Re:The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016)
by rini17 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @12:30PM
(#14482265)
There is no extra danger climbing Olympus Mons involved, it's actually very flat: "...an observer near the summit would be unaware of standing on a very high mountain, as the slope of the volcano would extend far beyond the horizon, a mere 3 kilometers away."
Re:The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016)
by Kenji on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:35AM
(#14480856)
Considering the earth has roughly 2.5 times more gravity, the climb would probably be quite a bit less exhausting (after terraforming Mars).
Re:The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016)
by rl3 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:51AM
(#14480924)
Good point, though climbers can always add weight to get that Earth-like experience.
Re:The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016)
by Grangar on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:31AM
(#14481178)
At that point you might as well 'just' climb Everest.
Re:The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016)
by throwaway7645 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:21AM
(#14481123)
22 km is quite a trek going up, but even in a suit perhaps the lower gravity makes it easier than Everest.
>The decision to terraform Mars would also exhibit hubris.
Speaking of hubris: if we terraform Mars, people are going to want to climb Olympus Mons. Perhaps the volcano would acquire a reputation and body count similar to Everest.
Obviously the future holds great potential for lifesaving technology, but at the same time there's always purists. After all, the people who have climbed Everest probably wouldn't have if there wasn't any danger involved.
I imagine much of the danger would depend upon the finer details of how the Mars was terraformed. Namely sea level, atmospheric composition, and anything else that affects weather at altitude.
Would reaching the summit even be possible without oxygen? It wouldn't be on Earth at that height, but I've no idea if that holds for a terraformed atmosphere on another planet.