Hacker News Reader

Comment by krupan | Hacker News Reader

"That makes Chimborazo the closest point on Earth to the stars."

That statement sold me. If I want to be on the top of any mountain now, it's that one.

It's not an easy mountain but it's of a substantially lower degree of difficulty than the high Himalayan peaks. It's harder than the lower Ecuador volcanoes for reasons of elevation and other factors and has glaciers, etc. like they do but the weather tends to be better than mountains much further north or south. (I've climbed other volcanoes there but only made it part way up Chimborazo.)

ADDED: i.e. so it's not unthinkable for a person in good physical shape who gets some winter hiking experience, has a fair bit of experience hiking up mountains overall, gets some glacier skills, and goes on a guided climb. Of course, people react to altitude a lot differently.

Looks like a few hours walk and $250 for a guide:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/110735330/standard-rou...

From the description I see on net this is indeed true, with big IF - you already have prior acclimatization to 5000m+. Without it, its almost impossible to make it to the top and back at that altitude, unless you have some super genes. And descriptions mention still 10 hours of hiking and altitude difference of some 1300m.

Even though the air around equator is thicker, you would most probably already feel very bad at the carpark at 4800m, if you would come up straight from the capital. I'd say some 5-7day acclimatization prior to this should be enough for most fit people.

Right. It's not "hard" in the grand scheme of things of climbing 8000m peaks in the Himalayas, highly technical climbs, or even a peak like Denali. However, it's also a far way from pull up to a parking lot and get a little exercise for the vast majority of people. Altitude makes a big difference for most. As you say, there's acclimatization. And also there's a world of difference climbing at 5000m+ relative to climbing relatively near sea level for almost everyone.

I can confirm it is difficult. Not in terms of climbing, but in terms of breathing. The higher, the smaller your steps. Above 6.000m do you 3 steps and 10 seconds of gasping for air or more. But the view on the summit, that was the most beautiful one I have every seen. You could see the shadow of the mountain, see below. In my case there where some clouds, which made it even more beautiful. https://80d2853cc4def76b377d-54344bc01a8b066c84096a8e7a3499a...

That is beautiful! And thanks for the feedback.

I'm in shape, and there's a 4,000+ meter mountain less than 30 miles away (as the crows flies) to acclimatize with, so I'd feel pretty good about it. I'm faster than most when hiking mountains. Doable :)

I climbed (hiked) Cotopaxi in Ecuador, and you can see Chimborazo from the summit.

Cotopaxi is 5,897m, so it's still further from the center of the earth than Everest.

Full story of my climb and photos here http://theroadchoseme.com/cotopaxi-summit

The statement implies that by "Earth's center" the authors mean the center of mass, that being the point about which the body as a whole rotates.

The oceans however are part of Earth's mass, and kept in motion relative to the crust by tidal forces from the moon. This too, the piece neglects.

Calculation of the magnitude of tidal effect might be a fun exercise for someone whose calculus skills are less atrophied than my own ...

Given the depth of the crust relative to the radius of the earth, I'm going to guess that to a first or even a second approximation, the center of the earth is pretty much the center of the earth whatever type of center you care to choose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com