In 2003, the Columbia Space Shuttle exploded upon reentering the atmosphere. I was 9 at the time, living in Grapevine, TX. I remember the news reports saying that the explosion was covering parts of Texas in chunks of styrofoam, and I remember the look of humor but also great sadness on my mom’s face when my 6 year old brother ran inside happily after finding a styrofoam cup outside that he firmly believed was “space dust”. This is my only experience with space exploration gone wrong to a massive extent, as I was not alive for the Challenger explosion, but watching the CNN video made it feel all too present. After moving from Texas to Florida later that year, I had the opportunity to watch many space shuttle launches from my backyard. I can’t imagine how I would have felt if I had witnessed one of them exploding.
After reading the different articles about the Challenger explosion, I stand with Boisjoly in the belief that the catastrophe could have been prevented. Aside from the obvious and simple reason – that the O rings failed to work properly – I find that the explosion had two main causes: 1) The greedy desire of many to be at the forefront of space exploration, without remembering to put safety above all, and the leniency of the “acceptable flight risk” belief; and 2) A lack of trust and the hierarchy of approvals that led to the trip being signed off on.
The first reason became obvious as I read through the different articles. NASA had a plan to launch the shuttle that day, that timeframe, and Thiokol’s recommendation to wait was setting them back. “My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch — next April?” was a comment made my one of the NASA managers. At a time when space exploration was thriving, this setback could have made NASA seem like they weren’t making too much progress…but what is progress if it takes seven lives and creates an even bigger setback along the way? Investigations after the explosion showed that there were signs of problems way sooner than the Challenger, but leadership turned a blind eye to allow the program to continue to thrive.
Reason two has to do with the leadership at Thiokol and the chain of command. The night before the launch, Boisjoly’s signature was needed to give the O rings a “yes”. He refused to sign, hoping this would stop the launch and prevent a disaster he could feel coming, but the document simply moved up the line to his boss where a signature was acquired. This lack of trust between Thiokol employees led to a terrible outcome. I also believe that the upper management on projects generally has a more vague idea of the intricate goings on of projects. Boisjoly was much closer to the O rings, so his lack of signature should have cancelled the launch immediately without the ability to look for another person to give the “yes”.
Was it ethical for Boisjoly to whistle blow? Should he have given reports and details out to the public, as if he were airing dirty laundry. I believe that yes, it was ethical, to a certain extent. One of the articles stated that he met with an NPR reporter right after the explosion, and that seems a bit unethical to me. Spreading the issues over the radio would not bring those seven lives back; in my opinion, it only made him seem more vengeful than ethical. Aside from this, though, I think he was absolutely right in exposing the problems with the O rings and describing how he and others had tried to postpone the launch to no avail. I don’t think Boisjoly was trying to ruin a company or shut down space exploration, but rather just prevent more catastrophes. In Remembering Roger Boisjoly, Vivian Weill says “By bringing such serious problems to light, whistleblowers contribute to protecting the public’s welfare.” His company turned on him in an unfair way, cutting him off from space work. Had he kept his beliefs secret early on, gave the go-ahead for the launch even when he was against in, then his company would have had every right to turn on him if he suddenly began throwing blame around and burying the company after the explosion. This wasn’t the case, though; he voiced his concerns numerous times.
Boisjoly only stayed at Thiokol for six months following the explosion, where his life was made “a living hell on a day-to-day basis.” So we ask, is whistleblowing worth it if it destroys your life, your career, everything else? Did Boisjoly’s story lead to others staying silent in the future? I truly hope not. Blowing the whistle on Thiokol may have made Boisjoly’s life there more difficult, but I can’t imagine how he would have felt had he not brought his findings to light. Knowing that I helped the families of those seven astronauts understand why their loved ones died too soon would be enough to make me feel like it was worth it.
hfredric 