Can you beat the Aggro Crag?
Wow the Mia Khalifa is barely a dot on there. I know which one I want to get on top of.
Which beast?
That’s a misleading graph as it starts at 4000m
I think this is more to visualize the size of the ascent on K2, rather than the true size of the mountain.
What’s misleading?
It literally tells you the foot of the mountain is already around 4000m above sea level.What’s misleading about it?
Everest isn’t 8000 meters from the base to peak. It’s 8000 meters at the peak but the foothills are several hundred meters high before you even get to everest. The buildings shown would have to be shown below ground if we really wanted to see them compared to everest’s height.- The buildings are shown as you would see them if they were built at the base of the mountain, to show its size. The sea level is irrelevant for this illustration.
- This isn’t Mount Everest.
Then why is the top listed as
everest’s heightk2’s height (just woke up and can’t read yet), ? It should list height from base to peak, not sea level to peak. It’s misleading this way.It shows the height above sea level at the base, too.
Well fuck, not only did i misread the mountain but i completely missed the smudge that looks like snow stating the starting height.
I stand corrected. I’m going for coffee so i can look like less of a dipshit today.
Enjoy your coffee, friend!
deleted by creator
The misleading part is having the picture labeled as the height of k2 here. The height listed should be its prominence not sea level to peak.
deleted by creator
That’s not the issue i had with the photo. It was it not being labeled at the proper height from the base. I didn’t notice the label at the bottom hence the strike-thru of my comment.
Those that don’t completely read the comment thread can be confused by different markup labeling.
at 800m the Burj is still at 1/10 of the 2nd tallest mountain… seems big no?
Technical question for actual climbers.
How high up can you go by vehicle and still say you ‘climbed’ the mountain?
Nobody goes on foot from sea level to the top of the mountain, so at what point does the ascent start?
If you’re not starting on foot from the bottom of the Mariana Trench, you’re just a filthy casual.
What if I’m standing on the beach but my balls are all the way inside Challenger Deep?
i thought I would see a dick measuring joke but this is new
come on, kiss the abyss
Nobody goes on foot from sea level to the top of the mountain
Tim Macartney-Snape climbed Mount Everest that way. It took him 3 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Macartney-Snape#Everest:_Sea_to_Summit_ExpeditionThe exception that proves the rule.
But thank you, that’s pretty interesting.
What rule? “Don’t use absolutes”? 🤪
Absolutely.
🤌🏼
If it’s noteworthy that he did this, it must be rare. So this tells us most don’t.
Most =/= All 🤷🏼♂️
For Everest in particular, Base Camp 1 is at about 4000m IIRC, and that’s where ascents typically start after some time to acclimate to the already high altitude.
The practical answer is: you drive as far as you legally can.
As a disclaimer, pictured here are the Himalayas, which are at a completely different scale to where I’ve been, but in my experience there are typically parking spaces/bus stops at the end of public roads. At this point you leave the built up infrastructure and enter nature, and these are often located in a place where the flatter valley ends and a steeper ascent begins. In many cases there are smaller private roads further up to service more remote cabins or farmsteads. Sometimes there are even taxi services that drive you further along using private roads, which can be seen as not fully scaling the mountain yourself. Generally, the closest public parking is considered the starting point and most people will therefore start at the same spot.
I expect that by 2050 it will be common for the 0.01% to land a flying car 100 meters from the summit and then claim to have conquered the peak.
deleted by creator
‘flying car’
deleted by creator
I mean you park the car in the parking lot and then you start at the trailhead. That’s really as far as you’re allowed to drive up, not like you can drive on the hiking trail
Not a climber but I’m assuming the base of the mountain.
I guess that’s what my question is. what is considered ‘the base?’
I suppose it varies for each mountain.
It is entirely subjective. So is the height of a mountain as a result.
Correlation is not causation.
I learned from experience that vehicles lose torque the higher the elevation due to the thinning of oxygen. I think it was something like 30% per kilometer in elevation. That being said I’m sure there’s a level where they can’t drive anymore.
Which begs the question; how do jets fly higher than the mountain tops?
edit = jet engines have compressors to overcome the difficulty. Car engines don’t
I should learn to search first.
good for you, learning something that quickly
at this rate, you’ll be the one to figure out how to solve this problem for helicopters
I was going to say I’m very impressed with those buildings actually considering how thin and scrawny they are in comparison, but then I realized 4000m of mountain height from the sea level are technically not visible in this picture.
Context: the foot of Mt. Everest is in itself higher than most mountains. And then on top of all that there is an actual mountain peak you can see on the pictures.
I very much enjoy the friendship and company of hobby climbers. Professional climbers are, in my experience, 10% incredible and kind people with amazing life stories, 90% self aggrandising spoiled narcissists who think they’re invincible, but should instead be dead without the support of dozens of people in their lives, who have never received proper credit or even an honest humble thanks.
Most people who go to do climbs like Annapurna and Everest are already a negative in my book.
This makes thebuildings more impressive to me
Is the picture to scale in both height and width?
It’s missing 4K, better would be if the buildings were half their current size
Or mountain more accurately depicted in size:
Those buildings are at least approximately to scale as those 828 meters fit in the top 4611 meters roughly 5 times. If you made them half as tall it would be all wrong.
But you’re only seeing half the mountain.
So? That’s still obviously accounted for in the scale of the buildings. The buildings are roughly 1/10 of the whole mountain but since only half of the mountain is in frame they are 1/5 of what is in view. It’s correct.
Except the bottom half of the mountain isn’t in the picture
Alright
Hm? Bottom of the picture is at 4000 m above sea level?
Yep
Can’t imagine the amount of force that pushed these huge mountains up, with their immeasurable mass. Wow.
Billy Brennan: So Mr. Kirby, when you climbed K2, did you base camp at twenty-five or thirty thousand feet?
Paul Kirby: Thirty thousand feet, we were pretty close to the top.
Billy Brennan: You were about a thousand feet above, actually.
deleted by creator
That’s why, put a mass accelerator up there to kickstart space launches.Yees, maybe not on Mt. Everest. But there are plenty of developed areas with mountains.In a sci-fi setting I love, they use Kilimandjaro as the base of the space elevator. Would be interesting to see Africa become a space hub.
Mass launchers on Earth would work for things that can sustain large amounts of acceleration. That rules out a lot of things we launch into space. A mass launcher that would be as gentle as a rocket launch would stretch hundreds if not thousands of kilometers and need either a gradual slope or a very wide curve to avoid the side forces. Mass drivers are too good at what they do at their full capacity, and need a lot of room to do it slower.
On the Moon, a mass driver is a no brainer and could launch people in a short run. It’s Earth’s gravity that’s the problem. It sucks.
But it would be a good enough solution to save the whole 1st stage or 2/3 of the mass, no? Since the wind resistance quadruples all few km down there and all.To make something able to handle higher g forces you must make it heavier, if it is heavier you require more fuel and launch power to get it to orbit. Mass drivers for orbit are of fairly dubious utility, especially for all but very compact very dense payloads. Being higher altitude at launch is of even more dubious utility for rocket launches, very little of a rockets energy is spent gaining altitude against gravity, as all fuel used fighting gravity is wasted. The bulk of a rockets thrust is used accelerating the rocket to orbital velocity. Even airplane launched rockets see limited use. For reference, the delta v (a measurement of how much a rocket can change the velocity of its payload) budget for low earth orbit is generally 9,300 to 10,000 m/s, the orbital velocity there is about 7,800 m/s. We’re talking about a fairly small fraction of a rockets ability saved before we figure in the expense and risk with making your payload and stages so much stronger and risking your delicate and typically much more expensive than the rocket payload with a much more physically violent launch. And the first chunk of a rocket launch is when you burn off a ton of the fuel while the rocket doesn’t get that much lighter relatively speaking, you’re mostly paying for fuel at that part of the process, and the fuel is far and away the cheapest part of a rocket.
That opens up another problem that I’ve seen talked about. The air that is left at the end. So for a mass driver to work, it needs to be close to a vacuum, otherwise you’ve got all the air in the way. Another reason the Moon is so easy. So when the payload that we can send through this ultimate roller coaster gets to the end at the top (wherever the top is), how do you manage an airlock there? It can’t be open long, otherwise the thin air will start filling the tube and be a barrier to run into, but it can’t open at the last millisecond because what if it doesn’t open fast enough (for whatever reason)? Plus, if it got through the airlock, it’s still going to run into the thin air outside, which will be like hitting a sudden brick wall at that speed.
I’ve loved the idea of mass drivers since I was a kid in the 70s dreaming of space colonies. But there are some serious problems to overcome on a 1 G planet with an atmosphere.
As far as the mechanisms of the mass driver itself and the power, I think that’s doable even for large loads. It just doesn’t work for other reasons. The opposite of a mass driver is an electromagnetic drive and we do that in limited fashion on some trains and other places. They would also be an awesome low acceleration drive for something like asteroid movement, using the slugs of mass on the body itself to change its vectors. Although that bears the Mass Effect warning about shooting without a target, it will ruin someone’s day one day.
Also had another thought on that pesky air in the way. Something related to your point is called Max q and occurs very high up still in the atmosphere, even above most of the air, because of the speed also involved. The advantage of a rocket is that they can manage the ratio by backing off the throttle until getting past that point. But important to this conversation is how high that occurs. Even if the mass driving avoids the lower air, it still has to come out of the tube at a comparable speed to attain orbit, so it will run into its own Max q type effects as it exits, and then even further up. The stress on a vehicle would certainly be far greater than “just” a rocket launch.
