Challenger Memo - Team Revised Draft 1 w/ Paragraph

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

FROM:                        Krystal Miarecki & Heidi Pak

SUBJECT:              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. 

 

With both our original memos, the direction we would be heading was pretty clear.  Krystal had the technical details down, and I had more of a people-friendly structure.  Taking both our memos stronger points, we combined the memo into a manner that emphasized details and tone of urgency.  The task itself was pretty simple, and the produced memo is pretty solid in my opinion. 

NASA - Memo 1

(The heading is left vague, because I am not 100% sure who to address is to and from.)

TO:                         NASA

FROM:                        Heidi Pak 

SUBJECT:            Avoiding Disasters

 

In regards to STS 51-L, more commonly known as the Challenger Shuttle, there is a dangerous design problem that can become fatal.

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

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

O-rings return to their original shapes quicker in warmer temperatures, as opposed to colder ones.  With our launch deadline set for January 28, 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.

I urge the managers to consider a launch date further into the year, when temperatures outside can be reliably predicted.  

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. 

Recommendation Letter - Analysis

After a quick week and a half, we have finally completed our recommendation letter!

I worked with Sharon and Melanie, both very pleasant and active group members.

Over the course of the holiday weekend, I think we all were busy and occupied with other activities, trying to fit in as much as we all could during precious few sessions. 

However, we got a lot done in a small handful of emails we corresponded back and forth!

With such excellent team members, it was really quite a (dare I say..) easy and non-stressful experience.  

Our first drafts all had their positive and negative points, and we only took the positive points to draft a complete recommendation letter.

Then, we used the negative points to build more positive points. 

In the end, a short and simple, yet effective, piece.