How high is too high?

ViperScale wrote:I have been thinking of getting a kickstarter going to fund my building a tube around part of the Mariana Trench... that way i could drain it and turn it into the ultimate climb.

Woah, the air gets thin at +35000 feet, what happens if you were at -35000 feet (obviously without water)? Super high air pressure and 200F temps. Beware the sulfur vents at the base of the climb, and watch out for pockets of exposed magma. This climb is best done in the shade.

Eliot Augusto wrote: No gals unless they are in a support field. The SF are opening their doors to women, but no women have passed even basic infantry school. So until ladies like Rowdy Rhonda Rousey start signing up, it'll be a while.

Just covering my ass on that one.

Kyle Tarry wrote: If your only interest is climbing 5th class rock, then yeah, Everest probably isn't for you. However, that doesn't make it "for rich guys with huge egos." That is like saying that climbing WI5, or running a marathon, or doing an Ironman, or starting a successful business, or anything else "difficult," is "only for rich guys with huge egos" because they don't contain 5th class rock. If your objective standard is that 5th class rock is cool and everything else sucks, you're going to have a rough time going through life. There are lots of reasons to engage in mountaineering, and lots of people enjoy it. For some of those people, Everest is a goal (and for many it's not). Just because you aren't interested (at the ripe age of 18) doesn't make it stupid. There are lots of fun, engaging, rewarding, and challenging activities out there that don't involve crux moves at your local crag.

All the respect in the world to people who climb Everest, however you forget that noone really climbs Everest anymore. Most people just pay for someone else to carry their gear and follow them up the stairs. That is where the "rich person" comes in because they are paying someone else to climb it and are just following them up.

Is it still hard to hike that high up? Sure but there is a different between doing it on your own and having someone holding your hand on the way up.

20 kN wrote:I wonder which is harder, an Ultraman or Everest? 10,000m ocean swim 261.4 mile bike 52.4 mile run Done back to back as a single race (triathlon) with time limits to ensure you cant walk the whole thing. Just think how hard your last marathon was, and then imagine doing another three or four of those in a row. Then of course there are other contenders like a RAAM solo (ride your bike across America), the PCT (~2200 mile hike) and my favorite, joining the special forces which probably tops all of this.

That sounds absolutely horrible. Ironmans are bad enough, but of course a significant number of entrants actually finish. So why not make a race hardly anyone finishes? This shit just gets out of control.

Stich wrote: So why not make a race hardly anyone finishes?

Exists:
Barkley Marathons

As much I as I wanna talk shit and beat my chest about ignorance round here in regards climbing Everest I'll just ask this...

Read chapter 12 of Training of the New Alpinism. Yo body don't do so well when you all up high and stuff.

ViperScale wrote: All the respect in the world to people who climb Everest, however you forget that noone really climbs Everest anymore. Most people just pay for someone else to carry their gear and follow them up the stairs. That is where the "rich person" comes in because they are paying someone else to climb it and are just following them up. Is it still hard to hike that high up? Sure but there is a different between doing it on your own and having someone holding your hand on the way up.

Lol. Sweet mother, who is scripting this nonsense? Is Everest commercialized? Yep. Can it be "climbed for you by other people"? No fricken way. Yes, route finding has been minimized by fixed ropes, but I've personally witnessed hit-shot 5.12 sport climbers stain their shorts on snow covered 5.4....so have fun on the Hillary Step there genius....if yout don't die from cold, avy's, cerebral or pulmonary edema, etc before you even get there. I've seen 16 yr olds go into a climbing gym and come out a 5.12 sport climber in 2 months....what's the big deal? It's freaking outdoor gymnastics.

When the bong water starts looking tasty, put it down...

I guess to replace Trollanor we get the attack of the delusionally overconfident twentysomethings. Honestly not quite sure which is worse.

"I've never even been to 4000 m, but I can confidently say 8800 m is pretty easy when you got them there Shurrrpas helping you.."

Ok then..

I'd love to hear someone comment on the physiological limits of the human body in an unpressurized environment, even when breathing pure 02.

My dad used to do high altitude soaring, with a continuous flow or diluter demand 02 mask (can't remember exactly), and got up to 40,000'. The record for a standard glider is just over 50,000', and they're probably using a pressure demand system.

It seems that above 40,000', there's not enough driving pressure to oxygenate the blood, even when breathing pure 02. For that reason, aviators have to use a mask that's at a higher pressure than ambient, though it's fatiguing to exhale into a pressurized mask.

I'd guess that if you could get enough oxygen bottles up there, and had a strong enough diaphragm, you could possibly scale a 40-50k peak without a pressurized suit, unless some other mechanism kicked in at time periods that aviators don't typically experience?

Stich wrote: That sounds absolutely horrible. Ironmans are bad enough, but of course a significant number of entrants actually finish. So why not make a race hardly anyone finishes? This shit just gets out of control.

A significant amount finish because the race is by invite only, and they don't invite people that are not already extremely experienced triathletes. Most triathletes do many Ironmans before even considering an Ultraman, so everyone in the race is already top notch.

If you want something that few people finish, try special forces training. Typically less than 10% make it through despite the fact that everyone that even makes it to the start line is already in pretty good shape.

doak wrote: My dad used to do high altitude soaring, with a continuous flow or diluter demand 02 mask (can't remember exactly), and got up to 40,000'. The record for a standard glider is just over 50,000', and they're probably using a pressure demand system.

The problem with just breathing o2 at high elevations is it does not fix the problem with the water in your body. The higher the elevation, the lower the boiling point of water, and at about 52,000' elevation water boils at around 98 degrees F, which would kill you.

20 kN, The Armstrong Limit is about 62,000', at least according to wikipedia. Fluids internal to the body are at a higher gauge pressure than ambient, and you'd certainly need a positive pressure breathing apparatus, so saliva and lung tissue would not be boiling. And the eyes would be okay if they're covered by the breathing apparatus.

Surely other physiological responses would limit you sooner, even with a positive pressure air system. What things set in after extended periods longer than aviators experience?

Here's my hunch, based on info gleaned after 60 minutes on the web:
1)With ambient pressure O2, and unlimited expedition resources: 35k'
2)With positive pressure O2, and unlimited expedition resources: 45-50k'
3)With a pressure suit, and <$500m budget: 100k'
4)Apollo mission budget and national priority: 200k'
I'm assuming no mechanized support above basecamp (ie, all supplies ferried by human)

doak wrote:20 kN, The Armstrong Limit is about 62,000', at least according to wikipedia. Fluids internal to the body are at a higher gauge pressure than ambient, and you'd certainly need a positive pressure breathing apparatus, so saliva and lung tissue would not be boiling. And the eyes would be okay if they're covered by the breathing apparatus. Surely other physiological responses would limit you sooner, even with a positive pressure air system. What things set in after extended periods longer than aviators experience? Here's my hunch, based on info gleaned after 60 minutes on the web: 1)With ambient pressure O2, and unlimited expedition resources: 35k' 2)With positive pressure O2, and unlimited expedition resources: 45-50k' 3)With a pressure suit, and <$500m budget: 100k' 4)Apollo mission budget and national priority: 200k' I'm assuming no mechanized support above basecamp (ie, all supplies ferried by human)

Well the other problem is while you could build a suit good for 200k, you could never get up there before running out of oxygen under human power alone. You would need a machine to accelerate you to that elevation and then at that point the "skill" and fitness of the person becomes irrelevant and it's just a science experiment, not mountaineering.

At least there would be a lot less gravity at 200k' to weight you and your gear down. ;)

Actually, a good pressure suit is really challenging to build. Once you inflate one, the whole thing becomes really stiff and cumbersome, so a lot of work goes into the articulated joints.

I'm assuming that it would take hundreds or thousands of ferrying trips to push that much oxygen and supplies up the high camps, hence the huge budget and ultimately limited ceiling. Just a hunch though.