Lunar/Polar Urbanism: Earliest possible permanent settlement in Antarctica and on the Moon, possible best models of settlement

[Godot]

Something I've been kicking around for my incoming graphics timeline (totally still happening, I know you're all positively chomping at the bit for it, it's en route, promise) is the visibility of permanent settlement on two pretty inhospitable locales: Antarctica and the Moon.

Let's leave aside the Antarctic and Lunar treaty systems, and assume that permanent settlements are both desirable and legally permitted to fall under permanent claims. I assume some measure of intensified space race/ice race would further encourage exploration and settlement of these particular zones, though I don't want to start thinking about warfare in either (yet).

So, technologically speaking, what do people think are the earliest points at which permanent settlement is possible in either area? I think my personal figures clock in at around ~1930 for Ant. and ~1980 for the Moon, but I'm really not sure. What do people think are viable means of settlement? I feel like emulations of current Antarctic bases may work for what could be considered an 'urban area' that far south, but I know plans for domed settlements have been kicked around - are those actually viable?

Furthermore, what could urbanism in these particularly inhospitable climes look like? How would human urbanism mesh with domed settlements, or sub-Lunar-surface 'cities?'

Like, cities in these areas would be quite unlike really anything humanity has tried before. Save for the possibility of like, big domes to control climatic conditions, these would be settlements where going 'outside' would be pretty hazardous to one's health. How would urbanism account for the necessities of indoor-exclusive living? Are domes *really* the answer? Could lunar caverns be oxygenized? My background really isn't much in science, so I'm very keen on hearing people's thoughts on viability and how early such places could get off the ground (or under it!).

 

[Mildtryth]

Furthermore, what could urbanism in these particularly inhospitable climes look like? How would human urbanism mesh with domed settlements, or sub-Lunar-surface 'cities?'

Like, cities in these areas would be quite unlike really anything humanity has tried before. Save for the possibility of like, big domes to control climatic conditions, these would be settlements where going 'outside' would be pretty hazardous to one's health. How would urbanism account for the necessities of indoor-exclusive living? Are domes *really* the answer? Could lunar caverns be oxygenized? My background really isn't much in science, so I'm very keen on hearing people's thoughts on viability and how early such places could get off the ground (or under it!).

I think a bigger problem is how to produce food (or water) in such conditions.

 

[Godot]

I think a bigger problem is how to produce food (or water) in such conditions.

I always figured greenhouses and hydroponics farms would work? And melting snow.

 

[DG Valdron]

I always figured greenhouses and hydroponics farms would work? And melting snow.

Fuel to Antarctica. Pretty much every single material would have to be shipped there.

As for greenhouses and hydroponics farms, best evidence is that it takes roughly 0.5 to 2.0 acres of farmland to feed one person for a year.

Uphill battle. So average it out to 1 to 1, you would need 300 acres of greenhouses/hydroponics to feed a self sustaining lunar or antarctic colony. That's a lot of soil, that's a lot of hydroponics, a lot of glass and infrastructure and management systems.

 

[Godot]

Fuel to Antarctica. Pretty much every single material would have to be shipped there.

As for greenhouses and hydroponics farms, best evidence is that it takes roughly 0.5 to 2.0 acres of farmland to feed one person for a year.

Uphill battle. So average it out to 1 to 1, you would need 300 acres of greenhouses/hydroponics to feed a self sustaining lunar or antarctic colony. That's a lot of soil, that's a lot of hydroponics, a lot of glass and infrastructure and management systems.

Solar panels and big batteries? A breeder reactor?

 

[Stellar_Lights]

Earliest possible Moon settlement would range from 1970s to 1990s. There were enough technologies invented by then. A more streamlined and sustained investments into Earth AND Space based Nuclear Power, along with improved Semiconductors/Computing systems by then, would have helped establish a small base and an associated settlement on the Moon. Antarctic settlement doesn't have much ROI in the long term.

 

[Godot]

Antarctic settlement doesn't have much ROI in the long term.

I'm figuring from a point of national prestige and map-painting, really.

 

[Stellar_Lights]

I'm figuring from a point of national prestige and map-painting, really.

But Antarctic settlement doesn't give the settler the same levels of prestige to boast of. Moon settlement gives that boast about the defence capabilities, creation of entirely new ecosystems, the accurate transportation from Earth to the Moon, and the establishment of new manufacturing chains on the Moon gives a country an edge. Antarctic settlement will most likely end up being a loss maker in the long term.

 

[West234]

So, technologically speaking, what do people think are the earliest points at which permanent settlement is possible in either area?

With the level of technology in our Timeline I would agree that the late 1920s to early 30s is probably the earliest time for a serious settlement to be established. I do think that the 80s did not have the right tech for a moon colony of any sort maybe the 2000s or 2010s you could but the early colonies would be most likely closer to small research outposts with only a few astronauts living there at any given time and more serious colonization.

 

[RanulfC]

IIRC both Argentina and Chile consider themselves to have "colonies" on Antarctica with at least one having a hospital and a school but how actually "viable" they are is a question.
In both the case of Antarctica and the Moon your main issue is going to be energy production. Everything from basic life support to resource extraction and refining it going to need energy and you either ship it in or find a way to get power from local resources. (The latter being very expensive and energy consuming in Antarctica)

"Greenhouses" in both places are probably going to be buried structures with "periscope" windows to avoid heating loss (Antarctica) and radiation (the Moon) both are going to have to have extremely compact and energy efficient food production methods, (as noted above 'standard' crops "0.5 to 2.0 acres of farmland to feed one person for a year" whereas compact aquaponics needs about 395 sq feet producing both plants but also fish. If you can utilize vertical spacing you can even reduce this some.
Again it's highly dependent on energy generation as you will have to provide heat and lighting for 6 months of the year (Antarctica) and around two weeks (for the Moon) due to darkness at the site.

Randy

 

[Beatriz]

Kerguelen or South Georgia Islands are marginally more habitable and in Kerguelen’s case has an indigenous vegetable

 

[DG Valdron]

But Antarctic settlement doesn't give the settler the same levels of prestige to boast of. Moon settlement gives that boast about the defence capabilities, creation of entirely new ecosystems, the accurate transportation from Earth to the Moon, and the establishment of new manufacturing chains on the Moon gives a country an edge. Antarctic settlement will most likely end up being a loss maker in the long term.

Both an Antarctic and a Lunar Settlement would be incredibly difficult and massive, utterly massive, loss leaders.

An Antarctic settlement would be slightly more viable, you don't have to import your air and water, the transport costs of getting anything there are exponentially cheaper by orders of magnitude, and if something goes wrong, then there's a hope of rescue or repair.

 

[RedSword12]

Urbanism in either place is missing the point. There isn't really all that much worthwhile in either place to warrant having a whole city. Small stations staffed by teams of researchers would be more than enough for whatever benefit can be derived from such colonization attempts.

 

[DG Valdron]

IIRC both Argentina and Chile consider themselves to have "colonies" on Antarctica with at least one having a hospital and a school but how actually "viable" they are is a question.
In both the case of Antarctica and the Moon your main issue is going to be energy production. Everything from basic life support to resource extraction and refining it going to need energy and you either ship it in or find a way to get power from local resources. (The latter being very expensive and energy consuming in Antarctica)

"Greenhouses" in both places are probably going to be buried structures with "periscope" windows to avoid heating loss (Antarctica) and radiation (the Moon) both are going to have to have extremely compact and energy efficient food production methods, (as noted above 'standard' crops "0.5 to 2.0 acres of farmland to feed one person for a year" whereas compact aquaponics needs about 395 sq feet producing both plants but also fish. If you can utilize vertical spacing you can even reduce this some.
Again it's highly dependent on energy generation as you will have to provide heat and lighting for 6 months of the year (Antarctica) and around two weeks (for the Moon) due to darkness at the site.

Randy

I don't think I've seen a credible, cost effective, large scale aquaponics set up, which has endured for a long term. An acre is about 40,000 square feet. Assuming you go 400 square feet for a viable effective hydroponics, you'll stlll need about 3 acres give or take to sustain a population of 300. For something like this, you'd probably want to build three to one redundancy in. Simply skating on the margins of basic minimum would be suicide. So more likely 1200 square feet for hydroponics. Nine acres.

It's going to amount to an incredible effort to even get and build all that infrastructure in place and hope for it to be self sustaining. We can't just magic it all out there. The costs, would be incredible.

I'm betting that somewhere on the net, there are cost breakdowns for the current antarctic installations. I'm betting they're heroically pricey.

 

[DougM]

I agree I think it could be done in Antarctica from the late 50s and the moon from the 70s as far as technology goes.
But the costs are HUGE. More so for the moon obviously.
As for ROI. That does not always mean MONEY/Profit. The ROI for the space race was propaganda/bragging rights as well as a lot of technical innovations. Much of our current cordless world traces back to the space race. As does a lot of our other technology.
But without the propaganda return the US and the USSR would not have push so far so fast. And frankly it was an accident that they did. They we’re improving rockets for warfare and they got to the point they could put something and then someone in space and it struck mankind’s imagination and everyone was fascinated with it and before either country knew it the prop value exploded.
But once the obvious finish line had a winner cross it (the moon) the fascination deeds almost as fast as it appeared.
Maybe if the USSR was closer and landed on the Moon in 1970 then we could have seen the race continue. The USSR lands 3 men say. Then the US lands the buggy so the USSR lands two missions at once with a total of 4 men and two buggies. Or whatever.
This way the interest is maintained. No one is interested in a one man race. If the US was not just a step behind at the Start and the USSR was the only country with a man in space until say the 70s then after a few launches no one would have cared because it was not interesting.
So once the Cold War settled down in the 70s and the space race was “won” no one cared.
And you have to get passed that as the only way you can pay for a moon base is if the people want it. And are vocal about it or with a military budget and a military reason.

Now as far as Antarctic goes. It is a much cheeper and easier place to build a permanent settlement but it has no interest to anyone other then scientists and folks visiting for a half hour to see some penguins and to say they have been on all 7 continents. So that is actually a harder sell.
Unless you can find a reason why we need a colony vs a science lab yoyu can’t get the money to do it. Look at what the US built on I believe Greenland. Heck that even had some sort of nuclear power station iirc. But that was defense related. And yet it was not a true colony.
I mean as far as I know the US has had McMurdo (spelling?) since what 54 or 55? And lots of other countries have permanent laps there as well.
But if you want a true self sustaining (more or less) colony with non scientists there and maybe spouses and kids and such then you need a reason.
And while a couple countries keep trying to claim parts of it as theirs most counties agree that it can’t be claimed so I can’t see any reason to build a colony.

 

[Garrison]

Well if you want to accelerate the climate crisis urbanizing the Antarctic would be the way to do it. The energy consumption of such settlements would be huge and since the only reason to build them would be a drive to exploit whatever material resources the continent has to offer the consequences are going to be horrendous.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I suppose a mining operation of something really valuable might justify this in Antartica. Maybe it would take two or more valuables in the same location.

 

[Moniker]

for greenhouses and hydroponics farms, best evidence is that it takes roughly 0.5 to 2.0 acres of farmland to feed one person for a year.

Uphill battle. So average it out to 1 to 1, you would need 300 acres of greenhouses/hydroponics to feed a self sustaining lunar or antarctic colony. That's a lot of soil, that's a lot of hydroponics, a lot of glass and infrastructure and management systems.

Most estimates I've seen for intense hydroponics puts the total somewhere around 1000-2000 sqft per person. A lot of space, sure, but you can build up (or down) and have as many floors as you want. It's more of a volume problem than an area problem

 

[DG Valdron]

Most estimates I've seen for intense hydroponics puts the total somewhere around 1000-2000 sqft per person. A lot of space, sure, but you can build up (or down) and have as many floors as you want. It's more of a volume problem than an area problem

In a sealed environmental space, it's very close to the same thing.

Seems to me that if you're trying to build a self sustaining facility on the moon, or even Antarctica, you'd want to over-engineer massively build as much sequestration and redundancy as you can manage. Assuming an air leak, or a cold leak, or some mix up or failure with nutrients or any of a hundred management issues hits, you don't want to kill the entire food supply.

 

[Stellar_Lights]

Both an Antarctic and a Lunar Settlement would be incredibly difficult and massive, utterly massive, loss leaders.

An Antarctic settlement would be slightly more viable, you don't have to import your air and water, the transport costs of getting anything there are exponentially cheaper by orders of magnitude, and if something goes wrong, then there's a hope of rescue or repair.

I know. It's not about the upfront costs or initial losses, but ROI over the decades, for such large projects. Oxygen transport costs and setting up an entire circuit on the Moon is very expensive. But the point is that you get ample returns after a period when you can have Space based Nuclear Power and Manufacturing, there. You need to set up the initial infrastructure in Space which needs investment and will, but the payoffs are immense. But with the case of Antarctica, building up an entire ecosystem will yield a dead end where neither are new improvements possible, but you start to make losses from the existing arrangements.

You will need a likely sustained effort for three to four decades starting in 1970s, when it would first be possible, to end up with a highly profitable and self-sustaining Moon colony. Breakeven can be expected shortly after when the first semi-automated and semi-replicating manufacturing plant powered by Nuclear Energy, is instated. That isn't an impossible feat.