Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

ethics Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology, Essays (university) of Bioethics

ethics Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and SociologyPsychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and SociologyPsychology and Sociology

Typology: Essays (university)

2017/2018

Uploaded on 10/01/2018

tacharya
tacharya 🇺🇸

4

(1)

3 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Writing Assignment 2 Dr. Brian Craig
Tapan Acharya
L20330660
• Answers to the following
• If you were in the place of Roger Boisjoly or Allan McDonald and were convinced it was not
safe to launch Challenger, what would you have done?
Ans 1. Regardless of ethical considerations, risking disaster by launching under unsafe
conditions would have been a big bad gamble for Roger Boisjoly's career. His career would be
finished, and he might have faced criminal charges. So the best thing he did was being a
Whistle blower which he did and I would have done the same thing. But in 1986
Whistleblowers laws were not in practice like it is right now in 21st century which would have
protected him and his identity and job. Roger Boisjoly is still a national hero the whistleblower
who tried to prevent the disastrous Challenger explosion.
• What should Roger Boisjoly have done differently (if anything)? In answering this question,
keep in mind that at his age, the prospect of finding a new job if he was fired was slim
(potentially illegal, but potentially true). He also had a family to support.
Ans 2. He knew that the O ring had not been tested below the temperature below 53 F. He
was not sure if O Ring will seal the gap in the boosters and not let the gases escape. He being
a main test engineer should have understood his responsibility and should have petitioned a
written complain to higher federal authorities in Washington D.C. ,though, it is clear that he
also had the pressure of finishing his job and project but the safety should not compromised
cause many lives were lost.
• Would you have gone outside the chain of command to inform higher-level NASA
management of your concerns? What do you think the consequences of that action would
be?
Ans 3. Yes definitely I would have gone outside the chain of commands to inform higher-level
management. But ultimately the final decision is of the management. So subordinates could
not have done much differently else they might have lost their jobs. Except recommending for
the delay for the launch.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download ethics Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology Psychology and Sociology and more Essays (university) Bioethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Writing Assignment 2 Dr. Brian Craig Tapan Acharya L

  • Answers to the following
  • If you were in the place of Roger Boisjoly or Allan McDonald and were convinced it was not safe to launch Challenger, what would you have done? Ans 1. Regardless of ethical considerations, risking disaster by launching under unsafe conditions would have been a big bad gamble for Roger Boisjoly's career. His career would be finished, and he might have faced criminal charges. So the best thing he did was being a Whistle blower which he did and I would have done the same thing. But in 1986 Whistleblowers laws were not in practice like it is right now in 21st century which would have protected him and his identity and job. Roger Boisjoly is still a national hero the whistleblower who tried to prevent the disastrous Challenger explosion.
  • What should Roger Boisjoly have done differently (if anything)? In answering this question, keep in mind that at his age, the prospect of finding a new job if he was fired was slim (potentially illegal, but potentially true). He also had a family to support. Ans 2. He knew that the O ring had not been tested below the temperature below 53 F. He was not sure if O Ring will seal the gap in the boosters and not let the gases escape. He being a main test engineer should have understood his responsibility and should have petitioned a written complain to higher federal authorities in Washington D.C. ,though, it is clear that he also had the pressure of finishing his job and project but the safety should not compromised cause many lives were lost.
  • Would you have gone outside the chain of command to inform higher-level NASA management of your concerns? What do you think the consequences of that action would be? Ans 3. Yes definitely I would have gone outside the chain of commands to inform higher-level management. But ultimately the final decision is of the management. So subordinates could not have done much differently else they might have lost their jobs. Except recommending for the delay for the launch.
  • How effective were the memos that had been written about earlier problems with the O- rings? Ans 4. On July 31, 1985, Roger Boisjoly wrote a memo to Thiokol vice president Robert Lund with the subject line, "O-ring Erosion/Potential Failure Criticality", after nozzle joint erosion was detected in an SRB. He last ended with a quote "It is my honest and very real fear that if we do not take immediate action to dedicate a team to solve the problem, with the field joint having the number one priority, then we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities." In earlier boosters, there was only one O-ring but in Challenger’s booster there were two. But in the Memos, there was no relative information about the effects on the rings at very low temperature.
  • What could NASA management have done differently? Ans 5. Yes Definitely. It is important that these managers should not ignore their own engineering experience, or the expertise of their subordinate engineers or managers. Often a manager, even if they have engineering experience, is not as up-to-date on current engineering practices as are the actual practicing engineers. They should keep this in mind when making any sort of decision that involves an understanding of technical matters. When upper-level NASA management was alerted to problems in the booster design, yet they did not halt the program until the problem was solved. This could have been prevented by critically analyzing the ethical aspects.
  • What, if anything, could their subordinates have done differently? Ans 6. The subordinates did refute the problems which were there and refused to sign the waiver to launch. But the management team did not understand the graveness of the problem. If presented by subordinates with more time and correlating the previous o ring problems to the management, they could have acted differently.
  • What do you see as your future engineering professional responsibilities in relation to both being loyal to company/management and protecting the public welfare? Ans 7. I would definitely be loyal to public welfare while it will be hard to be loyal to both at the same time. It is going to take strong ethics on these little matters but losing a job is serious concern too. But I still feel my responsibility is for safety of human life and when time comes in my career hopefully i will make the right decisions by carefully analyzing the graveness of the situation.