General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Question for Experts

Started by Bellatrys · · Last activity · 11 posts · 543 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
23 January 2004
Last activity
24 January 2004
Original author
Bellatrys
Posts
11
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
543
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–11 of 11
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit of a
    bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps, and if so, what sort of
    logistic support would be required to man it year round as a transceiver station?

    Since I personally can't think of anything similar except those in the Antarctic and Greenland
    bases, and those all are buried deeply for protection against the weather, it strikes me as highly
    problematic - but I'm only an armchair mountaineer, a reader of James Ramsay Ullman and National
    Geographic, so I thought I would ask people whose first-hand experience would be likely to give more
    authoritative answers than mine.

    TIA!

    --bellatrys

  2. bellatrys said:

    Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit of
    a bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps

    Check out the observatory clusters in Hawaii. They're 13,800' (higher than Mt. Cook), bare rock. See
    www2.keck.hawaii.eduwww2.keck.hawaii.edu

    Those are practical because of the particular demands of terrestrial telescopes. Whether it
    would be practical to put something on the top of, say, Mt. Cook would depend on what the actual
    use would be.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  3. "[H]omer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    bellatrys said:

    Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit
    of a bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps

    I think you've already answered your own question with:

    Quoted message said:

    those in the Antarctic and Greenland bases, and those all are buried deeply for protection
    against the weather

    Also depends what you mean by "camp". A tent is one thing, a million dollar station bored into the
    rock is another.

    Quoted message said:

    and if so, what sort of logistic support would be required to man it year round as a transceiver
    station?

    I would imagine you'd use choppers to deliver tools, equipment, food, and to rotate personnel.

    Quoted message said:

    it strikes me as highly problematic

    And expensive. Managing medical emergencies would probably be the biggest concern.

    Quoted message said:

    but I'm only an armchair mountaineer

    I'm no "Scott of the Antarctic" either, but most of the usual suppositions seem reasonable.

    -
    K.

    Thanks for the input - I figured that an NG where people were discussing climbing, safety (my state
    recently put in place a law where stupid hikers needing rescue have to pay for at least some of the
    operations if they survive) and realism in movies (or, er, lack thereof, to be accurate) would be
    able to help/correct me.

    (If you haven't guessed already - there's been some argument about a certain scene in the new "Lord
    of the Rings" movie, and the counters that well, people live in the Himalayas and Peru at high
    altitude &c &c didn't seem to apply; but aside from logic my evidence was mostly of the "well, I
    don't *see* anyone living year round on bare-rock summits amid the ice, I wonder why?" sort, so I
    thought I'd ask around...)

    -bellatrys

  4. In message <[email hidden]>

    (bellatrys) said:

    (If you haven't guessed already - there's been some argument about a certain scene in the new
    "Lord of the Rings" movie, and the counters that well, people live in the Himalayas and Peru at
    high altitude &c &c didn't seem to apply; but aside from logic my evidence was mostly of the
    "well, I don't *see* anyone living year round on bare-rock summits amid the ice, I wonder why?"
    sort, so I thought I'd ask around...)

    That scene struck me as somewhat unbelievable when I saw it. It might be possible (and very
    expensive) today, but with the technology available in LotR I think it would have been impossible to
    keep those beacons supplied, especially in winter. I think you'd almost certainly need helicopters.

    --
    Simon Challands, creator of The Acorn Elite Pages: elite.acornarcade.comelite.acornarcade.com Three Dimensional
    Encounters: 3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk

  5. Simon Challands said:

    In message <[email hidden]>

    (bellatrys) said:

    (If you haven't guessed already - there's been some argument about a certain scene in the new
    "Lord of the Rings" movie, and the counters that well, people live in the Himalayas and Peru at
    high altitude &c &c didn't seem to apply; but aside from logic my evidence was mostly of the
    "well, I don't *see* anyone living year round on bare-rock summits amid the ice, I wonder why?"
    sort, so I thought I'd ask around...)

    That scene struck me as somewhat unbelievable when I saw it. It might be possible (and very
    expensive) today, but with the technology available in LotR I think it would have been impossible
    to keep those beacons supplied, especially in winter. I think you'd almost certainly need
    helicopters.

    There used to be an observatory on the summit of Ben Nevis (admittedly only 1400m asl but a pretty
    inhospitable none the less) which was supplied using ponies to carry food and fuel up. There is no
    technical reason why you couldn't have a manned post on a mountain. All you need to do is be
    selective about which mountain you build your lighthouse on.

    If it is unbelievable scenes you are after how about the Rohirim attacking down that steep slope in
    The Two Towers?
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

  6. Phil Cook said:

    There used to be an observatory on the summit of Ben Nevis (admittedly only 1400m asl but a pretty
    inhospitable none the less) which was supplied using ponies to carry food and fuel up. There is no
    technical reason why you couldn't have a manned post on a mountain. All you need to do is be
    selective about which mountain you build your lighthouse on.

    While further remembering that "nothing is impossible for the man that doesn't have to do it
    himself"...

    Quoted message said:

    If it is unbelievable scenes you are after how about the Rohirim attacking down that steep slope
    in The Two Towers?

    Somewhat gobsmacking having a cavalry charge down a scree slope, my mind was thoroughly blown by
    that one. But of course in land of fantastic heroes and magic you only have to pay so much heed
    to reality.

    I heard someone write off one of the Harry Potter movies thus: "it was totally unrealistic, there
    was a ginger kid with 2 friends!" ;-)

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  7. Quoted message said:

    Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit of
    a bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps,

    There is a limit to permanent habitation. Above a height of about IIRC, 18000ft, the body starts to
    die slowly. The miners in the Andes found they could not live at that height, but 200o ft lower they
    had their permanent habitation. Bit of a haul each day to work.....tho! JT

  8. "bellatrys" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit of
    a bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps, and if so, what sort of
    logistic support would be required to man it year round as a transceiver station?

    Maybe the transceiver could be manned from a beach in Barbados!

  9. (bellatrys) said:

    Would it be not simply *possible*, but *practical* to establish a full-time camp at the summit of a
    bare-rock peak in the height range as, say, any of the New Zealand Alps, and if so, what sort of
    logistic support would be required to man it year round as a transceiver station?

    Since I personally can't think of anything similar except those in the Antarctic and Greenland
    bases, and those all are buried deeply for protection against the weather, it strikes me as highly
    problematic - but I'm only an armchair mountaineer, a reader of James Ramsay Ullman and National
    Geographic, so I thought I would ask people whose first-hand experience would be likely to give
    more authoritative answers than mine.

    TIA!

    --bellatrys

    augille du Midi cable car station 3/4 of the way up Mont Blanc springs to mind. All depends on how
    far from civilisation you are.
    --
    79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
    looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

  10. John Taverner said:

    There is a limit to permanent habitation. Above a height of about IIRC, 18000ft, the body starts
    to die slowly.

    So pressurise the building. It doesn't even need to be formally sealed.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  11. Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Cook said:

    There used to be an observatory on the summit of Ben Nevis (admittedly only 1400m asl but a
    pretty inhospitable none the less) which was supplied using ponies to carry food and fuel up.
    There is no technical reason why you couldn't have a manned post on a mountain. All you need to
    do is be selective about which mountain you build your lighthouse on.

    While further remembering that "nothing is impossible for the man that doesn't have to do it
    himself"...

    The shots reminded me of an old (probably apocryphal, unless the friend was really young) story
    about one of Alexander's buddies suggesting a particularly inaccessible plateau as a site for a base
    because no one could get to you up there, and Alexander having to point out that well, yes, no one
    could get up to you there, which would make it kind of pointless as a command post as well as
    expensive to maintain...

    The big problem with the peaks shown in the film is that some of them, at least, were the kind you
    need crampons to ascend (from what I've read) and didn't have any heavy sort of shelters, like
    Andean observatories or Tibetan lamaseries, visible on them - the people just seemd to be sitting
    under awnings next to piles of wood. BIG piles of wood. I've helped stack firewood, and um, yes I'm
    not a rugged outdoors type, but regardless a cord of wood isn't something *I'd* like to carry up a
    mile or more on my back. Up ropes. And after all this is an AU with a technology level mostly
    equivalent to late Imperial Rome or Renaissance, so no helicopters or generators or anything to
    help, in the context of the films.

    In the books, the fires are set on beacon *hills*, of course, and given how much of the countryside
    can be seen from White Horse Hill in Uffington, you don't in my personal experience *need* a
    mountain to have a) an impressive dramatic height at all or b) to be seen from a great distance. (I
    found the bare, steep feeling of that and Dragon Hill to be very disturbing, much more so than
    greater heights covered with trees that I was used to at home - it felt as if I were standing on a
    wave that was somehow frozen in mid-roll, and might keep turning over at any instant.)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If it is unbelievable scenes you are after how about the Rohirim attacking down that steep slope
    in The Two Towers?

    Somewhat gobsmacking having a cavalry charge down a scree slope, my mind was thoroughly blown by
    that one.

    As was, I think, everyone with any familiarity with horses! But that's the wonder of Photoshop - you
    can just rotate the layers 20 degrees and ignore the fact that any run like that down a ski-slope
    into *pikes* would result in shish-kebabs at the bottom of the hill ... or cut-and-paste a huge oxy-
    acetylin flame onto the top of an Alp, without worrying about the problems of lighting cold cordwood
    in a low-oxygen zone in high winds and that it would (according to what I've read about fire hazards
    in observatories in Chile) once caught, burn low and smokily...

    Quoted message said:

    But of course in land of fantastic heroes and magic you only have to pay so much heed to reality.

    Unfortunately, that wasn't *supposed* to be the case with LOTR - it was written to be very
    *plausible* not just in the Aristotelian sense of fantastic/supernatural fiction, but also to be
    very workable in an ordinary sense; yes, there are certain "impossibles" but aside from things like
    telepathy and Atlantis and Mysterious Constructs of the Ancients and the effects of Immortals out of
    mythology having carried on wars throughout the ages, it's all quite mundane: horses have to rest
    and eat, people have to rest and eat, miles are real miles and magic doesn't make everything easier
    or possible. One of the reasons I was so disappointed, it was just another typical movie with no
    regard for practicalities.

    Quoted message said:

    I heard someone write off one of the Harry Potter movies thus: "it was totally unrealistic, there
    was a ginger kid with 2 friends!" ;-)

    Pete.

    Hee hee! Like *rich scientists* in movies, all those mad codgers who don't have to worry about how
    much equipment costs or keeping it fixed...trying to think if I've *ever* met one in RL.

    bellatrys

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.