website with clear picture

Originally posted by Valhall
Very good paper on sonic boom wave systems and the leading and trailing edge shock waves:

automation.ce.rpi.edu...

Still looks like a single wave to me, with a leading and trailing edge. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies?

Yes very confusing I must say.
But would the machine and operator (the nuke detecting facility) not be able to tell the difference between a thunder clap and a sonic boom?
Also thanks to everyone who has contributed in this thread, I have learnt an awefull lot.

Regards,
Ash.

Originally posted by Byrd

Actually, I've *heard* it, as have millions of people.

I was at Cape Canaveral the day one of the shuttles landed and yes, we did distinctly hear the double boom.

That thing is so loud, it shook the the whole neighbourhood, I was staying at the Isle of Bali hotel near Orlando when I heard that thing. LOUD!!!

And I agree, because I heard two booms also.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

It went right over myplace and parts of it landed in my son's backyard!
It was closely monitored by many people
If you hear or get jolted by what you think to be a sonic boom ( windows rattle , animals hide etc.) but there are no jets in the area that is a "grid adjustment" just the bad guys practicing their trajectory ( aim)
"Sky quake or boom" - doing some serious scalar interferometry grid-adjusting in getting ready for some really serious weather engineering or something really substantial.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by signa]

Hi just to add my piece here. Saw the documentary last wed on channel 5 in the UK.

Was called Mega Lightning stranger than fiction.

The evidence of the suttle being struck in that documentary was confiscated by nasa and has since not been released. There were 3 seperate pieces of evidence of a possible strike.

1. The photo of the blu-jet or similar megalightning clearly in the wake of the columbia on rentry at an altitude of 50miles above san fransisco. They had 3 of the infermous 5 pictures. There is very little known about high altitude lightning, either its creation or effects. All we can say is its very big somtimes bigger than whole mountain ranges, so to judge its power is very difficult, since the only way is on re-entry. 50 miles high is to high for weather balloons and to low for satelites. The air is simply to thin. more information below. (im trying to track these pictures or a copy of the documentary that im very angry i didnt rip) any1 has a copy pls contact me. The pictures where astonishing.

www.usatoday.com...

2. Evidence of high altitude lightning strikes on meteors has been video taped in the past and is another sign that a strike is a possibility. The chances where predicted of a possible lightning strike during re-entry, before the columbia mission where put at 1/100. The columbia mission was 103 (speaks for itself)

3. Infrasound picked up in nevada gave even further evidence of high altitude electric activity above california during re-entry as well as a peak showing a possible strike on the columbia. timed almost exactly the moment the photos where taken over san fran.

Things to remember here:

Nasa initially dismissed there final conclusion from the outset and only turned back to it when they had no feasable (understood) other possibility for the break up of the columbia since Nasa knows very little (almost niothing) about high altitude lightning. It has only been confirmed to excist since the late 90's. They didnt want to tell the world they didnt understand what caused the accident, they would prefer to think and tell the public they know EXACTLY what happend. Nasa are a gov funded operation they had to know the answer, there was no other option. (possible coverup)

why have the pictures taken above san fran never been released to the public? if it had no effect on the shuttle surely they are proof a shuttle can survive a strike. Not to forget the shuttle broke up within minuites of the photos above san fran (speaks for itself) how did the shuttle get so far without damage or loss of comm's with mission control. Debris was also found much further west than originally published

There have been many cases of lightning (commonly know as + lightning that have blown planes out of the sky) + lightning is 5% of all normal lightning strikes and is much strnger due to the time duration.

Clouds are not needed to make lightning higher in the atmosphere.

Personally I dont like to think all this evidence tells me the answer but I dont think nasa has done enough of a job dismissing it as a cause or helping themselves by removing the pictures, which I will be trying to get my hands on.

Please contact me if you have a copy of the docu, and watch it if you see its going to be on. Those pictures are astounding.

Regards
Andy

What we must not forget. NASA IS A GOVERMENT FUNDERED ORGANISATION. THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER WHEN THEY ARE SPENDING BILLIONS OF TAX PAYERS MONEY.

IF THEY CANT, WHAT WILL THE PUBLIC THINK THEY ARE DOING WITH IT. CALL GURLS.... I DONT LIKE TO TRUST THEIR REPORTS. HISTORY TELLS US GIOVERMENTS COVER THINGS UP.



[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Andy Robins]

O and the last thing i forgot to add which not every1 may know...

The Israel astronaut Ilan Ramon who tragically got killed in the disatser was on that paticular mission studying high altitude lightning (sprites blujets) themselves. Hours of footage and data was returned to the specialist group in israel before the distaster, and the tapes from the shuttle were eventaully recovered but deemed destroyed.

Nasa where taking high altitude seriously then. Seriously enough to spend millions sending an astonaut up there.

(apologies if alot of the above is repeated, didnt manage to motivate myself to read 5 pages since after writing all this)

When nasa fired a piece of foam at the wing, did they take the motion of the foam before it left the fuel tank or did they just say. The shuttle was going x fast so we will fire it at x speed into the wing. since it was already travelling with the motion and accelerating with the shuttle the speed the foam would have struck the wing would have been considerally less.

I saw the video of the foam hitting the wing on launch, but didnt see the nasa docu'. Nasa must have had this foam problem before, and its not caused them such a problem before.

Also wasnt the wing inspected in orbit and deemed to be undamaged. Or did these multi million dolla astronaghts miss possible damage, or that big hole.

A

The astronaughts did not inspect the wing in orbit, they could not see in from their windows and the robotic arm which would normally be used to look for damage was taken off before launch because of technocal problems. There is evidence from NORAD or whoever tracks the shuttle in orbit of a piece of the wing floating away while in orbit. Some in NASA wanted the spy satellites to get a closer look but there requested was denied because the upper management didnt think the time and money was necessary after their power point presentations told them the shuttle was safe.

The commander of the shuttle was notified about the foam impact and was told that their analysis on Earth said the shuttle was not at risk, he thought that was enough and took no steps to inspect the wing.

The astronaughts had to know the shuttle was breaking appart in its final moments, I mean these people are the cream of the crop and putting the censor warnings with the way the shuttle was banking was more than enough for them to know that they were doomed.

The lightning theory is completly absurd.

I knew immediatly when they lost contact as to what happened and many at NASA had to too. I was even worried when it was still in orbit about the impact but forgot about it when we had a death in my immediate family shortly before the re-entry.

Id say its a little easy to say the lightning theroy is absurd. Lightning has been the cause for thosands of fatal aviation accidents threwout history. Aircraft all over the world are frequently struck by lightning. Normal commercial aircraft are only protected against negative lightning and to protect against positive lightning all aircraft would need 6x more protection than they currently have. There is tons of documented evidence of critical damage caused by lightning strikes to aircraft.

Your relying solely on Nasa for your evidence of the cause of the accident. Nasa will only tell you what they want you to think, this may not always be the truth. Nasa has a history of false claims, corner cutting, both financial/political and on safety.

The same Nasa people said the shuttle was fine after the impact, and immediatly dismissed this as a cause from the outset of the disaster. So do they know what there talking about.

The idea that a little piece of foam hitting a shuttle worth $1.7 billion dollas could cause such catostophic damage is hard to believe.

Photgraphic evidence of a possible high altitude lightning strike has been confiscated from the public domain. Soley to disallow public interest in such an event. (how many americans would take it as an act of god)

If photographic evidence can be removed it can easily be recreated falsly and given to the public domain to fill your appitite for a conclusion.

There is even a possibility that a combination of both a lightning strike and or wing damage could have caused this accident.

Until more is known about this type of mega lightning we cannot forget about it. Will the cost of another shuttle and crew be enough to make us look at this disaster again. (we may have to come back to this one later) hopefully not.

Im not making any conclusions just adding 2pence. I dont trust US goverment to tell the truth, nor do expect there funded agencies to either.

"O'Keefe"

He pledged that investigators will solve the mystery of Columbia's loss.

"We will find the problem that caused the loss of Columbia and its crew, we will fix it and we will return to flight operations that are as safe as humanly possible in pursuit of knowledge," O'Keefe said.

How could nasa solve somthing such as a mega lightning strike that they know next to nothing about. The cost of investgating such a cause would be trillions of times more expensive to solve and fix. They would have to understand it 1st then work out how to fix it, this would mean alot more shuttle flights and new technology to do so. hmmmmm do we live in a capitalist world????

Andy

Space travel is the most important thing to man. If humaity intends to live for eternaty, we need to leave this plannet and travel.

Where doing a good job at ruin earth on our own, a catostrophic disaster is earths way of regenerating itself.




[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Andy Robins]

Let me debunk this right now. BTW why would anyone want to cover up lightening as a culprit? If lightening had hit it NASA would not be being reinvented yet again...


From space.com columbia FAQ

"April 23, 2003: The independent investigation team has all be arrived at a firm conclusion. A seal on the left wing was struck by foam during liftoff and fell off the next day, they believe, creating a gap that let hot gas enter the ship during re-entry."

Taken from all you ever wanted to know about Columbia FAQ.

www.space.com...

Nasa knows jack about high altitude lightning, to admit they could lost a shuttle to somthing they had cut the budget to almost no exsistent, and didnt take seriously was probabley not an option.

Id like to see the evidence that "they believe" it fell of the next day. sounds as about conclusive as it means lol that they dont know lol Ive also read about an Airforce high res camera that actually saw there was a hole. interesting these pictures where never produced & included in the report.

You never know, damage to the wing could have possibly contributed to a strange charge on the shuttle during reentry causing a specific strike. We just dont know enough about it.

Only time will tell. 1 in 100 as space travel becomes more common and commercial time will tell.

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by Valhall
and there were no storm systems in the re-entry path that day.

Is it not at all possible for these occurances to happen without a storm? Do we know enough about the lightning to assume this? I couldn't see it being a Russian attack, the U.S would have retaliated, it's crazy.

We have nothing to retaliate with...& no defense .

Storm clouds are not needed for high altitude lightning. read the thread below (IF ITS NOT OBVIOUS ENOUGH ITS A NASA REPORT). Also look into the effects of what happens when electricity hits carbon fibre. Is probabley one of the most conductive things around and tends to explode when struck. Am keeping my eyes open for this documentary and will rip it when i csee it.

Nasa or the govenment wouldnt admit lighting (an act of god) striking and destroying the columbia would they, also killing the 1st Israeli astronaught. Why do you think there not releasing the pictures. The middle east would be celerbrating the fact even more.

Im not concluding lighting but they dismissed it far to quickly, the foam case is very strong but thats what the'd want us to think even if it wasnt. "looking outside the box"

Andy

www.usatoday.com...

here is some of it:

As NASA proceeds with its investigation, scientists will have to ponder the many mysteries of the "ignorosphere." A report by NASA scientists released last fall describes concerns about the impact of upper atmospheric phenomenon on the space shuttle:

Transparent clouds, called "noctilucent" clouds, float 50 miles above Earth and are visible only at twilight. These silvery cirrus clouds form at the edges of much larger clouds. Models of shuttle impacts with them "vary from trivial to catastrophic" according to the report, which says "the most severe effect of entry through a noctilucent cloud would probably be the erosion of the thermal protection system during the most critical heating region." That critical heating region is where Columbia was destroyed. The agency plans its re-entry paths to avoid regions thought prone to these clouds.

Red sprites are electrical discharges in the upper atmosphere. They occur over thunderclouds and have been considered to pose less than a one in 100 risk to the shuttle. Some rainstorm clouds did appear over Northern California during re-entry last Saturday but no lightning was reported on the ground, says atmospheric scientist Walter Lyons, of FMA Research Inc. in Fort Collins, Colo.

Density shears are patches of thicker-than-expected air that can increase the shuttle's roll and pull on one wing. On a Columbia mission in 1992 and an Endeavor mission in 1993, hitting such patches forced them to use up its fuel for the thrusters that help keep it on course during re-entry.
Blue jets are upward lightning strikes. In 1998, Lyons and a team of scientists reported one that was sparked by a meteor. "The safety implications are just a gaping hole in our knowledge," he says.


www.usatoday.com...



[edit on 7-6-2004 by Andy Robins]

I at last have a copy of megalightning on dvd, and will rip the much spoken about picture off it this weekend.

I am anxious about the result.
Post it, man!
Or has your equipment been confiscated in the mean time?
Because this image is very important!

haha, almost a conspiracy... I just got caught up with life and havnt been back on here in a while. Other issue is the DVD wont play through my dvd player so I cant rip it. somthing to do with the DVDR, have tried both formats of disc + - R but neither work in my ROM. hmmm doesnt like copies, maybee the MPAA would like to clone my dvd player and use it for copy protection

Anyhow, ill try and get the program ripped off the dvd here at work so I can screen grab the pictures.


Back soon
Andy

Finally here is the infamous picture, just took me a while to rip it off dvd. ive reduced the image quality on here from what it was on dvd.




closer




Andy

www.yfiles.com...

did anyone take the time to read this? if not they might want to. it explains in detail a theory of what may have happened. there was increased solar waves i believe it says within an hour of when the shuttle was to land. the shuttles trails are ionized upon re-entry. this would make the trail like a big conductor. when the solar winds moved through the magnetosphere it became attracted to the trail left by the shuttle. therefore creating a blue jet. the article also states that the occurence of a blue jet without a storm system present is very very unlikely but can happen during solar wind activity. i hope i got that right. if im wrong point out where please.

Tahlen

A documentary about this lightning theory has just been on channel 5 (UK), pretty interesting stuff. Anyone else watch it? Might be the same one that triggered this thread, not sure. I find it particulary interesting that NASA confiscated the video stills of the alleged lightning strike and never mentioned it in the press conferences that followed the disaster. Also of interest was the part where they analysed audio data that suggested there was a huge surge of energy just before the shuttle broke up.

Sounds like a logical theory to me, but I can't see why NASA would want to cover it up? Unless someone can provide a link showing that NASA have acknowledged the possibility that lightning may have taken the shuttle down?

The documentary finally aired in the U.S