Thrill Seekers...

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by nubka, May 7, 2010.

  1. nubka

    nubka Well-Known Member

    7,907
    1,365
    113
    Ok., adventure lovers, if you had to choose one, would you rather:

    A. Climb Mount Everest

    B. Go down to the Titanic in one of those tiny submarines

    I'm terrified of heights, so I guess I'd go to the Titanic (I'd need some mega-valium to get me through it, though!)

    My hubby said he would take Mount Everest - :scream: :scream:
     
  2. bobalina77

    bobalina77 Duck Hunter

    7,061
    382
    0
    I would totally go down to the Titanic (how tiny are we talkin'?)

    Wouldn't do Everest because I'm nowhere near in shape :lol:
     
  3. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    6,485
    524
    113
    I realize I'm statistically FAR more likely to survive the sub, but being claustrophobic and having seen a movie depict an explorer sub imploding, (thank you for that among your many other sucks, 'Raise The Titanic') I'm not sure Everest wouldn't be more tempting. The view would definitely be better.
     
  4. myhoneyhoney

    myhoneyhoney Well-Known Member

    1,956
    218
    63
    Titanic! That would be one of my life's dreams come true.
     
  5. Jot the Dot Dot

    Jot the Dot Dot Headstrong Buzzard

    2,549
    352
    83
  6. nubka

    nubka Well-Known Member

    7,907
    1,365
    113
    Bump! Come on, everybody... :D
     
  7. KikiSashaFan

    KikiSashaFan Well-Known Member

    2,831
    692
    113
    Titanic. Water soothes my fears. That other thread with the video of that crazy hike didn't freak me out too badly because most of the heights were over water, which for some reason I find less frightening.
     
  8. KatieC

    KatieC Going in circles

    4,920
    1,960
    113
    Possibly because if you fall into water you can live - if you fall into the ground, you won't?

    I like to breath - which you can't do easily climbing Everest, but have no desire to travel underwater. Is there a flying option?
     
  9. nubka

    nubka Well-Known Member

    7,907
    1,365
    113
    Good question! Would you be be up for a trip to the Moon? I would never do that - waaaaaaay to chicken!
     
  10. KatieC

    KatieC Going in circles

    4,920
    1,960
    113
    Yeah, that one I would probably do! :D
     
  11. The Village Idiot

    The Village Idiot Demon Barber

    3,148
    181
    0
    Assuming I actually had skills and climbing Mt Everest wasn't completely stupid (as it would be for me now, a nonclimber with no experience, etc), I would absolutely climb Mt. Everest. Sitting in a sub, while cool, is just too passive.
     
  12. Gypsy

    Gypsy Watching the Leaves Change!

    4,570
    1,280
    113
    Go down to the Titanic

    I am so drawn to the water, it would be a dream come true!
     
  13. Tinami Amori

    Tinami Amori Well-Known Member

    9,661
    833
    113
    Going down to the Titanic sounds like a “thrill” but it’s actually a “torture” and an expensive “torture”.

    The wreck is 12,620 ft under water. The vessels which can reach the wreck are military submarines or MIR Russian high-tech small sub (for explorations).

    US and other western military subs are not for “private rent”. Old Russian military full-size subs are for rent, but they want $250,000 USD + expenses, etc…..

    MIR is cheaper, but it is a small “egg-like” structure, where you sit in a small cabin with knees up to your shoulders and can’t stand up once you get in.

    It takes min. 30 minutes for departure preps (while you’re already sitting), and 2 hrs. 40 minutes to reach the wreck, if there are no currents or other shifts. Same time on the way up. So you spend 6-7 hours crouched up, and you don’t get to see much of the “wreck” except the “outline far in the distance”. MIR is light compared to submarines, and will not drift close to the wreck in order not to be tangled into the wreck by the current and get stuck. All you see, with full projectors on, is dark carcass of “something”.

    Everest is not much better, especially if one smokes or has blood pressure issues. But at least you're not "crouched up", although there are plenty other discomforts.

    If people want high altitude thrills - go up Angel Falls on DC-3, or land on top of the Auyantepui Mesa in a helicopter.
    http://www.worldart.com.au/images/angekl-falls-waterfalls-landscape-photography-natu1.jpg
    http://www.romartraveler.com/ROMAR07/Romar07Pages/SouthAmerica/Venez_Pix/LTA-Arekuna.gif

    Or Victoria Falls
    http://takeoffafrica.com/upload/557/vic_falls.jpg

    If you want to "submerge", go "Underwater Cave Diving" in Mexico, in the under-water cave labyrinth Sistema Nohoch Nah Chich.
    http://gallery.cavedivinggirl.com/Underwater
     
  14. nubka

    nubka Well-Known Member

    7,907
    1,365
    113
     
  15. skatingfan5

    skatingfan5 Well-Known Member

    10,836
    2,051
    113
    I'm not a thrill-seeker at all, but if forced to make a choice, I think that I would choose Everest over the Titanic. I love the water (and have been scuba diving in the Bahamas), but I wouldn't want to have more than two miles of the stuff over my head -- thinking of the pressure and the darkness and the cold Atlantic going to see the remains of what was the tomb for so many is unnerving. Whereas I understand that freezing to death can be like going to sleep -- and if I didn't die, the view WOULD be ever so much better. But I guess I'd really choose neither. ;)
     
  16. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    6,485
    524
    113
    Yeah, again, the movie "Raise the Titanic" pretty much killed the idea of tourism dives for me. It includes a graphic depiction of a mini-sub imploding. That would be a horrible, horrible way to die.