The Challenge of the Challenger Space Shuttle Crash

When a tragedy besets the nation, it is the sworn duty of the president to not only alleviate fears, but to instill hope in the people of his nation. On the morning of January 28 1986, the Challenger space shuttle experienced a malfunction during takeoff due to the cold. One malfunction led to the next and eventually, the shuttle fell apart in the atmosphere under immense aerodynamic loads, killing all seven passengers aboard. The immediate cause "was technical failure. The O-rings-two 0.280-inch diameter rings of synthetic rubber designed to seal a gap in the aft field joint of the- solid rocket booster-did not do their job" (Vaughan). However, the tragedy was completely avoidable and despite being "far too cold, as it happened, to attempt a safe flight of the space shuttle... the attempt was made, with disastrous consequences" (Stuckey). This incident "sent the nation into mourning and forced a citizenry ordinarily preoccupied with other matters to confront again the risks of living in a technologically sophisticated age" (Vaughan). Addressing the families of the deceased, the schoolchildren, and the nation as a whole, Reagan offers condolences, explanations, and hope towards the future. Also, examining the historical context, "the context that is most important to the tenor of the address is the relationship of space exploration to America's sense of self as defined through the Cold War in general and the space race in particular" (Stuckey). Through his portrayal of the inevitability of the disaster, historical references, and eulogy for the Challenger crew, Reagan ultimately unifies the nation to promote his goal of continuing the space program.

Choosing to portray the disaster as unavoidable, Reagan holds no one responsible, which protects the space program. He calls the tragedy, "part of the process of exploration and discovery" which not only takes the blame off of NASA for the incident but also invokes the American pioneering spirit to continue exploration in space (Reagan). Appealing to emotions rather than reason, Reagan uses fervent American nationalism to accomplish his goals. Also, at the end of his speech, Reagan "mentions two coincidences, one directly and one indirectly [that] place the tragedy in a larger historical context of exploration. They may even imply that fate or destiny was at work" (Johannesen). Rather than view this incident as an unexpected and unforeseen failure, Reagan accuses fate and destiny to relieve the pressure on NASA and the space program. Not blaming the incident on anyone or organization, Reagan hopes the public will accept his explanation that fate was responsible. In this way, there will be little question of the technical aspect of the failure for which NASA is completely responsible for. Reagan plays down the significance of the technical failure by not mentioning it and attributes more fault to fate to promote his goal of continuing the space program.

Placing the tragedy under the larger historical context of exploration, Reagan confirms the numerous deaths that have occurred during the process of exploration, thereby alleviating the shock from the Challenger disaster. He mentions "the great explorer Sir Francis Drake [who] died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, 'He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it'" (Reagan). Likening the deceased astronauts to a great symbol of exploration, Reagan magnifies their achievement and redefines the symbolism of the event from a cause for national concern to a simple element of exploration in order to accomplish his goal of preserving the space program. Also, that there have been historical incidents of deaths during exploration creates a sense of familiarity and makes the Challenger explosion more acceptable. Along with Sir Francis Drake, Reagan also cites another incident in which "three astronauts [were lost] in a terrible accident on the ground" (Reagan). Shock often follows unprecedented events so citing examples in which explorers have died in the past, eliminates the alarm and protects Reagan's space program.

Eulogizing the astronauts, Reagan also immortalizes them into exemplars that should be emulated. Hoping to motivate people towards the space program after such a disaster, Reagan focuses on how the astronauts "served all of us" (Reagan). Using the common good as a reason that the astronauts lost their lives, Reagan employs a form of epideictic speech that relies on the fact that "the lesson in civic culture taught by those who died... [Implies] that [the] greater good must motivate everyone" (Stuckey). Also, using "all of us," Reagan places some responsibility on the people to honor those that served them, especially by continuing the space program. Additionally, calling on people to honor the accomplishments of the astronauts "He shifted the time from past to future and asserted the crew's immortality when he added, 'The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them'" (Campbell and Jamieson). Shaping the deaths of the crew for his political purposes, Reagan uses both the common good and honoring the goals of the dead to protect the space program.

From an incident that shook the foundation of American trust in their space exploration, Reagan clearly was able to successfully save the space program through his depiction of the inevitability of the disaster, historical references, and tribute to the Challenger crew. Not only have there been many missions into space since then, but the "speech is widely remembered as eloquent" (Stuckey). In Reagan's time, locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, space exploration was a key defining trait of American nationalism and though "the Challenger address is neither the smoothest nor the most internally cohesive of speeches... in the immediate context, it successfully negotiated the tensions caused by the mixture of epideictic and deliberative appeals and resolved them through an adept use of the frontier metaphor" (Stuckey). Not only did he successfully save the space program, but Reagan also redefined "what eloquence means for the contemporary presidency" (Stuckey).

Source: JSTOR Database