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. 

Recommendation Letter (Draft 1)

To: Robert Hansen, Network Design 

From: Heidi Pak

Date: 20 June, 2009 

RE: Recommendation Letter for Second Line Engineer - Bill Finch 

Dear Robert, 

As per your request, it is my pleasure to write a recommendation letter on behalf of Bill Finch.  Bill is a personal acquaintance, and one who I know will be a positive addition to Network Design.  

Network Design has a great emphasis on community development.  Bill Finch is extremely active in his community, and enjoys participating in the Lions Club and the YMCA Board of Directors.  He naturally exudes a healthy reputation for putting the community first. 

As for the position as a second-line engineer, Bill is ready for the career move.  He leads the highest ranking crew at his current occupation.  While it would be unethical of me to not mention a few tiffs with co-workers Bill came across these past few months, he understands and respects the importance of team work.  With the health issues his wife is under, Bill is eager for a new job.

The second-line engineer position at Network Design, is one that Bill Finch can responsibly and exceptionally fulfill.  

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please feel free to direct any further questions to my office. 

Sincerely, 

Heidi Pak 

Successful Collaboration

Power and Leadership

Leadership had an interesting trend.  When there would be a team evaluation at the end, leadership was usually shared.  When there was no known team evaluation, one person (usually the most concerned about grades) would take the leading position.  Naturally, the situation itself is very unique but for the most part, a successful team would share leadership with one declared mediator/"task setter". 

Dealing with Feelings

I have been lucky, and yet to encounter a group where feelings interrupted the progress and success of the group.

Involvement of Group Members

To be honest, there are times when some group members really aren't a positive edition to the group.  They are usually lazy, or their efforts just don't seem to benefit the group at all.  In these situations, I would just carefully try to find a way to add in their work to the whole project, in a way that didn't embarrass them or devalue the entire project. 

Understanding the Rhetorical Situation

This is a very important point to successful group collaboration results.  By connecting the project to current events and tailoring it to audience expectations, we usually got really great project response and results.

Collaboration on Revisions

When revisions were suggested for larger group projects, they were always discussed.  When we didn't agree with something a teacher/professor said, we would try to understand why she/he saw it as unfitting.  If the connection wasn't made, we immediately went and sought clarification.  Successful groups do not just blindly follow revisions.

Attitude Toward Supervisors' Comments

Like mentioned before, it is never a good idea to just follow revisions blindly no matter who it may come from.  In successful groups, we would always take comments and try to learn from it.  Naturally, if a group implements and understands a supervisors' comments, the group will have a higher chance of success. 

Attitude Toward Revision

While nobody likes being told that something they labored over isn't perfect, being told to revise something is always a learning avenue.  For example, a group of mine were putting together a presentation on a mock crisis situation.  We had rehearsed hours, and the written portion seemed perfect.  After an ungraded rehearsal to the professor, he said that we were lacking certain necessary elements in the presentation and that the written part wasn't directed to the correct audience.  Initial responses amongst the group were negative.  However, we all took a step back and realized that he (the professor) was right.  Needless to say, after revision, our presentation flowed smoother.

"The Concept of Authorship" - Ede & Lunsford [Accompanying Illustration Suggestions]

1. "Inspiration of St. Matthew" - Caravaggio

I chose this image to accompany page 80, where it mentions God or a muse, as inspiration for writers.  As this is an older picture itself, I believe it portrays the idea to the reader that this concept of "inspiration from God" is not unique to just the Middle Ages.

2. Pen + Paper

This picture should be used on page 82, midway down.  The passage mentions the personal privilege the writer of a book had, compared to a printer.  I chose this image because of the writing.  We can tell that the writing style itself has been a labor to produce a "pretty" manuscript.  This shows the hardships, and therefore personal connection the writer has with his/her work.

3. Lone Tree

This image should be on page 85.  The 

text mentions the unique connection between the writer and the text, as well as the eventual necessity to become solitary and isolated.  This simple image of a tree in the desert does a good job representing this.  The tree, the author, is a solitary figure in a vast surrounding.  The author is simultaneously so alone, yet so exposed. 

 

Paper Toy - Assessment

The activity we were assigned, was the Paper Toy. 

My wonderful partner was Melanie, and I believe we made a smooth team. 

Initially, Melanie provided excellent directions into how to make a paper fortune teller.

On my part, I just added a few clarifying details and focused on revising it to suit an audience of 4-7 year olds.

Melanie sent me a second revision with some changes, and the overall result is (dare I say) flawless. 

Communication was smooth throughout, even considering the difficulties of a lack of face-to-face connection, as well as a difficult assignment on top of that. (Written directions on a task that can be easily misguided if not careful)

The assignment was a "simple challenge" that really introduced me to the overall concept of the course. 

- Heidi