Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on May 22, 2011, 09:53:57 pm
-
Which is a more inhospitable and dangerous environment?
Assume that you are equipped with all the standard gear an explorer in the environment would bring. If you are on the Moon you have an Apollo LEM, a suit, and all necessary provisions. If in the Everest death zone you have bottled oxygen and cold weather/climbing gear.
Don't be too quick to come down one on side or the other; think about the dangers involved in both! When I am not lazy/busy (probably never) I will give a bit more of a detailed description, but long story short:
On the Moon you must contend with hard vacuum, the possibility of breaching your suit, and the total impossibility of any form of rescue if something goes wrong. On the up side, you have plenty of oxygen and can think and move freely.
In the Everest Death Zone you must contend with extreme cold, unpredictable weather, the dangers of falling, and, perhaps most cripplingly, severe oxygen deprivation - leading to sometimes fatal confusion even in the most experienced climbers. Additionally, you have a small and unpredictable chance of dying at random to an embolism or brain edema. On the plus side, you may be able to survive overnight without protection even in the harshest of conditions just by sheer luck, and rescue, while remote, is not utterly impossible.
FIGHT
-
Moon - for the reasons listed. All it takes is a pebble kicked up in exactly the right way, or staying a little too long. Everest, though it will kill you, is survivable for meat if only for a short while.
-
Both are dangerous. And they kill people. We should bomb them both. That'll show em.
-
Bombing is too good for both of them. They should be nuked.
-
Well you probably need to consider to get to the moon you're on the pointy end of a government initiative, with all the strenuous selection, training and support that entails. Any jabroni with plenty of money and little brains can attempt to scale Everest.
-
Mt. Everest death toll: 216.
Moon death toll: Zero.
MT. EVEREST FLAWLESS VICTORY!
-
Well a lot more people have attempted Everest than attempted the Moon.
-
They both have different risks and hazards, therefore it doesn't really make much sense to directly compare overall hazardousness, especially with such disparity in equipment available to our intrepid adventurers.
For example if you compare risk of dying by hypothermia, it's far more likely cause of death in Mount Everest than on the Moon.
If you compare risk of dying by suffocation (oxygen deprivation), hard vacuum is hard to beat, but you don't have a pressurized habitat in Mt. Everest - which you absolutely NEED to survive in Moon. Moon scores higher here.
Mt.Everest is protected from solar flares by Earth's magnetic field. Moon is not - although acute radiation sickness would require quite a flare.
Might be more fruitful to look at it from a more equalized perspective. If a space ship was stranded on a. Mt.Everest or b. Moon, how long would the occupants survive? Let's assume human occupants (don't want aliens to whom oxygen is poison, that'd skew the comparison unnecessarily).
In both cases ship itself remains intact in the landing but help is not going to arrive before life support goes offline.
Clock is ticking.
Which ship's life support can last longer in different environment?
Which environment provides more hospitable environment for the crew once life support ceases to function?
On Moon, the critical element is ventilation: partial pressure of CO2 needs to remain at low enough level to not become toxic, while retaining the partial pressure of O2 at high enough level to preserve blood oxygen saturation at high enough level for brain activity.
On Earth, critical element is power. The ship will lose heat much more rapidly, so the heaters will need to run at higher capacity than on Moon. It would also be beneficial to keep the ship pressurized as long as possible, but let's assume that ship has similar life support package as airliners in addition to hard vacuum seals - it can take low pressure air in from outside and use it to pressurize the inside. But, of course, this requires power.
It's hard to say which ship would lose power first, or if the ship on Moon would lose their oxygen supply and CO2 scrubbing capacity before the ship on Earth runs out of power, but regardless, the astronauts do have better chances of survival without functioning life support gear on Earth than on Moon.
So yeah, I'll say Moon is the more hazardous place as such.
There is as yet insufficient statistical data on how dangerous place a Moon is - no one has lost their life while in Moon, while a somewhat significant percentage of Mount Everest visitors has perished.
-
Everest is not a particularly* dangerous mountain as the eight thousand footers go, mind. K2 is much worse, Annawhatsit is worse yet.
But I disagree with your logic basically at step 1. We're comparing the danger (in terms of probability of death) of exploring these two environments in the equipment used to explore said environments. Bring in some kind of fantastical spaceship doesn't seem very useful.
-
<Solus>
1921-2006, 8030 climbers, 212 deaths on the mountain.
12 people have landed on the Moon. None died on-site.
From purely statistical point of view, Moon seems to be safer, but I'm sure you'll agree that the sample size is insufficient for the hazards to fully emerge.
Too many variables to answer your question meaningfully. Attempt to reduce variables necessary.
/me breathes in
Equal equipment a good way to approach situation objectively, judging hazards of each place as such. Makes no sense to directly compare mountain climbing and space travel. Same as comparing falling from fourth floor balcony with no safety equipment and falling from fifteen thousand feet with a parachute and oxygen supply.
Both can kill you, but the parachute jump hinges more heavily on functioning equipment, while surviving the fall from balcony would be more a matter of luck, and you would likely suffer serious injuries.
One could argue this is not a valid comparison but it is very close to the original question of the topic.
</Solus>
-
Mount Everest. Yetis are more dangerous than Space Yetis.
-
Everest made Bear Gryllis drink his own piss.
It's on.
-
Everest life made Bear Gryllis drink his own piss.
It's on.
-
Let's look at it from another perspective, going to the moon involved a government program purpose built to get boots on the ground. If the gov't undertook a program to scale Everest would, it be easier/safer then attempting extra vehicular moon operations?
-
Let's look at it from another perspective, going to the moon involved a government program purpose built to get boots on the ground. If the gov't undertook a program to scale Everest would, it be easier/safer then attempting extra vehicular moon operations?
A government program that scale could probably pave the **** out of Everest.
-
Demand UN sanctions on Everest. Tell it to knock that **** off.
If it doesn't comply (and I know monstrous geofascists like Everest and their K2 allies never do), we liberate the entire mountain range from their tyranny.
Everesto delenda est
-
On Earth, critical element is power. The ship will lose heat much more rapidly, so the heaters will need to run at higher capacity than on Moon. It would also be beneficial to keep the ship pressurized as long as possible, but let's assume that ship has similar life support package as airliners in addition to hard vacuum seals - it can take low pressure air in from outside and use it to pressurize the inside. But, of course, this requires power.
Uhh...how do you lose heat in space besides infrared radiation? Astronauts are having problem keeping themselves COOL in space.
Long story: Space might be cold, but convection and conduction don't work when you have no air.
-
On Earth, critical element is power. The ship will lose heat much more rapidly, so the heaters will need to run at higher capacity than on Moon. It would also be beneficial to keep the ship pressurized as long as possible, but let's assume that ship has similar life support package as airliners in addition to hard vacuum seals - it can take low pressure air in from outside and use it to pressurize the inside. But, of course, this requires power.
Uhh...how do you lose heat in space besides infrared radiation? Astronauts are having problem keeping themselves COOL in space.
Long story: Space might be cold, but convection and conduction don't work when you have no air.
I feel like you should reread the first sentence of what you quoted.
-
Demand UN sanctions on Everest. Tell it to knock that **** off.
If it doesn't comply (and I know monstrous geofascists like Everest and their K2 allies never do), we liberate the entire mountain range from their tyranny.
Everesto delenda est
(http://i.imgur.com/plV62.jpg)
-
Well a lot more people have attempted Everest than attempted the Moon.
Challenge Accepted. I shall pave the way for Extreme Moon Survival tourism.
-
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3231/everestb.jpg)
-
The raw threat level on the Moon is significantly higher, however by the same token it is also taken significantly more seriously; the average person sent to the Moon has been vastly better equipped for the environment than the average person sent up Everest. By giving default equipment to both, you give the edge to Everest being more dangerous by comparatively underequipping the explorer.
(Take away the LEM and we're about equal.)
-
Actually that's a cool idea. How would you prepare a nationally funded uber-mountaineer to conquer Everest (assume bad weather, no helicoptering up to near the summit)?
-
<Solus>
1921-2006, 8030 climbers, 212 deaths on the mountain.
12 people have landed on the Moon. None died on-site.
From purely statistical point of view, Moon seems to be safer, but I'm sure you'll agree that the sample size is insufficient for the hazards to fully emerge.
Too many variables to answer your question meaningfully. Attempt to reduce variables necessary.
/me breathes in
Equal equipment a good way to approach situation objectively, judging hazards of each place as such. Makes no sense to directly compare mountain climbing and space travel. Same as comparing falling from fourth floor balcony with no safety equipment and falling from fifteen thousand feet with a parachute and oxygen supply.
Both can kill you, but the parachute jump hinges more heavily on functioning equipment, while surviving the fall from balcony would be more a matter of luck, and you would likely suffer serious injuries.
One could argue this is not a valid comparison but it is very close to the original question of the topic.
</Solus>
You haven't taken into account the people killed trying to get to the moon.
-
You haven't taken into account the people killed trying to get to the moon.
Because that is irrelevant to the threat level of Moon itself as an environment.
So far, no one has even died in space, not to mention Moon. All the space travel related deaths have occurred well below the officially recognized threshold between space and atmosphere.
-
On the Moon you must contend with ...
In the Everest Death Zone you must contend with ...
For how long?
-
You haven't taken into account the people killed trying to get to the moon.
Because that is irrelevant to the threat level of Moon itself as an environment.
So far, no one has even died in space, not to mention Moon. All the space travel related deaths have occurred well below the officially recognized threshold between space and atmosphere.
I could have sworn a bunch of Cosmonauts died out there . . .
-
Technically, yes, three cosmonauts did die during re-entry while still above the 100 km mark.
US spaceflight casualties:
Jarvis, McAuliffe, McNair, Onizuka, Resnik, Smith, Scobee - Challenger launch failure
Husband, McCool, Anderson, Brown, Chawla, Clark, Ramon - Columbia re-entry failure
Soviet spaceflight casualties:
Komarov - Soyuz 1 re-entry failure
Dobrovolski, Patsayev, Volkov - Soyuz 11 re-entry failure (capsule depressurized during descent)
These three deaths, however, had nothing to do with Moon as such, although there is precious little difference in vacuum of space and vacuum of Moon's surface, so if we were to expand the environment to hard vacuum operations in general (as opposed to just lunar surface), then I guess these three could count as the only fatalities in space.
-
You also have to look at it from an investment point of view, survival gear on Everest is probably around 10-15 thousand pounds, survival gear on the moon is a good few million at least (not including the risks of getting there in the first place). If you had several millions worth of survival gear on Everest, you'd be a lot safer than on the moon.
As a side note, I also saw something about the Sherpas have actually evolved to deal with the lower oxygen content, apparently their circulatory system is slightly different to people who live at lower altitudes.
-
I'm actually going to have to cast my vote for Everest.
One of the biggest dangers with being in the Everest death-zone are the highly variable weather conditions which can include high winds, extremely low wind-chill values, blinding wind-driven ice crystals (snow-blindness is not fun), and zero visibility. If you're caught away from your shelter in such conditions the results are almost guaranteed to be fatal.
Now the lack of atmosphere on the lunar surface is certainly a great danger too, as a breach of one's suit can result in rapid loss of consciousness and death within minutes. However, the lack of atmosphere also means that there's no crazy weather to deal with. There's no wind. The visibility is always perfect. Your chances of getting disoriented and falling into a crevasse are zero (though if you're especially brilliant you might trip and break your helmet on a rock) :P It's always the same environment no matter when you go. Minus the tiny risk of being taken out by a random meteor strike or cooked by a massive solar flare, if you die on the moon, it's probably because you did something stupid or neglectful. edit: (or your ship broke -- ****ing NASA!)
So yeah, assuming you're adequately prepared and equipped for adventuring on the moon versus climbing to the summit of Everest (and also ignoring the trip of actually GETTING to the moon), I'd argue that Everest is a more inherently dangerous environment, and my justification is that the lunar surface is dead whereas Everest is full of nature and nature will ****ing kill you.
-
In fairness though, there was an equivalent to 'snow blindness' on the Moon, and astronauts did suffer from perception errors, there's a famous scene of a rock that looked quite small turning out to be larger than a house because people aren't used to the the moon having a closer horizon and no distance fog. I'll have to see if I can find it...
-
By 'snow blindness' on the moon, do you mean adverse reactions to the lunar dust, or something else?
Good point on the perception issues. I recall reading that this happens quite often in Antarctica as well due to the exceptionally clear air and lack of familiar landmarks. I wouldn't doubt the effect is even stronger on the moon due to the greater curvature of the surface.
-
I think it's because the moon-dust isn't weathered and has quite a sharp structure, it's very refelective, so astronauts had a polarised visor they could lower to stop themselves being blinded by the sun reflecting off of it. That said, this is entirely from memory, so I might be wrong.
Edit: In a way, both our positions are true, what makes Everest more dangerous than the Moon is the fact that people don't consider it as such.
-
If they can storm the beaches at Normandy, they can climb Everest... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roa1ei6Lm-s)
-
Let's spend a hundred billion dollars inventing new materials and technology in order to climb the everest, and then let's compare.
Comparing these two situations is like saying that american soldiers are a thousand times better than talibans for they die a thousand times less frequently... without comparing the available parafernalia for both of them.
I say let's put it this way: we can imagine two very different but equally compelling challenges for both situations.
Saying any more than this is just as silly as saying that spider man beats batman, etc.
-
Actually that's a cool idea. How would you prepare a nationally funded uber-mountaineer to conquer Everest (assume bad weather, no helicoptering up to near the summit)?
To match the equipment taken to the Moon? Not possible if you actually climb the mountain. You'd have to drop it and your people out the back of a C-17 or C-5. (Paint a Saturn V on the nose if it makes you feel better.)
They're completely different methodologies. It's like backpacking vs. car camping.
-
I'd say moon is worse. On both human errors are fatal, but on a moon mission tech failures are more critical (and you've got more/more complex stuff that can fail).