U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-30-2019, 02:53 PM
 
Location: In transition
10,669 posts, read 14,251,547 times
Reputation: 5085

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
over 300k people manage to live in Yakutsk and the city continues to grow, so if its possible why not?

https://www.google.com/maps/@62.0309...7i13312!8i6656
Just because they can doesn't mean they should. I know Russia has cities built on permafrost and Canada has towns too but it doesn't mean they should be built there. It is too harmful to the delicate environment. The same reason why no cities should be built in Antarctica.
I have been up north to the Yukon and NWT and I saw first hand the damage building on permafrost does to buildings, infrastructure and the environment... not to mention the cost. Not a good idea...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2019, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
4,885 posts, read 3,337,539 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3 View Post
Because Antarctica is significantly colder, more isolated, lacks the major infrastructure support that type of living establishment and logistically is the hardest location on the planet for transportation of goods.

You quite literally can't travel let alone fly or ship goods/resourse into the continent for half the year
Oh no, that is not what I meant, I don’t think people should live in Antarctica, I was talking about living on permafrost, which I guess is a bit off topic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2019, 03:44 PM
 
Location: california
6,548 posts, read 5,797,564 times
Reputation: 7952
Raytheon hires people with skills to live there.
I would think there would lots of job openings,

Secondly, there are structures already there, and they are built on pilings, not directly on the snow, it would take too much energy to heat a building directly on the frozen tundra.
I believe there are places in Antarctica that have exposed land but due to volcanic activity.
It would be like living in Yellowstone.
Personally, I had thought about living in the arctic and building a dome structure on pilings and a green house as well.
There are people that do live up there now, I am the kind of person that likes that kind of life.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2019, 03:56 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,560 posts, read 2,186,045 times
Reputation: 4480
Default Cold hard facts

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightningfire View Post
We know that Antarctica is too cold and ice covered for permanent human habitation, however why can’t we inhabit it in a huge warm dome where we can grow crops in the permanent light spring and summer and store them in winter?
Given the state of technology, you'd probably do better to bury a habitation below the permafrost, & isolate the habitat thermally - so as not to melt all the ice above it. You'd have to use grow lights to grow crops - but you'd probably have to do that anyway, whether in a dome or not.

More stable temperatures, fresh & salt water sources (just apply heat). Given the transport difficulties, you'd probably want a nuclear power plant, for electricity & hot water, & to distill/melt fresh water. Not sure that there are any other natural resources to exploit there - & the whole thing would be fairly expensive to build.

Do we know what - if anything - is below the ice there?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
5,881 posts, read 3,058,530 times
Reputation: 10871
Because the cost would seriously exceed the value of the crops.

And there is no food shortage. The food that we bring to harvest now that goes uneaten due to waste is enough to feed at least 4 billlion people, all we have to do is find more efficient ways to distribute it.

Solving a problem we don't have is fixing something that ain't broke.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 08:50 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,706 posts, read 799,151 times
Reputation: 1625
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Given the state of technology, you'd probably do better to bury a habitation below the permafrost, & isolate the habitat thermally - so as not to melt all the ice above it. You'd have to use grow lights to grow crops - but you'd probably have to do that anyway, whether in a dome or not.

More stable temperatures, fresh & salt water sources (just apply heat). Given the transport difficulties, you'd probably want a nuclear power plant, for electricity & hot water, & to distill/melt fresh water. Not sure that there are any other natural resources to exploit there - & the whole thing would be fairly expensive to build.

Do we know what - if anything - is below the ice there?
More ice or if you go towards the interior of the continent, sub glacial lakes (the water isn't drinkable) which for obvious reasons isn't logistically/economically effective to harvest
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 03:15 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
90,780 posts, read 86,960,454 times
Reputation: 97731
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightningfire View Post
We know that Antarctica is too cold and ice covered for permanent human habitation, however why can’t we inhabit it in a huge warm dome where we can grow crops in the permanent light spring and summer and store them in winter?
Because dome living was tried already. It didn't work out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 03:20 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
19,747 posts, read 12,015,507 times
Reputation: 28806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Because dome living was tried already. It didn't work out.
It's not going to work out, either. The people pushing mars settlements know that, and they know we can't really live there - probably can't even go there.
But they want your money, anyway.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 04:32 PM
 
5,083 posts, read 2,275,223 times
Reputation: 4242
If there's any reason to try and build a larger settlement on Antarctica, it would be be to serve as a testing ground for any future Mars colony, though obviously the conditions would still differ significantly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 04:35 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,560 posts, read 2,186,045 times
Reputation: 4480
Default Mars needs women?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
It's not going to work out, either. The people pushing mars settlements know that, and they know we can't really live there - probably can't even go there.
But they want your money, anyway.
Mars is a case where you'd really, really want to build underground - in natural caves, if possible (save costs, have preexisting caverns) - you'd just have to seal them, make them air & waterproof, put in blast doors @ intervals - like a submarine. You'd get free radiation shielding, micrometeoroid shielding, shielding from any unforeseen solar outbursts. You might find water ice down there (or something that could be processed into water & air).

Lots of reasons to dig in, very few to try domes on the surface - @ least initially. If we can ever get sufficient partial pressure on Mars' surface so that you don't need to carry your oxygen supply, maybe then. But I'd still prefer the sheltering aspect.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top