Free Essay

Space Shuttle

In: Other Topics

Submitted By malexica
Words 2145
Pages 9
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida at 11:38 EST (16:38 UTC). Disintegration of the vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The O-ring failure caused a breach in the SRB joint it sealed, allowing pressurized hot gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB attachment hardware and external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft attachment and the structural failure of the external tank. Aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter.
The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown; several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The shuttle had no escape system, and the impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable.
The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed byUnited States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident.[1] NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings (an example of "go fever") from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed in adequately reporting these technical concerns to their superiors.
What Rogers did not highlight was that the vehicle was never certified to operate in temperatures that low. The O-rings, as well as many other critical components, had no test data to support any expectation of a successful launch in such conditions. Bob Ebeling from Thiokol delivered a biting analysis: "[W]e're only qualified to 40 degrees ...'what business does anyone even have thinking about 18 degrees, we're in no man's land.'"[2]
As a result of the disaster, the Air Force decided to cancel its plans to use the Shuttle for classified military satellite launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, deciding to use the Titan IV instead.
Approximately 17 percent of Americans witnessed the launch live because of the presence of crew member Christa McAuliffe, the first member of the Teacher in Space Project, who would have been the first teacher in space. Media coverage of the accident was extensive: one study reported that 85 percent of Americans surveyed had heard the news within an hour of the accident.[3] The Challenger disaster has been used as a case study in many discussions of engineering safety and workplace ethics.

Each of the two Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) that comprised part of the Space Transportation System was constructed of seven sections, six of which were permanently joined in pairs at the factory. For each flight, the four resulting segments were then assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), with three field joints. The factory joints were sealed with asbestos-silica insulation applied over the joint, while each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings. (After the destruction of Challenger, the number of O-rings per field joint was increased to three.)[4] The seals of all of the SRB joints were required to contain the hot high-pressure gases produced by the burning solid propellant inside, forcing it out the nozzle at the aft end of each rocket.
During the Space Shuttle design process, a McDonnell Douglas report in September 1971 discussed the safety record of solid rockets. While a safe abort was possible after most types of failures, one was especially dangerous: a burnthrough by hot gases of the rocket's casing. The report stated that "if burnthrough occurs adjacent to [liquid hydrogen/oxygen] tank or orbiter, timely sensing may not be feasible and abort not possible", accurately foreshadowing the Challenger accident.[5] Morton Thiokol was the contractor responsible for the construction and maintenance of the shuttle's SRBs. As originally designed by Thiokol, the O-ring joints in the SRBs were supposed to close more tightly due to forces generated at ignition, but a 1977 test showed that when pressurized water was used to simulate the effects of booster combustion, the metal parts bent away from each other, opening a gap through which gases could leak. This phenomenon, known as "joint rotation," caused a momentary drop in air pressure. This made it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings. In the event of widespread erosion, a flame path could develop, causing the joint to burst—which would have destroyed the booster and the shuttle.[6]
Engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center wrote to the manager of the Solid Rocket Booster project, George Hardy, on several occasions suggesting that Thiokol's field joint design was unacceptable. For example, one engineer suggested that joint rotation would render the secondary O-ring useless, but Hardy did not forward these memos to Thiokol, and the field joints were accepted for flight in 1980.[7]
Evidence of serious O-ring erosion was present as early as the second space shuttle mission, STS-2, which was flown by Columbia. Contrary to NASA regulations, the Marshall Center did not report this problem to senior management at NASA, but opted to keep the problem within their reporting channels with Thiokol. Even after the O-rings were redesignated as "Criticality 1"—meaning that their failure would result in the destruction of the Orbiter—no one at Marshall suggested that the shuttles be grounded until the flaw could be fixed.[7] During the investigation Sally Ride told Dr.Richard Feynman that the O-rings were not tested under 50 degrees.
By 1985, Marshall and Thiokol realized that they had a potentially catastrophic problem on their hands. They began the process of redesigning the joint with three inches (76 mm) of additional steel around the tang. This tang would grip the inner face of the joint and prevent it from rotating. They did not call for a halt to shuttle flights until the joints could be redesigned, but rather treated the problem as an acceptable flight risk. For example, Lawrence Mulloy, Marshall's manager for the SRB project since 1982, issued and waived launch constraints for six consecutive flights. Thiokol even went as far as to persuade NASA to declare the O-ring problem "closed".[7] Donald Kutyna, a member of the Rogers Commission, later likened this situation to an airline permitting one of its planes to continue to fly despite evidence that one of its wings was about to fall off.
Challenger was originally set to launch from KSC in Florida at 14:42 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 22. Delays in the previous mission, STS-61-C, caused the launch date to be moved to January 23 and then to January 24. Launch was then rescheduled to January 25 due to bad weather at the Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) site in Dakar, Senegal. NASA decided to useCasablanca as the TAL site, but because it was not equipped for night landings, the launch had to be moved to the morning (Florida time). Predictions of unacceptable weather at KSC caused the launch to be rescheduled for 09:37 EST on January 27.[8]
The launch was delayed the next day, due to problems with the exterior access hatch. First, one of the micro-switch indicators used to verify that the hatch was safely locked malfunctioned.[9]Then, a stripped bolt prevented the closeout crew from removing a closing fixture from the orbiter's hatch.[10] By the time repair personnel had sawed the fixture off, crosswinds at the Shuttle Landing Facility exceeded the limits for a Return to Launch Site (RTLS) abort.[11] While the crew waited for winds to die down, the launch window expired, forcing yet another scrub.
Thiokol-NASA conference call[edit]
Forecasts for January 28 predicted an unusually cold morning, with temperatures close to 31 °F (−1 °C), the minimum temperature permitted for launch. The low temperatures had prompted concerns from Thiokol engineers. At a teleconference on the evening of January 27, Thiokol engineers and managers discussed the weather conditions with NASA managers from Kennedy Space Center and Marshall Space Flight Center. Several engineers (most notably Roger Boisjoly) re-expressed their concerns about the effect of low temperatures on the resilience of the rubber O-rings that sealed the joints of the SRBs, and recommended a launch postponement.[12] They argued that they did not have enough data to determine whether the joints would properly seal if the O-rings were colder than 53 °F (12 °C). This was an important consideration, since the SRB O-rings had been designated as a "Criticality 1" component, meaning that there was no backup if both the primary and secondary O-rings failed, and their failure would destroy the Orbiter and its crew.
Thiokol management initially supported its engineers' recommendation to postpone the launch, but NASA staff opposed a delay. During the conference call, Hardy told Thiokol, "I am appalled. I am appalled by your recommendation." Mulloy said, "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch — next April?"[12] One argument by NASA personnel contesting Thiokol's concerns was that if the primary O-ring failed, the secondary O-ring would still seal. This was unproven, and was in any case an argument that did not apply to a "Criticality 1" component. As astronaut Sally Ride stated when questioning NASA managers before the Rogers Commission, it is forbidden to rely on a backup for a "Criticality 1" component. The backup is there solely to provide redundancy in case of unforeseen failure, not to replace the primary component.
NASA did not know of Thiokol's earlier concerns about the effects of the cold on the O-rings, and did not understand that Rockwell International, the shuttle's prime contractor, viewed the large amount of ice present on the pad as a constraint to launch. Due to NASA's opposition, Thiokol management reversed itself and recommended that the launch proceed as scheduled.[12][13]
The Thiokol engineers had also argued that the low overnight temperatures (18 °F or −8 °C the evening prior to launch) would almost certainly result in SRB temperatures below their redline of 40 °F (4 °C). Ice had accumulated all over the launch pad, raising concerns that ice could damage the shuttle upon lift-off. The Kennedy Ice Team inadvertently pointed an infrared camera at the aft field joint of the right SRB and found the temperature to be only 8 °F (−13 °C). This was believed to be the result of supercooled air blowing on the joint from the liquid oxygen tank vent. It was much lower than the air temperature and far below the design specifications for the O-rings. However, the 8 °F (−13 °C) reading was later determined to be erroneous, the error caused by not following the temperature probe manufacturer's instructions. Tests and adjusted calculations later confirmed that the temperature of the joint was not substantially different from the ambient temperature.[14]
The temperature on the day of the launch was far lower than had been the case with previous launches: below freezing at 28 to 29 °F (−2.2 to −1.7 °C); previously, the coldest launch had been at 53 °F (12 °C). Although the Ice Team had worked through the night removing ice, engineers at Rockwell still expressed concern. Rockwell engineers watching the pad from their headquarters in Downey, California, were horrified when they saw the amount of ice. They feared that during launch, ice might be shaken loose and strike the shuttle's thermal protection tiles, possibly due to the aspiration induced by the jet of exhaust gas from the SRBs. Rocco Petrone, the head of Rockwell's space transportation division, and his colleagues viewed this situation as a launch constraint, and told Rockwell's managers at the Cape that Rockwell could not support a launch. However, Rockwell's managers at the Cape voiced their concerns in a manner that led Houston-based mission manager Arnold Aldrich to go ahead with the launch. Aldrich decided to postpone the shuttle launch by an hour to give the Ice Team time to perform another inspection. After that last inspection, during which the ice appeared to be melting, Challenger was finally cleared to launch at 11:38 am EST.[13]

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Space Shuttle Challenger

...Space Shuttle Challenger Case I have read and studied the Space Shutter Challenger Case thoroughly and I believe that the most important failure of the case study was due to many factors which include personality, communication and motivation among the members of the group. In terms of personality, I believe the part of the failure was due to the mix of strong and weak personalities among the group. The stronger personalities which included Mason and Wiggins used direct pressure to influence Lund in to agreeing with their decision. Mason told Lund to take off his engineering hat and to put on his management hat. I believe that Mason and Wiggins used their strong and domineering personalities to influence Lund. This is a contributing factor to the failure of the space shuttle launch. Another aspect of the failure of the case is due to the poor communication between the Thiokol engineers and management. The Thiokol engineers had expressed their concerns to management about the reliability of the O-Rings being used on the space shuttles but a review committee concluded that they were safe to use and if a problem did arise there were secondary O-rings in place. In the flights leading up to the challengers departure, there was evidence that there were serious problems with the O-rings. On the eve of the launch, the weather forecast was unusually cold for Florida weather, with temperatures in the low twenty’s. Thiokol expressed concern that the O-rings would not work properly...

Words: 662 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Space Shuttle Safety335

...The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the largest tragedy that had ever occurred in space travel history. The disaster occurred on January 28, 1986. Seventy-two seconds in flight, the shuttle blew up and bursted into pieces. All seven crewmembers on board died either at explosion or water impact. Most people in their teens and older when this tragedy occur, still remember when and where they were…for me it was 8th grade math class and we had it on television. It was a huge deal because the first female school teacher was onboard. The commission found that the Challenger accident was caused by a failure in the O-rings sealing on the right booster rocket housing. This caused hot gases from the pressurization to blow out, or snap the O-ring. (Wikepedia, n.d.) With the O-ring failure, this caused structural failure. On the day of the launch, it was delayed over six hours due to cold weather. This was addressed prior to launch, but it seemed that everyone ignored this vital piece of intelligence. Cold temperatures affect O-rings in every bit of aviation. In the P-3 if the weather is below freezing, a hot start shall be used so O-ring seals won’t split in the propeller which would cause hydraulic fluid leaks in the prop. The key factor besides the O-ring was the supervision and safety councils who oversaw this launch. The night prior to the launch, a meeting was held to discuss scenerios to delay the launch the following day. No one was in attendance from......

Words: 344 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Space Shuttle Disaster

...On the 1st February 2003, a critical systems failure on the space shuttle Columbia on its re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere. This caused the disintegration of the shuttle leading to the death of all seven crew members. 1.  Describe NASA's apparent approach to risk management after Challenger but before Columbia. On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger broke apart in 76 seconds after launch, killing all of its 7 crew members. On the day of launch engineers were concerned that the temperature was too low to launch (-2.2 C lowest launch temperatures recorded) and that there was too much ice on the shuttle. O-rings would not perform correctly at this temperature. NASA management was told of this issue but it was deemed an acceptable risk and launch went ahead. After the incident, a new safety office was created to allow better communication and risk assessment. NASA’s apparent approach to risk management at this time was probable risk management1. For the space shuttle, linear analysis might be sufficient between probability, impact, and frequency2, with probability addressing how likely the risk event or condition is to occur, impact detailing the extent of what could happen if the risk materialized, and frequency meaning likelihood of occurrence of an event whose values lie between zero and one. 2.  What additional risk measures would you recommend to NASA? Justify your recommendations? Firstly, NASA may need to change the organizational attitude...

Words: 613 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

...Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster happened on February 1st, 2003, which broke on the way back to the Earth. All the astronauts, including two women died in this disaster. The reason why this disaster happened was a piece of foam insulation broke off from the Space Shuttle external tank which damaged the left wing of the shuttle. Even though some engineers of NASA had doubted that the left wing of shuttle had been damaged, the administration staffs restricted to do advanced research. The engineers of NASA found that the foam shedding and debris strikes could not be avoided and solved, even though the previous design of space shuttle required that the external tank was not to shed foam or other debris. However, this situation was not account for security threat and regarded as the acceptable risk. Thus, the launch was given the go-head. Due to the broken left wing which caused the damage of Space Shuttle thermal protection system, hot gases penetrated and destroyed the internal wing structure which led to the disintegrate of the shuttle immediately over the area of south Dallas. Ignore the Feedback Control Even though the similar situation happened in the prior mission (in the 13th and 16th mission of Columbia, the foam went undetected as well), the administration department of NASA were getting used to those situation which did not cause the serious damage to the shuttle that led to the disaster of the 28th mission of Columbia. Just like...

Words: 752 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Columbia Space Shuttle Mission Simulation Paper

...Columbia Space Shuttle Simulation (LINDA HAM) 1. How would you characterize the culture of NASA? What are its strengths and weaknesses? NASA was created in 1958 to give the United States of America a position in the “space race” after the Soviet Union launched the satellite “Sputnik” into orbit. The goal of NASA was to put a man into orbit before any other country and shortly after that was completed, the new goal was to put a man on the moon. NASA gained recognition from all over the world for it’s success in space exploration but soon, the pressure from the government caused changes would lead to major problems. Culture can be defined as, “a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization.” During the time of the Columbia Mission I believe NASA’s culture was very static meaning it hadn’t changed in a long time. NASA’s culture focused on major values such as, safety, schedule efficiency, integrity, and communication. But out of these values, schedule efficiency took precedence over the others, which led to disaster. There are many strengths and weaknesses of NASA’s culture but the weaknesses caused the organization to become counterproductive in the long run. The strengths of NASA’s culture are that the organization has a very “can-do” attitude when it comes to task achievement, they have a legacy of excellence and technological advancement, the organization is bureaucratic, and there is a strong sense of pride and teamwork at NASA. There...

Words: 3056 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Small Team

...In 2003, the space shuttle named Columbia exploded upon reentry into the atmosphere, and the tragedy is that there was no crew that came back safely to Earth. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) which had responsibility for investigating this crisis, found that the main factor which made the shuttle blow up was the bad decision made by the Mission Management Team (MMT). Even though the MMT had many pieces of information and evidence from the Debris Assessment Team (DAT) showing that the large foam might have caused damage to the Columbia and how much the DAT worried about the mission, they did not pay much attention. Moreover, the leader of the MMT decided for everyone on the team that the shuttle was safe and the foam strike was inconsequential. In fact, the performance of the MMT is a powerful demonstration of the way in which a small group can bring about critical failure. Small groups, today, is ubiquitous and becoming a substantial part of people’s work lives. Many organizations have made every effort to find how to make groups run successfully and how to make group interactions more productive. Sometimes, group dynamics can contribute to the failure and poor judgments. Surowiecki (2010) said that “instead of making people wiser, being in a group can actually make them dumber” (p. 441). So as to make every member think smarter and work together effectively, avoiding important pitfalls is the best way to reach those goals. [What a successful rethinking......

Words: 1433 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Do You Have a Strategy

...execute with multi-discipline partnerships, segment technology stacks and general provide core applications to our business partners. However we would suggest we are on the midst of our Apollo moment in technology. 1969 saw one of man’s greatest accomplishments achieved. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon a mere ten years after Kennedy’s bold challenge. A relatively insurmountable task when you consider we hadn’t even sent a man to space 9yrs earlier, and yet now we were walking on the moon broadcasting for the world to see. Yet the 1970’s were not as kind to our bold space explorer’s, the public interest was low and life in space appeared to be relatively routine. It was not until the launch of the Space Shuttle in 1978 that a new vision a new strategy was employed to again challenge the fabric of mankind… this time could we live in space, not just travel in it. Today we know the answers, successes, failures, tragedies and hero’s of the global space community. However it took the reinvention. Mercury, to Saturn, to Apollo and the Shuttle. Along the...

Words: 533 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Narrative Essay On Bridgewater High School Florida , we're the only ones left so in order to survive we have to get to Florida or farther to evacuate.” “That's like a 13 hour drive but okay let's go Mason decides to take the wheel considering Will has no experience.After driving for what seemed like forever they start to notice some cars have Florida licence plates when all of a sudden the car stopped. “Wow I'm surprised the car went this far” said mason “Yea, but now what” said will “Don't worry we'll just take some gas from another car”said Mason They went over to a car and found the radio was on and that it was live news. *Important announcement, next space shuttle to Florida” They rushed to get the gas into the car and rode off then all of a sudden the ginormous space shuttle rode right above them in a rapid speed they rushed and rushed they saw hundreds of people boarding the space shuttle *BOOM!* the meteor had hit planet earth… *heavy breathing* “ that was the craziest dream ever”he thought,once he realized the room was empty like his dream he freaked out a bit but soon heard voices and was relieved and headed to his next class. “ NO NO NOOO” *BOOM!* ...

Words: 1008 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Online Learning Versus Traditional Learning

...Online learning is better than a traditional classroom setting and is also convenient. I agree with this because I am doing online learning. I believe that it accommodates the busy lives people have these days. Whether its working or raising a family, its hard to get to a traditional class on time versus getting on your computer at midnight and doing your course work. Some people think that there is too much time being spent on electronics as it is due to the fact that it runs their lives. But without electronics, where would we be now? We couldn’t track space shuttles or satellites without the help of computers. Computers have come along way since the 50’s. They are more advanced than they were back then. Another good thing about online learning versus traditional classroom learning is that you can study at your own leisure and at your own pace. You can’t do that in a traditional classroom learning setting. People without hectic lives prefer the traditional classroom learning so they can get the help from the teacher on a one on one level and be able to turn in assignments to a person not through a computer. They prefer more structured settings and being able to ask for help from fellow students also on a one on one level. I’ve done both, and I prefer the online learning due to more time to do assignments at my own pace and I don’t feel rushed. I felt rushed in a classroom setting. With online learning, you don’t have to worry about carrying books from......

Words: 341 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay


...they would look at the problem and write it off as not important the majority of the times. There are barriers in the management that has hinder the reports from coming through to upper management. NASA organization needs to fine-tune the way management works together and needs to realize what is really important to the organization. The safety of the workers and the astrologists should be there mane concurred, not that safety problem makes them look bad. When the upper management would get the report and then they looked at the problem and would say it is not really a problem. Then when the employee or contractor would say it is problem they would tell them to prove that it is, just cause they thought it was fine and wanted to get the space shuttle off the ground. This why fine-tuning is important to this organization they had the right way and procedures. They just needed to change how competitive each department was ageist each other and made that would work together on making the safety concerns. Cation of Running Expectations With the NASA organization they need to expect some unanticipated outcomes to the way the organization was being operated. The way the managers was running the organization was very unanticipated on how things would transpire. They had employees that would be competing on projects and would keep things that should have be alrteated to the upper...

Words: 555 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Class Prophesy

...CLASS PROPHESY By: Lorenn Glenz F. Raymundo Lend me your ears. In just a minute, we’ll take a trip to the future. Stand back, widen your imagination and enjoy the trip. Let’s explore the year 2031. It’s 6:00 in the morning. I was enjoying my cup of freshly brewed coffee while savoring the sceneries and cool climate of Tagaytay where I bought my new farm house a few weeks ago. When I heard my phone ringing. It was my mom reminding me about my trip back to the United States tomorrow. I’ve been living there for the past three years with my family. I was quite excited because I will be attending the annual meeting of the American Accounting Association next week. So I decided to pack my things. I was about to go to my room, when Kirbey, my dog, jumped on me. I lost my balance… and everything went dark. I can’t open my eyes. My head was terribly aching. But I can see a familiar face though the whole thing was vague. I tried to clear my sight. And my instinct was right. It was Lauren Gayle Dy Tioco. She was the resident doctor in the hospital where I was brought in after the accident. And guess what? She is not just the doctor but she is actually the owner of the hospital. She told me that everything was fine except for my sprained ankle. I just need to stay for a couple of hours and I can be discharged. I invited her for lunch but she refused. She was in a hurry to go to Manila for a meeting with our former classmates Trisha Mae Catalig and Analeen dela Cruz who are now......

Words: 1182 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Boeing Managment

...Boeing Management Planning I have chosen that the company I an going to do research into is that of Boeing. Boeing is considered to be a leading company that manufactures jetliners and military aircrafts. Boeing provides products to over 150 countries and employees ore than 165,000 people. (Boeing, 2011). Boeing is also one of the companies that currently works with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), they provide support for the space shuttle. There are many factors that can and will influence the companies overall success, these can be internal factors as well as external factors. I will briefly discuss some of the things that works well for Boeing including management function, ethics, and factors that will influence the company's different aspects of planning. Boeing by the looks if it has a very structured aspect of management, this consists of the Chairman, president, senior vice president, and administration. The company states that they values culture which is what guides them as a business. Boeing has a comprehensive approach when it comes to how they want to me known and that includes the following: • Boeing strives to be creative in the products and services that they provide for their customers world wide (Boeing, 2011) • Boeing their business with a responsible and forward thinking manner. This mean commitment to values, customer satisfaction, safety, quality, and integrity (Boeing, 2011). • Boeing partners with different......

Words: 915 - Pages: 4

Free Essay


...I. Introduction: The purpose of this paper is an overview about the current space tourism industry with advanced developments of space vehicles. Until now, seven tourists have ridden Soyuz spacecraft, a Russian spacecraft, to the International Space Station. Capturing the potential demand of space tourism, many private companies began to introduce their new and well-designed spacecraft promising to enable tourist to travel to space. From now to the next couple of years, we are expected to see many launches including testing and commercial flights into suborbital and low Earth orbit. There are also some private companies, who were awarded by NASA for their space programs to carry astronauts to the space station. II. Virgin Galactic – Scaled Composites (Suborbital): Virgin Galactic – Scaled Composites founded by Burt Rutan designed a unique type of spacecraft. Using a mothership aircraft, the space plane will be carried to midair and then be released to launch toward the edge of the atmosphere. Using carbon composite construction, the company has introduced two version of the space plane: SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo along with two model of the mothership aircraft: WhiteKnightOne and WhiteKnightTwo. (Ref 1,3) A. Spaceship: a. SpaceshipOne – WhiteKnightOne: Scaled Composites first launched the SpaceShipOne to the suborbital in 2004 while the first of WhiteKnightOne was in 2002. Overall, the WhiteKnightOne’s features are carriage and launch of payloads up to 7...

Words: 4161 - Pages: 17

Premium Essay

Decision in Paradise 1

...Business Critical Thinking Application Paper Critical Thinking Application Paper r MGT/350 h , 2011 x Abstract Critical thinking requires one to have strong commands of the fundamentals of discipline. There is the art of reasoning, which is to present reasoning supporting of a conclusion. There’s also the critical thinking application, in which the critical thinker applies reasons, judgments, and questions. All the while they are presenting positions clearly and honestly and a good a critical thinker teaches other what they know. Critical Thinking Application Paper Critical Thinking Critical thinking means to me is the thought process about any subject, content, issues or concerns in which my thinking improves the quality of my thinking by proficiently taking charge of any situation at hand. In today’s working environment there are so many examples of critical thinking. One example is to deciding how to meet budget requirements in today’s economy. With an every decreasing government budget and the impending government shut down will most serenely lead to furlough. In a business such as the federal government with more dependents than it has money can be a struggle. In this scenario critical thinking comes into play with ways for the federal government to pay the expenses and pay the dependents can be changeling. Carefully choosing and making the right choices takes a great deal of research and time and usually leads to two or three choices in the end. ......

Words: 854 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Marietta V. Lorenz Case Analysis

...Applicable Law & Principles: ”At will employment” means that the Company does not offer tenured or guaranteed employment for any period of time to any employee without an employment contract or written direction from the CEO/President. In at will employment either the Company or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. This does not mean that employers can arbitrarily fire employees without good faith communication, fairness, and non-discriminatory practices. In fact, courts are increasingly finding for employees in litigation. Employers must demonstrate a good faith effort to correct the employee's performance or the other issues that led to employment termination. Within the at will employment law the five public policy exceptions include the following. The refusal to participate in illegal activity, the employee’s refusal to forsake the performance of an important public duty or obligation, the employee’s refusal to forego the exercise of a job-related legal right or privilege, the employee’s “whistleblowing” activity or other conduct exposing the employers wrongdoing, and the employee’s performance of an act that public policy would encourage under circumstances where retaliatory discharge is supported by evidence of employers bad faith, malice, or retaliation. Summary of the facts: In the case of Martin Marietta v. Lorenz, Lorenz is suing over the claim of wrongful discharge. Lorenz......

Words: 1304 - Pages: 6