4 ms·

Some mountains like K2 have an extremely high kill rate and it still happens almost every year. Probably higher killing rate than all the Titanic exploration mi

Some mountains like K2 have an extremely high kill rate and it still happens almost every year. Probably higher killing rate than all the Titanic exploration missions that did not explode in the past. It's not so much about physics but just looking at probability

ghaff 3y ago
You don't even need the Everests and the K2s. I won't characterize things I've done in the 6000m range or even just peaks with tricky rock sections as dangerous per se (or I probably wouldn't have done them) but people do develop serious altitude-related conditions, avalanches happen, and people just mis-step.
jacquesm 3y ago
I'm sure they do. But the chances of dying on board of an experimental submarine which is subjected to absolutely insane pressures are probably quite a bit higher still than the chances of dying on K2. But whether it's higher than the Titanic exploration missions is not the same as the manned Titanic missions of which there have only been very few. Those things work right up to the moment that they do not, this stuff is at the cutting edge of technology and tourists simply have absolutely no place there. The only reason those rich folks tend to do stuff like this is because they like to brag about such stuff, not because they're interested in the science behind it (if they were they likely wouldn't go). The Titanic is less accessible than space.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > probably quite a bit higher still than the chances of dying on K2 Across history, for every 4 people who have summitted K2, 1 person has died trying.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    More Darwin award candidates then. I fully support them in their choices but I find the fascination with such endeavors hard to understand. If it is a first then I get it, that's exploration and somewhat interesting. But if it is just for kicks or bragging rights then I don't get it. To me the risks don't outweigh the benefits.

ghaff 3y ago

You don't even need the Everests and the K2s. I won't characterize things I've done in the 6000m range or even just peaks with tricky rock sections as dangerous per se (or I probably wouldn't have done them) but people do develop serious altitude-related conditions, avalanches happen, and people just mis-step.

jacquesm 3y ago

I'm sure they do. But the chances of dying on board of an experimental submarine which is subjected to absolutely insane pressures are probably quite a bit higher still than the chances of dying on K2. But whether it's higher than the Titanic exploration missions is not the same as the manned Titanic missions of which there have only been very few. Those things work right up to the moment that they do not, this stuff is at the cutting edge of technology and tourists simply have absolutely no place there. The only reason those rich folks tend to do stuff like this is because they like to brag about such stuff, not because they're interested in the science behind it (if they were they likely wouldn't go). The Titanic is less accessible than space.

sokoloff 3y ago
> probably quite a bit higher still than the chances of dying on K2 Across history, for every 4 people who have summitted K2, 1 person has died trying.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  More Darwin award candidates then. I fully support them in their choices but I find the fascination with such endeavors hard to understand. If it is a first then I get it, that's exploration and somewhat interesting. But if it is just for kicks or bragging rights then I don't get it. To me the risks don't outweigh the benefits.