Based on the readings, the root causes of the Challenger disaster appear to be a refusal to perform due diligence before authorizing launch at the very least and a disregard for human life at worst. Both the events leading up to the disaster and those following it appear to indicate the latter. The root mechanical cause of the Challenger disaster was the failure of the shuttle’s O-ring, which deformed due to the near-freezing temperatures. The reason why such a predictable failure was allowed to occur when “O-rings weren’t tested for safety below temperatures of 53 degrees”, is more sinister. According to “How Challenger Exploded”, NASA had been aware of performance issues with O-ring joints at low temperatures (low in this case being almost 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than temperatures on the day of the Challenger launch). Having been aware of issues with the O-ring joint and refusing to redesign it demonstrates a degree of negligence on NASA and Thiokol’s part. I wouldn’t consider this alone to be malicious however, as launching in appropriate conditions should eliminate this risk. Authorizing launch at 31 degrees when O-rings demonstrated issues consistently at temperatures below 65 and despite repeated warnings from engineers on the other hand, constitutes criminal negligence on the part of those signing off on the decision. It should not be misconstrued as anything but prioritizing bureaucratic ends over human lives.
Roger Boisjoly was not only ethical in sharing this information with the public, but I would argue that he had a moral imperative to do so. According the engineers who attempted to raise the alarm, “NASA was bent on minimizing the pre-launch concern over the cold.” Prior events serve to justify the decision to take the issue public. First, the fact that ample data existed at the time that affirmed the engineers concerns over O-ring failure justifies their initial concern and allows one to classify the response by NASA and Thiokol as negligent. Second, their attempt to resolve the issue internally and meeting staunch resistance further justifies the decision. Even after the disaster, allowing NASA and Thiokol to sweep the issue under the rug without any pressure to change their practices potentially places others in danger.
Thiokol’s retaliation against Boisjoly is unjustifiable, especially in the wake of the disaster. The concerns raised by Boisjoly and the other engineers were completely legitimate and supported by statistical evidence. Their behavior demonstrates that any vehicles to prevent launch-day disaster from occurring (like signing off on the launch) are nothing more than theater. Had the disaster not occurred and the mission gone as planned, Thiokol might have reason to distrust Boisjoly. Given the fact that he correctly predicted the O-ring failure and tried to prevent unnecessary loss of life that did occur, Thiokol’s response is morally bankrupt. The disaster only justified Boisjoly’s initial concern. To ostracize him despite the fact that he was not only right, but went through the proper channels to make his case speaks volumes about the company. It communicates that they would have rather had the disaster occur without noise than see Boisjoly and the other engineers prevent it.
The example of Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger disaster demonstrate the large extent to which individuals are disincentivized from acting ethically when it opposes the objectives of their authorities. “Whistleblowing: What Have We Learned from the Challenger Disaster?” affirms that “retaliation may be the most predictable feature of whistleblowing”. The Challenger Disaster also serves to affirm that even after suffering the consequences of whistleblowing, there is no guarantee that it will invoke any meaningful change. The Columbia Disaster evidences this in Boisjoly’s case. In many ways, he and the other engineers were the only ones punished as a result of the Challenger Disaster, for trying to prevent it. The only good that appears to have emerged from the disaster is that Boisjoly did what he believed is ethically correct− but for what? Challenger paints a pessimistic but accurate picture: whistleblowing is an exercise in futility.
Peter Forbes 