5 ms·

"Boisjoly and four other engineers tried desperately to convince management that the launch should be scrubbed. They warned that the cold would cause rubber o-

"Boisjoly and four other engineers tried desperately to convince management that the launch should be scrubbed. They warned that the cold would cause rubber o-rings to become brittle and fail, allowing hot gases to leak at the joints. Morton Thiokol and NASA managers dismissed the arguments, and decided to go ahead with the launch. The next day, Challenger lifted off from its pad at Kennedy Space Center. At first, the launch appeared normal, but 73 seconds into flight the shuttle exploded, sending fragments arcing across the bright Florida sky. In view of a horrified public, including thousands of schoolchildren watching a live broadcast, seven astronauts plummeted to their deaths in the Atlantic ocean." You might want to read the full article: https://whistleblowing.us/2012/02/remembering-roger-m-boisjoly-challenger-disaster-whistleblower-1938-2012/ https://whistleblowing.us/2012/02/remembering-roger-m-boisjo... As for Congress blaming "the engineers." Virtually all American whistle blowers lose their jobs and are placed on a banned list. They are branded traitors and conveniently become sexual predators, rapists and pedophiles. From the ensuing manhunt, you'd think the whistle blower's the head of a terrorist organization. It's straight to prison if they are caught. And a constant looking over their shoulders if they escape the country. But "management", the guys who actually did something illegal? Life goes on uninterrupted,... retire and become an amazon director. Knowing the risk involved, how can anyone expect any rational engineer to leak stuff? If not a single Boeing executive goes to prison for this, then this exercise is a sham, looking for helpless scapegoats to salvage the company's reputation and reduce its loss of plane orders.

bumby 6y ago
>Knowing the risk involved, how can anyone expect any rational engineer to leak stuff? Because that is the ethical mandate of the profession. “Profession” as in the root of the word to profess a vow. That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.” I get that it’s not easy. I just don’t like how people will give themselves ethical loopholes in a professional realm but not a personal one. As I stated in a different comment, I don’t think Challenger is the same as this Boeing case. In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable
- outworlder 6y ago
  > In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable And yet, Columbia happened. Again, concerns from engineers were dismissed.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Yep. And EVA-23 almost became another catastrophe 10 years later. I'm not making a claim they are perfect, but they may strive to be. Columbia instituted more changes, including a completely separate safety technical authority. This is a separate signatory who must approve operational decisions and (in theory) doesn't face the same schedule pressure. I'm still somewhat personally skeptical if this will avoid such further incidents because much of these are rooted in humans inability to understand risk in a statistical manner.
- gizmo385 6y ago
  > That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.” When losing your career potentially means losing your home, your health insurance, and putting your family out on the streets; it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career. What needs to change is that there need to be more stringent protections in place for engineers who blow the whistle on this kind of stuff and prevents companies from effectively destroying the lives of those who blow the whistle.
  - bumby 6y ago
    >it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career. Luckily, we're talking about rare cases. Would you extend the same to a doctor who puts a patient at risk because he needs to make a mortgage payment? Maybe I'm unreasonable, but I think if someone isn't willing to hold an ethical line they shouldn't be in a career of public trust. There's no shame in pursuing other professions, there should be shame in undermining the public trust because you aren't willing hold that line.

bumby 6y ago

>Knowing the risk involved, how can anyone expect any rational engineer to leak stuff? Because that is the ethical mandate of the profession. “Profession” as in the root of the word to profess a vow. That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.” I get that it’s not easy. I just don’t like how people will give themselves ethical loopholes in a professional realm but not a personal one. As I stated in a different comment, I don’t think Challenger is the same as this Boeing case. In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable

outworlder 6y ago
> In any event, NASA has instituted procedures to try an empower engineers to hold managers accountable And yet, Columbia happened. Again, concerns from engineers were dismissed.
- bumby 6y ago
  Yep. And EVA-23 almost became another catastrophe 10 years later. I'm not making a claim they are perfect, but they may strive to be. Columbia instituted more changes, including a completely separate safety technical authority. This is a separate signatory who must approve operational decisions and (in theory) doesn't face the same schedule pressure. I'm still somewhat personally skeptical if this will avoid such further incidents because much of these are rooted in humans inability to understand risk in a statistical manner.
gizmo385 6y ago
> That consideration doesn’t come with the caveat of “as long as it’s convenient to your career.” When losing your career potentially means losing your home, your health insurance, and putting your family out on the streets; it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career. What needs to change is that there need to be more stringent protections in place for engineers who blow the whistle on this kind of stuff and prevents companies from effectively destroying the lives of those who blow the whistle.
- bumby 6y ago
  >it's a lot more than just "an inconvenience" to your career. Luckily, we're talking about rare cases. Would you extend the same to a doctor who puts a patient at risk because he needs to make a mortgage payment? Maybe I'm unreasonable, but I think if someone isn't willing to hold an ethical line they shouldn't be in a career of public trust. There's no shame in pursuing other professions, there should be shame in undermining the public trust because you aren't willing hold that line.