NOTE: This report is in an incomplete state. It will be added to and refined as the settlement plan takes shape. TransportShip cost (new): 200 million to just over 1 billion dollars Ship Cost (resale): ~1 million dollars -This is assuming a mid-to-large ship. Smaller yachts can reach the continent but are unsuitable due to limited storage capacity. Ice breakers would be preferred but are at the upper limit of this estimate. Zodiac (MK5): $20,000 to $30,000 (x2) Max. Passenger Capacity: 15 Zodiac Repair Kit: $130 to $140 (x4) -Zodiacs are the gold standard of Antarctic landings. As Antarctica lacks ports, Zodiacs perform a vital role in ferrying supplies and personnel from vessels anchored off-shore to the continent itself. Due to the vital nature of this role at least two will be required. Helicopter (Bell 206): $400,000 to $900,000 Fuel Cost (full tank): $588 Fuel Capacity: 98 gallons Fuel per Hour: 30 gallons ($130-$180) Max. Range: 490km -Helicopters are an optional means of transport (and scouting). These prices are included for reference. Total Transport Cost: est. $200,440,520 to 1,000,960,560 -Transport represents the single largest hurdle to this project. As noted above the smaller vessels would bring the cost down but would require multiple trips to deliver the initial building supplies. This greatly increases the risk of discovery and/or loss of the vessel. Cost per PersonConstruction Materials (lumber): Nil* to $5 per 2x4x8 (2x4 calculator) (Potentially $10,000) Construction Materials (Nails): Nil** to $20 per pound (Potentially $10,000) Construction Materials (Insulation): $3,000 to $10,000*** Construction Materials (Vapor Barrier): $1,200 Wiring: $4,000 Solar Panels: Varies (More research required) Wind Turbines: Varies (More research required) -Costs have been calculated using a 2,000 sqft house. This is a little absurd but it gives a margin of error to work with. The observant will note I did not include foundation costs. This is due to concrete foundations being impractical and unnecessary. Once an area is clear and level structures can be built directly on the ground with gravel piled along the sides. Due to low temperatures rot occurs very slowly. More refined foundation techniques can be implemented at a later date. It should be noted that it is likely with these numbers the resulting structure could easily house a family of four and the costs should be quartered in the below tally. *I will note that scrap wood of serviceable quality is not rare. Pallets are the main culprit here and can be acquired free-of-charge from any number of places. They supply 2x4s, strapping, and boards suitable for tongue and groove fitting (useful for both walls and floors), some pallets are even suitable for subfloors on their own. **Nails are much the same story as the lumber but it is slightly rarer to acquire the nails in good condition. ***In a similar manner to above sheep's wool is a good insulation choice with a higher upfront cost but lower ongoing cost. Wool is not used in warmer climates due to insect concerns. Antarctica has no such concerns. Years-worth of Food: $4,000 -While the objective is to become self-sufficient as quickly as possible, the first year is not likely to allow time for this. As such a years-worth of food should be stockpiled for each person. Misc. Costs: $1,000 -This section includes costs such as furniture, silverware, electronics, etc. Realistically, people will bring their own belongings. This category is for those of so little wealth they lack even basic items. Total Cost Per Person: est. $7,050 to $40,200 Total Cost Per 100 People: est. $705,000 to $4,020,000 -This is one of those cases where the the upper limit represents if literally everything goes wrong. Communal CostsStone Masonry Equipment: $10,000 to 20,000 -Antarctica has a lot of rock and even just considering the necessity of creating level areas to build it is clear the settlement will need some ability to work stone. Carpentry Equipment: $800 to $3,000 -Even more important than stone masonry is carpentry as the settlement will be primarily made of wood in early stages. The original estimate was $700 to $2,000 but I increased this due to the need for redundancy. Human Waste Treatment: $1,000 to $3,000 (x12) -The estimates for how many toilets 100 people need are absurdly low and I have doubled them. Included under the communal section as toilets will need to initially be in concentrated locations to make heating easier. While converting human waste into fertilizer is doable it does require heating to temperatures high enough to kill pathogens. Greenhouse Equipment (Lights): Varies (More research required) Greenhouse Equipment (Soil): $1,000 (soil is cheap but we need a lot) -In theory, as long as you could keep an enclosed area warm you could grow a field of grass which would allow some smaller grazing animals to be raised (chickens, sheep, rabbits). The most efficient way to do this would be to have the heating right in the soil (as long as there is no wind the soil and air directly above it are more important than what the temperature is at ceiling height). Total Communal Costs: est. $23,800 to $60,000 -Strictly speaking the more areas the the settlement that are included in the communal costs the cheaper the whole endevour becomes due to cutting down on duplication of goods and services. However, there is a point where this becomes impractical. Total Cost Break-Down (Frequently Updated)(Assuming a 100 person initial settlement)
Total Estimated Set Costs: est. $201,169,320 to $1,005,040,560 Total Estimated Ongoing Costs: Varies (More research required) -What is apparent from this data is how much securing a means of traveling to Antarctica dwarfs all other costs. In fact the settlement costs could triple and the grand majority of the price tag would still be the purchase of a ship.
0 Comments
“Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics”In the long run this is likely to be the most controversial report as it deals with issues of conflict. While the
ASRG does not want conflict, and frankly would prefer to achieve our aims peacefully, we are not so naïve as to believe that things are likely to turn out that way. This report summarizes issues surrounding keeping the settlement safe from attack and, ultimately, removal. Location, Location, Location Before we even get to talking about conflict we should acknowledge that a large part of successful security involves avoiding conflict altogether. Not through negotiation but instead through making the prospect of conflict undesirable. You might call this the 'porcupine strategy'. Locations that are naturally inaccessible, hidden, or defencible greatly increase the logistical problems associated with removing the settlement. That is why the quote at the head of this report is even there; there are a great number of strategies for defence but they all start from an understanding of logistics - your own and, especially, your opponent's. Let us start with a hopefully uncontroversial statement; it is easier to set up a settlement than it is to remove it. Setting up a settlement involves moving people and materials to a location and have the people use those materials to build a settlement. Removing the settlement involves removing the (unwilling) residents of the settlement and, at the very least, making the structures unlivable. The first scenario is man vs. nature. The second scenario is man vs. nature + man. Their is both a floor to how difficult the settlement is to construct and the difficulty in removal added on top. There is also a gap between settlement and removal difficulty. Consider the following. A settlement builds a wind break to deal with katabatic winds off the continent but these also surround the settlement denying entry to those who wish to remove the settlers. Building the wall had a level of difficulty. Removing the wall has the original difficulty cost and then some. In some instances the difficulty cost may make removal highly challenging. The removal team, exposed and vulnerable, has a much tougher job ahead of them than the settlers who are sheltered (and in the case of the wall scenario, the high ground). A settlement in Antarctica situated on raised ground, and with a defencive wall, is at the bare minimum not fun to try and remove. I suppose I should address the mention of 'raised ground'. While building a settlement up any sort of elevation raises the difficulty of construction, it also limits what tools can be used in the dismantling of a settlement. A bulldozer is great for leveling all sorts of walls but if you can't get it to the intended location it is useless and this is an absolute win for the settlers as it raises removal difficulty. Greater elevation also ensures that any removal team starts out having already expended some energy before they have even started. Finally, there is the aspect of time. Antarctic sea ice melts from December to February after which it begins to reform. This leaves a very limited window for removal efforts as over-wintering is pointless (especially if the settlement has any capacity to rebuild). A removal team that has over-wintered (presumably on their ship) only to find they are back at square one would be highly demoralized. This is especially true if they don't have the food supplies to stay another season. Now, the December to February timeframe is just a guideline. Some areas of Antarctica have sea ice for longer periods and some have it for shorter periods. If a settlement site is picked with a shorter timeframe of clear seas it makes setting up a settlement difficult but may also shorten removal timeframes beyond what can be achieved. If such a thing happens the settlement can be considered secure. This would be a victory of breaking an enemy's logistics and is the best case scenario. Obviously, you don't want an Antarctic settlement being too remote. There is a sweet spot between these two factors that can exist; accessible enough while also being secure enough. What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate? The above scenario assumes parties to the Antarctic Treaty are not willing to escalate things beyond civilian means. That is to say, that they use restraint in the use of force. It might be that this does, in fact, occur for a number of years until they feel they must take greater action. This is where I start discussing active defences and I have divided it into two parts; non-lethal methods of defence and lethal methods of defence. Any settlement effort should proceed in the belief that this escalation is not only possible but likely and plan accordingly. At the same time the settlement's leaders should take great pains to ensure they are not the cause of the escalation (ie. don't shoot the first person who starts wailing on a wall with a hatchet). One form of highly effective non-lethal methods in Antarctica is water. The climate of Antarctica doesn't get much above freezing at the best of times. In short the humble water hose has a part to play. If removal teams are being drenched every time they approach the settlement they are unlikely to be able to sustain their efforts for long. Water as a defence measure does provide a challenge for the settlement as keeping a large supply of water for defence purposes in a non-frozen form is an outlay of energy that is likely to be somewhat prohibitive. As such, the water would likely need to come from a source kept in liquid form anyways; ie. drinking water. This obviously limits how often it could be employed. Its viability also greatly depends on the access to fresh water which in Antarctica means ice. If collected ice (preferably without being harassed by removal teams) is relatively easy then this strategy can be kept up for a while which would slow removal. Slowing the removal effort being the ultimate goal of all these strategies. Water is also useful if removal teams decide to set fire to the walls (or scale them) so it performs both offensive and defencive functions. But lets assume the parties to the Antarctic Treaty have had just about enough of the settlement effort and they send a ship with armaments and permission to use them. This scenario is where I loop back around to discussing location. A settlement with a rise facing the water, or inland enough that ship weapons can't hit it, are good things to consider. This doesn't provide protection from missiles or attack helicopters. In short, you need to sink that ship. One thing that has been demonstrated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the levelling effect of asymmetric warfare, specifically, drones. Naval drones would be a menace in Antarctic waters as, even with sea ice clear, its still around and glaciers are also prevalent. All of which is to say, naval drones are not likely to have a hard time sneaking up on larger targets. A word of caution, sinking a ship is the kind of thing that invites a response. Unless, the settlement is severely threatened it should not even be on the table. The defence of the settlement is of great importance and should be given careful thought. In conversations with people online and in person there is sometimes a bit of misunderstanding regarding what role religion is to play in the settlement under the proposed constitution. People have described it as being a theocracy. This charge has some merit in that the literal definition of a theocracy is a state in which an established priesthood wields power. And, if you look at the diagram you will note the Christian Church(es) do have some power. But some power is not what is generally meant when a person describes a theocracy. There has also been some confusion on how much power Christianity, through the office of the Patriarch actually has with critics likening it to a prime minister in a constitutional monarchy; in complete control of the agenda. This confusion seems to stem from the use of the word advise which has taken on a constitutional meaning that is significantly different from its common definition. The advice a prime minister gives (in the constitutional sense) is practically an order. This is not the meaning used here. The Role of Christianity in the SettlementThis settlement, while largely secular, is not entirely so. Indeed, it is intended to be a refuge for Christians fleeing persecution. This is not a small concern. In many areas where climate change will make living increasingly difficult, Christians already face persecution. Ratcheting up the pressure on these states is not going to make them more tolerant. It is also true that in these states Christians are sidelined from participating in government. So with these two facts in mind you might be starting to see why Christianity is specifically protected in the constitution. These Christians, who are envisioned to make up a majority of the population, still follow different sects, or denominations, of Christianity. Constitutionally, all of these sects are a part of the 'Nicene Church'. The Nicene Church is not a church in the traditional sense. Rather, it is an ecumenical body of Church leaders who meet to resolve disagreements that arise and pursue the goal of Christian unity. From among their number they elect a Patriarch whose primary role is to represent Christianity as a whole when dealing with the government. Since history is littered with rulers who didn't want to be reminded of their misdeeds, and subsequently refused to even see religious leaders, access to the monarch by the Patriarch is constitutionally protected. There is good science to back up the desirability of having this role. It is well known that leaders are known to become less empathetic over time. This is largely a result of being insulated in decision-making and from who it effects. The main way to combat this is to invite more people into decision-making -or- as is the case here, enforce it by law. Is This Role Unreasonable?'Reasonableness' is subjective but for the fun of it lets look at the Patriarch's theoretical maximum power
right after the settlement is founded. While the exact number of settlers involved in the initial effort is hard to gauge, its a simple truth that more is better for a whole host of reasons. Lets say 1000 settlers for argument's sake. The Patriarch, due to their guaranteed seat on the Royal Council, can't be a member of the Legislative Assembly. One guaranteed seat is nice but the actual power it wields is dependent on how many other seats are also on the Royal Council. Minimally this number is 13: Heir to the Throne, Patriarch, 10 nobles, and the Chief of each clan. That last category is the one that will decrease the Patriarch's power the fastest as new groups arrive and are granted clan status. The greatest power the Patriarch has isn't the single vote they can cast but instead is their ability to speak before the Royal Council on behalf of the Church. On the other side of things, a protected right to be heard isn't unreasonable, in most countries its expected for the government to listen to the people and groups that might have grievances. The draft constitutional simply extends an extra protection to a rather important group. Any settlement that is established would do well to consider how it aims to increase its population. This report will go over some considerations and strategies concerning population growth. Stable and Unstable PopulationsAny new settlement is likely to suffer from the issue of population imbalance. Historically, North America did, both in its early settlement efforts and as it expanded westward. Single men seeking their fortune or husbands leaving their wives behind until they can build a new home was not uncommon and an Antarctic settlement is likely to face similar pressures. Beyond the obvious point that you can't have a stable population, let alone population growth, with a population made up primarily of men it is also a concern that too many males can lead to political instability. China, due to its One Child Policy and related cultural attitudes, has just this problem. For these reasons the settlement will need to quickly regain a roughly 1:1 sex ratio. The First Settlers and the Second SettlersThe first settlers are likely to be doing so for ideological reasons. i.e. They believe in the cause of Antarctic settlement. But once this group has arrived you will need more people. In theory you could just let the first settlers reproduce without attempting to bring in more people. The issues with this are two-fold: 1. Its a slow way to increase a population and 2. if the original population is too small you run into issues of genetic diversity within a few generations. So I would argue that it is necessary to have a steady immigration rate. Population OutflowAnother factor to consider regarding population growth is decreasing the number of people emigrating away from the settlement. Extreme latitude settlements in the north often have high emigration numbers as the youth leave due to lack of economic or social opportunities. Decreasing the population loss due to people seeking 'sunnier shores' will go a long way towards growing the population. Dealing With the Above ProblemsBuilding population numbers will likely require several strategies. Below are a few to consider. Refugee Resettlement In 2020 there were over 80 million refugees. A fairly large number of whom were Christian. The offer to settle families and individuals in the new settlement is a hard sell but not an impossible one. Climate change has only exacerbated the problems facing Christian minorities in many, equatorial, nations. In this there are three principles should be observed: 1. Recruiters should never lie about the settlement or the conditions in Antarctica, 2. Refugees who do not wish to return to their country of origin should be preferred, and 3. families wishing to immigrate should be preferred over single individuals. By observing these three principles of recruitment the amount of disillusionment and stress that can sometimes accompany immigration can be lessened and a rough 1:1 gender ratio can be more easily maintained. Incentives Many countries offer incentives to have children. These incentives can be in the form of grants, forgivable loans, subsidized daycare, etc. If a country wants its population to grow it should both make sure there are no systematic problems that discourage people from starting new families and that there are the supports available to help these new families grow. In addition, the abundance of space on the continent will allow land grants to be given out to settlers which are larger than they could hope to receive in their home countries. Managing Outflow Antarctica will not be for everyone. Even the most successful administration will still face some population loss due to emigration. The counters for this are wide-ranging and include both social and institutional actions. But to put it simply, the Antarctic settlement must become a place where people can see spending the rest of their lives. They must be able to see raising a family there. They must become invested in the future of the settlement. Transport Many of the above ideas require being able to transport people and supplies to the continent. See The Antarctic Treaty, Secrecy, and Diplomatic Recognition for more info on the benefits of secrecy in the settlement's early years and The Settlement's Economy for information on how the settlers might support themselves. It is of course impossible to fully predict how the international community would react to a settlement claiming sovereignty in Antarctica. It is, in fact, two questions: 1. How would the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty react to a settlement that is a clear violation of the treaty? 2. How would countries deal with it diplomatically? The Antarctic TreatyThe Antarctic Treaty is an interesting document but the sections of most interest to the ASRG is Article 1 and Article 10. Article 1 sets out the prohibition on the use of military forces and fortifications on the continent. Meanwhile, Article 10 requires the treaty signatories to take appropriate efforts "in line with the UN Charter" to prevent others from breaking the treaty. Strictly speaking, establishing a country on the continent doesn't break the treaty in any obvious way. And even if it did, Article 1 seems to limit the amount of force that could be used to remove settlers. SecrecyThe most dangerous time for the settlement in terms of other countries trying to stop its development is the first year(s) before sufficient population and infrastructure can be put in place to resist being removed. As such it is not in the settlement's best interest to immediately announce its establishment. Rather, it should be set up in secret and only announce itself when its good and ready or there is no other alternative. Once the existence of the settlement becomes public knowledge the treaty signatories have a choice. First, they could ignore the settlement and hope it fails on its own. This is the response they took when the activist group Greenpeace set up a base on the continent (the first by a private organization). This would be the preferred strategy but they could be just as likely to want to remove the settlement. If this option is taken the settlement's survival will depend on how hard it is to dislodge its population. This is further discussed in the report on settlement defence. Regardless of which option is taken no one is likely to recognize the new country's existence. This is both a hinderance and a victory. After all, as long as the settlement remains it can always eventually be recognized. Diplomatic RecognitionDiplomatic recognition would open up access to international organizations and trade. The challenge is how to go from having no 'friends' to having all the 'friends'. This isn't always easy. There is currently 16 countries with limited recognition for a variety of reasons. Transnistria, Abkhazia, Artsakh, and South Ossetia form an odd quartet in that they each recognize each other but in turn recognized by very few 'real' countries. These countries even have their own international organization. As you can see diplomatic recognition isn't a tidy process. Bhutan, for instance, doesn't recognize either China or Taiwan diplomatically. This also makes it clear that a country doesn't need to be recognized to function. Still, diplomatic recognition would greatly increase the settlement's long term prosperity. So how do you get countries to recognize the settlement? To answer this question you have to understand the reasons why they would be hesitant to recognize the country in the first place. And the answer was the first thing we discussed: the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic Treaty is a rather fragile construction. The spirit of the treaty is often violated, if not the letter of the treaty. Indeed, great power competition has ramped up. All the while the treaty was never written in a way to make it clear how rule-breakers would even be punished. The Antarctic Treaty is founded on the basis of agreement by consensus for rule changes. This was easy when the number of signatories were small and the ability to exploit the continent remote. However, the number of signatories has increased and the ability to profit from the continent has increased. It should come as no surprise that it has been 30 years since the last major update to the treaty. Based on these factors it is highly likely the treaty system will break down at some point. The settlement would be best served by this not happening immediately (as there are aspects of the treaty that protect a prospective settlement) but could take advantage of the treaty's eventual collapse to gain diplomatic recognition. Concluding RemarksJoining the community of nations should be the settlement's end goal but it should be realized that there is
likely to be a significant period between the settlement announcing its existence and it gaining recognition. It may even be put under significant pressure, if not out-right invasion. This period is when the settlement's institutions will have their first real test. A trial by fire in a land of ice. No country can exist for long without a means for its people to make a living. While systems that preclude the production of wealth have been attempted they have all failed due to a simple truth: people wish to improve their situation in life and the ability to earn a living remains the most effective way to do this. So what economic opportunities present in the settlement's early years can be reasonably speculated on? A caveat first: the Antarctic year is heavily bifurcated into summer and winter seasons with economic activities doable in one nearly impossible in the other. This is, if not unique, very rare and requires special mention. The economy will shift between a season where wide-ranging, travel-related jobs are possible and one where they are not. How settlers would approach this reality is an interesting discussion with several options to consider. Do workers have separate summer and winter jobs? Do they have one job that reserves specific aspects of work for the most appropriate season? Do workers take one of the seasons off each year? Likely, a mixture of the above economic situations will occur resulting in a largely outward-focused summer work season and a more inward-focused winter work season at the settlement. MiningThe potential for mining is still an open question. Only about 1% of Antarctica is ice-free which makes the simple act of prospecting difficult. That said, there are two types of 'mining' that are feasible right now: meteorite mining and guano harvesting. Meteorite Mining Antarctica is unique in that its vast ice sheets work to collect and concentrate meteorite falls. As such it is the premier spot for finding meteorites. These meteorites have a decent value per gram as the chart below shows: Next, it is a matter of finding out how many meteorites there are per square kilometer (on average). The answer is about 6.3 meteorites. There are also 'blue ice regions' that have upwards of 100+ meteorites/km2 (see reference link below for a map of these areas around Cape Adare). This works out to $403-787 per square kilometer on average assuming the most common type of meteorite. A 15km2 hunt should yield $5760-11,250 (stony) + $3200-6250 (iron). Exceptionally rare meteorites are left out of these calculations but should yield higher returns over longer periods. But how long does it take to mine a square kilometer? Based on an expedition carried out in 2019 we can get a rough estimate. Katherine Joy spent 1 month searching for meteorites in an area which does not appear to be a blue ice region. She collected 36 meteorites (all stony). Based on the average distribution of meteorites this is about 5.7km2 of area covered. Using average size and type this would be a haul worth $2304+. Divided by the four weeks she searched for meteorites this is a gross profit of $576 per week. Her account does not include how many hours she worked each day but I'm going to assume 40 hours/day to take into account inclement weather. This gives an hourly wage of $14.40 (only finding the least valuable meteorite). This is about $3 more than the average wage in the USA. Rare finds quickly increase these numbers exponentially so these calculations should be considered a base level of earnings. Recently, the process of finding these meteorites became much easier with the development of an A.I. that can better pinpoint their locations. While meteorite mining itself is confined to the summer months the actually process of grading, preparing, and pricing the meteorites could well fill the winter months as the above estimate would leave the miner with ~180 meteorites to prep for sale. It should also be noted that iron meteorites would be a source of both iron and nickle (along with traces of other heavy metals) and depending on the situation may be smelted down rather than sold as-is. Blue Ice Region Map (Cape Adare): [1] Guano Harvesting Guano (bird poop) is useful as a fertilizer. Most modern fertilizers are chemical-based so the need for guano has been greatly reduced from its heights in the 1800s. However, the settlement needs fertilizer for its green houses without having to rely on imports. This means collecting guano would be a needed part of the settlement's internal economy. This is fine, not everything in the economy needs to be focused towards exports. It is impossible to predict the supply and demand at play here but this probably falls into a part-time job category of some kind (at least in the settlement's early days). Much like meteorite mining this job would be largely confined to the summer months. Electricity GenerationAnother business focused on the domestic market would be the generation of electrical power. While in the early days everyone is likely to have their own solar panels and/or wind turbines. But as the economy moves towards specialization of roles there is a very real possibility that a company would be created for supplying the settlement's energy needs. This is the first job we are discussing that could be all-season. The need for electricity is near-constant after all. FarmingFarming using greenhouses would be a major employer both for Crown-owned farms and private operations. Subsistence farming would occupy the settlement's early years but as greenhouses are expanded a small surplus may develop. The actual cost to produce means pursuing farming on a commercial basis is probably not viable early on. Rather, small surpluses may be sold/traded on an ad hoc basis. Crops that are used to create non-perishable products, such as spices, could be sold as they can be stored for long periods. The abundance of refrigeration does mean that food can be kept frozen indefinitely at no cost. This opens up an interesting possibility of supplying research stations with a variety of foodstuffs as a business. This is the second job we are discussing that could be all-season. Indeed, as summer workers finish up the season they could move seamlessly into farming in the green houses. Tourist AccommodationIt might be shocking to learn that Antarctica is lacking in amenities. As a result cruises (which are becoming ever more common) may spend only a few hours on shore as if the weather were to change those on shore would be in danger. The settlement would make longer stays possible as well as the opportunity to travel further inland. Below are some specific ideas along these lines. Hotels/B&Bs/Hostels On shore amenities gives cruise lines additional options. They could drop off tourists who want to explore Antarctica by land rather than gaze at it from out at sea. The cruise could either pick these tourists up with a secondary ship, by plane, or double back after the cruise concludes. While unlikely to occur, tourists might opt to spend the winter in Antarctica (although this probably should be discouraged). All of which means that offering a place to sleep would be a viable option for a business. This doesn't only apply to tourists, researchers would find these kinds of accommodations useful. Sure, they probably won't like the idea that a settlement has been set up on a continent that is supposed to be wholly set aside for science but at the same time it would extend the time they can spend in the field. The Cape Adare candidate settlement site is a good example. The weather can change quickly at the Cape which means a lack of shelter greatly limits how long researchers can remain there. Accommodations would allow them to stay, perhaps the entire season. The settlement may in time come to host researchers on a regular basis as they go about studying the region. Hosting tourists is primarily a summer job but if researchers begin making use of the settlement during the winter months a hotel owner could keep busy the entire year. Inland Day Trips The options for seeing the interior of Antarctica as a tourist are limited with only one operator flying people in for a camping experience. Day trips around Cape Adare would be doable and provide a unique experience. As with any idea involving tourism this would be a summer only job. Tourist Knick-knacks 'I went to Antarctica and all I got was this lousy t-shirt' - While giftshops on Antarctica might seem just a little sacrilegious it is a fact that this would be the easiest way to pull in extra tourism dollars. Aside from the giftshop itself a number of other jobs would be created focused on stocking it with product. This is the classic example of a job that could have two different phases of operation. During the winter the giftshop would be focused on making/buying the products it will sell during the following summer tourism season. The FutureIt is impossible to determine how the settlement's economy would develop over time. Some business ideas
require developed infrastructure. For example, server farms (with or without cryptocurrency mining) require internet cables to be laid. Indeed, internet access would open up an astounding number of business opportunities. Others, such as fishing, require specialized equipment. But the fact remains, as I hope I have demonstrated here, that Antarctica provides enough economic opportunities to sustain itself. Antarctica presents unique challenges for settlement design and construction. Temperatures completely
preclude the use of concrete. Frozen and/or loose gravel soil make building solid foundations difficult. High winds makes tall structures hard to design. Indeed, modern research stations are primarily made of metal while historic structures are made of heavy timbers. This article deals with a few practical considerations, some experimental ideas, and general considerations about cost and the built environment. Dealing with Wind As mentioned in earlier articles the winds coming off the Antarctic continent are no joke. As such construction plans must account for it as much, if not more, than they do for temperature. This is because high winds can also greatly effect how much energy it takes to heat a building. Due to the high windspeed expected from winter winds any such windbreak would need to be strong. There are a few calculations that are important for solid windbreaks. Firstly, the zone right behind a windbreak actually collects snow due to it becoming a slight vacuum. This 'snow zone' is at a distance of up to 5x the height of the windbreak (5H) with a wind protection zone starting just beyond it and going to 15x the height of the windbreak (15H). So a wall about 10ft tall would need the buildings to be protected spaced 50ft from the walls. Wind breaks have thus far had limited use in Antarctica: [1] Another consideration is the shape of the buildings. Square buildings are actually very inefficient at retaining heat. Circular buildings do better by eliminating dead space and allowing wind to more easily pass by the structure. While not every wall in the settlement need be curved, complete elimination of right angled corners may be desirable. Pykrete Having decided to build a windbreak (which would double as a defencive wall) what should it be built out of? The answer is a material developed during World War II called pykrete. An 'alloy' of saw dust and ice (1-6 ratio by weight) pykrete has properties comparable to cement. Unlike ice it is slow to melt due to saw dust's low thermal conductivity. As long as temperatures remain below -15 degrees Celsius pykrete will not deform or degrade. Pykrete has the advantage of being incredibly cheap to make with its saw dust (or other cellulose) component light weight enough to transport in large quantities. Pykrete would find good use as a building material for wind breaks and other cold storage structures. Pallet Construction Modern society has become inherently wasteful both in terms of people and material. Nowhere is the sheer waste of materials more evident than the humble pallet. Over 100 million wooden pallets end up in the landfill each year. Many of these pallets are still serviceable. This presents an opportunity. Any growing settlement is going to need building materials and if the cost of transporting them in can't be eliminated than the next best thing is to eliminate the cost of the materials themselves. Pallets can be picked up for free at many locations and are built to be strong. Wool Insulation Wool is an amazing insulation material. Resistant to fire and mold, possessing decent R-value, and a fully renewable resource, makes wool a great candidate for insulating the settlement walls (and of course the settlers themselves). Its one downside, that it attracts certain insects, is negated by Antarctica not having insects to attract. Wool production also has a tendency to out-strip demand which leads to frequent gluts in production. As a result sourcing cheap wool is doable (the quality of the wool mattering little). Sourcing locally So what building materials can be sourced locally in Antarctica? As mentioned above water, as ice, is present in abundance. Stone and gravel are also easily located. Penguin down is an alternative insulating material as penguin chicks shed their down as they mature and the down itself has great insulating qualities. Feather down is flammable, however, so it would be better to restrict it to clothing insulation. Growing trees for their lumber is theoretically possible but would tie up a great deal of space, time, and resources. Any future settlement will require a great deal of material but this is a logistics problem, not a technology problem. A steady supply of food is vital to the survival of the settlement. Luckily test cases showcasing the technology
to grow food in Antarctica already exist. It should be obvious that any farming would have to be done inside using UV grow lights and maximizing the use of space. Below are the details of how to go about farming a land dead for an eon. Power Source This topic will be dealt with more in its own research article but sufficed to say a combination of solar, wind, and miscellaneous other power sources will be needed to supply the heat and light needed to keep food production viable. Techniques There are a few different ways to go about farming in Antarctica. The first, aquaponics, is to be dismissed for two reasons: 1. It requires tools and chemicals being imported fairly regularly and, 2. Water is much harder to heat than air or soil. As such aquaponics presents additional challenges for farming. And, indeed, the test cases mentioned before don't use hydroponics, instead opting for plants in soil with grow lights. So assuming you are using grow lights there is another choice to be made: do you let the plants grow to maturity or do you harvest the plants after a week or two as microgreens? Microgreens are wasteful from a resource standpoint but are quick, which is useful (generally two weeks to grow). Depending on the plant it might be more advantageous to harvest them as microgreens rather than let them grow to full size. This depends on the plant's likely output, the size of the seeds, and the food needs of the settlement at a given time. Potential Crops Not all crops are created equal. For lettuce, cabbage, and beets pretty much the entire plant is edible. While pumpkins, squash, and tomatoes have only a small proportion of the plant that is edible. Most plants fall into a middle area between these two extremes. The other consideration is whether a plant needs insects for pollination. In theory, bees could be kept in Antarctica for their honey but it is good to know what plants can get by without them. Crops infographic: [1] Space How much space needs to be set apart for farming? This question leads into another one about the amount of construction materials needed. To figure this out let's do some math. Calculations estimate that 4000ft2 is needed to feed one person which is a space of a little over 63x63ft. This is a lot but its also where efficient use of space comes in. Using grow lights a room with a standard 8ft high ceiling can have three tiers. This would roughly be a 36x36ft room. Or put another way, about the size of a small house. So lets calculate how much space would be needed for a small population of 100: 4000x100=400,000ft2. This is roughly 632x632ft. Or 365x365ft with a three-tiered set up. The map linked here details how much of the Cape Adare site this would actually cover: [2] Livestock? Raising livestock is possible but as they require their own food to be raised it is useful to start with the space calculations and go from there. In terms of which animals should be raised there is an obvious answer; sheep. Sheep have a bit more to offer than other livestock. While they do provide meat, more importantly they also provide wool. Wool is a great insulator and is unappreciated in this role when it comes to housing. Raising sheep removes another material that would have to be imported. Sheep eat roughly half of what humans do by weight. This could also be an answer to the problem of food wastage as sheep can eat the parts of plants humans find unpalatable. I'm sure someone is wondering at this point why I haven't suggested eating penguins, seals, and skuas. The answer is two-fold; 1. the diet of these animals is primarily fish which imparts a not-completely-desirable taste to the meat and, 2. The settlement will face enough international outrage without stories of the people killing penguins added to the mix. Both points are potentially possible to overcome but would take time and this website is for plans that can be made before any landing on the continent is made. That said, founding a settlement near a penguin rookery is pragmatic in order to have an emergency food supply near by in case of a serious disaster (and because they are entertaining to watch). In conclusion the technology and know-how to grow food in Antarctica exists and procuring a steady food supply is not a hindrance to future settlement. Figuring out the best location to found a settlement is vital to the eventual success of this endeavor. Over the past few years several candidate locations have been discussed. Each has their own pros & cons. Cape Adare and the Langhovde Hills are discussed below. While no final decision has been reached by the ASRG, the examples here serve as test cases of the challenges other settlement sites would present in varying degrees. This article may be updated from time to time with additional candidate sites as well as new information on older sites. Cape AdareClimate Unlike the interior of the continent the coastal regions are relatively mild. Average winter temperatures range between -25 degrees Celsius and -30 degrees Celsius. Summer temperatures range between -5 and -10. Having observed the temperature at Cape Adare for an entire year using a weather forecasting website there was not a single day where temperatures rose above 0 degrees Celsius. This climate is roughly equivalent to a Canadian winter stretched out over the entire year. Which, if you like winter is not a terrible thing. However, wind chill in winter is a serious concern as Cape Adare is prone to high winds of up to 240kmh in winter due katabatic processes which would require buildings be well constructed, windbreaks erected, and everything be well insulated. Consistent wind power generation is a possibility but would require either the turbines being protected from the wind's full force or the use of specially designed 'heavy' turbines that take more force to rotate. All of which means that winters are likely to be spent primarily indoors and this needs be taken into consideration during the design phase of the settlement. Climate Tracking: Link Terrain Cape Adare is part of a long peninsula extending north-west from the continent and is primarily comprised of basalt. A large triangular beach takes up a portion of the southern side of the peninsula. The north side is a long stretch of sheer cliffs. As such the beach, Ridley Beach, is the main way of accessing the cape. Heading up from the beach is a large barren plateau. Cape Adare is part of the less than 1% of Antarctica which is not ice covered. Due to the limited access routes this location is highly defencible. Ancient volcanic activity formed the peninsula as a series over overlapping volcanoes. While speculative, it is possible that layers of volcanic ash could exist and be used to enrich soil for crop production. Lava tubes, if present, would provide additional space for storage as well as future tourist attractions. Cape Adare is backed by the Admiralty Mountains which are heavily glaciated. There is potential for mining various minerals as very little prospecting has been done on the continent to date. While this mountain range would likely play a small role in the settlement's early history it presents a natural area to expand to at a later date. However, Cape Adare does not provide easy access to the interior via land due to several glaciers. Access Cape Adare is typically free of its sea ice from early February to the middle of March. While this creates a very limited window for supplying the settlement the flip side is that it makes attacking the settlement a logistical nightmare as any hostile action against the settlement becomes difficult once the sea ice returns. Ideally, a settlement site needs to be accessible but not too accessible. Another location, Cape Burks shared many similarities with Cape Adare but was simply not accessible enough. The Antarctic Peninsula has the opposite problem. A larger problem is its position under the main flight route to McMurdo Station which makes hiding the settlement for any amount of time difficult. Economic Potential The Cape Adare location presents a number of economic opportunities (some already touched on). Tourism remains a small, but growing, opportunity and Cape Adare has both a large penguin rockery and the first man-made structure built on the continent. With a permanent settlement at Cape Adare additional tourism operations become possible. For instance, skiing and other winter sports. While the scientific community is unlikely to look fondly on the settlement's existence in the early days, the fact remains that the settlement is a convenient 'jumping off point' for expeditions to the surrounding areas. As long as it doesn't impinge on the settlement's sovereignty it will, of course, support the continued study of the continent across all scientific fields. While mining is possible it will require prospecting to be carried out first with one exception. The Antarctic ice sheets are excellent at catching meteorites and making them glaringly obvious to people searching for them. Meteorites are valuable with some rarer types being worth thousands of dollars. This type of 'mining' is likely to be the first type that could be carried out. Industrial activities are likely to be primarily for a domestic market due to the settlement's isolated location. Survey Images [1][2][3][4][5] Langhovde HillsClimate The Langhovde Hills feature a similar climate to Cape Adare but somewhat warmer with temperatures rising above 0 degrees Celsius on a fairly regular basis. Explorer reports detail that the area receives a fair amount of snow which then melts during the Antarctic summer. Similar again to Cape Adare the area is subject to katabatic winds with the key difference being multiple hills and ridges in the area that could act as natural windbreaks, which Cape Adare lacks. Climate Tracking: Link Terrain The rock that makes up the hills and several other ice-free areas to its south is a type of banded granite with an overall brown to orange colouration. The Langhovde hills feature several mountains, ponds, and valleys making it a much more complex terrain than Cape Adare. These features end in several bays and coves which are dotted with islands. In the south, Mount Heito and Mount Minami-heito rise to over 300 meters and are flat-topped. While the glaciers at Cape Adare block access to the interior, the glaciers surrounding the Langhovde Hills facilitate it as the glaciers in question are extremely slow moving rendering them more stable for traversing. Due to the common origin of the Langhovde Hills and Sri Lanka it can be speculated that Graphite, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Quartz, Feldspar, Kaolin, Apatite, (Phosphate Rock), Silica Sand, Garnet sand, Mica, Calcite and Dolomite could be found there. Sri Lanka is also famous for its gemstones. As always, prospecting will need to be carried out to confirm these suspicions. The area does have at least one confirmed salt flat. Access The complex terrain of the Langhovde Hills makes for an area with several accessible as well as several highly defencible points. Unlike Cape Adare, the Langhovde Hills are neither common flyover areas nor a seasonal stop for tourists. It is somewhat south of a research station operated by Japan which is not ideal but they have already surveyed and studied the area so it is not clear how common it is for them to travel south. It should be noted the Japanese research station is on an island which may make travel to the Langhovde region difficult after the breakup of the sea ice which is when any settlement effort would be arriving. Sea ice clears from the region somewhat later than Cape Adare which shortens the timeframe for unloading supplies. As discussed with Cape Adare, this is also a blessing. The complex coastline and waters dotted with small islands makes it difficult for large ships to get close which would work to the settlement's advantage. The Langhovde Hills is the site of a snow petrel colony which is an internationally protected bird sanctuary. The sanctuary occupied a central valley and extends from the coast almost to the glacier. To limit international outrage this protected areas should be respected (and, indeed, protected by the settlement's own laws). The limitation on disturbing the area by foot traffic and aircraft makes it almost a natural boundary in its own right which could be of strategic use. Economic Potential The Langhovde Hills front a large area of blue ice which is valued for the quantity of meteorites that can be found on and within it. As noted in the Terrain section there are potential mineral resources. Due to its more remote location this location does not have the same tourism potential as Cape Adare. Survey Images [1][2][3] |
Published ResearchAs the project develops and gaps in understanding are filled finalized plans will be posted here. The end goal being a comprehensive plan for settling Antarctica. All plans subject to update as new information is learned. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|