Team Revised Memo: Challenger Disaster

TO: Distribution - Engineering and Managerial Services, National Air and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

FROM: Krystal Miarecki, Heidi Pak

RE: URGENT: Avoiding Disaster on STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle) Mission

In regards to STS 51-L (Challenger Shuttle), we have identified a design problem with the SRM O-rings that, if not addressed, could result in a fatal mission.

Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are relatively new technology to us, as opposed to liquid-fueled systems. As the Challenger will be the first astronaut-manned mission using SRBs, we cannot take any risks.

The problem we have run across lies in the O-rings. At launch, the O-rings will lose their original shape due to motor pressurization. While it is in the nature of the O-rings to return to its original shape, we have found that there are milliseconds in between the transformation of the O-rings that determine system failure or success.

Furthermore, we have discovered that temperature affects the rate at which O-rings return to their original shape. After numerous tests, we found that field joint secondary seals lifted off metal surface under the following conditions: 1) at 75° F lost contact for 2.4 seconds; and 2) at 50° F lost contact without re-establishing. With our launch deadline set for January 27th, the temperatures have very little chance of being above 50 degrees.

When dealing with extremely sensitive materials that determine success or failure in milliseconds, it is unethical to gamble with the seven astronauts' lives and the reputations of our three organizations. Therefore, I urge the managers to consider postponing the launch date until further research is conducted and safe launching temperature has been reached.

As funding is tight and deadlines are crucial, a public statement must be released regarding the crucial need for more research into the technology behind the O-rings, as well as supporting statements as to why we are relying on SRB versus liquid-fueled systems.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.




Heidi and I approached our memos a little differently. Her memo provided an overview of facts and felt personal in nature. My memo was more technical in regards to details of the shuttle problem. Both memos were of an urgent nature. We combined the two memos, providing a good balance of technical details and personal touch; while keeping an urgent tone. I feel this was a good combination for our mixed audience of managers and engineers.

Challenger Memo

TO: Engineering and Managerial Services Distribution

National Air and Space Administration (NASA)

Marshall Space Flight Center

Morton Thiokol, Inc. (MTI)

FROM: Krystal Miarecki

DATE: July 16, 2009

RE: URGENT: SRM O-Ring Design Problem / Failure

ISSUE

After several evaluations of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB), engineers at MTI have discovered an issue with the O-Rings that if not addressed, could have fatal effects on the next space shuttle launch mission.

Facts:

• Primary "O" ring erosion (nozzle to case) has occurred in twelve (12) flights

• Primary "O" ring erosion (case to case) has occurred in five (5) flights; pressure build up on primary "O" ring causes secondary "O" ring to unseat

• Primary "O" ring sealing: FAILED

• During motor pressurization, field joint secondary seal lifted off metal surface (e.g. seal maintained contact at 100° F, lost contact for 2.4 seconds at 75° F and lost without re-establishing contact at 50° F)

• Secondary "O" ring sealing; FAILED at 50° F

Result of "O" ring failure:

Due to the joint erosion, the primary "O" ring fails during ignition. As a result, the secondary "O" ring may fail to serve its purpose as the redundant seal. Upon failure of a primary ring, the secondary ring may not pressurize and respond to the clevis opening rate, which means, there is no guarantee that the secondary seal would hold.

**FAILURE OF THE SRM "O" RINGS COULD RESULT IN A FATAL ACCIDENT AND LOSS OF HUMAN LIVES.**

RECOMMENDATION

Taking into consideration the time of the year and low temperatures, I feel we should not risk using the current "O" ring seals on the shuttle. It is my recommendation that the space shuttle mission scheduled for January 27, 1986 be delayed until further noticed.

In the meantime, I feel we should develop a special project team consisting of engineers and managers from NASA, MTI and Marshall dedicated to the "O" ring issue and meet weekly via conference call to discuss the project status. Furthermore, any interim correspondence should be sent via email and include all project team members.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Bill Finch Recommendation Letter

I worked with Jennifer and Gordon on this assignment and felt it went fairly well. The three of us submitted our memos and after reviewing them, Jenn offered to take a shot at the first draft. I thought she did a very good job of extracting information out of each of our letters to form one memo. Jenn focuses on the strengths she found in each letter and formatted it to the mid-manager level. I felt this was an appropriate fit because it's the level Bill is at in his career; while the letter is professional it is also personal. Gordon and I did a final round of edits before submitting the final copy.

I think we started off strong as a group but had some challenges at the end. For technical reasons, I did not always receive Gordon's emails and edits. That made it a little difficult at the end getting the final document together. Collaborating through one medium (email) is challenging because we had no other way to contact one another. When collaborating in the workplace, you have more venues to collaborate through (email, telephone and in person), which gives one more flexibility.

Recommendation Letter for Bill Finch

July 2, 2009

Robert Hansen
District-Level Supervisor, Network Design

RE: Second-line Engineer Position

Dear Robert,

I am responding to your inquiry considering Bill Finch for the second-line engineer position. Currently, Bill is a customer services supervisor with a background as a first-line foreman. My experience working with Bill on our community improvement group has been positive. He’s a very active and dedicated community volunteer, serving in the Lions Club and on the YMCA Board of Directors.

With regards to Bill’s work ethic, he's known to be a team player and runs the best crew on site; consistently meeting objectives by a substantial margin. Bill’s personnel evaluation (10 months ago) points out his ability to retain good expense control and effectively meet safety objectives. For example, just last month, Bill was a key contributor at our family safety night event.

Although Bill has a great work ethic, his strong personality can challenge his ability to communicate effectively with co-workers. I don’t see this as a problem but rather a development opportunity. The business relationship coaching class offered in human resources would benefit Bill and help fine tune his skills. On a personal note, I feel it’s important to point out that Bill is also dealing with a difficult personal issue. His lovely wife Eloise has cancer and the prognosis is not good. However, even with the additional stress, Bill continues to produce exceptional team results.

With that said, I would recommend Bill Finch for the second-line engineer position. This would be a great opportunity for Bill and your group would acquire a dedicated, hard working engineer.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call, (860) 225-5252.

Sincerely,

Krystal Miarecki