If you don’t, do they make you go back up and get more?
I thought much of the trash is empty oxygen botles. Those must be a bitch to carry. Maybe a freeze-dried corpse is easier.
Regards,
Shodan
If you want to get your ropeway from 29,000 feet down to 14,000 feet, that’s three vertical miles. Over a 45-degree slope, that’s a length of about 4.2 miles. WAG, figure a tenth of a mile between poles, so 42 poles.
how long are these poles? 75 feet? How are we going to get them up the mountain? How will we anchor the base of each pole, and brace them against wind?
The biggest question of all, the showstopper for pretty much every body recovery scheme you care to propose:
Who is going to pay for it?
Yes, I do, having read a bit about the ascent. That’s how I know what a ridiculous idea this is. There would be quite a few, way more than you would want to deal with.
So a team is going to “wait around” in the Death Zone until conditions are calm enough to use a balloon? Or else make a dash for the summit when the winds subside for a bit, and hope that those conditions continue? In the meantime they still have to be supported, and people have to bring oxygen and food up to them, adding to the expense. And the longer people stay in the Death Zone, the more their condition will deteriorate.
If you have no idea of what the terrain or conditions are like, why are you even proposing this? Have you done any serious mountaineering at all? (I’ve climbed a couple of 14’000ers in the Rockies and Cascades, and that was hard enough.)
Obviously, it is probably not feasible to go from the summit; any bodies near the summit are probably irretrievable by any method. But many of the bodies are not on the summit, and many are below Camp 3 at 23,400 feet, all the way down to Camp 1 at 19,800 feet.
And I don’t propose to zipline them all the way down to 14,000 feet, and it is not one straight shot, it would be several hops. And I propose it is only down to Base Camp at 17,000, then haul them down with Sherpas.
No poles at all, poles are not needed. My new design has only one guide rope per hop and no pulleys. The rope is loose enough so the balloon itself will lift it off the ground, so it will clear many obstacles. The balloon is attached with a simple carabiner, which slides down the rope. The balloon is pulled down each hop with a second tractor rope, by someone at the bottom of each hop.
Helium is the biggest obstacle, but it only has to go up the the lowest hop. The balloon can be filled there, attached to the guide rope, and allowed to rise up to the next hop, also pulling the tractor rope up with it. Unclip the carabiner from the first hop, clip to the second hop, and continue thusly to the top.
Just a thought problem I found interesting. I appreciate constructive criticism, but you seem to be getting hostile for some unknown reason.
Serious mountaineering? No, but I have hiked the Sierras several times over 13,000 feet, plus several rock climbs with over 500 feet of exposure. But I have no personal knowledge of Mt. Everest.
Aren’t the corpses also going to be ensconced in snow and ice? I’d be surprised if you could just pick up a stiff and sling it over your shoulder. Wouldn’t it first take a lot of swinging a pick-axe, or even minor explosives, just to detach the corpse from the mountain?
I know! Make prison chain-gangs do it!
Maybe. But sometimesthey just blow away:
You’re not talking about David Sharp are you?
Ok, so if we aren’t gonna eat them on the way up, why can’t we just use them as a toboggan on the way down, Murderhorn style? I can hear you saying now “too dangerous to ride a corpse down!”, and maybe you’re right. But how about just giving the corpse a little nudge closer to the edge each time someone passes by until they eventually toboggan slide/fall/plummet down on their own to a more recoverable area (if that is indeed what “needs” to be done)?
This guy died in 1924 , he may have reached the top that year. They decided to search for his body in 1999 and they found it and left it there. His body was found in an area where climbers normally don’t go.
No - Nava has noted that the death in question happened on Annapurna, not Everest.
We could design an automated corpse recovery system - a pack of equipment including a balloon, a helium bottle, a body bag; the ‘rescue’ crew would package the corpse and attach the automated system, which would sit there awaiting a signal. When the wind direction is right, a crew back in the foothills sends a signal and the balloon deploys, lifting it up so that the wind can bring it off the mountain in a more or less predictable direction.
It would still be pretty tough and risky work for the recovery crew, and there would be a certain percentage (but perhaps not 100%) of failures.
Come to think of it, why not just forget the automated signal and bag up the body and send it off immediately by balloon in a random direction, with a note attached “It’s your problem now!”?
Well, that all sounds great then.
Where’s the money going to come from?
Kickstarter? $1000 gets you a free relic, like finger or a nose.
Maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way… maybe there’a a market for people who want to be buried by having their abandoned body lie by the side of a trail on Everest.
Here’s a description of an actual body removal and a discussion of what it takes by someone who has actually climbed Everest. Basically you are risking the lives of 6-12 people to recover one body.
How is being in some hole in the ground better than being on a mountain?
I say bring more bodies up. I’d go when I’m dead.
A “thought problem” implies that you’re actually putting some thought into the problem, rather than just posting the first idea that pops into your head. You clearly haven’t given any consideration to the weight of the rope, the change of elevation, the terrain, the logistics, the weather, or any other factor involved. Most importantly, you’ve ignored all the information that’s already been posted about how dangerous and difficult it is to work in Everest’s Death Zone, and that it’s life-threatening to remain there any length of time. When you counter information about the weather by saying something like “so do it when it’s calm,” it’s clear that you haven’t put any effort into thinking things through, but are just making off-the-cuff responses. I don’t think this is a particularly useful approach in GQ.
“Constructive criticism” implies that there is some way to improve the basic idea to make it work. When the idea is a non-starter from the get-go, there’s no point in trying to improve it.
Well, if they can’t get them down, they sure as hell can’t get them up there.
I suppose this will continue until the trail to the top is blocked by corpses of those who tried to climb over the other corpses on the way up.
That’s a nice sentiment, and I agree in principle. However, the bodies and trash are basically an aesthetic problem, not an environmental one, and one that impacts a relatively small number of people. (Trash elsewhere can have negative effects on plants and animals; not so much on the top of Everest where there aren’t any.) The question is, is it enough of an problem to justify risking peoples lives to deal with, as well as the expense? (I support bringing trash down as much as feasible, but bringing that down a few pounds at a time entails much less risk and expense than bringing down something as large and heavy as a body.)
I don’t know about the regulations, but I would guess it might be enforced through fines for non-compliance.