Longest lightning bolt on record stretches 515 miles across US
It extended 515 miles from eastern Texas to near Kansas City – 38 miles longer than the previous record. To put that into perspective, that's about twice the length of the Grand Canyon, or the equivalent of the distance between Paris and Venice. If you were to cover 515 miles in a car, you'd be facing a nine-hour drive, while a flight would take at least 90 minutes, experts say.
Researchers from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) hope the discovery will highlight just how far lightning can reach from its parent storm. 'Lightning is a source of wonder but also a major hazard that claims many lives around the world every year and is therefore one of the priorities for the international Early Warnings for All initiative,' said Celeste Saulo, WMO Secretary-General. 'These new findings highlight important public safety concerns about electrified clouds which can produce flashes which travel extremely large distances and have a major impact on the aviation sector and can spark wildfires.'
For years, lightning detection and measurement has relied on ground-based stations. However, satellite-borne lightning detectors in orbit since 2017 have now made it possible to continuously detect and measure lightning at continental-scale distances. 'The extremes of what lightning is capable of is difficult to study because it pushes the boundaries of what we can practically observe,' said Michael J. Peterson, lead author from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
'Adding continuous measurements from geostationary orbit was a major advance. 'We are now at a point where most of the global megaflash hotspots are covered by a geostationary satellite, and data processing techniques have improved to properly represent flashes in the vast quantity of observational data at all scales. 'Over time as the data record continues to expand, we will be able to observe even the rarest types of extreme lightning on Earth and investigate the broad impacts of lightning on society.'
The record-breaking megaflash surpasses the previous record set by a lightning strike during an April 2020 storm , which reached 477 miles across the southern US. 'This new record clearly demonstrates the incredible power of the natural environment,' said Professor Randall Cerveny, rapporteur of Weather and Climate Extremes for WMO. 'Additionally, WMO assessment of environmental extremes such as this lightning distance record testify to the significant scientific progress in observing, documenting and evaluating such events.
'It is likely that even greater extremes still exist, and that we will be able to observe them as additional high-quality lightning measurements accumulate over time.' Most lightning flashes reach less than 10-miles long. However, anything longer than 60 miles is considered a 'megaflash'. Megaflashes arise from long-lasting storms, which typically brew for 14 hours or more, and cover an enormous area.
Beyond the October 2017 megaflash, several other record-breaking lightning strikes have hit the headlines over the years. The greatest duration for a single lightning flash of 17.1 seconds was set during a thunderstorm over Uruguay and northern Argentina on 18 June 2020. Meanwhile, the worst direct strike saw 21 people killed by a single flash of lightning in Zimbabwe in 1975.
What's more, a staggering 469 people were in killed by an indirect strike in Dronka, Egypt, in 1994, when lightning struck a set of oil tanks, causing burning oil to flood the town. The researchers hope the findings will highlight the fact that lightning is capable of travelling many hundreds of miles from the source. 'The only lightning-safe locations are substantial buildings that have wiring and plumbing; not structures such as at a beach or bus stop,' said lightning specialist, Walt Lyons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Astronauts return to Earth with SpaceX after five months at ISS
Four astronauts returned to Earth after hustling to the International Space Station five months ago to relieve the stuck test pilots of Boeing's Starliner. Their SpaceX capsule parachuted into the Pacific off the Southern California coast a day after departing the orbiting lab. Advertisement 'Welcome home,' SpaceX Mission Control radioed. A SpaceX capsule carrying four astronauts parachutes into the Pacific Ocean off the Southern California coast (Keegan Barber/Nasa via AP) Splashing down were Nasa's Anne McClain and Nichole Ayers, Japan's Takuya Onishi and Russia's Kirill Peskov. They launched in March as replacements for the two Nasa astronauts assigned to Starliner's botched demo. Starliner malfunctions kept Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams at the space station for more than nine months instead of a week. Advertisement Nasa ordered Boeing's new crew capsule to return empty and switched the pair to SpaceX. They left soon after Ms McClain and her crew arrived to take their places. Mr Wilmore has since retired from Nasa. Before leaving the space station on Friday, Ms McClain made note of 'some tumultuous times on Earth' with people struggling. Advertisement A SpaceX capsule carrying four astronauts parachutes into the Pacific Ocean off the Southern California coast (Keegan Barber/Nasa via AP) 'We want this mission, our mission, to be a reminder of what people can do when we work together, when we explore together,' she said. Ms McClain looked forward to 'doing nothing for a couple of days' once back home in Houston, US. High on her crewmates' wish list were hot showers and juicy burgers. It was SpaceX's third Pacific splashdown with people on board, but the first for a Nasa crew in 50 years. Advertisement Elon Musk's company switched capsule returns from Florida to California's coast earlier this year to reduce the risk of debris falling on populated areas. Back-to-back private crews were the first to experience Pacific homecomings. The last time Nasa astronauts returned to the Pacific from space was during the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission, a detente meet-up of Americans and Soviets in orbit.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Astronauts return to Earth with SpaceX after 5 months at the International Space Station
Four astronauts returned to Earth on Saturday after hustling to the International Space Station five months ago to relieve the stuck test pilots of Boeing's Starliner. Their SpaceX capsule parachuted into the Pacific off the Southern California coast a day after departing the orbiting lab. 'Welcome home,' SpaceX Mission Control radioed. Splashing down were NASA's Anne McClain and Nichole Ayers, Japan's Takuya Onishi and Russia's Kirill Peskov. They launched in March as replacements for the two NASA astronauts assigned to Starliner's botched demo. Starliner malfunctions kept Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams at the space station for more than nine months instead of a week. NASA ordered Boeing's new crew capsule to return empty and switched the pair to SpaceX. They left soon after McClain and her crew arrived to take their places. Wilmore has since retired from NASA. Before leaving the space station on Friday, McClain made note of 'some tumultuous times on Earth' with people struggling. 'We want this mission, our mission, to be a reminder of what people can do when we work together, when we explore together,' she said. McClain looked forward to 'doing nothing for a couple of days' once back home in Houston. High on her crewmates' wish list: hot showers and juicy burgers. It was SpaceX's third Pacific splashdown with people on board, but the first for a NASA crew in 50 years. Elon Musk's company switched capsule returns from Florida to California's coast earlier this year to reduce the risk of debris falling on populated areas. Back-to-back private crews were the first to experience Pacific homecomings. The last time NASA astronauts returned to the Pacific from space was during the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission, a détente meet-up of Americans and Soviets in orbit. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Experts sound off after Trump and NASA fast-track a nuclear reactor on the moon: ‘The whole proposal is cock-eyed'
Fast-tracking a NASA plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon may sound dubious. Experts say that's because it is. 'The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space program that is now being starved of money,' national security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told The Independent. Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. That's nothing new. The U.S. launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens more. NASA says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness for two weeks. The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so, why is NASA's current plan 'cock-eyed?' The problem is the proposed timeline. Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, who also serves as President Donald Trump's Secretary of Transportation, pushed to expedite the project, detailed in a memo this week. Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035. 'The first country to do so could potentially declare a 'keep-out' zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,' Duffy said. NASA first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon 'within a decade.' In 2024, NASA then said that their target date for delivery a reactor to the Earth-based launchpad was the early 2030s. But, Cirincione says essentially no progress has been made. 'It was in the last Trump administration that NASA had put out a press release, they had a YouTube video, they had these announcements about how they're going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,' said Cirincione, who is vice-chair of the Center for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy. 'Oh, really? So, where is it?' Ultimately, the expert believes a nuclear reactor on the moon could take up to 20 years to become a reality. NASA would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only vehicle option – but it has exploded during several of its test flights. NASA has been working with Boeing on a Space Launch System - the main competitor to Space X's Starship - but that program would be canceled under the Trump administration's proposed cuts which slash 24 percent from NASA's overall budget. Landing on the moon is no picnic, and attempts by Japanese space companies in 2023 and 2025 ended in crashes. There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors. The reactors must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperatures swings from 250 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to minus 400 degrees at night. 'Small modular nuclear reactors, it turns out, are always just around the corner – a corner you never get to turn,' Cirincione said. Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Cirincione's skepticism. Dr. Kathryn Huff, a former nuclear energy official at the U.S. Department of Energy, and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she's not 'bullish' on 'unrealistic timelines.' 'The 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends…' she explained in a statement, shared by the university. 'Accelerating the FSP program could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting – all core elements of NASA's public-serving mission.' Dr. Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is 'unfeasible.' 'Even if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely,' Carpineti wrote. Others were more optimistic about NASA's accelerated timeline. Sebastian Corbisiero, a senior program manager at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the Energy Department's space reactor program, told The Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is 'doable' by 2030. 'Nuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,' he said. 'Some key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket, so there are mass and volume requirements; and that the system needs to operate in vacuum – so components will need to be built to survive that environment.' Dr. Bhavya Lal, a former associate administrator for technology, policy, and strategy at NASA, and former aerospace executive Roger Myers, recently argued that it would be possible to have nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030, and it would take $3 billion to do so. 'It's possible, but it will require serious commitment,' Lal told The Independent. But even if plans are speeded up, Lal says there's no need to worry about the prospect of the moon blowing up. It's 'simply not grounded in science,' she said.
