It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian rocket near-miss with Finnish airliner

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

Simple logic works just fine. The biggest exposure is to electrons, Alpha, and Beta particles. All those will be stopped by composite or aluminum. Alpha particles are stopped by sheets of paper, so composites will stop them easily.

The biggest danger to passengers and crew are Gamma particles, which will go through both skins just as easily.

There hasn't been a study between composites or aluminum because there isn't a purely composite airframe out there.


So, no real data then, that is all you had to say.

Thanks.


Just googled

www.arpansa.gov.au...

Australian Government disagrees with you on the exposure.

Here is their PDF factsheet. www.arpansa.gov.au...




Aircrew and frequent flyers get the most additional exposure because of the extra time they spend at cruising altitudes



edit on 8-9-2014 by jajaja because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jajaja

There doesn't have to be, to be able to figure it out, instead of just yelling about how much more dangerous "plastic" aircraft are.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

And in aviation it's a near miss. It always has been, and always will be.


yes, for the simple reason, don't scare the passengers.

But in reality, it is a near hit. Common sense win.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jajaja

Because they DID miss, and passed near them. So its still a near miss.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: jajaja

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MysterX

Except you have to account for the missile speed, which is above mach 1. Twenty seconds when a missile is involved is most certainly a near miss.


It is not a near miss if it almost hits.

If I threw something at you and it almost hits you, you don't shout "THAT NEARLY MISSED ME", you yell "WTF, THAT NEARLY HIT ME".


, I dont get it either. To me its would be a near hit.
But it is what it is, thats how they say it and I dont think its changing anytime soon.


Peace.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

Because they DID miss, and passed near them. So its still a near miss.


Well, I almost missed the Eiffle tower driving down the road to work the other day.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jajaja

Too bad it only applies when both objects are moving.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

Too bad it only applies when both objects are moving.


Well, the wind blows the Eiffle tower quite a bit.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

Too bad it only applies when both objects are moving.


Ok, then it would be safe to say everybody that drives a vehicle has a near miss everytime they drive then, right?
Because just today I saw two vehicles nearly miss eachother and boy did that turn out messy.



edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Lichter daraus

No. Unless someone comes damn close to causing an accident but doesn't.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Lichter daraus

No. Unless someone comes damn close to causing an accident but doesn't.


You should drive on some of the country roads here then. We have about 400 near misses each day.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I could see them saying it barely missed, makes sense to me.
Anyway I dont mean to nit pick, I just think its odd.


Peace.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Lichter daraus

It is if you aren't used to it.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JimOberg

DC-10-30ER on a polar route, it appears to gave originated in Narita Japan.


I was under the impression polar routes were not used because of survivability factors in the event of a catastrophe. Or does that only apply to passenger aircraft or?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It depends on several factors, but they were used a lot for many years because they didn't have planes efficient enough to make the longer flights without one or more fuel stops. They're not as common today because of efficiency advances, but you still occasionally see one coming over that route.

Usually they were doing like this one did and skirting the actual pole area, which would give a better shot at surviving. Still not great, but better than a flight over the pole itself. That's the one they usually tried to avoid.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

with all the Russia bashing in the media, we might as well dig up stuff from 1980s even if nothing happened



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BettyHill400

I don't see any Russia bashing going on. Crap happens, it wasn't reported. Big deal.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BettyHill400




with all the Russia bashing in the media, we might as well dig up stuff from 1980s even if nothing happened


So you don't like interesting stories I take it?

Heck it could have been about any country and it would still be interesting, but it just happens to be one that Russia may have been involved in.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join