The Columbian accident is primarily how the political environment influenced the decision to launch the space shuttle in Columbia, who was involved and who was not. The political climate during the launch of the shuttle was that of pressure on the NASA station. A good example of how NASA deals with these pressures is analyzing what the then, Norman Augustine concluded to as the gross underfunding of NASA would affect its projects in a negative light. He proposed a budget that would favor the space exploration, but these pleas fell on the deaf ears of those who had the power to do something. These were the Congress and the Whitehouse. They were the people who had the ability to check and consider the evidence and ask questions and the make sound decisions which they are in office. The political environment was, therefore, that of negligence. The more recent studies and research also suggest that the U.S government does not pay attention to the funding pleas (DiMasi et al. 160).
They have not increased any funding whatsoever. They are still negligent. The members of the Congress were eager to mold the budget to their whims. They were out to ensure that it suited them. This spirit of providing that one is right, and others are wrong has what handicapped the space program. Bill Clinton was also at the time forging a good relationship with the Russians. He had to purchase some things which the administration did not even need. These purchases put a lot of pressure on the already meager budget of the NASA space exploration program. The political environment was clearly sick and bound to cause unprecedented mistakes.
The external sources of political pressure and their views. A good example of how NASA deals with these pressures is analyzing what the then, Norman Augustine concluded to as the gross underfunding of NASA would affect its projects in a negative sense. He proposed a budget that would favor the space exploration, but these pleas fell on the deaf ears of those who had the power to do something. These were the Congress and the Whitehouse. They were the people who had the ability to check and consider the evidence and ask questions and the make sound decisions which they are in office. This mess was in 1990. The more recent studies and research also suggest that the U.S government does not pay attention to the funding pleas. They have not increased any funding whatsoever. The members of the Congress were eager to mold the budget to their whims. They were out to ensure that it suited them. This spirit of providing that one is right, and others are wrong has what handicapped the space program. Bill Clinton was also at the time forging a good relationship with the Russians. He had to purchase some things which the administration did not even need. These purchases put a lot of pressure on the already meager budget of the NASA space exploration program. The inconsistency of the reforms is also a constant factor that messed up the space exploration program. The changes remain constant even through even after the Challenger days. These changes were not implemented and come to light after the Columbia accident had occurred. It was all talking, and no action at all. The most notable blunder is that the centralized method of administrating the space shuttle program is left altogether. This very effective method of administration was thrown out the window and only discovered after the Columbia accident. These were the people responsible for the technical issues involving space exploration, and yet they were not doing their jobs effectively. They were instead competing instead of having a centralized method of administration. The communications were therefore either slowed down or hindered altogether by this rivalry. The shuttle program is left entirely (Smith and Marcia S 115). Now we see how this contest messed up the whole thing of space exploration leading to avoidable accidents that killed innocent lives. Goldin made a lot of progress in advancing the space exploration program to other planets such as our neighbor Mars and also the construction of the International Space Station. He did all these things while at the same time trying as hard as he could to move away from the pressures of the powers that be. He told those who were questioning his motives on whether to increase the funds or not, that he would decrease the funds. This change was significant to improve efficiency while reducing costs. But would it work? We shall see. His mantra of ensuring a fast, better and cheaper system lead to drastic reductions in spending and a massive layoff of the workers. These all happened while the space program exploration increased its activities. All these shortcuts happened while the mister was justifying each step that he took. The centralization of the operations led to a one Johnson resigning since he could not put up with the rivalry of his fellow partner.
The internal factors are as follows: The completion of the whole preparation process put a lot of pressure on the workers and the members of the executive lead to the rush in judgments that led to an eventual loss of innocent lives. The rush in a bid to please the White House cost the space exploration agency dearly. They made some serious personnel recruitment errors. The desire to please the White House and the Congress clogged their engineering minds by thinking that some of the design adjustments were no big deals until lift off. These were all done in a rush to save face. This mass hysteria leads to serious blunders that came up after lift-off. The various psychological tortures of the managers by sending them screensavers depicting the deadline interfered with their thinking. They just did not take their time in considering everything step by step. The managers even rejected the proper and proven recommendation that the foam loss was an in-flight anomaly. This ignorance by the managers leads to serious consequences that result in severe loss of lives, all in the name of a "tight schedule". They regarded these concerns as safety-of-flight concerns.
The most responsible for the decision to launch the shuttle and how one can determine "responsible" or "irresponsible" use of administrative power and ensure its "responsible" use. The most responsible people for the launch were the engineers who were the ones with the technical know-how on the workings of the shuttle. Any mistakes were on them. The excuse that they were under pressure is not called for since the self-justification lost innocent lives that the managers were in a time rush. This loss is not acceptable whatsoever. The two parties deliberating on the launch saw the mistake differently, and this tells us that they were not on the same page even during the launch. After the assessment of the debris had been made, the engineers recanted their views concerning the safety of the situation. This statement is exactly contrary to what they had first said, namely, that the situation was safe initially. Ham, who was rushing around, trying to beat the deadline had a considerable impact of the inner working of the launch. The launch took place prematurely since the engineers downplayed the threat level of the debris assessment (Bertell and Rosalie 200). The negligence and downplaying of the gravity of the matter by the engineers affected the launch negatively. They, Ham and others, put the launch deadline date before the safety of the crew. This is a precise form of irresponsibility in order to save face and appear competent when in the actual sense they were not. This saving face is a kind of irresponsible use of power. From the previous, we conclude that responsible use of power is to ensure that the people concerned are okay, and we should view them as if they were us. We should try to use the golden rule of doing unto others as you would like them to do to you. The irresponsible use of power is the reverse since it focusses on saving face and a me-first attitude. Careless use of power is also clearly demonstrated by the negligence of others.
The reasons why the "political dimensions" are repeatedly overlooked or ignored. The first reason is that governments come in while others leave. Different administrations have different ideologies which they effect as soon as they get into power. This sudden and constant change of administrations ensure that the political dimensions do not last long in the political arena. The commitment of various companies to the authorities is therefore very confusing since they all work differently. Secondly, the rigidity of the companies affects the implementation of the current political statements (Jordan et al. 19). This rigidity sets back the workings of the government since the different governmental institutions do not want to be fluid in the implementation of the said changes. Conditions vary and change regularly, and they will never be the same at any time, this rigidity causes a lot of blunders in the workings of several of government-funded institutions such as NASA, which lead to the loss of innocent lives. Thirdly, trust and openness are rare qualities that make adaptation to the current administration terrible. That confidence makes it very easy to overlook the current political dimensions that are in effect. The change of an executive does not sit well with some people in an institution. This change brings the challenge of adaptation to the situation to work efficiently.
How the RADAR model might speak to this situation. The RADAR model is an acronym for recognition of the ethical issue, avoiding misconduct whenever possible, the discovery of the risk areas associated with the ethics, answering the partners' questions if anything comes up that is unethical and finally to recover from the said misconduct by recognizing the mistakes and acting upon them. This form of assessment is the RADAR model. It is very efficient in identifying a mistake and correcting it immediately (Kopanaki, Evangelia, and Steve Smithson 69). This calls for an honest heart since most of us have the tendency to justify everything wrong we have done. When we own up to the RADAR model, we improve ourselves and others too. A case in point is in marriage. When marriage couples follow this example, they tend to live a happy life that is less troubled. When people in various relationships avoid this model, they tend to be heading for disaster. The trick, therefore, is to recognize it and therefore implement it accordingly. Weaknesses shall be improved on and generally, life will be less stressful. The RADAR was supposed to be used to discipline the agency as we have seen.
Bertell, Rosalie. "Avoidable Tragedy Post-Chernobyl—A Critical Analysis." Concepts and Practice of Humanitarian Medicine. Springer New York, 2008. 195-207.
DiMasi, Joseph A., Ronald W. Hansen, and Henry G. Grabowski. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs." Journal of health economics 22.2 (2003): 151-185.
Jordan, Andrew, Rüdiger KW Wurzel, and Anthony R. Zito. "'New'instruments of environmental governance: Patterns and pathways of change." (2003): 1-24.
Kopanaki, Evangelia, and Steve Smithson. "Examining Organizational Flexibility in an Interorganizational Context." AMCIS 2003 Proceedings (2003): 69.
Smith, Marcia S. "NASA's Space Shuttle Program: The Columbia Tragedy, the Discovery Mission, and the Future of the Shuttle." Space policy and exploration (2008): 111-119.