back to article Highest point on the Moon found: Higher than Mount Everest

Space boffins say they have identified the highest point on the Moon, and that it stands higher above the lunar surface than the summit of Mount Everest does above Earth's. The highest point on the Moon. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University Top o' the moon, ma According to Mark Robinson, chief of the Lunar …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Adrian Challinor
    Coat

    Expect the phone call

    Hello, Tensing? It Edmund here. Yes, Edmund Hillary. I know, long time no see. Say, are you buys next next week because there's this mountain <click> .... Hello, Tensing, are you there"

    Mines the one with "Ropes are for wimps" in the pocket

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Normal height?

    As is well-know, we terrestrials measure height above or below sea level*. But what is the reference on the Moon? Surely, there is no sea level and if they took the lowest point as a reference it would be odd to compare against the heights on earth.

    *what about changing sea levels?!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Mean spheroid

      Generally you calculate the height of features by how much they diverge from the imaginary spheroid that most closely matches the Moon's shape. On the Moon that's a spheroid with an equatorial radius of 1,738.14 km and a polar radius of 1,735.97 km.

      1. Charles Manning

        Earth's speroid without water

        Since the average depth of the oceans is approx 4000m and the sea makes up around 71% of the Earth's surface, the Earth's mean spheroid without water would be approx 3km lower.

    2. AndrueC Silver badge
      Joke

      Of course there are seas on the moon.

      Well there are mare :)

  3. Steven Jones

    Nonsense

    "The highest point on the Earth is at the summit of Mount Everest, which is 8,848 meters (29,029 feet) above sea level. The lunar high point is 1938 meters higher than that of the Earth!"

    This is clearly nonsense as the Moon has no seas (rather than areas called seas). If you do this on an equivalent basis (considering only the solid surfaces) then the tip of Mt. Everset is over 19,700 metres higher than the low point.

    1. Jonathan Richards 1
      Boffin

      Furthermore...

      ...the summit of Mount Everest is NOT the point of the Earth's surface which is furthest from the centre of the planet. Because the Earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. 'flattened' at the poles, mountains nearer the equator have a natural advantage :) The peak of Chimborazo, at 1.6deg from the equator, is a whole two *kilometres* further from the planet's centre than the peak of Mt Everest. Nice explanation, and hints for if you want to pop up to the top any time, here: http://www.summitpost.org/chimborazo/150349

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apples and pears

    ISTR that the oceans average about 3km deep - add that to Everest for a comparable measure of height "from the surface".

  5. annodomini2
    WTF?

    Ah, but...

    You're counting the Earth from Sea level, what if you take the water away as there is none on the moon?

    1. Adam Foxton
      Joke

      Yeah, I mean from sea level

      it's at least a quarter of a million miles higher!

  6. Bassey

    Question

    How do they define the level of the lunar surface? There is no sea-level to take it from. Do they just calculate the mean level of the lunar surface? Has this level changed as a result of the new scanning? What would the heigh of Everest be if taken from a similar reference point? It is all very well suggesting the highest point on the moon is higher than the highest point on earth but as they must use different reference points for that hight it seems meaningless.

  7. Jon Double Nice
    Coat

    If I'm not the first to state the obvious:

    Of course it's higher than Everest, it's up on the moon, which is UP IN THE SKY people.

    1. Just Thinking

      Only at night

      The moon is only up in the sky at night. During the day the moon is below the sourthern hemispere, so it is much lower than Everest.

      1. Jason Hall

        no

        "During the day the moon is below the sourthern hemispere"

        Except, of course, when it's not.

  8. Julz

    The Moon Has No Oceans

    What about the hight of everest above the lowest point on the earths surface as the moon has no oceans? Quick google...

    Everest 8848m above sea level

    Mariana Trench -10,971m below sea level

    This gives a maximum vertical displacement of 19,819m, a significantly greater range than the puny lunar range of 10,786m.

    1. Tom 260

      lardy Earth

      Not to forget that in terms of the radius of the Earth, the sea level is not constant either, as the rotation causes Earth to bulge out at the equator by around 21km (radius) relative to the poles, and the sea level/atmosphere follows this bulge. Given that Everest is located a mite shy of 28 degrees North, and the Mariana Trench (using the Challenger Deep label on Google Earth) is located just above 11 degrees North, this takes a bit off the height of Everest, but it should still dwarf the Lunar mountain (and Mount Chimborazo in Equador has a peak further from the centre of the Earth than Mount Everest).

      Of course, the Moon will have a similar bulge, but it will be smaller than that of the Earth as the rotational velocity of the Moon is lower, and the Moon is smaller anyway.

      Perhaps NASA should stick to the science rather than attempting points-scoring press releases...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Boffin

        rotational velocity of the Moon is lower

        Yes1 axial revolution every 28 days...

        More importantly its tidally locked to earth, as a result I'd expect it to have a tidal bulge facing earth, the gravity is lowest at the centre of the side facing (being pulled by) earth, is this per chance where said mound exists??

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Technically...

      Oceanus Procellarum - Ocean of Storms is on the moon.

      1. Charles Manning
        Headmaster

        Romanically....

        Technically there are no oceans. Oceanus Procellarum was romantically assigned, not a technically assigned, name.

  9. Russell Howe
    FAIL

    Above sea level?

    But surely if you ignore all that water which is sitting in holes on the Earth's surface things become more comparable - the ocean is more than 2km deep in general.

  10. Elmer Phud
    Headmaster

    Sea level?

    Apart from the areas that are named as 'seas' there aren't any on the moon.

    So we need to measure the height of Everest from the ocean floor rather than a bit higher up.

    ( No , I don't know. I'm hoping someone else does)

  11. Barry Tabrah
    Stop

    What is the height measured from?

    Unless conspiracy theorists are to be believed, there is no sea on the moon. So what is the height measured from? If it's going to be a fair comparison then surely they should be measured in an identical fashion.

    Damn those scientists and their fuzzy claims.

  12. Matthew 17

    If the Earth was as dry as the Moon...

    Then Everest would be much taller.

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      @Matthew 17

      Yes, but no one would be around to care about such things.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    Erm...

    Erm.....so where exactly is sea level on the moon!?

  14. Richard 31
    Paris Hilton

    highest point

    As there is no sea level on the moon how is the 0M point judged?

    If it is the lowest point then do we not have to count the lowest point on Earth? http://geology.com/records/deepest-part-of-the-ocean.shtml says it is 10,924 meters below sea level. By that method Mt Everest is 19772M high.

    Paris as she usually strives to be the highest point on Earth.

  15. James 5
    FAIL

    Is this meaningful?

    "The highest point on the Earth is at the summit of Mount Everest, which is 8,848 meters (29,029 feet) above sea level. The lunar high point is 1938 meters higher than that of the Earth!"

    So to compare the highest point on the moon must be above Sea level - so where's the sea?

    It must be more meaningful to compare the difference between the lowest solid surface point and the highest solid surface point on each sphere. I which case Everest to the Mariana Trench (depth approx 11.03 km). So combined "relief" is 19,881 which beats the moons bulge somewhat.

    PS - I was expecting some spectacular side views of a towering mountain - not a wee arrow on an acned surface. Perhaps you can generate a Playmobil scene ?

  16. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    Impressive

    ..but probably a lot easier to climb than Everest due to lower gravity and fewer snow storms :)

    1. Charles Manning

      But...

      ...getting to base camp is more of a challenge.

      1. John 62
        Black Helicopters

        why go to base camp?

        just land on the summit :)

  17. Anonymous John

    "with the ground sloping away around it at no more than 3° "

    I want to see the playmonaut skiing down it.

    1. The Indomitable Gall

      Physics lesson

      Skiing relies on gravity, of which there is little on the moon. The pitiful 3 degree slope won't help either.

      Although that said, apparently the fastest man on the moon was an alpine skiier, who found the technique much better than the loopy bouncing everyone else was doing.

  18. Nigel 11
    Happy

    Exactly what you'd expect

    Firstly, lunar gravity is 1/6 of the Earth's, so there's less downforce trying to flatten out a lunar mountain.

    Secondly, the moon is a lot less hot inside than the Earth. Here, solid rock gives way to stuff with the consistency of toffee a few tens of miles down. Mountains melt from the bottom up over geological time (like icebergs, but slower). On the moon it's hard rock a lot further down (all the way? )

    If they'd found that the Earth was wrinklier than the Moon, it would have been interesting.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Gravity

      I wasn't aware that gravity has a particular effect on "flattening out" mountains.

      Sure, if erosion causes a chunk of the mountain to become more of a rock, gravity, maybe helped by a gust of wind, will send the rock tumbling downwards, but doubt that is the main reason why mountains aren't taller. I would have though plate tectonics, volcanoes etc would be more resonsible.

      But then, I'm not a geologist...

      That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for a man with crampons.

  19. Nuno
    Megaphone

    BS

    Not really comparable, is it?

    The moon doesn't have a sea level to measure it against. If our planet had just half the water, the everest would be higher than it is now...

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Higher...

    ..but 83% less hard to climb.

    Low gravity FTW!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. Paul_Murphy

    Hardly fair.

    Measuring from sea-level - after all we have one and the moon doesn't - unless they measured the moons high-point from the earths sea-level, but that would be a silly thing to do.

    ttfn

  22. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    above sea level!

    So if you take away the sea (no sea on the moon) - then the highest point can be measured from the bottom of the deepest ocean IIRC Challenger Deep at 11,033m

    So for earth the lowest to highest is 19,881m

  23. banjomike

    Sea level? On the moon?

    I know they have found water ice on the moon but how do they know where "sea level" is?

  24. Bill Fresher

    Tosh

    Bet they're measuring highest point to lowest point.

    On Earth that is approximately 19,900m.

  25. Code Monkey
    Pint

    Selenean Summit

    Superb, Lewis. Have a beer.

  26. hammarbtyp
    FAIL

    Wheres the sea

    When did the moon get a sea to measure the sea level (Yes I know there are seas on the moon, but they are not liquid ones so don't count)

    Actually should'nt they be using Mauna Kea as the reference point since thats the tallest object on earth at over 10000m(Wikipidea is annoyingly unprecise in this regard). But that is much closer to the 10,786 m of this object.

  27. ShaggyDoggy

    No sea

    The moon does not have a sea, so the highest point is being measured from the lowest point, if you follow.

    The lowest point on Earth is at the bottom of the Mariana Trench (correct me if I'm wrong) therefore the moon's puny mountain is literally miles lower than our highest prominence, on a lowest-to-highest rating as was done on the moon. So there.

  28. Daniel 1
    Headmaster

    Friday pedant's note

    Does not the moon have an unfair advantage, in not having any real seas, above which it's high points must poke?

  29. Seanmon
    Thumb Up

    Good.,

    We like the moon.

    1. Yag
      Alien

      And we like sea level!

      just look at 90% of the comments.

      (well, I was about to post the same kind of comment actually)

  30. Steven Jones

    Mean Radius

    A little more research indicates that this is the height above the mean radius of the Moon (not the lowest point) so we'd need to know the mean radius of the Earth's solid surface rather than the sea level (which clearly isn't the mean radius either with, or without the oceans content).

  31. The Indomitable Gall

    Really...?

    "Space boffins say they have identified the highest point on the Moon, and that it stands higher above the lunar surface than the summit of Mount Everest does above Earth's."

    Last I checked, the summit of Mount Everest was part of the surface of the Earth, and unless there's a sophisticated optical illusion in that photo, this mountain is part of the surface of the moon.

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Really...?

      *headdesk*

      1. TheRealRoland
        Happy

        Poor Sarah...

        But you must admit... that one was brilliant.

  32. JimC

    I doubt its being measured from the lowest point...

    After all, if they've only just found the highest point with the aid of the survey what's the betting they haven't found the lowest point?

    My totally uninformed guess is that its referenced against a nominal average diameter, but that's just speculation...

  33. Steven Jones

    Like for Like Comparison

    A bit more research around reveals that the best estimate for the mean radius of the earth is about 6,371 km (depending on the methodology chosen). The point on Earth furthest from the centre is usually considered to be Mt. Chimborazo in the Andes at 6,384.4km. A simple substraction of one from the other provides for a difference between the highest spot on the Earth compared to its mean diameter (the same basis as the Lunar figure) as 13.4km. compared to a little under 11km on the Moon.

    Clearly there's there's some uncertainty over the Earth's mean diameter (and I can only find it quote to 4 significant figures), but the difference is large enough to conclude that, on a like-for-like basis, the highest point on the Moon compared to it's mean radius is less than the equivalent on earth.

    On this basis, Olympus Mons, 25km above the surrounding plains in Mars, is not as high as Mt. Chimborazo as it is 13km above the Mars mean radius.

  34. Stratman

    title

    Now the Clangers have a new ambition.

    Presumably using blue string ropes.

    1. M Gale
      Badgers

      Yeah but...

      ...they'd spend all that time climbing up, just to find out the soup dragon had cheated and flown up there.

      Mind you, at least she'd have some soup for them.

  35. Dave Walker
    Alien

    Calculated Sea Level on other worlds

    I have a hunch,

    That they are using the planetary standard of considering "Sea Level" to be a mean altitude based on the aggregate high and low points. This is especially evident in discussions of heights and depths on Mars.

    P.S. I still like the Mariana to Everest comparison best

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    Dear All

    The moon has plenty of sea's but only one ocean (just no sea level)

    Mare Anguis - Serpent Sea

    Mare Australe - Southern Sea

    Mare Cognitum - Sea that has become known

    Mare Crisium - Sea of Crisis

    Mare Fecunditatis - Sea of Fecundity

    Mare Frigoris - Sea of Cold

    Mare Humboldtianum - Sea of Alexander von Humboldt

    Mare Humorum - Sea of Moisture

    Mare Imbrium - Sea of Showers

    Mare Ingenii - Sea of Cleverness

    Mare Insularum - Sea of Islands

    Mare Marginis - Sea of the Edge

    Mare Moscoviense - Sea of Muscovy

    Mare Nectaris - Sea of Nectar

    Mare Nubium - Sea of Clouds

    Mare Orientale - Eastern Sea

    Mare Serenitatis - Sea of Serenity

    Mare Smythii - Sea of William Henry Smyth

    Mare Spumans - Foaming Sea

    Mare Tranquillitatis - Sea of Tranquility

    Mare Undarum - Sea of Waves

    Mare Vaporum - Sea of Vapors

    Oceanus Procellarum - Ocean of Storms

  37. jdjenkins
    Happy

    Another point of reference!

    The summit of Mount Chimborazo is 3219 metres further from the centre of the earth than Mount Everest, making it what some consider the highest point.

  38. jubtastic1
    Happy

    Heh

    Just wanted to say that I love the fact that pretty much all the comments point out the same glaring flaw with the Moon's propaganda.

    Another victory for Earth in our epic struggle against the Mooners.

  39. anentropic

    out of the trenches

    'but the moon has no seas' was also my first thought... but equally it's unfair measuring the height of Everest from the bottom of Mariana Trench.

    The trench is a localised feature. Ideally the depth of trenches and height (or rather 'tallness') or mountains should be measured from the mean surface elevation (which itself I suppose is measured from the gravitational centre of the planetoid?)

    in other words the depth of a trench shouldn't count towards the tallness of a mountain

    I wonder if NASA have already done that in this case, since they talk about a 'lunar surface' which is a rather vague term

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Gravitaional Centre of the planetoid

      Well in that case Everest loses.. The Earth is an oblate spheroid, and mountains at the equator have a 12000m head start on those at the pole.

      And if you measure from the centre the moon is tiny so it cannot compare... perhaps using a Longitudinal mean surface altitude as a zero plane is best (this would vary with latitude to account for unsphericalness).

  40. M Gale
    Badgers

    Oh by the way...

    ...the moon doesn't have a sea level.

    I'd just like to be the 9001st person to point that out.

  41. Matt Piechota
    Paris Hilton

    Clever

    /Just wanted to say that I love the fact that pretty much all the comments point out the same glaring flaw with the Moon's propaganda./

    I actually love that the *third* post explains how the measurement works, but the 40 after that either ignore that post or, in the rush to be seen as clever on the internet posted without reading the existing comments.

    Paris, because shockingly only other person has made some desperate attempt to be witty and draw her into the discussion.

  42. fch
    Pint

    Numbers ...

    ... surely some senior nasa official responsible for the LRO program got targeted to find the highest mountains on the moon, and as proper incentive their bonus got coupled to how high it was ?

    In feet, please, as that'd be the higher number.

    Next fiscal, move the target to the moon's volume and measure it in pints, please !

  43. Lghost
    Pirate

    May I suggest Cap'n Bee ?

    adding "moontains" to the reg list of standard ( but fanciful/or fancyfull in respect of the number of caders to make an idris ..both being part of a meta set of jubblies ) measurements ..;-)

    may I further suggest that at least 10 hypes be required to make a small moontain ..

    this ( 10 ) being the number of Pinocchios ( give or take a Wales )required to make a Blair..

    all in favor ..say aaaarrrr

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Our big mountains have snow on them.

    Mean sea level is approximated by a construct called a geiod. Apparently the boffin community can do geoids pretty accurately.

    But the highest point on the moon looks as if it would be a complete disappointment as a tourist attraction. Mt. Everest, Mt. Chimborazo etc etc knock the socks off a mere bulge.

  45. Charles 9

    What about measurement from the base?

    That would put this lunar mountain up against Mauna Kea in Hawaii (which has a lot of its bulk underwater: its base being at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. For comparison, Everest can't compete because it sits upon an already-high plateau).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you measure the total height...

      ...of the rock above the molten mantle Everest probably beats all other earth based lumps of rock, (but the moon bulge beats the earth).

  46. quartzie
    Boffin

    Poor source quotation

    The original NASA article mentions the peak's altitude is relative to Moon's "mean radius", which would have cleared up a lot of the confusion here.

    In fact, GPS and the likes also use an approximation through a hypothetical ellipsoid of the Earth's surface, not actual sea levels, which are rather difficult to stabilize. Google/Bink/Yahoo WGS 84 to read more.

  47. bugalugs
    Alert

    Photo proves Chinese have been there already ?

    Am I the only one who sees a resemblance between the

    " red arrow " and a toppled 30 meter-high red umbrella ?

  48. mhenriday
    Pint

    Higher than Mount Everest -

    harder to get to, as well....

    Henri

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like