36th Anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy: A Retrospective by Martin Ditkof

Thank you for joining me. You can find my thesis dated January 28, 2022, thirty-six years after the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy, to review or download at:

https://theasbestosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Space-Shuttle-Challenger-Thesis-1282022.pdf

I have titled the thesis “Space Shuttle Challenger January 28, 1986 Tragedy: 36 Years Later, A Retrospective on Causation and Moral Injuries.” Please feel free to share with anyone who you believe might be interested. I also invite comments and thoughts.

Pages ii and iii include reviews by historian Andrew Chaikin, Professor Mark Maier of Chapman University, former Thiokol employees Brian Russell, Jerry Burn, and Kyle Speas (who were three of the thirty-four people participating in the fateful January 27, 1986 telephone discussion), and asbestos expert and Mesothelioma Warrior Mavis Nye. Each of them also assisted my research including providing information, recommendations, and directions. I could not have done this without them and the others who I thank in the Preface.

The Abstract is as follows:

This is my Master of History thesis (first of three for the program at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs). In researching my thesis, I was fortunate to locate and incorporate original and hard to find primary source materials such as interviews with former Thiokol employees, documents from NASA obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, an unpublished manuscript by Roger Boisjoly which he drafted during 1998-9, email exchanges during 2014 between Allan McDonald and Larry Mulloy, and the difficult to locate five volume set on the space shuttle history from 1964 to 1973 by John Guilmartin which was published in 1988. I was also blessed to receive a Clark-Yudkin Research Fellowship from the Friends of the U.S. Air Force Academy Library in support of this thesis.

An interesting point which came up late in the research is that the chrysotile asbestos fibers contained in the Randolph putty used on the Challenger flight (and some earlier flights) field and nozzle joints of the solid rocket boosters were much larger in length and diameter than those used in the replaced Fuller-O’Brien putty. That means that the Randolph putty asbestos fibers were weaker than the the earlier fibers (larger diameter fibers for asbestos are weaker than skinner fibers). Did that weakness make a difference on January 28, 1986 during that cold Florida morning, in those first milliseconds during launch, as the putty was fighting to hold back the 5800 degree Fahrenheit exhaust gases to protect the two O-rings? The statistical analysis shows that both the field and nozzle joints were substantially more likely to fail when using the Randolph putty than when using the Fuller-O’Brien putty (see my thesis on pages 25-27), but was that because of the diameter of the asbestos fibers, other material property differences, or some combination?

A thesis is meant to be read and not just put on shelf. I invite you to read whatever sections you may believe of interest, and I hope that you find it educational and thoughtful. You may reach me at TheAsbestosBlog@gmail.com. Thank you. Marty