In 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger launched from the Kennedy Space Center, people watched in awe for a little over a minute before the shuttle explodes in flight. It was the first of two major accidents during the two decades of NASA's shuttle program. Many would view the Challenger disaster as a fluke that could not have been avoided or predicted, but in truth it was an accident waiting to happen and a symptom of systemic problems occurring at NASA at that time . The 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster was caused by a number of factors, including structural failure of the shuttle, a change in NASA's working environment since the days of the successful Apollo missions, and additional pressure on the space program, already lacking resources, to push the envelope further, faster and cheaper. The first and most obvious cause of the Challenger disaster was the booster rocket, but it was not just an isolated incident. The problems with the solid propellant began before it was built by Morton Thiokol Inc. People who remember the Challenger explosion will remember the weeks of media criticism focused on the propellant and the role it played played in the mid-air explosion of the Challenger. As detailed in the report to the Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident released by the United States government after a six-month investigation into the cause of the Challenger disaster, puffs of smoke were seen coming from the lowest segment of the line. solid rocket booster shortly after takeoff (United 19). The smoke turned into fire, igniting the main fuel tank and the lower joint connecting the booster to the main fuel tank partially released the booster, causing...... middle of paper...... bad solid rocket booster seal. The events and circumstances that contributed to the Challenger disaster were primarily due to human error. If a company had been chosen to build the booster based on the actual merits of its design rather than cost, then it is possible that the booster would never have caused the shuttle to collapse. If the manager had made decisions based on the safety information available to him or if a single engineer had chosen to go outside the organization and speak out about the shuttle's safety issues, the shuttle's launch would have been delayed. Additionally, administrators should have asked the pertinent question: "Can NASA really launch 12 or 24 shuttles per year with current resources?" then the flight rate would have remained low until NASA was ready to expand. In the end, people caused the Challenger disaster and blamed it on a booster..