The Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster (1986): A Case Study in Professional Ethics
Course Name: Professional Ethics
Faculty In Charge: Ms. Yantsubeni Ngullie
Group Members:
Naveen Kumar (RA2411047010200)
Bharath Kumar (RA2411047010201)
Kishore CR (RA2411047010202)
Akhilesh Saravanan Krishnan (RA2411047010203)
Manos Alex (RA2411047010204)
Trefan Kagoo (RA2411047010205)
Gokul Sanjaay (RA2411047010206)
Kishore Senthil (RA2411047010207)
Date of Submission: 17/10/2025
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SRM NAGAR, KATTANKULATHUR – 603203
CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT
Table of Contents
1. 1. Executive Summary / Abstract
2. 2. Introduction
3. 3. Case Description / Narrative
4. 4. Identification of Ethical Issues
5. 5. Analysis
6. 6. Recommendations / Solutions
7. 7. Conclusion
8. 8. References
1. Executive Summary / Abstract
The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when NASA’s Space
Shuttle Challenger broke apart just 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven astronauts
aboard. The tragedy was caused by the failure of an O-ring seal in one of the solid rocket
boosters, which was known to be faulty prior to launch. The case highlights severe ethical
lapses in engineering judgment, organizational communication, and decision-making under
pressure. This report analyzes the ethical issues using Utilitarianism, Deontology, and
Virtue Ethics frameworks, and proposes recommendations for ethical professional practice.
2. Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), established in 1958, is
responsible for the United States’ civilian space program and aeronautics research. During
the 1980s, NASA’s Space Shuttle Program was a symbol of technological advancement and
national pride.
The Challenger disaster took place at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on January 28, 1986. It was
NASA’s 25th shuttle mission and was intended to deploy satellites and carry out educational
experiments. However, just over a minute after launch, the shuttle exploded, leading to the
loss of all crew members.
Objectives of the Report:
- To understand the ethical failures that led to the Challenger disaster.
- To analyze the decisions made by NASA engineers and management.
- To highlight the importance of professional ethics in engineering and management
decisions.
3. Case Description / Narrative
Background:
The Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51-L) was part of NASA’s reusable spacecraft program. It
carried seven astronauts, including Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher selected for NASA’s
Teacher in Space Project.
Key Stakeholders:
- NASA Management – responsible for mission approval and launch decisions.
- Morton Thiokol Engineers – manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters.
- Astronaut Crew Members – directly affected by the decision to launch.
- The Public and U.S. Government – who funded and supported the space program.
Chronology of Events:
- Prior to Launch: Engineers from Morton Thiokol warned NASA officials that the O-rings in
the booster joints could fail in cold temperatures.
- January 27, 1986: Temperatures at Cape Canaveral dropped to near freezing, raising
concerns about O-ring resilience.
- Launch Decision Meeting: Thiokol engineers recommended delaying the launch, but NASA
managers pressured Thiokol executives to reconsider due to schedule and political
pressures.
- January 28, 1986, 11:38 AM: Challenger was launched.
- 73 Seconds After Launch: The right solid rocket booster O-ring failed, causing a
catastrophic explosion that destroyed the shuttle.
4. Identification of Ethical Issues
1. Neglect of Engineering Warnings: Engineers’ technical concerns about the O-ring
performance were overridden by managerial decisions focused on schedule and public
image.
2. Pressure and Organizational Culture: NASA’s culture emphasized “launch at all costs,”
prioritizing deadlines over safety.
3. Failure in Communication: Crucial information about the O-ring risks was not effectively
conveyed or considered at the decision-making level.
4. Professional Responsibility: The ethical duty to protect human life was compromised for
organizational and political objectives.
5. Transparency and Accountability: NASA and Thiokol failed to communicate the risks to
astronauts and the public.
5. Analysis
Utilitarianism (Greatest Good for the Greatest Number):
From a utilitarian perspective, NASA managers justified the launch by considering public
expectations, political commitments, and financial investments. However, the catastrophic
loss of life and damage to public trust show that the decision did not maximize overall good.
The ethical choice would have been to delay the launch to ensure crew safety.
Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics):
Deontological ethics focuses on duty and adherence to rules. Engineers and managers had a
duty to prioritize human safety above organizational goals. Ignoring explicit safety concerns
violated professional engineering codes of conduct, which emphasize the protection of life
and public welfare.
Virtue Ethics (Character and Moral Values):
Virtue ethics evaluates moral character and integrity. Engineers like Roger Boisjoly, who
raised concerns, acted virtuously with honesty and courage. However, management
demonstrated a lack of moral integrity by succumbing to external pressures and neglecting
ethical responsibilities.
Consequences:
- Human Cost: Seven astronauts lost their lives.
- Organizational Cost: NASA faced a 32-month suspension of shuttle flights.
- Public Trust: The tragedy eroded confidence in NASA’s decision-making.
- Moral Cost: The incident highlighted a systemic failure in ethical leadership and
communication.
6. Recommendations / Solutions
1. Establish a Strong Ethical Culture: Foster an environment where engineers can voice
concerns without fear of retaliation.
2. Implement Safety-First Policies: Ensure all safety concerns are prioritized over schedule
or budget constraints.
3. Ethics Training for Engineers and Managers: Mandatory ethics and communication
training should be integrated into professional development.
4. Transparent Decision-Making: Create formal procedures for documenting and reviewing
all safety-related discussions.
5. Independent Safety Oversight: Establish independent review boards to assess launch
readiness objectively.
6. Encourage Whistleblower Protection: Protect and value individuals who raise ethical or
safety concerns.
7. Conclusion
The Challenger disaster was not merely a technical failure but a failure of ethics,
communication, and leadership. The tragedy emphasizes that engineers and decision-
makers have a profound moral obligation to protect human life and uphold professional
integrity. Ethical decision-making must be the foundation of every professional practice—
especially in high-risk fields like aerospace engineering. Lessons from Challenger continue
to guide ethical conduct in engineering and management today.
8. References
Boisjoly, R. M. (1987). Ethical Decisions – Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle
Challenger Disaster. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and
Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
Rogers Commission Report (1986). Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space
Shuttle Challenger Accident.
NASA History Office. (n.d.). Challenger Disaster Overview. [Link].
Fleddermann, C. B. (2012). Engineering Ethics. Pearson Education.
