What if Earth had a 12,000+ meter mountain range?

[jhunter1163]

How high could a mountain be before it began sinking under its own weight?

 

[CapelDodger]

I'd think we'd just work our way around 'em...

No other option, really. Levelling-off West Virginia is one thing but at 12,000m you cater for the bump.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm skeptical that we could get internal combustion engines to run at that altitude. Does anyone know just how much O2 there is at 45,000 feet?

.
Internal combustion (piston motors, gasoline fuel) can operate up to 58,000 feet. With supercharging. ISTR that altitude was reached in the '30s by the Italians.
Above that, there's no power available to drive the propellor, only enough to drive the supercharger and the motor.
Change the fuel to hydrazine, and a piston can go higher.
Note:... jet turbine motors are internal combustion..

 

[I Ratant]

The Mariana Trench -and- Everest add up to 68,000 feet.

 

[gumboot]

In fact it brings up all sorts of questions: would mountains that high even be climbable by humans?

Depends what you mean by "climbable". In the typical current sense? No. But with specialist equipment, yes.

What kind of impact might such a range have on weather? I'm thinking that it would produce the most absolute rain shadow imaginable.

I'm not sure mountains that high would drastically impact weather in any sort of crazy way, but you would get a pretty extreme climate separation on either side of it. It would depend a lot, though, on the nature of the range. When you talk about a 12,000m-14,000m mountain range are you talking about the highest peaks, an average height, or what?

If it was near the equator would one side have an incredible rain forest while the opposite side dried up as a desert with even less precipitation than the Atacama?

Something like that seems likely, at any latitude.

And what about airliners? Would this mountain range pose a huge obstacle to air travel?

I wouldn't think so. Service ceilings of modern airliners today are generally around 12-13km and we know we can produce aircraft that can fly much higher - the altitude record for a manned air-breathing aircraft is over 37km.

The most likely scenario is flight corridors would be directed over a lower part of the range, and if this were not viable it would have just led to technological developments to address it.

 

[CapelDodger]

How high could a mountain be before it began sinking under its own weight?

Mountains are always sinking under their own weight; they build when the force upwards is greater than the force downwards. So the question becomes : how much force could be applied in an upward direction, and for how long?

Enough for 12-14 kilometre growth above water is new to me, and quite astonishing.

 

[I Ratant]

Not a chance.The death zone starts at about 8000 meters. The human body can't acclimatize at altitudes that high.

8000 meter peaks can be climbed without supplimental oxygen, but only by the most fit, generally proffessional mountaineers. Most climbers, however, need oxygen to make it and even with it, often suffer and sometimes die from high altitude pulmonary or cerebral edema. It is not physically possible to carry enough oxygen at that altitude to avoid the risk of severe or fatal altitude sickness.

Many climbers also die because the lack of oxygen causes poor decision making that can lead to fatal physical mistakes or errors in judgement.

.
One pre-delivery test done on the L-1011 Tristar was to stabilize at 13,000 feet, and depressurize the airplane, to check that all the oxygen masks would deploy from the overhead containers.
Lemme tell ya, if you were standing up when the plane depressurized, you sat down -right now-!
Couldn't remain standing.
WWI planes could get above that altitude and have the pilots still alert and aware.

 

[Beerina]

Enough for 12-14 kilometre growth above water is new to me, and quite astonishing.

Olympus Mons on Mars is 14...miles high, or 22km. It's a volcano. We're just wimps.

 

[gumboot]

.
Internal combustion (piston motors, gasoline fuel) can operate up to 58,000 feet. With supercharging. ISTR that altitude was reached in the '30s by the Italians.
Above that, there's no power available to drive the propellor, only enough to drive the supercharger and the motor.
Change the fuel to hydrazine, and a piston can go higher.
Note:... jet turbine motors are internal combustion..

Some aircraft altitude flight records by powerplant for reference:

Piston-driven prop - 67,028ft - Boeing Condor - 1988-89
Turbojet - 123,520ft - MiG 25M - 31 August 1977
Electric-driven prop - 96,863ft - NASA Helios HP01 - August 14, 2001
Rocket - 367,442ft - SpaceShipOne - October 4, 2004
Turboshaft - 40,814ft - Aérospatiale SA 315B - June 21, 1972

 

[CapelDodger]

[W]ould mountains that high even be climbable by humans?

Everest was climbed in the 50's. The Moon was visited in the 60's. I reckon it would have been done in-between. By now it would be commonplace, if Everest is anything to go by, and that's probably a better example than the Moon ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Olympus Mons on Mars is 14...miles high, or 22km. It's a volcano.

Was a volcano. Earth does those too.

We're just wimps.

Speak for yourself. As a patriotic Earthican I regard Mars as the lightweight planet. Olympus Mons wouldn't have lasted half a billion years in this school.

 

[roger]

Everest was climbed in the 50's. The Moon was visited in the 60's. I reckon it would have been done in-between. By now it would be commonplace, if Everest is anything to go by, and that's probably a better example than the Moon ...

The infrastructure required would be the main thing keeping it a rarity. The new, super lightweight carbon fiber tanks run around 6lbs a piece and will last 3-4 hours depending on flow rate. You would be above 8000m long enough that you'd have to run Os continuously - so say 7 tanks a day. You need people to hump that many tanks up there, and those people need tanks while they are humping, and then more tanks when humping them down, and then more tanks while carrying all the food, tents, gear, and stoves.... you figure out how much that might cost. Carbon fiber ain't cheap. Old technology is cheaper, but much, much heavier, meaning more carries, meaning more tanks....

Plus, this is supplemental oxygen - your body is still breaking down. I don't know what flow rate you would need to maintain body fitness (typical flow rate is 3 l/min, some will go up to 4 l/min on summit day). That is a rate that will still leave you hypoxic.

Without a totally ridiculous siege type climb where you spend several months setting up camps and huge stashes of O₂ and other supplies, I don't think it would actually be possible to climb that high. Perhaps a few ultra-fit people could whack it out in a week or so once above 8000m. I have a friend that was above 8000m for about that time frame, and it is generally considered a remarkable achievement. 10-12K? I don't think even he could do it.

edit: I have ignored temperature and weather concerns. You can expect 30F+ difference between Everest and a 12K mountain. We are talking about summit days with temps at -70F. You know, if it is balmy that day. To put this in perspective, recognize that we burn Os for heat - the less oxygen you have, the quicker you get frostbite or succumb to very low temps. Sure, occasionally an iditarod sledder might endure that for a night run, but they are not clothed for climbing, the low only lasts for a few hours, and they aren't at 21% oxygen (compared to sea level). Russell Brice spends a lot of money to have a supercomputer do detailed weather predictions for Everest so he can send his climbers and guides up at optimum times - they are trying to only gain a few thousand meters, and it is still somewhat of a crap shoot, weather wise. Going another 4,000m into an increasingly hostile environment, where every meter higher means going slower, and needing more clothes and Os, etc. I don't know; it is seeming pretty close to impossible to me. Everest is essentially just a hike as far as terrain difficulty goes. Recall that 1 in 4 summiters of K2 dies on the descent! They get stuck out on the Abruzzi ridge as storms come in, and there is no surviving a storm at that altitude.

I'm leaning towards we wouldn't have yet done it. No one has yet done the Everest-Lhotse-Nuptse traverse, one of the bigger climbing challenges at above 8000m, yet still a toddle compared to a 12ker. There's probably a handful of people that could do it, but the logistics alone means it hasn't yet been attempted. Heck, no one managed the Everest-Lhotse traverse until this May when Michael Horst finally did it, though at least it has been attempted a few times.

 

[BenBurch]

Roger; you build a railroad. You keep your camp at the bottom, and every day travel to the railhead and work on the next section. This would be a cog-wheel-and-rack type railroad so it will be able to climb very steep grades. These exist in several places on the planet now mostly as tourist roads, but in the past have been applied to difficult inclines on regular railroads.

 

[davefoc]

.
One pre-delivery test done on the L-1011 Tristar was to stabilize at 13,000 feet, and depressurize the airplane, to check that all the oxygen masks would deploy from the overhead containers.
Lemme tell ya, if you were standing up when the plane depressurized, you sat down -right now-!
Couldn't remain standing.
WWI planes could get above that altitude and have the pilots still alert and aware.

I've been to the top of Mt. Whitney twice (about 14,500 feet), once as an overweight 56 year old guy. It was very hard both times but well in the doable range and people that are fit or well acclimatized can do it fairly easily.

Hilary did some experiments to try to determine the highest altitude a human could acclimatize to. One of the things he did was have people live at 19,000 feet and monitor them. What he found was that the people gradually declined at that altitude. They just could not adjust to altitude no matter how long they stayed there.

On the issue of pressurized suits not being needed on Mars. I'm skeptical. Anybody got a link?

 

[AgeGap]

I've been to the top of Mt. Whitney twice (about 14,500 feet), once as an overweight 56 year old guy. It was very hard both times but well in the doable range and people that are fit or well acclimatized can do it fairly easily.

Hilary did some experiments to try to determine the highest altitude a human could acclimatize to. One of the things he did was have people live at 19,000 feet and monitor them. What he found was that the people gradually declined at that altitude. They just could not adjust to altitude no matter how long they stayed there.

On the issue of pressurized suits not being needed on Mars. I'm skeptical. Anybody got a link?

Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars due to low atmospheric pressure, except at the lowest elevations for short periods. From Wikipedia.

I'd wear a suit.

 

[I Ratant]

I've been to the top of Mt. Whitney twice (about 14,500 feet), once as an overweight 56 year old guy. It was very hard both times but well in the doable range and people that are fit or well acclimatized can do it fairly easily.

...

Yes, but not instantly from an 8,000 foot cabin to a 13,000 foot cabin.
I've driven west from Denver over the highest pass ---10,000 feet or so..on the way to Utah, and felt nothing in particular. The car needed assistance... had to advance the timing as altitude increased.

 

[gumboot]

On the issue of pressurized suits not being needed on Mars. I'm skeptical. Anybody got a link?

Mars' mean surface atmospheric pressure is 0.6kPa which is well below the minimum 29.6kPa required to maintain human physiology (prevent the body expanding) and 17.3kPa needed to breath. However an alternative option to an air-compression suit (such as used by astronauts) is a mechanical compression suit, and indeed NASA did develop one. This is simply a very tight-fitting full-body garment which maintains even constriction on the body, preventing it from expanding under low pressure. A separate solid helmet provides breathing.

One big advantage over a mechanical compression suit is that minor damage to the suit won't cause any harm to the wearer as small areas of human skin can experienced sustained exposure to space without adverse effects. By contrast, even a small tear in an air-compression suit will lead to decompression and death.

However at the time that NASA was developing this suit the technology was not there to make it functional. MIT are currently developing a new version called a Bio-Suit which currently provides consistent counter-pressure of 25kPa.

 

[I Ratant]

The Condor used Hydrogen, not Avgas.

 

[TjW]

.
One pre-delivery test done on the L-1011 Tristar was to stabilize at 13,000 feet, and depressurize the airplane, to check that all the oxygen masks would deploy from the overhead containers.
Lemme tell ya, if you were standing up when the plane depressurized, you sat down -right now-!
Couldn't remain standing.
WWI planes could get above that altitude and have the pilots still alert and aware.

13000 feet doesn't sound that bad. Maybe the abrupt pressure drop has some effect. I've flown hang gliders in the Sierra above that altitude. Of course, I'm already lying down when I do that.
But after a couple of trips like that, I got an oxygen system.

 

[CapelDodger]

The infrastructure required would be the main thing keeping it a rarity.

My description of climbing Everest as "commonplace" was perhaps an exaggeration, in the wider scheme of things. "Unremarkable" is probably better.