A self sufficient polar colony?

[Hans de Vries]

Since we are thinking about colonizing other planets, it would be goood to establish test colonies in some more inhospitable places on the Earth.

 

I am thinking about a test colony for between 300 and 1000 people, located either somewhere in Greenland, the edge of Antarctica or northern Canada

 

is it possible to establish a settlement in these areas that is self sufficient in food and energy, using technology available in 5-10 years? The town would be built with a fairy high initial ivestment. Energy would be generated via solar, wind and possibly tidal generators and food would be grown in greenhouses. It would be built on a low lying area with a possibility of first clearing the area from ice. A small seaport would be built.

 

 

 

[EdEarl]

Moon and Mars habitats need to be sheltered from solar and cosmic rays, possibly by earth berm. The interior will not be affected by outside conditions. What things can be learned with a polar location vs Arizona?

[Hans de Vries]

So forget for a while about other planets... since I am also interested in establishing settlements in extreme places of Earth.

[Ken Fabian]

Some people are thinking about colonising other planets - with the numbers likely to be much higher amongst members of a forum like this than within the population at large - but I personally have serious doubts about the feasibility or benefits of such enterprises. An Antarctic colony looks a lot more achievable, with the advantage of not having to build an entire specialised high tech infrastructural foundation to launch it and support it with, yet I doubt it would work either except as an expensive experiment; it's not likely to contribute much to it's own economic viability. As an exercise in R&D by wealthier, advanced economies that can afford it, a remote base in a hostile Earthly environment may yield some benefits that other means like modelling can't deliver, but real colonies require tangible benefits and financial viability or else they fail to get the investment and other backing they require. Antarctica as a test might be affordable by an EU, or USA or China, but I'm not convinced it can really tell us much about the viability of colonies on other planets.

 

My own view is that unless and until we see some extraordinary tech advances, human occupancy of space will only exist as outposts of an Earth economy, an economy more advanced than it is now supporting space activities that provide direct, tangible benefits to that economy. The conditions for such a future depend on sorting out some serious issues down here on Earth, or else the necessary economic base won't be there. Colonies raising their symbolic middle fingers to Earth and all that paid their way, in the style of 'Red Mars', seems unlikely fantasy based on presumptions of extraordinary technological capabilities ie that they can survive without ongoing external support. Self sufficiency, when the minimum threshold technology for basic survival is something well beyond the external supports underpinning activities in the most hostile environments on Earth, looks problematic.

[Enthalpy]

Energy is trivial if you get sunlight or wind often enough - 6 month night is too long.

 

Food is not trivial. I suppose we could concentrate sunlight near the poles to get enough light and heat to grow vegetables.

 

I'd like to point out that autarcy on a sterile planet is much more difficult than on a bad place on Earth. The only experiment to date, Biosphere 2, failed quickly. One point is the regeneration of oxygen, which other means could do better than biology, fine. The other point is that we ignore what we need to live. "Potatoes and vitamins" is fine, but what other animals and vegetals are needed for potatoes to grow over decades in a farm? Apparently noone has the answer.

 

On Earth you can always open the grennhouse's window or resettle 100m away to find good conditions when your soil is depleted, on Mars it brings nothing.

[Endy0816]

There are greenhouses in Antartica:

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13724

 

Self sufficiency would be hard though.

 

Energy is trivial if you get sunlight or wind often enough - 6 month night is too long.

 

Food is not trivial. I suppose we could concentrate sunlight near the poles to get enough light and heat to grow vegetables.

 

I'd like to point out that autarcy on a sterile planet is much more difficult than on a bad place on Earth. The only experiment to date, Biosphere 2, failed quickly. One point is the regeneration of oxygen, which other means could do better than biology, fine. The other point is that we ignore what we need to live. "Potatoes and vitamins" is fine, but what other animals and vegetals are needed for potatoes to grow over decades in a farm? Apparently noone has the answer.

 

On Earth you can always open the grennhouse's window or resettle 100m away to find good conditions when your soil is depleted, on Mars it brings nothing.

 

I think if Biosphere 2 had stuck with the basics it would have turned out differently.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if different model ecosystems are not eventually set up in space(for the novelty value if nothing else). But that would be a project way down the line when you have the energy and resources to support it.

 

Probably end up being a mix. Pool based(algae, wolffia, cyanobacteria); hydroponics and quasi-conventional farming.

 

Native soil can be introduced to a composter and your supply of usable soil expanded in that fashion. We mostly manage soil nutrition ourselves now, be more of the same.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Endy0816