Was Columbia downed by Megalighning

[Angela 1]

Was the Space Shuttle Columbia downed by Mega lightning.

 

Common place theories about the downing of the space shuttle crash of February often revolving around the downing of the ill fated 107th mission of Columbia the oldest of NASA’s shuttles, are that the breaking off of insulating foam from the main liquid booster rocket hit the black protective tiling used to protect the main body of the shuttle and severely damaged these ceramic tiles. NASA’s experiments after the crash killing all seven astronauts did prove that the speed at which the shuttle was moving and the temperature at which the foam was, would have created the damage originally thought to have downed the shuttle.

 

However a little known theory is beginning to emerge. One of the astronauts was Israel’s Ilan Ramon, who had been conducting research into what has been termed as Mega lightning. Mega lightning is where positively charged lightning instead of arching downward to the earth goes up to the upper reaches of the atmosphere and has been to see in the case of what is known as Blue Jets spurt out of the reaches of Earths atmosphere.

 

There are two known forms of Mega lightning the Red sprite is an upper atmospheric optical phenomenon generally associated thunderstorms and have only been documented using low light television cameras recently (within the last 16 years) They, when captured in photographs they have been seen to have many actual lighning rods withing, indicating that there are masses of magnetic phenomenon within the phenomenon.

 

Blue Sprites, the second such phenomenon are known spurt ionized and highly magnetized energy into and past the upper levels of earths atmosphere. These Jets are believed to have dire consequences for aircraft and possibly space craft as they are thought to be more powerful than any other electrical atmospheric phenomenon.

 

Whilst onboard the Shuttle Columbia Ramon studied 42 night sequences with a low light imaging camera, which took many pictures and video images of Red Sprites and Blue Jets and a hitherto unknown phenomenon of a lighting sticking a meteor as the meteor enters the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The images were found in the wreckage of the downed shuttle, which were placed into a protective container which survived the crash.

 

Photographic evidence was taken by a san Franciscan man Dr. Peter Goldie, an amateur astronomer, interested in the reentry of the shuttle and photographing the shuttles plasma trail was taken and it clearly shows a lightning bolt striking the plasma trail of the space shuttle’s reentry trail and through it as though tracing a lightning conductor to the actual shuttle its self, shortly after the shuttle fragmented and crashed to the ground.

 

This photographic evidence and the equipment used to take it was then taken by NASA once a San Franciscan paper had published a theory about the downing of the shuttle, NASA had by that point already placed an injunction against the publication of the photograph. The photograph has since been dismissed by NASA as having and “Artifact” within the camera used to take the photograph.

 

Click For Spoiler

 

However a team of scientists studying low frequency radio waves incurrent with Red Sprites and Blue Jets discovered a low frequency, sonic boom minuets after the characteristic double boom the Shuttle makes on its re-entry. This boom is said to have been auditory evidence of the atmospheric air dispersion inherent with Lightning and is thought to be evidence of upper atmospheric lightning. If it had impacted the shuttle would have had the force of a severe earthquake upon its infrastructure.

 

Whilst not attempting to conflict with NASA’s official theory on how the shuttle was downed, it can be thought that perhaps positively charge lightning, if it had indeed impacted the shuttle would have completed the damage the shuttle had already endured form the foam insulation impacting the ceramic tiling.

 

It does, however raise some questions; some scientists put the chances of it happening to a shuttle landing 100 times during the summer season at the Kenney landing strip as 1 in 100 landings. Though the shuttle doesn’t fly that many missions in any given year, given the amount of launches since Columbia’s maiden voyage and all other shuttle launches, it my have been a question of chance. it may also put a question over the safety of subsequent launches scheduled to start in July 2005.

 

Is the shuttle still safe to fly knowing that what is generally viewed as an atmospheric event, may have disastrous outcomes, due to something NASA has no control over? What we do know, now that such things as Sprites and Jets have become science fact is that any design of any upper atmospheric craft will, in its design have to take into consideration both what the reaches of the universe can throw in its way (solar radiation, meteorites etc) and what earth can throw at it (Lighting and atmospheric phenomenon.) As well as the pollution we have placed into the upper atmosphere. These were things that when the shuttle was being designed in the late 60’s/early 70 and built, late 70’s and beginning of the 80’s that weren’t even known or considered

[HRH The KING 0]

Was Columbia downed by Megalighning

 

No, it wasn't. This conspiracy theory has come up before except it was called "The Purple Streak Theory". The lightning seen in that photo could have been miles away from the shuttle's trail.

 

When Columbia launched from the Cape, the violence of the lift off was enough to cause several large pieces of foam insulation to detach from the External Fuel Tank, which is covered with foam to keep the liquid oxygen and hydrogen cpol in the hot Florida weather.

 

These pieces of foam hit the leading edge of the left wing and possibly the underside of the shuttle orbiter, damaging the delicate tiles which protect the vehicle upon re-entry. The leading edge of the left (port) wing was cracked slightly and when the shuttle descended on re-entry, hot gases found the weak spot in the wing structure and entered the wing severing electrical lines and sensors. The heat shield tiles also most likely began to be "stripped" away from the vehicle.

 

With the wing being essentially melted from the inside out, it began to lose it's structural integrity and the shuttle began to turn and was eventually torn apart by aerodynamic stress, killing all seven astronauts and shattering Columbia into thousands of pieces.

 

It makes no sense for NASA to accept the blame themselves for the disaster if in theory a natural phenomenon like "megalightning" could explain the loss of Columbia.

[Angela 1]

It isn't a conspiracy theory Kin, for it to be so, it would have had to be having a specific party benifiting it. All I am saying it is may be a part of the problem. Yes NASA should and did assume responsibility quite right, but sstill it raises a possibility.

 

Secondly I don't wish to get into a debate over your view on things and how if it doesn't fit into your world view it doesn't exist king.

 

I was just proposing a secondary theory, one that can be thought of in conjunction with the overiding damage theory.

 

As my History teacher once said no one event has ever occurred because of one cause.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Unadopted Angelic

[HRH The KING 0]

It isn't a conspiracy theory Kin, for it to be so, it would have had to be having a specific party benifiting it. All I am saying it is may be a part of the problem. Yes NASA should and did assume responsibility quite right, but sstill it raises a possibility.

 

Generally, I don't think so.

 

Sensors in Columbia failed progressively in the left wing, which is exactly where video evidence showed the impact of foam hitting the shuttle.

 

Progressive failure means that something was virtually "eating" through the shuttle's wing, which was almost certainly hot re-entry gases puncturing through the structure and cutting sensor lines and electrical systems.

 

There is a outside chance (tiny) that something else may have caused the loss of the shuttle, but all concrete evidence points to damage sustained upon launch.

 

Your post mentioned experiments and that's true. NASA tested what would happen if foam travelling at high speed directly hit the wing structure and the result was a hole the size of my head. A glancing blow, which probably happened in the disaster, would at least cause cracking in the wing. That would be enough to take out the shuttle and it's crew.

 

Secondly I don't wish to get into a debate over your view on things and how if it doesn't fit into your world view it doesn't exist king.

 

I'm not saying megalightning doesn't exist. But I just don't believe it was responsible for the loss of Columbia.

 

As my History teacher once said no one event has ever occurred because of one cause.

 

He/she should look at the Challenger Disaster. It was caused by an O-Ring failure in the SRB. Just one little thing is all it took.

Edited June 22, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

As well as mis management and ignorance, lack of bdget erm yeah really more like a four way problem there. Oh and not mentioning complacency.

[HRH The KING 0]

This is the Wikipedia section on the "Purple Streak"

 

Link

 

As well as mis management and ignorance, lack of bdget erm yeah really more like a four way problem there. Oh and not mentioning complacency.

 

Those were indeed factors in what LED to the Disaster.

 

But in a technical context, it was an O-Ring failure that directly was responsible for the loss of Challenger and her crew.

Edited June 22, 2005 by The King

[Tina 0]

I'm not saying megalightning doesn't exist. But I just don't believe it was responsible for the loss of Columbia

 

 

 

Dude its a theory, And she has evidence. Show me some evidence to the contrary

[HRH The KING 0]

Dude its a theory, And she has evidence. Show me some evidence to the contrary

 

She has no evidence.

 

You want evidence to the contrary? I've already told you about it.

 

- Video evidence of a left-wing foam strike.

 

- A progressive loss of data from the left wing.

 

- The shuttle turning without command and trying to adjust the variance which indicated a problem with the wing.

 

- An experiment which proved conclusively what a foam strike could do.

[Angela 1]

Actually at the time of the strick, columbia is according to NASA still in contact with the shuttle.

[HRH The KING 0]

What is a strick?

Edited June 23, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

And I now no longer want a debate with you Sean. So let it go

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

Ok, this is getting rediculous. How come you people are fighting over this? You both have significant evidence to point to your own theories, but how do you know which is the right one? How do you know either is right? King, there is video evidence, but there is also the picture of the lighting strike. Losing data from a wing could have happened from anything. The shuttle turning and trying to compensate for something could have been a glitch in the AI. Whow, an experiment. That just makes it so real. I think i will go experiment on what the earth would be like if it was blown up, with a watermelon. Also, there is no real HARD evidence to point to the Megalighting. So, you both could be right, or wrong, but who cares. This is pointless. King, all UA did was post her theory on here, and you immediatly went after her trying to refute it. For once, leave it be.

[Angela 1]

What is a strick?

333145[/snapback]

 

Strike (I am dyslexic, so my spelling is a little screwed)

[HRH The KING 0]

King, there is video evidence, but there is also the picture of the lighting strike.

 

The company that built the camera that took the photo Nikkon said that that particular model of camera can produce a defect in the photos it takes which looks like lightning, but actually isn't.

 

Losing data from a wing could have happened from anything. The shuttle turning and trying to compensate for something could have been a glitch in the AI.

 

There is no evidence for this. The shuttle turning means that the left wing was damaged in some way and the shuttle was trying to correct it's course. The same thing happened on Challenger when the engines tried to correct the shuttle's course when the SRB began to fail.

 

Whow, an experiment. That just makes it so real.

 

It does prove that a high impact foam strike can cause significant damage to a shuttle wing.

 

Strike (I am dyslexic, so my spelling is a little screwed)

 

The strike occured upon liftoff. NASA were fully in contact with the shuttle at that point. The problem occured upon re-entry.

Edited June 23, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

As I said earlier. You and I mayboth be right. We may both be wrong. Lets leave it. I am only answering to your posts. so drop it. I just hanfg on my threads to see others thoughts, you have posted them, drop it NOW!

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

Sean, maybe you should read the wikipedia thing again.

Nikon has said that the model of camera used is known to occasionally produce a purple fringe on photographs as a result of "color interpolation combined with chromatic aberration", an effect that has been reproduced by independent reviewers [5] (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30904). Purple fringing, a result of the optical phenomenon of chromatic aberration, is a problem with many types of digital camera and not just the Nikon 880..

That says that its a fringe. You know what a fringe is? Its something ALONG THE OUTSIDE! If you look at the picture, its RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE!

 

 

Maybe you are right, but still. Just because something hit the wing does NOT mean that it is what caused the columbia to blow up/crash.

 

 

So, can you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was a peice of foam that hit the wing and made the columbia blow up/crash?

 

I am not going to argue and play your childish games anymore Sean, so just accept other peoples views and try not to force your own on them.

Edited June 23, 2005 by LordOfTheBorg

[HRH The KING 0]

That says that its a fringe. You know what a fringe is? Its something ALONG THE OUTSIDE! If you look at the picture, its RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE!

 

It also means that a purple fringe can often be seen around images, regardless of where they appear on the photo. The actual photo taken of the corkscrew image (which itself could be a defect) had a purple glow around it.

 

Maybe you are right, but still. Just because something hit the wing does NOT mean that it is what caused the columbia to blow up/crash.

 

Columbia didn't blow up. It was torn apart due to re-entry stresses.

 

If something hit and damaged the wing, it's entirely logical to conclude that this had a direct influence on the breakup.

 

So, can you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was a peice of foam that hit the wing and made the columbia blow up/crash?

 

Yes. I've already listed the facts beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Those facts were the official report findings.

 

I am not going to argue and play your childish games anymore Sean, so just accept other peoples views and try not to force your own on them.

 

I force my views on no one.

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

fringe (frĭnj) pronunciation

n.

 

1. A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band.

2. Something that resembles such a border or edging.

3. A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: “They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts” (James Atlas).

4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe.

5. Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light.

6. A fringe benefit.

[HRH The KING 0]

Yes, the "fringe" can also refer to a glow or aura around an image.

 

Not only the actual photo itself.

[Madame Butterfly 0]

the photo you are showing, reminds me of one of the "arms" of smoke, etc that happen

 

I'm always very doubtful about photographic evidence because my father used to study such things for the Navy.

 

There is typically a very good answer for this that all of us are not trained to spot.

 

Possibly these theories have touched on some of them

 

 

Edited June 23, 2005 by Madame Butterfly

[Tina 0]

You what this reminds me of. People attacking people for no apparent reason

 

Stop arguing for the sake of argument,,, :(

 

Angela its a good argument and you support it well :) Keep up the good work

Edited June 23, 2005 by Ambassador tinadoll

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Lets not argue over something that will likely never be proven one way or the other.

 

I've seen the video of the "lightning strike" and a case can be made that it had something to do with the disaster but you also can't ignore the foam strike at launch. NASA was concerned enough about the foam to investigate it while the shuttle was still flying so that says that it was a pretty serious happening.

 

Could lightning have hit the shuttle and caused a failure in an already weakened hull? Possibly. The video of the "lightning strike" sure makes you wonder what part (if any) it played in the disaster. But regardless of whether it was lightning or foam it was a tragic accident that saddened our nation and many around the world.

 

It would be my hope that NASA would look into lightning as a possibility though, because if it does pose a danger then something needs to be done to protect against it.