The Space shuttle, Columbia, blew apart when returning from a space mission on 1st February 2003. It was re-entering the atmosphere over Texas from its 28th mission and was barely left with 16 minutes to land at Kennedy Space Center in Florida when it broke apart (Young and Crippen, 2011). All seven crew members aboard were killed as a result of the crash. Investigations launched established that the cause of the disaster was a problem that occurred about eighty seconds after take-off on Jan 16th. It was reported that a portion of foam insulation disintegrated from the shuttle’s propellant and destroyed the edge of the shuttle’s left wing. Images recorded by cameras during the launch showed the foam collision, but engineers failed to determine the location and the magnitude of the damage.
Various stakeholders faced many challenges after this accident. It was difficult to explain satisfactorily to the public as well as the political figures the cause of the crash bearing in mind that a similar accident had just happened in the recent past. The US Congress questioned whether human space exploration was worth the time and money considering the impacts accrued. The engineers, managers, as well as employees, assigned specific tasks to ensure the safety of the spaceships bore the guilt and shaken confidence during the aftermath of the crash. Questions about space safety and the cost of flight arose from this disaster and still linger to date (Kauffman, 2005). The immediate challenges faced mainly by the members of the East Texas First Responders were the collection of the debris that was scattered in many regions. They had to walk in forests, wetlands, and fields to find as many parts as possible. During the search process, another catastrophe also happened. Two pilots aboard a plane that was tasked with searching for debris were killed in a crash. The other impacts were on the family members who lost their loved ones in the disaster. They experienced difficulties in coping with the reality considering that they had assembled at the touchdown center and it was only remaining a short time for the crew members to land. Though NASA assisted the affected family members, it was difficult to assess and compensate for human life.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The occurrence of disasters often presents challenges that when there are no mitigation strategies laid down, things might spin out of control. The Columbia spaceship accident caught many people unaware. Since the occurrence of crises is undesirable for many companies, knowing how to manage the crisis is a vital task. There are usually three stages in crisis management namely, the prevention stage, the response phase as well as the recovery phase (Chang et al., 2012). The prevention phase involves the mitigation strategies that are laid down to stop a disaster from happening. The level of the measures that are taken to prevent an accident from happening depends on how the management of companies rates the nature of the operations. In addition, while there are signs or warnings from the onset, some management may overlook or ignore them. The NASA management, with respect to the Columbia space shuttle disaster, is a case in point. The management ought to understand that accidents are surprising events, meaning that they occur without notice. It is surprising that the NASA management had never figured out a rescue plan even after similar disasters occurred in the past. Just like NASA, many organizations put too much faith in their systems and never think of anything unexpected happening.
The second phase, the response stage, is put into action when all prevention and avoidance efforts fail and the disaster happens. The affected company is expected to minimize the damage by responding to the crisis. The instituted crisis management team of the organization should hastily resolve on how to deal with the crisis. It should not only deal with the immediate impact on the organization but also on the affected parties. Most of the families that lost their loved ones in the Columbia space shuttle crisis were left unattended to. The resulting trauma affected most of them for a long time. It is reported that some of them resolved to alcoholism to deal with the trauma. The loss of the pilots in the plane that was sent out to conduct searches depicts that there were no clear control measures. The NASA management acted in a hurry without putting in a place a plan of carrying out the recovery operation.
The recovery phase happens when there is no risk of further damage. The affected company tries to learn from the event, manage public image and also attempt to restore its legitimacy as well as the reputation. When crises happen, the media usually carries the story for a prolonged period of time. The stories most of the time paint the affected company negatively. It is during the recovery period that the company gets the chance to build its confidence to the public. The company tries to investigate and build stronger systems. The company also compensates the affected parties at this stage. Failure to take corrective actions by the management puts the future operations of the company at risk (Kauffman, 2005). The previous concerns surrounding space disasters had made many people in the US to doubt the safety of space exploration. Top among them were the US legislators. It was time to revitalize confidence after the Columbia shuttle disaster.
Across the US and the relevant institutions, there were valuable lessons to be learned. In the previous flights, it was a common occurrence for the foam to be detached from the propellant tanks and it was not seen as a weighty issue. Just because there had not been severe problems caused before, the flight officials assumed that no significant impacts were to arise. Even after engineers raised concerns over the possibility of a fatality happening, the management in higher ranks failed to address the issues. But after the disaster struck, the relevant stakeholders went back to the drawing board. They resolved to improve risk assessments, make system improvements as well as implement changes in workforce interaction (Starbuck and Farjoun, 2009). The teams examined every part of the processes that were used to prepare for space exploration. Every mission was taken to be a new mission, and no more assumptions were made. The communication between the engineers and the senior managers improved.
Lastly, given the capacity to play an influential role in NASA, I would make sure that every spaceship that is launched has an engineer to tackle any complication that might arise. In the case of the Columbia space shuttle, I would have informed the crew members of the problem that they were facing then marshal up resources for the rescue mission. In an event as dire as the one that was awaiting the crew, the government; the public, as well as foreign agencies would have readily assisted to rescue the team (Chang et al., 2012). An investigation showed that it would have been possible for the crew members to do repairs on the wing or even be rescued from the shuttle. I would improve communication, especially in such high profile operations, so that in case a problem strikes, there will be different solutions to avert calamities.
References
Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., & Seville, E. (2012). Resourcing for post-disaster reconstruction: a comparative study of Indonesia and China. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal , 21 (1), 7-21.
Kauffman, J. (2005). Lost in space: A critique of NASA's crisis communications in the Columbia disaster. Public Relations Review , 31 (2), 263-275.
Starbuck, W., & Farjoun, M. (Eds.). (2009). Organization at the limit: Lessons from the Columbia disaster . John Wiley & Sons.
Young, J., & Crippen, R. (2011). Wings in Orbit: Scientific and Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle, 1971-2010 (Vol. 3409). Government Printing Office.
