Conclusions Belong at the End
We oft-times mark time with impactful and dramatic life events (and especially death events). Growing up, I routinely heard others speak of where they were and what they were doing when John F. Kennedy was shot. Being born eight months after the Kennedy assassination, I morbidly felt left out of those discussions.
Unfortunately, tragedies, including tragedies which serve as markers in our lives, continue to unfold. We recall both time and place when reminded of the 9-11 attacks. We cannot help but to dwell on how such a tragic set of circumstances changed our lives and our outlook.
Today, January 28, is the 40th anniversary of such a life defining event: the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Seventy-three seconds after take-off on a frigid Florida morning, the Challenger with its payload of equipment intended to be deployed to study Halley’s Comet, exploded after take-off. O-rings, intended to provide critical seals in fuel delivery systems, failed, which thereby allowed fuel to escape resulting in the catastrophic explosive event.
We later learned that these very O-rings were the subject of debate between engineers, managers, and NASA officials the very evening before the fatal launch decision. Engineers at both the manufacturer and NASA questioned the efficacy of O-ring operation at below-freezing temperatures at take-off. Indeed, all testing and analysis of O-rings related to a low operational temperature of 53 degrees F. The Florida temperature when Challenger left the launch pad on January 28, 1986 was well below freezing.
During these technical debates, a NASA official infamously chirped: “What do you expect us to do? Hold all launches until Spring time?” Under tremendous pressure, the manufacturer engineers refused to sign off on the viability of O-ring operation at such low temperatures. Nonetheless, citing an absence of data to contradict the position, upper management at the manufacturer provided the sign off demanded by NASA.
Given the vital and very public image of the U.S Space Program, and given all that could be lost in terms of human lives, the space shuttle, the mission equipment, and, perhaps, the entire Space Program itself, exactly what pressured the engineers, technical staff, corporate management, and high ranking NASA officers to move forward given uncertainties? Examined in its own time and place, the January 28, 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger mission took on oversized expectations.
Beginning in 1981, the Space Shuttle Program reignited human space exploration for the United States. In the early 1980s, we were all captivated with both launches and landings of the Space Shuttles. By 1986, public interest waned as these journeys became almost routine.
The January 1986 mission would be different: a civilian passenger trained to assist the mission would join the six other astronauts. Grade school teacher Christa McAuliffe provided the spark so desperately desired to the NASA Space Program. Attention, interest and focus immediately returned to the Space Program with a school teacher among the astronaut ranks!
Almost 20% of Americans took time to watch the Space Shuttle Challenger take off on January 28, 1986. That engagement level had not been witnessed since the initiation of the Space Shuttle program. The take off would be played on televisions throughout schools across the country to witness the historic event of a civilian – and better yet a teacher – travel to space. 73 seconds later, all changed.
The pressure on NASA for a picture-perfect take off and successful mission remained immense. Christa McAuliffe brought excitement, and perhaps greater funding, back into the Space Shuttle Program. Americans re-engaged with NASA. American school children, including those future scientists, engineers and pilots, paid close attention to the Space Shuttle Challenger that January.
I suspect that if weather conditions presented storms or extensive cloud cover, NASA would have little problem – and no embarrassment – in delaying launch of the Challenger. Mother Nature would be to blame, not NASA. However, under cloudless skies, delay would be attributed to NASA’s shortcomings or failures with tens of millions of Americans watching.
A little cold weather. So what? The Challenger is going to deep, frozen space. Launch the rocket, it is! What do those egg-head engineers know, anyway?
I recall where I was when the Challenger exploded. It was a Tuesday during my second semester as a senior in college. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, my classes started later in the day. I was preparing to head to class when I saw the Challenger take off. I remember staring blankly at the television screen for some unknown period of time after the explosion. I was dumbfounded that an extreme loss could even take place, let alone the loss of life of all on board. The television cameras kept showing Christa McAuliffe’s parents and I repeated “Stop showing the parents!” The Space Program appeared doomed.
That evening, January 28, 1986, President Reagan was to give his State of the Union Address. Instead, Reagan spoke to the nation from the White House. To me, a critical part of the speech went as follows:
“I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute. We’ll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.”
To its credit, the United States did not play hide the ball, did not block any investigation, and did not appear to seek to impact the investigation. We learned not simply of the O-ring failure, but also the technical debate among engineers and others as well as the pressure placed on all decision makers. I do not recall any stakeholder jumping to conclusions or blaming others before a full and complete investigation took place. The Space Shuttle program and NASA survived these devastating circumstances. Americans still trusted the institutions involved after the “open” investigation.
Contrast the measured response to the Challenger disaster with any event which happens now. It strikes me that we are not only so divided as a society, but also so trained to immediately cast blame on “others”, that we may not be able to earn trust in any investigation or analysis of underlying events or circumstances.
As objectively as you can, look at the recent deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota. No investigations have yet to be conducted into the actions of both victims and ICE officers. Yet, politicians on one side affirmatively declared that both victims were, at most, peaceful protestors while the other side asserted that both Good and Pretti attacked ICE officers. Without the benefit of any investigation, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino opined: “The victims are the Border Patrol Agents” while Good and Pretti were being laid to rest. Also with no investigation to support any accusation, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared that Pretti had “brandished” a gun and that he was a “domestic terrorist”.
This approach to conclude first renders any investigation meaningless. If the findings are that Good and Pretti were merely peaceful demonstrators exercising Constitutional rights of Free Speech, so what? The narrative has taken hold with the sensational headline that each Good and Pretti attacked ICE officers and sought harm to them. If the findings are that Good and Pretti intended to callously attack ICE agents, so what? They both have already been cast as the bad guys. The investigation means nothing when the conclusions are already firmly set.
We as a society trusted and relied on the United States’ investigation regarding the Challenger disaster. The Space Program then survived the Challenger loss. Reagan correctly reminded us that any inquiry must be “up front and in public” because “That’s the way freedom is.” If we start with the conclusions and then search for “facts” to fit the narrative built around these conclusions, we will forever be stuck in the “blame the other side” game presently witnessed in Minnesota and elsewhere. Freedom requires more or we may lose freedom itself.
In Estate Planning, we strive to avoid conclusions for stories which still are unfolding or have yet to take place. For example, for parents with children in their teens or twenties, we still do not fully appreciate where or how those children may land in their journeys. If desired, we provide for these children with safety nets through limited distributions over time or distributions only approved by a special trustee. We can avoid wasteful or lavish spending. We can build in protections from creditors and even divorcing spouses. We can temporarily terminate distributions if a child suffers from addictions or engages in illegal behaviors. Perhaps absolutely none of these protections prove necessary. But we do not know at the present. Let the story play out. Let the life investigation unfold before we reach conclusions. Only then, if needed, do we have the protections.