<p>The Nepali government is extremely sensitive to the notion of climbing their mountains as &quot;sport&quot; and understand that all elements that undermine the sporting nature of climbing, particularly on Everest, are to be restricted. For example, they have recently outlawed any on-line posting of photographs that show long lines of climbers snaking their way to the summit. They have imposed a minimum age requirement of 17 years old; after all, who'll want to climb a mountain that an 8 year old can climb.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, placing &quot;safety cabins&quot; on the mountain would eliminate much of the danger in getting to Everest's summit, and vastly reduce the allure of the adventure, and cut into the cash-cow that is climbing Everest (climbing solo, or unguided, is also largely forbidden). As a very poor country, Nepal is extremely dependent on these climber dollars. Additionally, the tourist route is already saturated with climbers, their gear, and their poop, and could in no way support even more people.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T18:53:38.563Z
Do they rather want to risk climbers' death than provide for cabins that could be life-saving? Hand in hand should go that they _require_ climbers to wear oxygen masks above Camp III, for you wouldn't be able to acclimatize otherwise when leaving a pressurized cabin. OTOH they could raise the price for a summiting permit.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T18:47:01.753Z
2022-01-16T21:38:30.797Z
2022-01-16T21:38:30.797Z
Knob Scratcher
<p>Why aren't permanently pressurized camps being built at Everest and any 23,000'+ mountain, and perhaps a pressurized enclosed platform at the very summit, to no longer have to bother about altitude sickness, HAPE and HACE, with necessary climbing equipment being in the camps already, and permanently inhabited similar to the ISS?</p>
<p>Everest Camp II a.k.a. Advanced Base Camp is at 21,000' elevation which is still somewhat adaptable to without serious risk or effort if you're careful in acclimatization. Everest Camp III is at 23,500' which is at the very boundary of the adaptable zone (formerly, altitudes above were referred to as the Death Zone, today it's defined above 26,200'). I would suggest making Camp III and Camp IV (South Col at 26,000') pressurized and permanently inhabited by Sherpas/Rangers who exchange in periods similar to the crew on the ISS, about six months. Possibly one could establish a pressurized building at Everest's peak from where scientists may perform experiments, measurements and other stuff. On the neighbouring Lothse (27,940') one could build a pressurized observatory.</p>
<p>The pressurizations could work similar to those on airliners. Why hasn't the above been realized as yet? Why is it so hard to realize it step-by-step?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T16:32:30.037Z
Technically it would be possible, but how much will it cost & who is going to pay for it? The other thing to consider is pressurized cabins need electricity. How will that be supplied? What happens if someone want's to establish a hotel styled establishment instead of just functional cabins? During the climbing session, Mt Everest can be crowed, will such cabins entice even more to people to crowd the slopes of Mt Everest & can the environment cope with so many people and their wastes?
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T17:07:15.557Z
@Fred A hotel has a limited amount of rooms, and would only allow as many people as they have beds. Electricity they can have solar one, perhaps from wind as well considering the altitudes. The cabins and a possible pressurized gondola may be government-run (as the entire area is already) and money intake would come from the climbers who are to visit the summit. The Lothse observatory would be owned by those who sponsor the astronomers there (e.g. the US government as on the Rubin observatory) and as I said Everest's peak would be used for science as well.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T23:26:02.070Z
This is not a question about earth science at all, but about economics, so perhaps it should be moved to the economics SE. In the end it gets built if somebody pays for it, so either you convince Elon Musk that is better than Mars or you have to make an economic case that enough visitors will come and bring enough money to make it economically viable. In any case this is not something any earth scientist can answer, you need to ask economists.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-03T23:32:53.400Z
I think the only earth science aspect in the question is your remark about "scientists may perform experiments, measurements and other stuff". But what would scientists actually want to do there that requires a permanent base? You set up automatic instruments and otherwise do expeditions for specific purposes. Antarctica is different because it's much more remote with no other options for doing research, and scientists need the bases as starting points for expeditions.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T05:48:13.987Z
This question goes away from the reality that there's no great reason why such stations *should* be built.  It doesn't sound like there's any technological reason why they can't.  The other note economics, but as KS's answer points out, it's a choice for that country.  But there are millions of things we *could* do.  "It could save lives"?  These are people **choosing** to do dangerous activities that have no practical necessity/use...
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T05:53:53.520Z
... so it isn't nearly the responsibility of the government/anyone to make it safer, any more that it is the responsibility of govs in the US Plains to build better roads to ensure storm chasers can safely escape tornadoes, or coastal govs to build solid structures so hurricane chasers can ride out storms safely. Just because it's a frontier doesn't mean it has to be done. I can't imagine there's significant benefit to permanent research stations there...
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T06:00:46.150Z
...we all wish things would be a certain way in the world because of our interests or how we see things. I wish some sports titles were decided differently, that there were more blue collar jobs that allowed half-year work schedules, and that more churches had sunrise services. But that doesn't mean others see it that way. They choose how they want. Fred, Stephan, and KS offered fair reasons why they may make these choices, but you only seem to want to argue for why your opinion is the way it should be. That's not what this site is about, it's about asking questions to gain understanding.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T06:12:52.553Z
I know it can be tough sticking to honest questions about things we don't know rather than seeking debate... most of us aren't perfect at it, we all have passion... but this isn't a forum. Some of your questions have done fair at seeking knowledge, and have been useful contributions, but please do try to reconsider a moment before asking along the lines of "why do/don't/did people do this?" when the answer is very unlikely to be anything scientific, but instead "because they feel like it". If you ask honestly unsure if there is a scientific reasons, then please don't debate the answers :)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T06:52:39.987Z
@JeopardyTempest I'm sorry, I just wanted to make suggestions for ensuring climbers' survival and doing science above 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. You're right and I better should have asked this on The Great Outdoors SE.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T06:57:01.563Z
@StephanMatthiesen E.g. they could test how far they can see above 2/3 of the atmosphere. Currently there's little time for performing scientific experiments at peak Everest because even with supplemental oxygen they have to hurry down before the altitude becomes life-threatening, to others as well considering the "traffic jam" in May there.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T14:58:50.407Z
To test how far you can see is not a question for which scientists would want an expensive base on Mt Everest, instead we just ask any commercial airplane pilot, they spend hours every day looking out of a pressurised cabin at that height. Or we set up an automated camera which sends images back. From a scientific point of view I really can't think of anything interesting on Mt Everest that would require permanent presence.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T16:11:23.423Z
@StephanMatthiesen Above South Col climbers reportedly see stars even after sunrise, due to the thin atmosphere. That doesn't work so good on a plane where you have tiny windows while in cockpit the pilots sit closest to those there, any scientists would be where they can't look up to the sky that well. Obervatories could be built on the Himalaya's peaks.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T20:37:09.767Z
Again: making suggestions that you want to fight for/support isn't the goal of any StackExchange site.  It's about asking questions you want to learn from.  I don't think the question would fare much better there :(
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T21:02:35.013Z
@Giovanni: From the [Great Outdoors How to Ask a Good Question](https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask): "Our community is defined by a specific set of topics that you can view in the help center; please stick to those topics and avoid asking for opinions or open-ended discussion" It's also not really directly about any Outdoors' [topics listed](https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), and any answers are still more engineering, economics, & society rather than their area. I don't think you're hearing us, SE posts aren't about making suggestions, it won't fit anywhere...
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-04T21:07:13.947Z
That isn't to be mean.  I think I struggled with that at first here too.  But it is to emphasize that your persistence on a question like this isn't matching the site's framework and intentions.  I hope you find plenty of success on the site, but not with this question; StackExchange isn't for making proposals...
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-05T07:21:55.997Z
@JeopardyTempest Well, I wanted to learn why pressurized cabins aren't built for saving climbers' lives, given the fact how many climbers die when trying summiting Everest or other 25,000ft+ mountains.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-05T07:24:25.767Z
Why is the question still being downvoted after it's closed? A downvote means "this question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful". "Being off-topic" doesn't fall into that category; if it's off-topic you vote-to-close it. Since it's closed users can avoid this question as it's no longer active.
Giovanni
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-05T17:40:50.453Z
Before discussing further, you have to be clear what exactly you want. You jump between tourists and science, these are two very different things. If you want a research station, then you can ask "What scientific questions would benefit from a station on Mt. Everest?" (Likely answer: none). But if you propose a base for tourists, then this Earth Science Stackexchange is totally the wrong place to ask, because scientists are not interest in tourist facilities, you should then ask on Economics Stackexchange because it's purely an economic and political matter, not a scientific question.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-05T17:49:58.483Z
Scientists don't go out and look at stars with their eyes. We need telescopes and other instruments, many automatic so you don't even have to be there. Much better than a remote and inaccessible mountain is a place like Mauna Loa with roads so big lorries can deliver the enormous parts that are needed for a telescope and where the weather is stable. Or you build an airplane like SOFIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy) or you use space telescopes like Hubble or Webb. I honestly can't see any astronomer being interested in Mt Everest.
uUnwY
<mountains><barometric-pressure><troposphere>
Why doesn't one build pressurized camps at Mount Everest?
Giovanni
# Why doesn't one build pressurized camps at Mount Everest?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-03)

Why aren't permanently pressurized camps being built at Everest and any 23,000'+ mountain, and perhaps a pressurized enclosed platform at the very summit, to no longer have to bother about altitude sickness, HAPE and HACE, with necessary climbing equipment being in the camps already, and permanently inhabited similar to the ISS?

Everest Camp II a.k.a. Advanced Base Camp is at 21,000' elevation which is still somewhat adaptable to without serious risk or effort if you're careful in acclimatization. Everest Camp III is at 23,500' which is at the very boundary of the adaptable zone (formerly, altitudes above were referred to as the Death Zone, today it's defined above 26,200'). I would suggest making Camp III and Camp IV (South Col at 26,000') pressurized and permanently inhabited by Sherpas/Rangers who exchange in periods similar to the crew on the ISS, about six months. Possibly one could establish a pressurized building at Everest's peak from where scientists may perform experiments, measurements and other stuff. On the neighbouring Lothse (27,940') one could build a pressurized observatory.

The pressurizations could work similar to those on airliners. Why hasn't the above been realized as yet? Why is it so hard to realize it step-by-step?

**Tags:** mountains, barometric-pressure, troposphere

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Technically it would be possible, but how much will it cost & who is going to pay for it? The other thing to consider is pressurized cabins need electricity. How will that be supplied? What happens if someone want's to establish a hotel styled establishment instead of just functional cabins? During the climbing session, Mt Everest can be crowed, will such cabins entice even more to people to crowd the slopes of Mt Everest & can the environment cope with so many people and their wastes?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 A hotel has a limited amount of rooms, and would only allow as many people as they have beds. Electricity they can have solar one, perhaps from wind as well considering the altitudes. The cabins and a possible pressurized gondola may be government-run (as the entire area is already) and money intake would come from the climbers who are to visit the summit. The Lothse observatory would be owned by those who sponsor the astronomers there (e.g. the US government as on the Rubin observatory) and as I said Everest's peak would be used for science as well.  
> **username_2**: This is not a question about earth science at all, but about economics, so perhaps it should be moved to the economics SE. In the end it gets built if somebody pays for it, so either you convince Elon Musk that is better than Mars or you have to make an economic case that enough visitors will come and bring enough money to make it economically viable. In any case this is not something any earth scientist can answer, you need to ask economists.  
> **username_2**: I think the only earth science aspect in the question is your remark about "scientists may perform experiments, measurements and other stuff". But what would scientists actually want to do there that requires a permanent base? You set up automatic instruments and otherwise do expeditions for specific purposes. Antarctica is different because it's much more remote with no other options for doing research, and scientists need the bases as starting points for expeditions.  
> **username_3**: This question goes away from the reality that there's no great reason why such stations *should* be built.  It doesn't sound like there's any technological reason why they can't.  The other note economics, but as KS's answer points out, it's a choice for that country.  But there are millions of things we *could* do.  "It could save lives"?  These are people **choosing** to do dangerous activities that have no practical necessity/use...  
> **username_3**: ... so it isn't nearly the responsibility of the government/anyone to make it safer, any more that it is the responsibility of govs in the US Plains to build better roads to ensure storm chasers can safely escape tornadoes, or coastal govs to build solid structures so hurricane chasers can ride out storms safely. Just because it's a frontier doesn't mean it has to be done. I can't imagine there's significant benefit to permanent research stations there...  
> **username_3**: ...we all wish things would be a certain way in the world because of our interests or how we see things. I wish some sports titles were decided differently, that there were more blue collar jobs that allowed half-year work schedules, and that more churches had sunrise services. But that doesn't mean others see it that way. They choose how they want. username_1, Stephan, and KS offered fair reasons why they may make these choices, but you only seem to want to argue for why your opinion is the way it should be. That's not what this site is about, it's about asking questions to gain understanding.  
> **username_3**: I know it can be tough sticking to honest questions about things we don't know rather than seeking debate... most of us aren't perfect at it, we all have passion... but this isn't a forum. Some of your questions have done fair at seeking knowledge, and have been useful contributions, but please do try to reconsider a moment before asking along the lines of "why do/don't/did people do this?" when the answer is very unlikely to be anything scientific, but instead "because they feel like it". If you ask honestly unsure if there is a scientific reasons, then please don't debate the answers :)  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I'm sorry, I just wanted to make suggestions for ensuring climbers' survival and doing science above 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. You're right and I better should have asked this on The Great Outdoors SE.  
> **username_0**: @StephanMatthiesen E.g. they could test how far they can see above 2/3 of the atmosphere. Currently there's little time for performing scientific experiments at peak Everest because even with supplemental oxygen they have to hurry down before the altitude becomes life-threatening, to others as well considering the "traffic jam" in May there.  
> **username_2**: To test how far you can see is not a question for which scientists would want an expensive base on Mt Everest, instead we just ask any commercial airplane pilot, they spend hours every day looking out of a pressurised cabin at that height. Or we set up an automated camera which sends images back. From a scientific point of view I really can't think of anything interesting on Mt Everest that would require permanent presence.  
> **username_0**: @StephanMatthiesen Above South Col climbers reportedly see stars even after sunrise, due to the thin atmosphere. That doesn't work so good on a plane where you have tiny windows while in cockpit the pilots sit closest to those there, any scientists would be where they can't look up to the sky that well. Obervatories could be built on the Himalaya's peaks.  
> **username_3**: Again: making suggestions that you want to fight for/support isn't the goal of any StackExchange site.  It's about asking questions you want to learn from.  I don't think the question would fare much better there :(  
> **username_3**: @username_0: From the [Great Outdoors How to Ask a Good Question](https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask): "Our community is defined by a specific set of topics that you can view in the help center; please stick to those topics and avoid asking for opinions or open-ended discussion" It's also not really directly about any Outdoors' [topics listed](https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), and any answers are still more engineering, economics, & society rather than their area. I don't think you're hearing us, SE posts aren't about making suggestions, it won't fit anywhere...  
> **username_3**: That isn't to be mean.  I think I struggled with that at first here too.  But it is to emphasize that your persistence on a question like this isn't matching the site's framework and intentions.  I hope you find plenty of success on the site, but not with this question; StackExchange isn't for making proposals...  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Well, I wanted to learn why pressurized cabins aren't built for saving climbers' lives, given the fact how many climbers die when trying summiting Everest or other 25,000ft+ mountains.  
> **username_0**: Why is the question still being downvoted after it's closed? A downvote means "this question does not show any research effort, it is unclear or not useful". "Being off-topic" doesn't fall into that category; if it's off-topic you vote-to-close it. Since it's closed users can avoid this question as it's no longer active.  
> **username_2**: Before discussing further, you have to be clear what exactly you want. You jump between tourists and science, these are two very different things. If you want a research station, then you can ask "What scientific questions would benefit from a station on Mt. Everest?" (Likely answer: none). But if you propose a base for tourists, then this Earth Science Stackexchange is totally the wrong place to ask, because scientists are not interest in tourist facilities, you should then ask on Economics Stackexchange because it's purely an economic and political matter, not a scientific question.  
> **username_2**: Scientists don't go out and look at stars with their eyes. We need telescopes and other instruments, many automatic so you don't even have to be there. Much better than a remote and inaccessible mountain is a place like Mauna Loa with roads so big lorries can deliver the enormous parts that are needed for a telescope and where the weather is stable. Or you build an airplane like SOFIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy) or you use space telescopes like Hubble or Webb. I honestly can't see any astronomer being interested in Mt Everest.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-12-03. Score: 2

The Nepali government is extremely sensitive to the notion of climbing their mountains as "sport" and understand that all elements that undermine the sporting nature of climbing, particularly on Everest, are to be restricted. For example, they have recently outlawed any on-line posting of photographs that show long lines of climbers snaking their way to the summit. They have imposed a minimum age requirement of 17 years old; after all, who'll want to climb a mountain that an 8 year old can climb.

Undoubtedly, placing "safety cabins" on the mountain would eliminate much of the danger in getting to Everest's summit, and vastly reduce the allure of the adventure, and cut into the cash-cow that is climbing Everest (climbing solo, or unguided, is also largely forbidden). As a very poor country, Nepal is extremely dependent on these climber dollars. Additionally, the tourist route is already saturated with climbers, their gear, and their poop, and could in no way support even more people.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Do they rather want to risk climbers' death than provide for cabins that could be life-saving? Hand in hand should go that they _require_ climbers to wear oxygen masks above Camp III, for you wouldn't be able to acclimatize otherwise when leaving a pressurized cabin. OTOH they could raise the price for a summiting permit.  

---

