Challenger

(Note: writing this as a blog is still weird. I feel like I need to say: "I know the Challenger is a random topic but I have to for a class" despite the fact that I know that only the professor and TAs will ever read this. Oh well. blogs.)

So, the Challenger disaster. I only recently learned that engineers were against the launch before it happened. I knew that the O-rings failed, but I didn't realize that it was so predictable that they would fail.

What were the root causes? Some of the articles made it sound like all the engineers were clamoring for the launch to stop, but management refused to listen to them. I think it was more subtle than that. It sounds like there were a lot of communication problems, and at least two different parties involved (NASA and Morton Thiokol). Also, in hindsight, engineers complaining about the part that caused the disaster seems ominous, but at the time, it was an O-ring. One of thousands of parts to an incredibly complicated rocket. How do you weight part one has a significant problem and which one is engineers needlessly fretting? Basically, management weren't incompetent idiots. I'd wager they were weighing many different possibilities, and the O-rings didn't strike them as particularly dangerous.

But that's not to say there weren't problems. That shuttle never should have launched. It sounds like there needed to be clearer communication. Someone refused to sign off on the launch. That sounds like a huge red flag, but it was ignored; his boss signed off.  The engineers had data, but didn't represent it convincingly. When they brought up arguments, they were quickly dismissed. I think the managers were allowed to get into a structure of groupthink. They too quickly disregarded the views of their underlings, and were probably too focused on not delaying a heavily watched launch, messing with the schedules of millions of viewers and the first civilian astronaut. I think the root cause was the system; there needed to be an established way for a concerned engineer to attempt to block the launch. If she/he is willing to go through that much trouble, something must be wrong, and the arguments should be heard.

Roger Boisjoly is an interesting case. He didn't share his concerns with the public beforehand, but did in the investigation afterwards, which technically isn't whistleblowing since it's after-the-fact. I still think he was justified, though. The public needed to know about NASA's flawed system, so that NASA would be motivated to fix it. It was more whistleblowing about managers ignoring data than whistleblowing about the accident itself, and ignoring warnings is a serious problem.

However, this additional oversight didn't happen. In 2003, Columbia disintegrated. Why? Maybe the story of Roger Boisjoly didn't become popular enough; everyone only remembered the O-rings. Maybe the company's retaliation worked, and discouraged other engineers from speaking out with their concerns again. I think the retaliation is the worst part of this all. The public (and the government) needed to know that warning signs were ignored, so they would be heeded in the future. Punishing him was counterproductive.

Also, whistleblowing is worth it, even if it destroys your career. Doing so has the chance to save lives or benefit society while damaging the company you work for. That can get you fired and make it difficult to hire you, but keeping quiet is unethical.