Representation and misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol engineers on the Challenger

This paper examines the role of the Morton Thiokol engineers in the decisions surrounding the launch of the Challenger, particularly with reference to an analysis of this event by Edward Tufte. The engineers at Morton Thiokol recommended against the launch of Challenger because the projected launch temperature between 26°F to 29°F was far outside their field database of successful launches. The engineers had asked for, but not received, data necessary to determine the cause of massive blow-by on the launch the previous January, and they had informed their managers and NASA that continuing flights could be catastrophic if the cause of the problems with the launches was not discovered. The authors conclude that the engineers thus did what they were ethically as well as professionally obligated to do. This paper came about as a result of an experimental class called ‘The Challenger’ at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) which drew faculty from four different disciplines, teaching about various aspects of the Challenger disaster. Wade Robison was one of those professors, and David Hoeker and Stefan Young were members of the class in their freshman year as engineering students. We all owe thanks to the other professors in the class—Dominique LePoutre (Language and Interpreting Education, National Technical Institute for the Deaf), Erhan Mergen (College of Business), and Rose Marie Toscano (Liberal Arts Support, National Technical Institute for the Deaf). We also need to thank Stan McKenzie, Provost at RIT, and Kit Mayberry, Associate Provost, for their conceiving of the program that supported the class and for their financial and moral support. The paper has been presented at three conferences and circulated widely. We want to thank those who forced us to rework the paper because of their cogent queries, especially Michael Pritchard, David Suits, Steve Warshaw, and an anonymous reviewer.