Beyond the personal affects of the Challenger, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), the George C, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Morton Thiokol (the prime contractor for the two solid-fuel boosters used to blast the shuttle into space) cannot refuse to admit that the results of the January 28, 1986 launch of the Challenger was an "accident". But to admit that the results of the January 28, 1986 launch of the Challenger were an "accident" is not an explanation. It is safe to assume that,

perhaps, thousands of people were involved in the research and development of the space station to bring it to the point in the history of the Challenger. The goal of the space program was set by former President John F. Kennedy when he proposed to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. The goal was not to spend billions of dollars and to sacrifice the lives of human beings in order to win the space race. The question regarding the possibility of the Challenger explosion being an "accident" does not require as much consideration as does the question regarding how did this lack of proper communication result in such a tremendous loss? Communication, or lack of proper communication, can be a partial explanation for the event. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer for Morton Thiokol, had strongly recommended against the launch of the Challenger on the evening of January 27, 1986. Was this recommendation ignored, misunderstood or overruled? Sadly, the message was ineffective in the basic concept of organizational communication. Organizational communication is "the study of sending and receiving messages that create and maintain a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons" (Tompkins, p.24). Boisjoly made a recommendation, and it was hopefully, considered and apparently, rejected, or ignored.

A simple, but obvious, recommendation for future NASA programs would be to avoid disaster. Nucor's Crawfordsville project serves as an excellent example. A vertical form of communication has proven successful for Nucor and it could, in fact, lend a model of success to NASA. By taking away the hierarchical privilege, NASA would permit the employees to be open with their concerns and suggestions. Each employee would know what is expected in his or her job performance. Every employee may participate with suggestions and concerns. If the needs of the employee are not met, they must be made aware of the process by which to resolve the problems. Direct feedback on job performance is mandatory. There is no chain of command. Naturally, there are individuals responsible for particular divisions, but everyone in that division has the right, and the responsibility, to be involved in the decision-making process. Compensation for successful production and cohesiveness is the motivator. This idea appears simple, however, if implemented properly will insure a productive and successful staff.

Could a concept

Some common words found in the essay are:
Nucor's Crawfordsville, Morton Thiokol, Thiokol NASA, Ronald Reagan, Challenger January, Challenger Lucas, John Kennedy, Challenger Disaster, Marshall Center, Lessons Space, launch challenger, space program, organizational communication, lack proper, 28 1986, launch successful, january 28 1986, morton thiokol, january 28, admit results january, results january 28, research development, result challenger, 1986 launch challenger, launch challenger accident,
Approximate Word count = 1655
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)