisions ;
displays of evidence for making decisions​. Graphics Pr.

Winsor, D. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: An example


for technical communicators. ​IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,31​(3),
101-107. doi:10.1109/47.7814

You might also like