picture of the day
(Photo Removed upon Request)
Apr 17, 2006
Columbia Shuttle Disaster Revisited (2)
It is time for NASA to release its analysis of the
image, so that the original question—was the shuttle Columbia
struck by megalightning?—can be answered more definitively, whatever
that answer may be.
On February 1, 2003, shortly
after the space shuttle Columbia began its re-entry, it broke apart
catastrophically, killing all seven astronauts. Not long afterward, it
became known that an amateur astronomer from the San Francisco area had
taken a photograph showing the re-entry plasma trail of the shuttle. In
the photograph a purplish corkscrew streamer merges with the plasma
trail, which then brightens significantly.
Electrical theorists associated
with the Thunderbolts group believe that the photograph suggests a
strong possibility that the shuttle was struck by 'lower ionospheric
megalightning'. Though such terminology is quite new, the science
supporting such a possibility is now well established.
But NASA scientists looked at the
photograph and dismissed the corkscrew streamer as an artifact created
by jiggling of the camera. The NASA 'explanation' was not accompanied by
any published analysis, only a statement that there was no thunderstorm
activity below Columbia when the photograph was taken. For the
Thunderbolts folks, both the explanation and the reference to the
absence of regional storm activity were red flags. No one in our group
believes it is scientifically justified to dismiss the purplish
corkscrew as an artifact of camera jiggling without a detailed analysis
answering the obvious challenges to such an interpretation.
The reference to an "absence of
regional storm activity" implies that scientists know what causes
lightning. On the contrary, a world authority on the subject, Dr. Martin
Uman, admits that the cause of the charge separation that results in
lightning in a thunderstorm is not understood. It is simply a
belief that thunderstorms somehow generate
lightning. The difficulty is eliminated when we stop confusing cause and
Electric charge has recently been
found to sit high above thunderstorms, in the lower ionosphere. Contrary
to popular belief, it is electric charge from space that lights up the
stratosphere with weird phenomena called 'sprites' and 'elves' and
drives violent thunderstorms below. However, it doesn't always
require a thunderstorm below to trigger a discharge from the ionosphere.
Large meteors sometimes act as a trigger. Uman cites many reports of
lightning occurring from a clear blue sky. And the plasma trail of a
re-entering shuttle would do nicely as an ionospheric 'lightning rod'.
February 23, 2005, we
posted a Picture of the Day entitled, "Space Shuttle Struck by
Megalightning?" This prompted the amateur astronomer who had taken the
photograph to contact us, insisting that the photograph be removed. So
we complied with the request.
On August 5, 2005, James Oberg filed a special report to MSNBC, in which he
referred to the photograph in question, then stated unequivocally that
the issue had been settled. The photographer "
had manually depressed the camera's button while Columbia was in the center
of the field of view, its milky white trail already marked across the
sky. The camera briefly jiggled until it settled. The zig-zag trail was
from the fireball itself, and once stable, the camera recorded the
persistent trail that already existed, as well as a brighter segment
where the fireball proceeded out of the field of view".
Insofar as accessible
information from NASA allows, this brief statement appears to be the
organization's final position on the subject. No experiments, analyses,
or demonstrations of the suggested camera effect have been forthcoming.
So we are asked to take their word for it. When NASA released a massive
Accident Investigation Report, it covered innumerable details of the
mission, including many peripheral considerations. The report also
included an Appendix D.5 to Volume II, addressing the 'space weather' at
the time of Columbia's re-entry, "prompted by public claims of unusually
active space weather conditions during the mission and by a photograph
that claimed to show a lightning bolt striking Columbia at an altitude
of 230,000 feet over California during re-entry", but offering neither
the photograph nor an analysis supporting their interpretation of it.
It seems NASA has no further
interest in the question and the organization is proceeding with plans
to launch the shuttle Discovery this summer. So we re-posted the story
and the original picture on
March 31, 2006,
along with a brief additional statement.
Folks within NASA, or appointed
by NASA, were aware of the way a camera can play tricks on a
photographer or allow a photographer to play tricks on others. A camera
with an illuminated object in its view against a black background can
create the impression of movement of that object by moving the camera.
The luminous source will then present a trace of its motion superimposed
on any still picture taken subsequently.
But of course it is much harder
to play that trick when the camera movement occurs during
a time lapse photograph in any natural setting, because that can work
only if conditions and camera settings exclude even a ghost of anything
other than the luminous object during the entire course of the 'jiggle".
For example, stars registered on the photograph were used to determine
the position of the shuttle. In the disputed photograph, there is a
relatively bright plasma trail left by the shuttle. On the
interpretation given, that trail was already in the field of view when
the time-lapse photography began. If, at any time during the
time-lapse, even two or three percent of the plasma trail luminosity had
registered during a jiggle of the camera, it would show up as a
discernible ghost image of the shuttle re-entry fireball, which has a
So at the very least a spokesman
for such an interpretation is obligated to show how the 'fireball'
registered sufficiently during the entire course of the jiggle and
appears quite bright at places, while its highly luminous comet-like
trail did not leave even the slightest ghost during the alleged camera
In the original San Francisco
Chronicle report on the photograph, the time lapse was said to be four
to six seconds. On NASA's interpretation, during the time lapse, the
shuttle (moving at many thousands of miles per hour) traversed about
half the frame and the camera jiggle lasted for about 10 percent of the
elapsed time. Applying NASA's interpretation, the bright spots on the
corkscrew apparition are the points where the movement of the jiggling
camera was least. And these would be the places where the forward
movement and cometary trail of the fireball would be most evident. But
no forward motion or trail is evident at any of those points.
With the image enhanced, the
investigators should have looked for evidence of a bright corkscrew
effect in the shuttle's plasma trail after the suggested lightning
joined it. Were any people familiar with plasma discharge effects called
in to examine the photograph, or was it left to meteorologists and/or
magnetospheric experts (who don't believe lightning can occur at that
altitude or from a clear blue sky)? Dr. Alfred Beddard of the National
Oceanics and Atmospherics Administration, who was the first to record
powerful infrasound from high-altitude sprites, had his array of
detectors trained on the shuttle re-entry path. He had recorded the
sounds of shuttle re-entries before. This time he detected an unusual
"geophysical event, as powerful as an earthquake" close to the shuttle's
path, moments before Columbia's breakup.
We should also remember that
the photographer is reported to be an amateur astronomer and an 'image
processing specialist'. On both counts he could be expected to have a
heightened awareness of the possibility of camera shake. The full
photograph, shown on a British television program 'MegaLightning' shows
the frame with light in the sky, a few diffuse clouds and sharply
defined power lines. The entire image is pin sharp, like the others in
the series, the only anomaly being the purple corkscrew meeting the
shuttle trail. The photographer's opinion on TV was that "it was a
lightning bolt." It was only a few seconds after the purple corkscrew
phenomenon occurred that the shuttle fireball brightened. Six minutes
later the shuttle broke up. NASA forbade the San Francisco Chronicle
from showing the photograph. The camera and the image were whisked away
by one of their agents.
NASA's interpretation of
camera jiggle seems precarious given the few facts we have managed to
assemble. But what are we missing? We will certainly allow for the
possibility that our tentative interpretation is flawed, perhaps fatally
so. But we ask for sufficient scientific information so the question can
be laid to rest. Why wasn't the complete image at full resolution, or at
least a detailed report of the image analysis, made available to the
public? Given the enormous implications for the safety of future
astronauts, NASA's dismissal of the megalightning possibility will be
one of its most tragic mistakes if its analysts are wrong.
NASA has been criticized in
the past for ignoring the dangers of lightning during rocket launches.
(Ironically, the shuttle Columbia was researching high altitude
lightning from space for the first time). The problem is that there may
be no defense against a random, super-powerful, lower ionospheric
lightning strike during shuttle re-entry. And that is something that
NASA might not care to admit.
In the present situation, we
can only suspect that the inertia of standard theory has translated
various conjectures into the way things are. In this
environment, selective perception and selective forgetfulness can easily
take over. It is in the public interest that we be told more about
NASA's photograph analysis. And whatever the untold facts may be about
this photograph, it is urgent that NASA officials and aerospace
industries give due attention to the electric Earth and to the dangers
posed by megalightning.
Coming April 21:
Columbia Shuttle Disaster Revisited (3)
The Realities of
Please visit our new "Thunderblog" page
Through the initiative of managing
editor Dave Smith, we’ve begun the launch of a new
presentations of fact and opinion, with emphasis on
and the explanatory power of the Electric Universe."
new: online video page
The Electric Sky and The Electric Universe