Even if Jupiter had a solid surface - which we're almost sure it does not - the highest possible mountain would be smaller than Mt. Everest due to gravity.
The materials we think Jupiter's core is made of are liquid at these pressures and temperatures. Still, gravity is a great limiting factor in the height of mountains: A mountain much taller than Everest can't exist for long on Earth.
What trips me out is that you'd have to climb that vertical bit at the base before you even get started to climb to the cone. I can't tell, But I'm guessing that's at least 5km straight up.
Those cliffs, the "escarpment" at the lower right are around 4-5 miles high (~21,000 - 26,000 feet) For perspective, Mt. Everest is ~29,000 feet.
In case you missed it, that's big.
From the peak, it'd be extremely safe. You'd be jumping and landing maybe... Half an inch below where you landed. Its a shield volcano, hence the slope is very gradual. However, its base is lined with cliffs several kilometers high.
It's also the name of a conference room in a Google building where all conference rooms are named after mountains. I learned about Olympus Mons this way in 2007
From what I understand, since Mars has no tectonic plates, and. no way to get rid of internal energy, this is only Volcano Mars has. Venus also doesn't have tectonic plates wich is why its riddled with them.
That had to have been one HELL of a volcano in its time. I wonder if its why mars is the way it is, like maybe it blew out so much of its interior that its magnetic field failed.
For those wondering: "Olympus Mons is a large shield volcano on Mars. It is over 21.9 km high as measured by the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, about 2.5 times the elevation of Mount Everest above sea level."
So big, that if you were on the summit, looking in any direction, you would not be able to see any Martian land that is not also part of the mountain upon which you stand. The base disappears over the horizon in all directions.
Venus doesn't have any features that even compare. It tends to be the case that smaller objects have larger mountains, as the lower gravity makes it easier. Venus has much higher gravity than Mars, and has erosion from wind.
Venus was mapped by NASA's Magellan spacecraft in the 1980s down to a resolution of a few hundred meters. So they know there's nothing as big as Olympus Mons there.
I've seen or been shown that view implicitly with that style of sun reflection at that angle from a starship window. I can understand why she hasn't landed but somebody needs to get their keister down here. #uap
In terms of erosion? Mars hasn't had measurable water for millions of years. Wind and solar radiation would be the main factors. There is some tectonic activity, but not much.
It's the harder basalt over an erodable surface strata. The winds (and sand) ate away the thinner edge layers, leaving the plateau. It seems to indicate no prevailing wind direction though.
Also wondering this how a do they determine “sea level” to work out the starting point or is that only an earth mountain measurement thing so they measure it from the base?
Just trying to fathom the scale of Olympus Mons.. if it's 21.9km high (13.6 miles, 72,000ft), then that's roughly twice the height that a commercial passenger plane flies, here on Earth? (give or take)
I wonder when someday we will have someone climb it like everest in the past and then like 500 years in the future it becomes a popular destination for thrill seekers like everest is now
Comments
In case you missed it, that's big.
I tend to count myself as one of the rounded bodies of the Solar System...
https://www.space.com/20133-olympus-mons-giant-mountain-of-mars.html
The chair ride to the top is gonna be a bit long...
Pluto:
(Much more interesting than Earth's Olympus Mons)
Is that true?
Holy crap.