Martian Mt. Sharp vs. Mt. McKinley


11 Responses to “Martian Mt. Sharp vs. Mt. McKinley”

  1. Ramone says:

    It also may be worth noting that since Mars has no tectonic activity, it’s yet not known how Mt. Sharp was formed.

  2. rrh says:

    Since it’s shorter, plus there’s lower gravity on Mars,  obviously I’d have an easier time climbing it.

  3. efergus3 says:

    Need more cowbell…

  4. millie fink says:

    I wish more people would call that mountain what it’s called when you go there–Denali.

  5. jere7my says:

    The comparison isn’t quite perfect, since McKinley isn’t sitting at sea level: “McKinley sits atop a sloping plain with elevations from 300 metres (1,000 ft) to 900 metres (3,000 ft), for a base-to-peak height of 5,300 to 5,900 metres (17,000 to 19,000 ft).” Aeolis Mons (“Mount Windy”, aka Mount Sharp), at 18,000 feet, is comparable in size, depending on how you measure base-to-peak heights.

  6. shinymetalthing says:

    To no one in particular… Don’t nitpick this… it is an observational comparison.  The thought isn’t that it is the same measurements, but how eerily similar it is to our planet.  How amazing is it that just because our planet is the correct distance from the sun and has all the right elements, we can type opinions about it on the internet? (Instead of our planet looking like Mars.)

Leave a Reply