Israel Fried Articles and Ideas

Second Version from February 26, 2003

Feb. 26, 2003
Israel Fried*

Is it Possible that a One single Missing Ceramic Tile has Caused the Columbia Disaster?

Abstract
In this article I suggest to check my hypothetical option that a one single missing ceramic tile could have caused the Columbia disaster of the 1 February 2003 during the Reentry Phase. This hypothesis based upon my new theory "Physical Cold Theory", which predicts a phenomenon of Cold mechanism. According to that mechanism, a small vortex in the hole left by a missing tile could have grown to a tremendous vortex, so big that it could even pulled the bottom of the Left wing till the wing was torn. My suggested hypothesis is supported by the data released to the public by NASA regarding the timeline of events from the first bad record to the last contact with the crew. I may suggest NASA to check my hypothesis by computer simulations and wind tunnel experiments.

Introduction
Is it possible that a one single missing ceramic tile has caused the Columbia disaster of the 1 February 2003? I am afraid the answer is yes. It is possible, although there are no evidence yet that this was the cause. Here is a plausible physical hypothesis. It should be emphasized right now that this hypothesis is supported by the data released to the public during the last three weeks from the disaster. When new data is being received it might be needed to polish the following hypothesis. Anyway, this hypothesis may show to NASA another option for investigation of the disaster, without ignoring the other options. This is a polished article of my earlier article from February 3, 2003, which I have published in my site: http://ifried22.tripod.com.

The main point of this article is the possible option that a loss of one or more tiles at the bottom of the left wing of Columbia has led to a creation of vortices in the holes and their surroundings. My new theory, "Physical Cold Theory", connects, among the other things, between thermal phenomena and aeronautics phenomena. The Columbia disaster seems to me as due to such connections, as will be shown in the article. My hypothesis here suggests a solution based upon my new theory and the data recorded by NASA.


DATA
At the Appendix I give the timeline of events, from the start of the Reentry Phase of Columbia till the last contact with the crew, as released by NASA in February 4, 2003, as published in Space.com at the same day. From this timeline of events we see the between the 7 minutes of contact with the Columbia. (From the first indication that something was going wrong, at 8:52 a.m. EST, till the loss of contact at 8:59:22 a.m. EST, while Columbia was 63.1 km high with speed more than 19,320 km/h), there were several records that indicated problems with the thermal shield (unexpected rise in temperatures) as well as with the mechanical aeronautics (unexpected drag). I shall discuss in the following each of those records and give my suggested hypothesis regarding its reason.

In addition to that timeline of events, it is known that debris hit the left wing during the launch stage, after 80 seconds from liftoff. NASA recently released photographs of those hit. One may see those photographs in the INTERNET at NASA Home page: http:www.nasa.gov. From the explanations of the engineers of NASA there, it seems that only a few tiles from the left wing were damaged. One or more of them seem to be near the left wheel well, where its landing gear is stored during flight. The others are suspected to be near the left wing surface close to the elevon flaps.

Before I go into my suggested hypothesis, let me point out one more important note. In the nowadays aerodynamic theories there is no a direct connection between temperature around a moving vehicle and the mechanical aerodynamic characteristics. This may explain why I do not find any explanation of the engineers, in the above mentioned NASA released documents, connecting the rise in the temperature at the left wing sensors and the unexpected drag on that wing, as recorded at 8:58 a.m. EST. NASA's engineers probably do not have yet my new theory connecting between the thermal and the mechanical aeronautics properties during flight. I believe this connection might be one of the keys for understanding the Columbia disaster.

Suggested Hypothesis of the Disaster

Let us see now how my suggested hypothesis, for a possible option of the cause of the disaster, fits all the data and timeline mentioned in the Appendix and above.

According to my suggested hypothesis, during the Reentry Stage of the Columbia a one missing tile in the left wing could have cause a locally strong vortex at the hole left by the missing tile. How this strong vortex might be developed. As we see in the Appendix, from 8:49:26 a.m. EST the shuttle's nose is up about 40 degrees relative to the direction of Columbia velocity. Thus, the bottom absorbs the whole direct strong streams of air which impacts it, as much as happen while a flat metal surface falling with great velocity directly into the water. In a normal situation all those impact streams go aside of the Orbiter's wing and continue by leaving a long tail of vortices. Observers on the ground might see those vortices, as reported at 8:51 a.m. EST while the Columbia crossed the California coast north of San Francisco and was seen from the ground. But, between the bottom face of Orbiter and the rushing air there is developed a border layer of air, which is required from the continuity theorem, since the surface itself is at rest. This border layer becomes hotter and hotter during this period of the Reentry Stage. This is the hot plasma around the Orbiter that people talk about so much. All this is in the usual situation when the bottom surface of the Orbiter is smooth without any hole.

However, when there are holes in the bottom wing's surface the situation is changed dramatically. Let us discuss the extreme case of only a one single hole. In this case there is developed a vortex in the hole during that Reentry Stage. At the beginning the vortex might be weak, i.e. without a significant influence. It may lead to increase in the temperature of internal sensors, as might have happened at 8:52 a.m. EST as the DATA in the Appendix mention: "The first indication that something is going wrong is recorded when three left main landing gear brake line temperature sensors detect a rise. The shuttle is flying over California".
At that time the engineers might have regard this record as not harming.

But, the continuation is something very interesting that only recently I understood. According to the new theory, "Physical Cold Theory", (that I am going to send for publishing in English. The first draft in Hebrew was published in the science forum of the Israeli portal www.walla.co.il) a vortex is the a kind of Ordered Motion that carries Cold, as much as a Disorder Motion carries Heat. Therefore, a vortex is one of the significant reasons for lowering the temperature in any substance: gas, liquid, solid, plasma, etc. According to that theory, the creation of a small vortex within the hole of the Orbiter bottom reduces the local temperature at this hole. It does not mean that the temperature there is really low. Temperature might reach more than 1000 degrees Celsius. But it is colder than the temperature in its immediate surrounding within the plasmatic border layer. Thus, the hole is colder and streams of hotter plasma from the surrounding rush into it. Therefore, the strength of the vortex grows. The temperature in the hole becomes even lower in relative to its surrounding and the vortex's strength grows more and more. Therefore there is developed at the hole and its immediate surrounding a strong vortex.

All this does not disturb hot temperatures from penetrating into the thermally unshielded Aluminum surface at the place of the hole. This may explain the DATA recorded at 8:53 a.m. EST: "Two more sensors in the left-hand wheel well, which detected an increase in temperature of 30 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit in five minutes". I may note here by the way the following. If the Aluminum itself was torn due to the hit of the debris at the launch phase, as some people think, the hot plasma itself might be penetrating into larger parts of the wing. In this case, many more sensors, not only those five near the wheel, were expecting to detect significant increase in temperature. In addition, there is a record from the same time of measuring 8:53 a.m. EST: "Four sensors near the elevon at the back of the left wing failed off". This may be explained as due to over heating at this area due to the above-mentioned debris, that might hit in this area at about 80 second from liftoff.

Besides the lowering of temperature, as predicted by my new theory, a vortex has another important feature that is well known. Vortex may pull a surface close to it. Therefore, a strong vortex at the hole and it surrounding on the left wing's surface might induce a force that is normal to the surface of the wing. As explained above, the strong vortex in the hole and its surrounding is due to the very high speed of the Orbiter relative to the air.

It is difficult to compute now what was the vortex's strength at the beginning and what was the amount of force it has pulled the bottom surface of the left wing. For getting a first impression of what might have happened I may assume here simple assumptions, although they might be far from the true numbers. Let us suppose, just as an exercise, that at the beginning the small vortex pulled the bottom surface by a force of only 1 N (one Newton - about the weight at sea level of 100 gram mass). Let us also assume, for this exercise, that the strength of the vortex was enhanced in such a rate that every second the pulling force grows by 4% only. Again, those assumptions might be far from the true for good or bad. If the numbers were as in this exercise, after 6 minutes (360 seconds) the pulling force is more than 1355 kN (1.04^360). This is in the order of the thrust of each of the three main engines of Columbia. Thus, a small vortex generated at the hole might be developed to a very powerful vortex that might have pulled the bottom of the left wing by a very strong growing force. Again, this was only an exercise and I do not say this was the real force. However, it shows that one can not ignore this possibility.

It is interesting to point out that the development of the vortex at the bottom surface of the left wing has all the characteristics that lead to a development of a Tornado. a) The very hot plasma of the left wing's border layer is the area of the very High pressure. b) The hole in the left wing is the core of the Low pressure, i.e. the source of colder plasma. c) The velocity of Columbia through the atmosphere, while it is at inclination 40 degree relative to the direction of velocity of Columbia, leads to the strong streams parallel to the wing's surface. d) The Colder streams (from the hole) move backwards below the hot streams of the hot plasma. All those 4 characteristics exist in Tornado over the ground. A Tornado pulls the surface of the ground upward, i.e. normal to the ground's surface. This is the reason we see cars fly up in the Tornado's strong winds. The same phenomenon probably has occurred at the left wing's bottom surface of Columbia. Here also there is a pulling force normal to the left wing's surface. This normal pull force attracts the left wing forward, i.e. to the direction of the velocity of Columbia. As in Tornado, the strength of the pull force depends on the intensity of the vortex. This intensity depends mainly on the speed of the streams, the density of the air, the amount of the hot plasma, the characteristics of the hole (the "eye"), etc. Since the velocity of the Columbia was very high, more than 19,320 km/h, the development of a very intense vortex is reasonable, although the air density was very low at those heights above 63.1 km. (What counts is the multiplication of the density by the square of the velocity. The density of air there is more than 1/10,000 than the density at sea level. The square of the velocity of Columbia there might be about 18,000 times than the square of the velocity of a Tornado on the ground. Thus, there is a relation of 1.8 in favor of the conditions at the Columbia). Thus, a phenomenon resembles a Tornado has probably developed on the bottom of the left wing's surface of Columbia. All this may justify my main suggested hypothesis that a strong force pulled the left wing's bottom.

The suggested strong normal pulling force on the bottom of the left wing, might has caused an asymmetrical torque on the Columbia. Therefore it might have started to make a roll about its main axis. The roll is supposed to be to the left side, due to the assumed pull by the strong vortex at the bottom of the left wing. But, since the Columbia was inclined by 40 degree relative to the direction of velocity, and the velocity was very high, strong streams of air impact strongly the two wings. Therefore, such a roll was against this impact.

Let us recall that one or more of the damaged tiles are supposed to be near the left wheel well at the bottom of the left wing of Columbia, where its landing gear is stored during flight. Thus, development of a strong pulling vortex at this area might become even stronger, since it is close to the connection line of the left wing and the fuselage. Therefore, one may expect that the strong pulling force, and the resistance to the roll, may have caused a gradually bent of the left wing towards the direction of the bottom. In such a case the aerodynamics on the wings is not equal. The left wing is expected to get a small inclination towards the direction of the velocity, due to the pulling force by the strong vortex at the left wing bottom. Thus strong streams of air may reach now not only the bottom, but also the upper side of the left wing. This may increased the friction there, relative to the friction at the right wing's upper side. Thus, the temperature at the left wing's upper side increased unexpectedly. This may explain the above record at 8:54 a.m. EST: "Sensors on the outside wall of Columbia's fuselage above the left wing shows a 60-degree rise in temperature in five minutes, while the sensors on the right side showed a more normal 15-degree rise". NASA engineers say, according to that report, that this difference indicates that a "significant heating problem was taking place on the left side, while the temperatures inside the cargo bay were normal". I may suggest the option that the difference in the temperatures at the upper sides of both wings shows different amount of frictions due to different inclinations of the wings relative to the velocity direction.

All this may indicates that the left wing has started to be bent gradually along the connection with the fuselage of Columbia. The indications a minute later, at 8:55 a.m. EST: "Another main gear brake line temperature sensor shows an unusual temperature rise", and that of the other next minute, at 8:57 a.m. EST: "Two sensors on the left wing's upper and lower skin failed off", support my suggested hypothesis.

A bending of the left wing in the direction of the velocity probably may impose a bigger drag on the left side relative to the right side. This might be due to drag vortices that might have developed along the connecting line between the left wing and the fuselage. The result was probably a turning of the Columbia to the left. This probably put Columbia off course. This may explain the next record at 8:58 a.m. EST: "The elevon flaps on the left wing began moving to steer the shuttle on course after computers detected the shuttle was beginning to fly off course due to increased drag on the left wing. At the same time, wheel well sensors measuring temperature and pressure of the left main-landing gear failed".

Thus, the automatic controller has changed the elevon flaps of the left wing in order to insert the desired corrections. But the left wing was bent forewords in a cripple way. Thus the corrections by the elevon flaps could not resist the gradually torn wing. Thus a minute later, at 8:59 a.m. EST, it was record: "Two of Columbia's nose steering jets automatically fired for 1.5 seconds to help the shuttle counteract the rapidly increasing drag on the left wing".

However, such jets are planned for correcting the position of a non-cripple Orbiter, not to sustaining a gradually torn wing. Therefore, the probably sad result was that the left wing was totally torn of from the fuselage of the Columbia. The left wing was probably thrown to the left and, as a reaction, the other part of the Columbia was probably thrown very strongly to the right. At this moment there was probably a great shock inside the Columbia cockpit. This shock has probably ceased totally any communication signal from Columbia. This may explain the last record, 22 seconds only after the former one, at 8:59:22 a.m. EST: "Loss of signal from Columbia. It was 63.1 km high with a speed more than 19,320 km/h".

Here I have to raise a hard open question that NASA should check again and again. Is it possible that the automatic firing of the two steering jets gave such a big impulse to the right, so big that the cripple Left wing was totally torn due to that impulse. From the records above we see that the cripple Columbia survived for about 5 minutes, from the first record about the difference between the temperatures measures at the upper wings, at 8:54 (which I have suggested to be the beginning of the cripple phase) to the last recorded problem at 8:59. But the left wing could not stay connected more than 22 seconds after the steering jet firing. What would have happened if the jets were not fired? It seems to me reasonable to expect that the cripple Left wing would have stayed partly connected to the fuselage for at least a few minutes more. As I explained above, It is reasonable to believe that the Left wing was bent forwards, relative to the normal situation. But the strong streams of air probably sustained the wing from a total tear. Otherwise I would expect it to be torn within the first minute of being cripple, i.e. before 8:55. If the Columbia could have stayed cripple till it would become out of the communication blackout phase, i.e. about 4 minutes away, it might had a chance. I can not tell whether Columbia would survive till landing, but the usual communication with NASA stuff and the using of telescopes to find out the damages, could have given a chance to the Columbia. Unfortunately, the situation of a cripple wing during Reentry was new to NASA and probably the computer program did not account it. I believe this is a correction that can be done immediately.

It is reasonable to expect that immediately after the left wing has gone the right wing be torn as well. Therefore, the Columbia was probably left without wings and it probably started to dive down like a stone, instead of gliding. After the wings are gone, the center of mass of Columbia advanced to the forward. Therefore, the upper side of the cockpit becomes in front of the direction of the downward velocity. The temperature inside Columbia probably increased dramatically, since on the upper surface there are no protecting tiles against so high heat. Even if there were tiles, it is not clear whether they could stand the increasing temperatures. In addition, when the Columbia was diving, its velocity increased more and more and its temperature increased as well. The tiles might be torn due to over heating and the whole inside of Columbia was probably very hot. The increase in the temperature probably increased the inside pressure. This has probably led to the explosion of the fuselage of Columbia.

The broken parts of Columbia rushed downwards towards the Earth while the poor crew were probably tied to them. It is reasonable that the crew were tied to the parts while the centers of mass of the parts were so that the structure of those parts were in a direct contact with the rushing air while at the back there were developed the wake vortices. As mentioned above, vortices reduce the temperature. Thus, it is plausible that the bodies of the crew inside the broken parts were in much lower temperature, so that some parts of them did not totally vaporized.

According to this suggested hypothesis all those events might have happened due to a one lonely hole in the bottom surface of a wing. It might be important to emphasize that this optional hypothetical mechanism of the disaster due to a one hole in the surface of the wing might be most important due to the asymmetry of the holes in Columbia's bottom. If, for instance, there was at the right wing exactly the same hole at the same line and at the same distance from the main axis of the Columbia, there was probably developed a symmetrically second vortex, which might offset the torque induced by the hole at the left wing. In addition, the amount of the torque induced by a one hole depends on the distance from the main axis. If the hole was exactly beneath the main axis of the Orbiter, there was no roll torque and probably the wing would not being torn. In this case the significant damage of the hole could be by introducing heat into the Orbiter. However, even in such case, the heat is expected to be less than the amount of heat of the border-layer's patch under the hole. This is in accordance with the "Physical Cold Theory" saying that the temperature of the vortex is lower than in its surrounding. This may explain why Orbiters' crews in the past, when there were only a few such holes in the button tiles, did not suffer from too high temperature inside the Orbiter and the missions were accomplished successfully. I may mention that in the case of Columbia on its last flight, which unfortunately ended with the tragic disaster, the hole or holes were probably close to the left-hand wheel well, which is close to the connection line between the left wing and the fuselage. I would suggest to check whether this closeness have contributed to the suggested phenomenon described above, i.e. the creation of a strong pulling vortex at the bottom of the left wing.


Conclusion
In this article I suggest to check my hypothetical option that a one single missing ceramic tile could have caused the Columbia disaster of the 1 February 2003 during the Reentry Phase. This hypothesis based upon my new theory "Physical Cold Theory", which predicts a phenomenon of Cold mechanism. According to that mechanism, a small vortex in the hole left by a missing tile could have grown to a tremendous vortex, so big that it could even pulled the bottom of the Left wing till the wing was torn. My suggested hypothesis is supported by the data released to the public by NASA regarding the timeline of events from the first bad record to the last contact with the crew. This suggested hypothesis should be checked in wind tunnels and computer simulations. I have not developed yet the equations connecting between the strength of a vortex and the amount of the Cold Temperature generated by a specific vortex. I hope that I help somehow to solve the hard questions regarding the death of the brave seven astronauts in the Columbia. I hope all the debris of the Columbia will be found for completing the investigation.

I may mention here that on November 1993 several Israeli Newspapers have published my articles regarding the novel idea, "International Space-Gates in the Middle East". My Idea was that the Mediterranean Sea might be used as a safety band for the Reentry Phase and the Landing Phase for Orbiters and other Space vehicles. One of the reasoning of my idea was that if there is an accident during those stages, the vehicle might fall into a not-too-deep sea of the Mediterranean Sea and immediate rescue teams could reach the vehicle from the close shore all along the last thousands km to the port. The landing port could be not far from the west cost of Israel or at other areas in the Middle East. If, for instance, the Columbia would have fallen over such a Safe Band, there could be found more complete debris, as those one found within a lake. Thus an investigation of the accident could have more complete parts for learning how to avoid other accidents. In addition, as I showed at those articles, the relatively good weather in the Middle East and the lack of clouds most of the year, could be used for a better sight to the crew if they have to fly themselves the last phase of the landing.

I hope the lessons from the Columbia disaster will be learned quickly and the next Space missions will be successful. As first lessons from this disaster, I have several ideas regarding a new kind of Orbiters. I will be glad to assist any investigation and R&D in those fields.

Appendix
In this Appendix we see the timeline of events, from the start of the Reentry Phase of Columbia till the last contact with the crew, as released by NASA at 7 a.m. EST, February 4, 2003, and published e.g. in Space.com at the same day.

8:15:18 a.m. EST: Columbia's twin orbital maneuvering engines fired for two minutes and 38 seconds, slowing the shuttle by 282 km/h.

8:43:53 a.m. EST: Columbia reaches entry interface about 120 km high, where it begins to feel the atmosphere. It begins to slow from orbital velocity of about 28,000 km/h and the crew begins to feel the first tugs of gravity. Outside the first hints of re-entry heat start.

8:49:26 a.m. EST: Columbia starts the first S-turn for dissipating energy. The shuttle's nose is up about 40 degrees. The crew is strapped into their seats. The onboard computers are flying the re-entry profile with the help of inputs from sensors and other guidance and navigation equipment located all over the Columbia.

8:51 a.m. EST: Columbia crosses the California coast north of San Francisco and is seen on the ground.

8:52 a.m. EST: The first indication that something is going wrong is recorded when three left main landing gear brake line temperature sensors detect a rise. The shuttle is flying over California.

8:53 a.m. EST: Two more sensors in the left-hand wheel well (left brake line strut actuator and uplock actuator temperature sensors) detect an increase in temperature of 30 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit in five minutes. At the same time, four sensors near the elevon at the back of the wing failed off, suggesting their wiring was severed somewhere.

8:54 a.m. EST: Sensors on the outside wall of Columbia's fuselage above the left wing shows a 60-degree rise in temperature in five minutes, while the sensors on the right side showed a more normal 15-degree rise -- an indication that a significant heating problem was taking place on the left side. Temperatures inside the cargo bay are normal. The shuttle was over eastern California and western Nevada.

8:55 a.m. EST: Another main gear brake line temperature sensor shows an unusual temperature rise.

8:57 a.m. EST: Two sensors on the left wing's upper and lower skin failed off. The shuttle is flying over Arizona and New Mexico.

8:58 a.m. EST: The elevon flaps on the left wing began moving to steer the shuttle on course after computers detected the shuttle was beginning to fly off course due to increased drag on the left wing. At the same time, wheel well sensors measuring temperature and pressure of the left main-landing gear failed. The shuttle is over New Mexico.

8:59 a.m. EST: Two of Columbia's nose steering jets automatically fired for 1.5 seconds to help the shuttle counteract the rapidly increasing drag on the left wing. The shuttle is over west Texas.

8:59:22 a.m. EST: Loss of signal from Columbia. It was 63.1 km high with a speed more than 19,320 km/h.

End of Appendix
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mr. Israel Fried is a an Independent Space Physicist (M.Sc.),
Professional in Space Technologies; Theoretical Physics and other issues. Inventor and Initiator (August 1979) of the two National Israeli Space Projects, the Space Launcher "Shavit" and the Satellite "Offeq"; Inventor (1988) of the US Patent No. 5172875 (12/1992) regarding Space Launchers; Inventor (1983) of the concept "Net of LEO satellites for Civilian Communications"; Inventor and Initiator (1984) of the concept "Live TV Tourism Via Satellites"; Inventor of the novel idea "International Space-Gate in the Middle East" (published 1993); Developer of a new scientific field: "The Physics of Animals and Plants"; Developer of "Physical Cold Theory" (2003); Author of many scientific and technologic Articles and Ideas in a variety of fields.
site: http://ifried22.tripod.com
e-mail: ifried22@lycos.com

E N D

First Version from February 3, 2003