It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Exploding/Crashing Aircraft in October 2014 - High Energy Particles to Blame?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:08 AM
First of all, I'm not a scientist, so for the benefit of all reading this thread, please put your dissenting/correcting replies in the form of "instruction" and not "incoherent rant."

I am writing this on Nov. 1, 2014. In the past week or so, an Antares heavy lift rocket exploded on lift-off in Virginia, a plane crash in Kansas killed several people, and now a Virgin Galactic test craft has crashed in S. California, killed one pilot. Beyond weather - which wasn't a factor in any of these explosions/crashes - I am wondering if atmospheric anomalies could be playing a factor:
Still spiking, but in a decreasing pattern. Could it have played a part in the plane/rocket accidents this past week?
Dst Geomagnetic Index Estimate Auroral Activity in High Range over Poles

Extreme weather has been experienced globally in the past few months. But the Antarctic sea ice has reached a new record high.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: MKMoniker

I can't help feel human error was to blame for all of these events.

Maybe your theory could have contributed to it but the evidence doesn't overwhelmingly support this.
So we're told!

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:09 AM
a reply to: MKMoniker

It appears that the Antares explosion was a result of mechanical issues with old rocket motors. Also Boeing initiated the self destruct function to avoid it possibly landing in a populated area in what looked like an inevitable crash.

Orbital on Thursday said a preliminary investigation showed the failure initiated in the first stage of the rocket, which housed the AJ-26 engines, but it provided few additional details.

The Antares rocket was powered by a pair of Soviet-era NK-33 engines that were rebuilt by Aerojet Rocketdyne, a unit of GenCorp, and resold as AJ-26 engines. Even before the crash, Orbital had planned to switch to another engine given the age of the motors and uncertainty about future supplies.


And there is hardly any information available yet regarding the Virgin Galactic crash.

I think there is no evidence that currently suggests high energy particles caused either of these mishaps. It is also worth noting that both of these spacecraft are designed to escape Earth's atmosphere and probably have sufficient shielding on critical systems to prevent any problems that would be a result of space weather. Especially since both accidents happened well within the added protection of the atmosphere.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:36 AM
Although I believe that energy levels in the environment do effect flight, I don't think that this was the case in these events. The energy level would need to be much higher. Increasing energy in the air makes the molecules spread farther apart and this causes the air to thin. It would make it harder to fly, but it would not cause what is seen in these incidents at that level. At thirty degrees F it is easier to take off in a plane than in seventy degrees F. The molecules are closer together increasing density of the air and the wings work better.

The little effect this would have is predicted by the technology aboard the two spacecraft, NASA and this other organization do know about this energy phenomenon, it is normal everyday stuff to them. I vote for human error, equipment malfunction, or altered fuel on all three of these.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:02 AM
a reply to: MKMoniker

The Kansas crash was due to engine failure on takeoff. It happens.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:13 AM
It is possible that this solar activity is effecting the people building or working on these craft. Also the ones flying or controlling them. It wouldn't take much to effect someone's perception.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:22 AM
Heard some lady on the news this morning speculating on the fuel in the Virgin Galactic failure...

Some Info

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:28 AM
If the weather was to blame why did it wait for, Take off or Lift off? That the "accidents" occurred at these points of most likely catastrophic failure, i.e., launch, makes it more than likely the failures were mechanical in nature.

Sabotage is another matter. One could get suspicious about these sorts of accidents if they continue rising in frequency. Ether that or we just have lost that tech edge and can't construct things well anymore.

More ignorant and more impatient as time goes by.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:33 PM
Thanks to all posters! All thoughtful, substantive posts.

And here's the latest on Virgin Galactic:
"Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo that crashed in the Mojave Desert earlier today was using a new fuel combination that Virgin Galactic had never used during flight before.

"Virgin Galactic announced that they were switching from a rubber-based fuel to a plastic-based fuel last May after they successfully burned the fuel for about one minute.

"Right now, there is nothing that says the new fuel was the cause of the "in flight anomaly" that led to the crash."

new topics

top topics


log in