Running makes you wetter than walking over an equivalent time period. The main goal of running in the rain is to get to a shelter -- to minimize that time.
Something your link covers, and points out. [1]
So it would be with a plane: Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). So while a faster-flying plane is more likely to encounter a meteorite than a slower-flying plane, if flying faster means less time in the air it's going to be "safer" overall.
[1] "So here we have it - more mathematical advice to avoid getting wet. Because we divide by VP in this equation, maximising our velocity now emerges as a good idea, assuming there is a shelter available."
>Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle).
That's a very good point: for a plane, reaching the ground is the equivalent of a runner reaching shelter from the rain.
But I suppose planes generally spend about the same amount of time in the air, no matter how fast they go. The faster plane just travels further in that time. There's no obvious reason a fast plane would spend more time safely on the ground than a slow plane.
Perhaps flying faster is safer for individual passengers, but more dangerous for the plane?
reaching the ground is the equivalent of a runner reaching shelter from the rain.
A meteorite capable of striking a plane in flight is just as equivalent of striking it on the ground. It's already passed through the ablative portion of its entry, and is falling at terminal velocity. So the probabilities of a strike don't actually change.
The implications for the aircraft, passengers, and crew, are rather different, however, when the plane is at-rest and on the ground.
>The implications for the aircraft, passengers, and crew, are rather different, however, when the plane is at-rest and on the ground.
Yes, that's so. A 300km/h 5kg rock striking any part of a plane in flight must have a very high probability of proving fatal for all aboard. On the ground the risk of injury for each passenger must be much lower - the plane might even be empty.
However, while the plane is in the air, it seems that a faster plane moves through a greater volume of space per unit of time, compared to a slower plane, therefore it is at greater risk of passing through the space occupied by a meteorite in any particular hour. So, assuming that faster planes spend about the amount of time airborne as slower planes, the risk of an accident is higher for faster aircraft.
The risk for an individual passenger is not increased in the same way (I guess it is not much affected by aircraft speed), because the faster aircraft gets them to their destination in less time, so they spend less time vulnerable to meteorite impacts on the aircraft.
Something your link covers, and points out. [1]
So it would be with a plane: Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle). So while a faster-flying plane is more likely to encounter a meteorite than a slower-flying plane, if flying faster means less time in the air it's going to be "safer" overall.
[1] "So here we have it - more mathematical advice to avoid getting wet. Because we divide by VP in this equation, maximising our velocity now emerges as a good idea, assuming there is a shelter available."
EDIT: grammar