When it comes to engineering, a task with such a massive impact on society must invariably be undertaken with the ethical duties that correspond to it. In 2005, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the Engineering Council created a statement containing four key ethical principles that all engineers should adhere to today. This is sometimes a complex task and some examples from the past, like the one we will see today, show us the meaning of ethical dilemmas and how they can lead to bad decisions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On February 21, 1967, Apollo 1, the first in a series of missions with the goal of landing Americans on the Moon and returning them safely to Earth, was scheduled to launch. The three crew members working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) consisted of Roger Chaffee, Edward White, and Virgil Grissom. Unfortunately, on January 27 of that same year, a fire inside the capsule during a preflight test caused the deaths of these 3 men, forever changing engineers' approach to spacecraft design. Reports could not establish the exact root cause of the fire, but immediate evidence suggests that the fire started due to an electrical short, which spread rapidly due to volatile atmospheric conditions and the presence of combustible materials within the module, leaving no time for staff. or the crew to take action. The design of the hatch and NASA's management of the Apollo program may also have contributed to this. This calamity has become a turning point on how rigorous ethical standards should be in today's world of space exploration, as numerous ethical dilemmas have been encountered and handled the wrong way. This essay will explore the role of ethics in engineering based on this case and analyze the different ethical issues in conflict with the RAE statement, which contributed to the NASA disaster. First, “Respect for life, law, the environment and the public good” is undoubtedly one of the most violated codes in these events. President John F. Kennedy very much wanted to beat the Soviet Union in the “space race " and thus put intense pressure on NASA to meet the deadline of the end of the decade. This led NASA to sacrifice safety and not take precautions to achieve the goal as soon as possible. The biggest indicator of this was the decision of NASA to opt for a 100% oxygen atmosphere instead of a mixture with nitrogen This would not only reduce costs by making a significantly lighter capsule, but also simplify pressure control 'balance to prevent the crew from losing consciousness (Shira, 2019) According to the RAE statement, NASA had an ethical obligation to prioritize the protection of the health and safety of its employees, an ethical value that would be essential. for an adequate result. However, this pure oxygen environment was one of the main reasons for the rapid spread of the fire and could have easily been avoided if sufficient attention had been paid to sustainability or the well-being of the crew, as the code of ethics dictates. As a result, the launch pad cabin atmosphere was changed to a gas mixture of 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen for future missions, to minimize supporting any combustion. Furthermore, before this abort test, NASA hasclassified as 'low risk' and did not think much about possible accidents, as they publicly stated that they were not concerned about any pre-launch risks (Shira, 2013). This assumption cost them further errors which, once again, are at odds with the ethical code of duty. The most fatal one was to allow widespread distribution of combustible materials into the cabin without any protection. The fire spread rapidly from the point of ignition thanks to a Raschel mesh debris trap, installed in the Command Module to prevent objects from falling into equipment areas (Anonymous, 2006). This net was made mostly of nylon, so it was highly flammable; and ran along large sections of the module, allowing multiple materials to be ignited. Although NASA was aware of this unwanted property, not foreseeing a possible fire during the tests and allowing the use of the ground network, once again the employer's duty was not respected. Furthermore, when a high flow of oxygen through the astronauts' suits triggered an alarm, mission control assumed it was due to crew movement and decided to ignore it, thus not resolving the issue. This is further evidence of negligence towards the duties of the employer and the well-being of astronauts, which supports why one of the ethical duties of an engineer is to keep safety at the forefront. This is just as vital as ensuring the work is performed accurately and reliably, something that will be discussed later. “Precision and rigor” is another ethical aspect called into question in this event in several ways. There was an extensive list of design flaws caused by lack of review and risk management that played a major role in this episode. The Review Board identified two of the primary causes as “vulnerable wiring carrying spacecraft power” and “vulnerable plumbing lines carrying a combustible and corrosive coolant.” The ambient cooling system used RS-89 coolant which, while not flammable itself, when spilled produces ethylene glycol crystals which are in fact highly combustible and electrically conductive. Combining this with a wire exposed to high current, a fire was very likely to start (Garber, 2006). The RAE Principles state that engineers should: “always act with care and skill” (Engineering Council, 2017). In this example this principle is not followed and there is a clear absence of professional responsibility as no attempt was even made to identify the faulty components, which is unethical and demonstrates why an effort for accuracy and correctness is an ethical obligation. As a remedial measure, modifications made after the accident included armored solder joints on the water-glycol liquid line and protective covers on the cable bundles, to ensure the problem did not occur again. Similar to this deficient production, the design of the installation complex also called into question the expertise and deliberation employed in the mission. Technical complications with the communications systems manifested themselves from the start, with Grissom saying in frustration a minute before the first spark: “How are they doing? get to the Moon if we can't communicate between two buildings?”, to the response of an unclear transmission (Atkinson, 2020). Once the danger was evident, the staff and medical assistance did not intervene in time due to the delay on site and the lack of emergency vehicles (no fire extinguishers). All because of the way the installations were made. One more.