What does lightning look like from space? See stunning photos from NASA astronauts on ISS
But the natural phenomenon is one all but a few select individuals will ever have the chance to see from the vantage of 250 miles in orbit. Fortunately, a few astronauts over the years have been more than willing to generously share a glimpse of crashing lightning as seen from outer space.
And you better believe it looks nothing like what we're used to seeing from the ground.
The latest images of sky-splitting lightning came courtesy of two NASA astronauts who reached the International Space Station together in March after launching from NASA's Kennedy Space Center near Cape Canaveral, Florida. In May, Nichole Ayers and Anne McClain posted photos on social media site X of lightning roiling far, far beneath them.
"This is what lightning looks like from the top down," McClain said in a post shared May 21.
Here's a closer look at just what they managed to capture from above Earth's atmosphere.
The images McClain and Ayers shared show electrostatic discharges – in other words, lightning – from above the clouds as they orbited in the International Space Station.
In Ayers' post on X, she said she first observed lightning May 1 while suited up for a spacewalk outside the orbital outpost. She then managed to capture a few photos the next day, which she shared May 5.
"I am so amazed by the view we have up here of our Earth's weather systems," Ayers posted.
While it was unclear what part of Earth the lightning was striking in Ayers' photos, McClain said her images were captured over Alabama and Georgia.
"Fast and furious, but also an incredible sight!" McClain said.
The photos not only reveal the chaotic beauty of lightning, but could provide valuable orbital data to scientists studying the phenomenon back on Earth.
The photos were captured at speeds of 120 frames per second, with the depicted flashes only taking up one frame. The technique was pioneered by veteran NASA astronaut Don Pettit, who is renowned for his astral photography.
Pettit, who had arrived in September 2024 for his third and most recent space station stint, departed April 19, 2025, with two cosmonauts before safely landing in Kazakhstan on his 70th birthday.
Ayers and McClain, who also recently made headlines for completing a rare all-female spacewalk, are among seven people living at the International Space Station.
The crew of Expedition 73 includes three Americans, three Russian cosmonauts and one Japanese spacefarer from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Jaxa.)
McClain and Ayers are both part of a SpaceX mission known as Crew-10 that reached the space station in March 2025. Their arrival with JAXA astronaut Takuya Onishi and Roscosmos cosmonaut Kirill Peskov paved the way for the NASA astronauts who crewed the doomed Boeing Starliner to depart with the Crew-9 mission.
Also at the station is NASA astronaut Jonny Kim, who reached the outpost in April 2025 with cosmonauts Sergey Ryzhikov and Alexey Zubritsky.
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Images: Lightning in space from NASA astronauts on ISS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Millions Across 18 States Told to Stay Out of Sun, Check on Neighbors
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of Americans across 18 states have been told to keep out of the sun this weekend and the next couple of days as weather forecasters warn of sweltering temperatures that could cause heat exhaustion and even heat strokes. Why It Matters The Earth's temperature has risen by an average 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit every decade since 1850, according to data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for a total of 2 degrees Fahrenheit as of this year. As a result, summers are getting hotter than they used to be—with dangerous consequences for one's health. Last summer was the hottest on record for the planet and for several U.S. states, with Las Vegas reporting an average temperature of 96.5 degrees Fahrenheit—up 7.3 degrees from the norm. Even parts of the country that used to have relatively mild summers are now sizzling in the heat, putting the most vulnerable residents—including the elderly, babies, and young children—at risk of suffering heat-related illnesses. What To Know As of Sunday, residents in 18 states were under heat advisories issued by the National Weather Service (NWS), including in parts of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. A map produced by the National Weather Service (NWS) showing the states currently under heat advisories as of Sunday. A map produced by the National Weather Service (NWS) showing the states currently under heat advisories as of Sunday. National Weather Service Fayette, Lamar, and Pickens counties in Alabama will be under a heat advisory until Sunday evening, as they are likely to face temperatures up to 108. The state's Greene, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, and Walker counties face hot temperatures and high humidity until about 7 p.m. CDT on Sunday. Portions of southeast Arkansas, northeast Louisiana, and Mississippi face temperatures of up to 110 between Sunday morning and evening. Within the same time frame, parts of Iowa and Nebraska could see temperatures reach 106. A heat advisory is also in place until Sunday evening in portions of east central and northeast Kansas, where temperatures will reach up to 105, and in north and central Texas, where heat index values could reach up to 107 degrees. Much of Arkansas will remain under heat advisory until Monday, as temperatures could climb up to 109. Parts of southern Illinois, southwest Indiana, western Kentucky, and southeast Missouri will remain under heat advisories until Tuesday. In all these areas, experts are encouraging residents to drink plenty of fluids, stay in air-conditioned rooms and keep away from the scorching sun. Those who can should also check on relatives and neighbors, and make sure children and pets are not left unattended inside a vehicle under the sun under any circumstance. Those spending time outdoors should take precautions such as wearing loose clothes and drink a lot of water. The NWS also encourages people under heat advisories to recognize the signs of heat exhaustion or an incoming heat stroke. These include heavy sweating, weakness, dizziness, headaches, nausea, and muscle cramps, in the case of heat exhaustion, and a high body temperature and altered mental state for a heat stroke. What People Are Saying NWS Phoenix wrote on X on Sunday: "One of our forecasters braved the heat to take some temperature observations this afternoon. Make sure you're practicing smart heat safety by limiting your time outdoors & drinking plenty of water (and electrolytes). Also, remember to look before you lock." NWS Nashville wrote on X on Saturday: "Olé, olé! Buster knows the forecast. Check the forecast, people know what they got. People in Middle Tennessee will be hot, hot, hot. MAJOR to EXTREME Heat Risk. Our message is a little funny, but please take the heat seriously as we push through the dog days. Rum bum bum bum." What Happens Next? While the heat advisories currently in place across the country are bound to be lifted by Tuesday at the latest.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
‘Real feel' temps are a real joke — don't trust sensational heat-index claims
Every summer, sweltering Americans — myself included — fall for a meteorological scam as we seek information about the day's oppressive heat. That's because the 'feels like' or 'heat index' measurement blaring from our radios or posted on our weather apps isn't a measurement at all. TV meteorologists across the nation trumpet the 'heat index' as a headline number, but in fact it's just a calculated estimate — not something that can be gauged, like air temperature, humidity or barometric pressure. Advertisement Its overuse smacks more of sensationalism than scientific clarity, and plays into a destructive narrative of climate hysteria. The heat index is a formula that did not exist at all until it was developed by the US National Weather Service in 1979. It combines actual air temperature and relative humidity into an approximate 'apparent' temperature — shifting as humidity goes higher or lower. Advertisement The NWS heat-index equation attempts to predict the heat that humans perceive, assuming shaded, low-wind conditions and a generic adult body type — ignoring sunlight, wind, individual physiology, hydration, age, weight, health status and multiple other variables. But it ignores the fact that all individuals experience heat differently: An elderly person or someone with cardiac issues may overheat faster than a young, fit adult, for example. Weathercasters do us a great disservice by inflating the heat index's importance and morphing it into a headline-grabbing marketing tool. Many outlets now forefront the bloated 'feels like' temperature while sidestepping the real air temperature that matters for energy use, infrastructure and actual thermal load. Advertisement Examples of this behavior are too numerous to count. WFLA in Tampa, Fla., recently announced an all-time-high heat index figure as the highest 'ever recorded.' It wasn't recorded at all; it was a calculated estimate. You're increasingly likely to hear predictions like 'today's high will be 104 degrees!' on a humid day when the real thermometer reads 94 degrees Fahrenheit. Advertisement Ginger Zee of 'Good Morning America' last month defended her prominent use of the heat index, calling it 'the most important number that you need to know.' 'We show heat index because that is what a human feels,' she explained. 'If I were forecasting for inanimate objects . . . I would keep it with temperature.' The problem with over-relying on the heat index is that viewers may think the air temperature is 10 or more degrees hotter than it actually is, making it even more difficult to plan outdoor activities, make clothing choices or calculate heating or cooling needs. The fact is, sun exposure, wind and metabolic heat production are often more relevant to how you feel on a hot day — important factors for which the heat index does not account. Worse yet, reporters at outlets such as The Washington Post and Climate Central often seek to link high heat-index values to 'climate change.' But there is no causal link between global climate change and the heat index formula, despite frequent media implications. Climate change isn't driving heat-index estimates — city environments are. We know that urban areas are especially prone to the Urban Heat Island effect, a phenomenon causing cities to be 1 to 7 degrees hotter in the daytime and 2 to 5 degrees warmer at night than surrounding rural zones, due to pavement, buildings, reduced vegetation and anthropogenic heat. Advertisement Mapping efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have recorded UHI hotspots up to 20 degrees hotter. The UHI effect is not some fringe theory, but a well-documented fact that impacts heat index estimates. The EPA emphasizes that thermal differences in urban areas amplify heat risk far beyond background climate trends — and points out that heat waves and urban surfaces, not just global temperature, are the leading contributors to heat-related health events. Advertisement Lawn irrigation and widespread planting of non-native grasses over the past 50 years have contributed to local humidity rises — boosting heat-index values to the max. Anytime a forecast touts a 'temperature' wildly higher than the recorded official readings from the National Weather Service office, you're likely being misled. If broadcast meteorologists want to serve public understanding, they need to start showing the measured air temperature first and labeling the heat index properly, while educating audiences on the differences between them. Advertisement Let's stop pretending calculated 'feels like' values are real — and start reporting the actual heat, for real. Anthony Watts, a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, operates the award-winning website
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
