Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion and NASA

An organization's ability to handle a crisis can be significantly impacted by effective crisis communication tactics. Agencies struggle to find ways to communicate both internally and externally in the absence of a crisis communication plan that is effective. An organization's reputation may be significantly impacted by how it responds to a crisis. An example of a crisis communication breakdown is NASA's public relations efforts following the tragic explosion of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986. The incident was aired live on television because NASA wanted to inspire students and more people into space programs. Therefore, almost the entire country witnessed the horrific ordeal. This paper seeks to analyze NASA's public relations strategies after the Challenger explosion.
Subsequently, after the space shuttle Challenger explosion, NASA was tasked with consoling the victim's relatives, updating its public, influencing the public attitudes and affecting their behavior concerning the disaster. Even though NASA had an emergency plan for disasters, they did not use the plan during the disaster. Moreover, NASA did not take part in press conferences, kept facts from the media, and even made staff members unavailable for questioning. Finally, when press conferences were held, NASA restricted their statements to a few sentences and answered only a few questions. Speakers ranged from top NASA spokespersons to anonymous NASA representatives to overall spokespersons. The range of spokespeople led NASA to not speak in a fused voice, limiting its capability to uphold a constant flow of info to the press and the public.
Planning and Program
NASA took strategic measures to ensure that the public was updated on multiple aspects of its response in the face of a crisis in any of its operations. The organization planned to control the flow of information (Kouffman, 2005). Considering that the primary goals of organizations in such times entail controlling the information that gets to the public. NASA recognized that the form and source of information influence the perception of the public, especially the affected families. Therefore, to avoid any misleading and unverified information the organization intended to regulate the amount and nature of the information that was available to the public (Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011). The organization also had plans to engage with the families of the victims. In this, NASA devised a plan of influencing the opinion of the affected persons through the delivery of the needed information to the victims of the explosion. In readiness for a disaster, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion was to hold news conferences aimed at influencing the perceptions of the public about the position and credibility of the company in such times.
In the crisis communication planning, NASA should have made certain vital adjustments that would ensure the information is passed across most efficiently. The communication plan should have been more elaborate to take care of any eventuality that may arise in the course communication response during the disasters. One of the fundamental elements of crisis communication planning that should have been taken into account by NASA is the maintenance of a constant flow of information (Martin & Boynton, 2005). In times of crisis, especially where fatalities are involved, the interest of the public tends to escalate. Inconsistent flow of information raises tension between the public and may suspect that the information delivered may not be factual. By taking into account this fact, rather than controlling the flow of information delivered to the public, NASA should have incorporated into its communication plan measures that would ensure the public receive the information needed at regular intervals without any form of delay.
As part of the crisis communication plan, NASA should have put in structures that would ensure that its accessibility by the interested persons. In this sense, the planning should have factored in structures that would enable those with additional questions not answered by what is offered through the mainstream media to ask questions and seek clarifications. Such measure not only suppresses suspicion from the public but also makes them appreciate the efforts of the organization to avail unlimited details about the problem. In particular, such would enable the family of the affected victims to have the vital information and limit speculations that often dent the perception of the public.
Another essential part of the plan that should have been considered by NASA in readiness for a crisis such as the explosions is a prompt response (Martin & Boynton, 2005). An organization should communicate crises as soon as it can. A delay in relaying information to the public gives room for speculations, which may be detrimental to the face of NASA. By providing information about a crisis before the public gets wind of such an occurrence from unverified sources. Prompt response, even if the organizations do not have all the facts of the occurrence helps in arresting suspicion of the public. Lastly, the organization should have planned for the delivery of only credible information. Whatever is being communicated to the public should follow a thorough verification process so that only credible information is delivered to the public.
Taking Action and Communicating

The perception of the public about organizations, whether public or private is an essential factor in the life of an organization. The communication strategies adopted by an organization, especially during crises that attract the interest of the public influence not only the perception of the organization. Kauffman (2005) asserts that effective crisis communication has the potential to improve the image of an organization to be better compared to before a crisis. NASA, the principal body responsible for space exploration in the United States adopted specific communication measures following of the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion that was witnessed on live television in 1986 (Martin & Boynton, 2005). However, through the practices adopted after the crisis, NASA failed in its mission to portray itself positively as a responsible organization to the members of the public, especially to the families of the victims who perished in the incident. In this section, the focus is on the identification and evaluations of the crisis communication steps taken by NASA after the Challenger Explosion as well as the alternative approaches that would have been more effective in managing perceptions of the public.
Identification and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Actions by NASA
One of the measures taken by the NASA officials was to avoid press conferences during after the Challenger explosion. The persons at the helm of the organization were not available to answer questions from the media. As reported by Martin and Boynton (2005), even the director of the program was not available for comments. In circumstances where the officials were available for interrogation by the media, the answers were not direct with some resorting to the no comment response. The flow of information from the organizations was not constant besides little information being offered to not only the public but the families of the victims as well.
The limited and inconsistent flow of information after the Challenger explosion was a major undoing by NASA. Because the public opinion is influenced by the manner of communication by an organization in times of crisis, the inconsistency was not favorable in saving the reputation of the company. Through the discrepancies observed, the public was likely to perceive NASA as a disorganized entity without well-defined crisis response strategies. Further, the decision of the NASA leadership to limit the information to the public may be translated as a move to hide essential facts from the public. Openness in communication is a crucial consideration in response to a crisis (Seeger, 2006). In a time of disasters like Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, it is critical for organizations to provide consistent and detailed accounts of the actions predisposing factors as well as the steps being taken by an organization to attenuate the impacts of the crisis. The actions adopted by the NASA officials led to significant damage to the urgency's image among the public.
In a bid to control the information that gets to the public, NASA officials limited their accessibility to the media people (Martin & Boynton, 2005). Journalists were not allowed to access the agency's headquarters, which compelled them to rely on the information that was provided by NASA officials. Besides limiting access, NASA did not send pictures of the explosion to the media houses. The statements delivered to the media were less comprehensive as most of the information came in single statements. Further, NASA restricted the employees from responding to the concerns of the press on its behalf. The restrictions meant that the media could not get information about the contents of the meetings related to the crisis.
This move by NASA was not useful in the improvement or maintenance of its image in the public domain. Denying the media an opportunity to ask questions is a significant misstep that dented the image of the company. According to Seeger (2006), an organization should be accessible to the media during a crisis. It shows lack of concern by NASA about what the public thought about the crisis. Therefore, NASA gave room for speculations that enhanced the development of unfavorable opinions by the public, and more specifically the families of the people who perished. By allowing the media access to the headquarters, the organization would have exemplified responsibility for the disaster that would have worked in favor of its reputation.
NASA took time to provide details about the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. The delay in response was necessitated by the lack of a designated person to take care of all matters related to the communication after the crisis. Many of the top officials at the agency were cited to have provided some form of information about the crisis. Besides the top officials, middle-ranking officials, as well as spokespersons for the organization, were cited to have provided information to media agencies across the country. Comparing the communication during the Challenger and Columbia disasters, Martin and Boyton (2005) found out that in the latter, the top officials of the organization were responsible for 75% of the responses to concerns from the media.
In times of disaster, there is a general anxiety in the public domain and specifically the families who suspect that their relation is involved in the tragedy. Arresting such anxieties and limiting the room for speculations is a critical step in influencing the perception of the public. The delay in communication witnessed during the crisis did not help in the improvement of the perception of the public about NASA as an organization. Precisely, the public's doubt on the capability of NASA on matters related to space exploration escalated. Considering that the activities of NASA required high precision, it is undoubtedly clear that prospective astronauts were discouraged by the explosion and, primarily by the reluctant by NASA to communicate facts about the accident in time.

Actions NASA Should Have Taken
From NASA's response to the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, it is indisputable that the organization did little to safeguard its image in the public domain. The organization did not adhere to its set plans of response in times of crisis. In the aftermath of the accident, NASA ought to deliver the required information consistently to the public, through either the media or any other method that would be effective. According to Seager (2006), in times of crisis, the affected organization should be able to listen to the issues raised by the public, analyze the audience, and give the most appropriate response. Rather than limit the flow of information about the accident to the public, the agency should have put in place structures that would ensure any member of the public gets whatever information they need at any given time.
A second action that would have been more effective in the aftermath of the explosion is meeting the needs of the media. As apparent, the organization was adamant not to allow the media from accessing its headquarters. Such a move only served to its disadvantage. Instead, NASA would have opened its doors to the various media outlets across the country at the time. Seager (2006) notes that media is the primary conduit through which an organization can accurately deliver information to the public. NASA would have held multiple press conferences and enhanced the accessibility to its officials by the media. Through this, the information flow from the organization to the public would have been adequate and helped in the restoration and improvement of the agency's image.
Another strategy that would have worked to the advantage of NASA has a dedicated team to respond to the various concerns of the media. Different persons within the agency were responding to the concerns of the media, sometimes contradicting themselves (Martin & Boynton, 2005). Instead, NASA should have had a team of spokespersons to address the press on matters related to the crisis. If possible, the team would have included top officials at the organizations who understand the operations and able to give a comprehensive insight into the various undertakings of the organization after the crisis. Such would have been instrumental ascertaining credibility and consistency of information, which is beneficial in improving the public's perception of the organization.
Evaluating the Program
After the space shuttle Challenger explosion, NASA had to reconsider the way in which they responded to the crisis. The first significant step was the company's failure to offer a timely response to the public, which created a negative perception to the public. The public could not comprehend the extent in which the firm had played in trying to rescue the people who perished (Seeger, 2006). NASA had not had the best approach to handle such crisis. The firm could have designed different mechanisms that could make their communication platform efficient. To the public realization, a communication issue led to the entire problem. The company ought to have conducted a proper measure to ensure that their communication network was suitable.
Secondly, communication determines the competence and professionalism of any given firm. NASA's failure to implement a reliable communication channel was a failed consideration. According to Kauffman (2005), the effectiveness of their program was dependent on the communication department. Failing to prior planning and proper considerations of suitable communication measures was a significant component that increased the level of risk. It was a necessary aspect of the firm to critically test every communication tool to ensure that the entire communication system was appropriate and able to offer reliable solutions to emergencies.
Thirdly, the company did not consider setting communication department, which could be able to offer alternative support in times of emergencies. In the space, there are always a lot of inconsistencies, and without alarm, anything can always occur (Martin, & Boynton, 2005). To prevent such issues, NASA dared to implement external communication systems that could be of help. This was the best prospect that could address the problems that the company had. Different considerations could ensure proper channels were being followed in due course. Different ways could bring the most appropriate components that would sustain the entire process and ensure that the company could be in a position to address the problems that they had over time. This was the most appropriate considering that the company ought to have considered.
Another critical step that NASA should have measured its program effectiveness is the way they responded to the media after the incident (Seeger, 2006). It is clear that NASA officials were avoiding press conferences and did not offer sufficient feedback to explain their stand on the issue. In such a situation, the public will always be in need of answers concerning what occurred. The inconsistent flow of information was considered a major undoing of the company. The public could have been informed about what took place to form a public opinion. In such matters, the public is an essential subject that demands clear explanations.
Conclusion
In summary, the four steps indicate the key components that the firm did not consider to have a vital contribution to the effectiveness of their communication process. The structure of the program could only be validated through the consideration of appropriate measures to back up the communication process. The study has critically looked at the four essential public relation steps that are necessary for the effectiveness of the company. NASA had failed to implement these four steps, which turned out to be a problem that failed to address the crisis in due course.


References
Kauffman, J. (1999). Adding fuel to the fire: NASA's crisis communications regarding Apollo 1.
Public Relations Review, 25, 421-432.
Martin, R. M., & Boynton, L. A. (2005). From liftoff to landing: NASA's crisis communications and resulting media coverage following the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 253-261.
Kauffman, J. (2005). Lost in space: A critique of NASA's crisis communications in the Columbia disaster. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 263-275.
Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244.
Kauffman, J. (2001). A successful failure: NASA's crisis communications regarding Apollo 13.
Public Relations Review, 27, 437-448.
Kauffman, J. (1997). NASA in crisis: The space agency's public relations efforts regarding the
hubble space telescope. Public Relations Review, 23 (1), 1-10.