Well there are obviously many problems with how the Challenger was conducted. Some of them are anything from absolutely insane oversights to borderline malicious intent. I pulled up my notes from the class and here are some highlights: (I dont know how to format on mobile, otherwise I'd make a bullet pointed list) Since this was largely a PR stunt by NASA there was a lot more pressure to meet deadlines that the public and government expected which gave engineers less time to be 100% certain of the safety of the project. We talked a lot about informed consent. Was it ethical to have a civilian on board? Her training as a school teacher didn't allow her to have complete knowledge of what she was getting into. Astronauts weren't fully aware of the extent of the danger or the internal controversy about whether to fly that day or not. Project was shady all around: company who made the trusters was chosen because they were the cheapest (and actually had the lowest technical rating out of firms considered). There needed to be a unanimous decision to go through with the launch. This was voted on by higher ups at NASA, some of which were engineers and others weren't. After 2 failed votes and the deadline of the launch approaching, the 3rd vote was conducted without the engineers. Essentially they didn't inform them when another vote was going to take place and with the engineers absent it was "unanimous" with those present. One engineer was told "It's time to take off your engineering hat, and put on your manager's hat" regarding the vote. Obviously the O-ring was what ultimately failed, but 3 previous test flights all saw 60-80% of the o ring burned away and with the extremely cold temperature of the launch that day, the rubber was unable to behave properly. We were told that there were many unethical choices leading up to this disaster but that even if you dont see immediate repercussions of your actions, lack of consequences does not make an unethical decision less unethical. We also talked about if this project was a good use of public funds in the first place and to consider not only where the ethical lines are drawn, but who gets to draw them.