[Nuclear1]

[NGTM-1R]

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.)

[General Battuta]

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)?

[Grizzly]

<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.

* Herra Tohtori 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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[zookeeper]

On the Moon you must contend with ...

In the Everest Death Zone you must contend with ...

For how long?

[Mars]

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 . . .

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[watsisname]

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)   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.

[Flipside]

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...

[watsisname]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[StarSlayer]

If they can storm the beaches at Normandy, they can climb Everest...

[Luis Dias]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[castor]

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).