Will you ever do something like this?

National Geographic does a 19 day trip to Everest Base Camp. On the trip you have to climb to the peak where this webcam is situated (18000 ft) because the mountain top is not visible from the camp. Cost of the trip is $4,695 per person, double occupancy. For a single room/tent, add $600. Airfare is not included. Round-trip economy air between Los Angeles and Kathmandu, Nepal is estimated from $1,300. Internal group air between Kathmandu and Lukla is estimated at $295 (it is a short air trip you must take to get in the vicinity of Everest).

The National Geographic trip is probably longer than most trips, but in any case I don't think you can do it in less than a week. It is a fairly lengthy hike and you must acclimatize to the altitude along the way.

Basically it is a very demanding trip but within the reach of most people who are healthy.

Other climbs
Highest Mountain in CONUS (Whitney), California: 14,495 feet
Highest Mountain in Mexico (Pico de Orizaba): 18,491 feet
Highest Mountain in Europe Elbrus, Russia (Caucasus): 18,510 feet
Highest Mountain in Western Europe Mont Blanc, France-Italy: 15,771 feet
Highest Mountain in Oceania Puncak Jaya, New Guinea: 16,535 feet
Highest Mountain in Africa: Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: 19,340 feet
Highest Mountain in North America McKinley (Denali), Alaska: 20,320 feet
Highest Mountain in Australia Kosciusko: 7310 feet

Mount Blanc Jacuzzi on the summit


The summit of Mount Blanc iis ascended by an average 20,000 mountaineer-tourists each year. This impression that it is easy climb is reinforced by the fact that from l'Aiguille du Midi (where the cable car stops), Mont Blanc seems quite close, being merely 3,300 ft higher. While seeming deceptively close, La Voie des 3 Monts route (known to be more technical and challenging than other more commonly used routes) requires much ascent and descent before the final section of the climb is reached and the last push to the summit is undertaken.

I know that Mike has climbed Mount Whitney. Roughly 19,000 people try to summit every year.

Who thinks they will undertake an adventure on this scale at some point in their life? It doesn't have to be mountain climbing. You can insert some other adventure (spelunking, extreme SCUBA, long hike, etc. ).

The Imperial Ski lift at Breckenridge, Colo. Ski Resort, and goes to 12,840 feet ). It’s the highest ski resort high-speed quad chairlift in the world, opened in 2005.

In contrast San Jacinto Peak in Palm Springs involves taking an Aerial Tramway from Valley Station up to Mountain Station at 8,516 feet. From this point it is 5.5 miles (one way) to the summit at 10,834 ft.

While doing an 11 mile hike at roughly 10,000 ft doesn't rank with the trips on the earlier posts, if you did this and it was an accomplishment for you, post about it.

Quote: pacomartin

National Geographic does a 19 day trip to Everest Base Camp.

Other climbs
Highest Mountain in CONUS (Whitney), California: 14,495 feet
Highest Mountain in Mexico (Pico de Orizaba): 18,491 feet
Highest Mountain in Europe Elbrus, Russia (Caucasus): 18,510 feet
Highest Mountain in Western Europe Mont Blanc, France-Italy: 15,771 feet
Highest Mountain in Oceania Puncak Jaya, New Guinea: 16,535 feet
Highest Mountain in Africa: Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: 19,340 feet
Highest Mountain in North America McKinley (Denali), Alaska: 20,320 feet
Highest Mountain in Australia Kosciusko: 7310 feet

My ex has done Everest Base Camp, Whitney, Elbrus, Mount Blanc, Kilimanjaro, Denali, and Aconcagua, which you omitted. She has also done the highest mountains in many countries not known for mountains, some are less than 10,000 feet (Egypt, Thailand as examples) We were at 18000 feet together in Bolivia, that's the highest I've made it, and have no desire to be that short of breath again...

My choice isn't listed: too acrophobic. I get dragged up mountains hiking in National Parks with my family and wonder how I'm going to get back down. I'm fine until I look down. Then I have to put someone directly in front of me to block my view or I'd have to scoot down on my butt.

Not my idea of fun at any price!

Absolutely Not.

The first thing is that you're looking at around 15k (I'd have to buy equipment) for my wife and I to have the pleasure of freezing to death to go see something that there are any number of pictures and videos of, no thanks.

Secondly, we could not take the kids.

Third, I'll admit it, too poor. I could probably pull together that sum of money (by maxing out all of my CC's with cash advances, cashing in some stocks, and depleting all of my bank accounts), but no, I don't have that for a vacation. I could probably comfortably muster a $3,000-$5,000 vacation and still be comfortable with the payments when I got back.

I get nosebleeds above the 3rd floor of a hotel. Dean Martin
always stayed on the 1st floor or he didn't stay there. Sounds
good to me..

I probably wouldn't even do this

I read that the fatality rate is over 20%. Seems like playing Russian Roulette would be smarter. and less expensive.

Quote: rxwine

I probably wouldn't even do this: Devils Pool, Victoria Falls.

If I were to jump in there, the resultant tsunami would wash them all right over the edge!!

Quote: buzzpaff

I read that the fatality rate is over 20%. Seems like playing Russian Roulette would be smarter. and less expensive.

I doubt it. Strongly. Even amateur Everest climbs only have about 10% rate. This is just a lame tourist hike. Up a mountain, but just a hike, no climbing. 0.20% sounds more like it.

On topic: I've done something considerably riskier. Actually, come to think of it, more than once. Still alive, but it took some luck. Currently considering doing some high-risk jobs, for money this time.

I need my disposable brain cells for beer drinking.

Quote:

The researchers studied a total of 35 climbers -- a dozen professionals and the rest amateurs. None used supplemental oxygen. All the professionals and one amateur climbed the 8,848 meter-high Mt. Everest. Twenty healthy individuals served as controls. Eleven of the 12 professionals showed in their post-expedition examinations signs of brain atrophy affecting the cortex. They also developed enlargement of naturally occurring spaces in the brain near blood vessels. The results agree with other studies. In her October 2008 "New York Times" article, Mountain Climbing Bad for the Brain, Tara Parker-Pope summarized the results of several studies that revealed brain problems in people exposed to the extreme environmental conditions, including mountain climbing.

Amateur Versus Professional Climbers

Fayed and his co-authors detected lesions in the frontal lobes, beneath the cortex, in the one amateur who climbed Mt. Everest. The other amateurs in their study climbed peaks ranging in height from 4,810 meters to 6,959 meters. Thirteen of them developed high-altitude sickness and 10 developed enlargement of spaces near cerebral blood vessels. Brain scans revealed five cases of irreversible lesions beneath the cortex. Amateurs appear to be at greater risk for experiencing altitude illnesses. Professionals who spend more time climbing may avoid these acute illnesses but still end up with more brain damage. Over the course of their careers, professionals may suffer more brain atrophy due to longer exposure to hypoxic conditions.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/472540-brain-damage-from-mountain-climbing/#ixzz20eoO4N7c

I was trying, unsuccessfully, to find out if the number of ascents of Mount Robson and Mount Waddington, BC are more or less than of Everest.

I'm fascinated by the sheer idiocy, tenacity and bravery of climbing Everest. I know there is a big problem of traffic jams at the peak, which causes delays, and therefore deaths near the summit. The human body just isn't designed for spending more than 48 hours above 8,000m.

I think the highest I've hiked was a short hike above the Bryce Canyon at around 9,000 foot, but starting just below the rim doesn't make it too much of a challenge. I've hiked from sea level to the peaks of a few of the 'mountains' in the British Lake district, at around 3,000 ft, and a couple of Munroes in Scotland (over 3,000 foot peaks).

But these are hikes with short scrambles, which is enough for me :)

Quote: SOOPOO

My ex has done Everest Base Camp, Whitney, Elbrus, Mount Blanc, Kilimanjaro, Denali, and Aconcagua, which you omitted. She has also done the highest mountains in many countries not known for mountains, some are less than 10,000 feet (Egypt, Thailand as examples) We were at 18000 feet together in Bolivia, that's the highest I've made it, and have no desire to be that short of breath again...

Aconcagua is 22,841 ft (atmospheric pressure is 40% of sea-level at the summit), which I wrongly thought required supplemental oxygen. Although it is accessible to an experienced mountain climber, to your average person looking for a once in a lifetime accomplishment, it would require a considerable expenditure of money and a lot of training (including climbing several mountains over 14,000 ft). I would be curious as to the order in which your ex did those summits.

Most people have never been higher than 12,840' ( the height of the highest ski chair in North America) and very few people try to climb once they reach the top of the ski chair.

Quote: pacomartin

Aconcagua is 22,841 ft (atmospheric pressure is 40% of sea-level at the summit), which I wrongly thought required supplemental oxygen. Although it is accessible to an experienced mountain climber, to your average person looking for a once in a lifetime accomplishment, it would require a considerable expenditure of money and a lot of training (including climbing several mountains over 14,000 ft). I would be curious as to the order in which your ex did those summits.

Most people have never been higher than 12,840' ( the height of the highest ski chair in North America) and very few people try to climb once they reach the top of the ski chair.

She has trained vigorously for her climbs. At around 5'0, 100 lbs, she does an hour of stairmaster witha 40 pound napsack on her back. That is in addition to aerobics and yoga. She has climbed many mountains in the 10 -15,000 foot range first. Once successful she has aimed higher. She would be classified as an experienced mountain climber. Although expensive, it is not quite as expensive as those here have stated. For those interested in getting to high altitudes without climbing, South America has many relatively inexpensive options. In Ecuador we took our kids up to around 13000 feet, at the base of Cotapaxi. As I mentioned earlier, we made it to around 17000 feet in Bolivia by car. We had already acclimated to around 12000 feet by then.

Quote: pacomartin

Most people have never been higher than 12,840' ( the height of the highest ski chair in North America) and very few people try to climb once they reach the top of the ski chair.

You can drive to the top of Mt. Evans, Colorado in summer. 14,000+ feet.

A week in Mexico climbing Orizaba and other peaks is $5400 (land costs) for two people. Probably the cheapest way to get above 18000' (including air fare and ancillary costs.

Land Costs Include
All in country transportation
Hotels accommodations
All group camp supplies, such as tents, stoves, etc.
All group climbing gear
All meals while climbing
All hut fees, park fees and permit

Land Costs Do Not Include
$25 Wire Transfer Fee (If Applicable)
International round-trip airfare USA-Mexico
Meals in Mexico City, Amecameca (and Tlamacas)
Personal gear (see gear list)
Excess baggage charges and airport taxes
Personal items
Trip cancellation insurance
Charges incurred as a result of delays beyond the control of Alpine Ascents

===============
Thanks to Teddy's post, I am now aware that you bicycle to above 14000' in Colorado (or drive a car). Clearly only valid in summer. I believe that the danger of avalanches makes the mountain very dangerous for snowmobiles in winter.

Quote: pacomartin

A week in Mexico climbing Orizaba and other peaks is $5400 (land costs) for two people. Probably the cheapest way to get above 18000' (including air fare and ancillary costs.

I think modern jets fly a lot higher than that.

But to seriously mess things up: could a mountain be so high it would rise above the atmospehere?

Mount Everest at over 8km is higher than the Troposhere is at the poles (7k).

Quote: Nareed

I think modern jets fly a lot higher than that.

But to seriously mess things up: could a mountain be so high it would rise above the atmospehere?

Yes, you are correct that jets fly above 30K feet. I stand corrected.

You mean like the "Fist of God" in Ringworld?


Most people don't think a mountain could ever be significantly higher than Everest given the strength of rock and the crust. Since Everest is nowhere near the tropopause at that lattitude, I would say no.

I was surprised at how much work the sherpas do on Everest with little or no credit. They actually ascend before their group, laying rope and checking anchors, then come back to camp to accompany the "climbers". Some make multiple summits each season.

With someone working ahead of you, laying out ropes, tethers, and oxygen bottles, cutting steps in the ice, setting up your tent, making your food, carrying your heavy stuff... it doesn't seem so great a feat.

Quote: pacomartin

Yes, you are correct that jets fly above 30K feet. I stand corrected.

People overlook that so often it's uncanny.

Quote:

You mean like the "Fist of God" in Ringworld?

Good one! Of course I'm not sure the Fist qualifies as a mountian, but saying more is a big spoiler for Ringworld.


Actually a geography teacher in junior high school claimed the top of Everest was outside the atmosphere. That's so patently untrue, it would give Sheldon Cooper an aneurysm if he heard it :P

But later I got to thinking what a big advantage one could get for launching amterial into orbit if a mountian existed with a top outside the atmosphere. I don't think it can happen, even in planets with a lower surface gravity. Take Mars. Gravity is about 1/3 of Earth's, but that also means the atmosphere takes up more room. So even though the highest known mountain is in Mars (Olympus Mons), it is well inside its atmosphere.

Smaller planets yet have no atmospheres to get out of, like Mercury and Pluto (don't correct me about Pluto! <w>).

And then there's Titan....

Quote:

Most people don't think a mountain could ever be significantly higher than Everest given the strength of rock and the crust. Since Everest is nowhere near the tropopause at that lattitude, I would say no.

That's a good answer.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I was surprised at how much work the sherpas do on Everest with little or no credit. They actually ascend before their group, laying rope and checking anchors, then come back to camp to accompany the "climbers". Some make multiple summits each season.

With someone working ahead of you, laying out ropes, tethers, and oxygen bottles, cutting steps in the ice, setting up your tent, making your food, carrying your heavy stuff... it doesn't seem so great a feat.

I don't think it is as great an athletic accomplishment as say "swimming the English channel". On the other hand, when people fail to swim the English channel, they mostly climb into a boat, and go home. I don't think there is anything that people do voluntarily, with such a high probability of dying. I've read that you have higher than a 10% probability of dying. But about 1/3 of the deaths on Everest have been Sherpas. The census in 2001 counted 150,000 Sherpa people in Nepal.

Quote: pacomartin

I don't think there is anything that people do voluntarily, with such a high probability of dying.

Enlisting in the armed forces.

Of course, the likelihood of death depends on whose forces you join

Quote: pacomartin

I don't think it is as great an athletic accomplishment as say "swimming the English channel". On the other hand, when people fail to swim the English channel, they mostly climb into a boat, and go home. I don't think there is anything that people do voluntarily, with such a high probability of dying. I've read that you have higher than a 10% probability of dying. But about 1/3 of the deaths on Everest have been Sherpas. The census in 2001 counted 150,000 Sherpa people in Nepal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/science/21obclim.html - suggests the death rates are much smaller now. And that's only the percentage of climbers/deaths, which is different to successful climbers/deaths.

1.5 percent of climbers die, 30 percent make it to the top... so 1 death for every 20 successful ascent. Coming down is also a risk... I've seen 1 in 20 successful ascents result in a death on way down... you've pushed the body to far, so it's got nothing left to get back down again before the hypoxia kills you.