More and Better Science in

Antarctica

Through Increased

Logistical Effectiveness

More and Better Science in

Antarctica

Through Increased

Logistical Effectiveness

Report of the

U.S.Antarctic Program

Blue Ribbon Panel

Washington, D.C.

July 2012
This report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel, More 

and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical 

Effectiveness, was completed at the request of the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National 

Science Foundation. Copies may be obtained from David Friscic 

at dfriscic@nsf.gov (phone: 703-292-8030). An electronic copy 

of the report may be downloaded from http://www.nsf.gov/od/

opp/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/index.jsp.

Cover art by Zina Deretsky.
More and Better Science in

A ntarct i ca

Through Increased

Logistical Effectiveness

Report of the

U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel

at the Request of

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

and

The National Science Foundation

Washington, D.C.

July 2012
U.S. Antarctic program Blue Ribbon Panel

Washington, D.C.

July 23, 2012

Dr. John P. Holdren Dr. Subra Suresh

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Director

& Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy National Science Foundation

Executive Office of the President of the United States 4201 Wilson Boulevard

Washington, DC 20305 Arlington, VA 22230

Dear Dr. Holdren and Dr. Suresh:

The members of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel are pleased to submit herewith our final report entitled 

More and Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness. Not only is the U.S. logistics system supporting 

our nation’s activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean the essential enabler for our presence and scientific accomplishments in that region, it is also the dominant consumer of the funds allocated to those endeavors.

It is our unanimous conclusion that substantial cost savings can be realized and more science therefore accomplished, some 

through rather straightforward operating changes and others requiring initial investment. The latter offer long-term gains that 

are justified on a discounted cash-flow basis, from safety considerations, or from science returns. The essence of our findings 

is that the lack of capital budgeting has placed operations at McMurdo, and to a somewhat lesser extent at Palmer Station, 

in unnecessary jeopardy—at least in terms of prolonged inefficiency due to deteriorating or otherwise inadequate physical 

assets. In this report we have sought to identify areas where increases in logistical effectiveness are particularly promising in 

comparison with their cost. 

We are honored to have been asked to conduct this review and have been privileged to work with the many remarkable and 

dedicated individuals associated with the United States Antarctic Program.

Very truly yours,

Norman R. Augustine, Chair Thad Allen

Craig E. Dorman Hugh W. Ducklow

Bart Gordon* R. Keith Harrison

Don Hartill Gérard Jugie

Louis J. Lanzerotti Duncan J. McNabb

Robert E. Spearing Diana H. Wall

* Mr. Gordon’s membership on the Panel spanned from the Panel’s creation (October 12, 2011) until May 11, 2012, when a 

change of his employment activities necessitated his withdrawal.
Preface............................................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 2

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32

2. The Austral Environment ......................................................................................... 34

2.1. The Continent......................................................................................................... 36

2.2. The Environment at USAP Research Stations............................................................... 37

2.3. The Southern Ocean ............................................................................................... 38

2.4. Logistics for Research in the Antarctic Region ............................................................. 39

2.4.1. Indirect Research Support............................................................................... 39

2.4.2. Direct Research Support................................................................................. 48

3. Forecast of Future Science Needs........................................................................... 50

3.1. Science at the South Pole......................................................................................... 52

3.2. Science on the Peninsula and West Antarctica............................................................ 54

3.3. Science in McMurdo and the Dry Valleys .................................................................. 57

3.4. Science in the Continental Interior............................................................................. 59

3.5. Science in the Southern Ocean................................................................................. 60

3.6. Science Using an Integrated Observation System ....................................................... 62

4. Findings and Implementing Actions....................................................................... 64

4.1. Research Support: Research Facilities and Equipment.................................................. 64

4.2. People................................................................................................................... 71

4.3. Technology............................................................................................................. 76

4.4. Transportation ........................................................................................................ 81

4.4.1. Alterntatives to McMurdo Station .................................................................... 81

4.4.2. Air and Land ................................................................................................ 84

 4.4.3. Sea ............................................................................................................. 95

4.5. Supply Chain ....................................................................................................... 109

 4.5.1. Maintenance .............................................................................................. 113

 4.5.2. Warehousing/Storage................................................................................. 117

 4.5.3. Purchasing ................................................................................................. 121

 4.5.4. Inventory.................................................................................................... 122

Contents
4.6. Energy and Utilities............................................................................................... 125

4.7. Communications and Information Technology........................................................... 129

4.7.1. Examples of C&IT Demands Within the USAP ................................................. 129

4.7.2. Implementation of USAP C&IT....................................................................... 132

4.7.3. Summary of Key C&IT Issues ........................................................................ 133

4.7.4. Information Assurance/Security .................................................................... 139

4.8. Human Care ........................................................................................................ 140

 4.8.1. Housing..................................................................................................... 140

 4.8.2. Food ......................................................................................................... 142

4.8.3. Recreation and Morale ................................................................................ 143

4.8.4. Safety and Health ....................................................................................... 144

4.8.5. Personal Equipment..................................................................................... 149

4.9. Environmental Stewardship .................................................................................... 151

 4.9.1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 151

4.9.2. The USAP as an Environmental Leader........................................................... 151

4.9.3. Environmental Planning................................................................................ 152

4.9.4. Other Environmental Issues........................................................................... 153

4.10. International Considerations................................................................................. 154

 4.10.1. Governance ............................................................................................. 154

4.10.2. Logistics Collaboration............................................................................... 154

4.10.3. Scientific Collaboration.............................................................................. 156

4.10.4. Coordination of International Collaboration.................................................. 161

4.11. Governance of U.S. Program ............................................................................... 163

5. Cost Considerations ....................................................................................................... 167

5.1. Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................ 167

5.2. Cost Tradeoffs and Investment Strategy.................................................................... 170

Appendix I. Statement of Work ............................................................................................ 172

Appendix II. Member Biographies........................................................................................ 178

Appendix III. Governance Documents................................................................................... 185

Appendix IV. State Department’s Views................................................................................. 193

Appendix V. U.S. Science Support Activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean ................... 194

Appendix VI. Evaluation of Alternative Sites to McMurdo........................................................ 197

Appendix VII. Recommendations and Implementing Actions .................................................... 207

Appendix VIII. Bibliography ................................................................................................ 217

Appendix IX. Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................... 222
Preface 1

In 1996–1997, an independent panel established by the Director of the National Science 

Foundation, at the suggestion of the President’s 

National Science and Technology Council, conducted an examination into the United States’ 

activities in Antarctica. Its report noted the 

strategic importance of the nation’s presence in 

that region and the significance of the scientific 

research being performed there. It also noted 

that the aging station located at the South Pole 

had become a safety hazard to those deployed 

there and recommended that it be replaced. 

In response, the National Science Foundation 

requested funding for that purpose. Congress 

appropriated the necessary funding, and a 

new and much more effective facility was constructed to replace the then-existing structure.

More recently, in 2010/11, in consultation with the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, the National Science 

Foundation tasked the National Research 

Council of the National Academies of Science 

to conduct the first phase of a review of the 

U.S. Antarctic Program: an assessment of scientific research planned to be conducted in 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean during 

the next few decades. The resulting report, 

Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica 

and the Southern Ocean, published in 2011, 

identified several trends that are emerging in 

Antarctic science. Among them is an increasing emphasis on integrated networks of sensors 

widely distributed across Antarctica making 

year-around measurements. 

The White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy and the National Science 

Foundation initiated the second phase of 

the review, the results of which are reported 

herein. The purposes of this follow-on Blue 

Ribbon Panel (hereafter called “the Panel”) on 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are to identify demands placed on the logistical enterprise 

if it is to support future scientific effort in the 

Antarctic region, to discern any mismatches 

with currently projected capabilities, and to 

propose appropriate opportunities and corrective actions. The present report addresses these 

issues, including the identification of steps 

that could substantially increase the amount 

and value of science pursued in the Antarctic 

region through greater overall effectiveness of 

the logistics system.

Preface
2 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Acknowledgements

The Panel was greatly assisted in its deliberations 

by presentations from, or conversations with, 

the following individuals from the National 

Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs:

• Ms. Gwendolyn Adams, Safety Manager

• Mr. George Blaisdell, Operations Manager

• Dr. Scott Borg, Antarctic Sciences 

Division Director

• Mr. Arthur J. Brown, Specialized 

Support Manager

• Ms. Jessie Crain, Research Support Manager

• Dr. Karl A. Erb, Director (retired)

• Dr. Kelly K. Falkner, Director (acting)

• Mr. Guy Guthridge, Information 

Specialist (retired)

• Mr. Jim Karcher, Safety Officer

• Ms. Susanne M. LaFratta, Senior Advisor 

for Policy, Analysis and Operations; 

Co-Executive Director for the Blue 

Ribbon Panel

• Mr. Tim McGovern, Marine 

Projects Manager

• Dr. Polly Penhale, Medical Officer (acting) 

and Environmental Officer

• Mr. Mike Scheuermann, Aviation 

Projects Manager

• Mr. Paul Sheppard, Systems Manager

• Mr. Pat Smith, Information Technology & 

Communications Manager

• Mr. Brian Stone, Antarctic Infrastructure & 

Logistics Division Director

• Dr. James Swift, Antarctic Research and 

Logistics Integration Program Manager; 

Co-Executive Director for the Blue 

Ribbon Panel

Special thanks are also in order for the Office of 

Polar Programs’ administrative staff that worked 

to make our meetings possible and paved the 

way for successful site visits to Antarctica and 

other U.S. Antarctic Program operating locations: Ms.  Karen Sloane and Ms. Nadene 

Kennedy. Ms. Winifred Reuning is recognized 

for ensuring that the information used by the 

Panel for orientation to the program and in its 

deliberations was readily accessible on the Web. 

Dr. Scot Arnold, assisted by Ms. Ji Byun, of 

the Institute for Defense Analyses Science & 

Technology Policy Institute provided expert 

financial analysis. 

The Panel is also most appreciative of the 

contribution by Ms. Laura Ahlberg who 

shared her expertise in the editorial sphere. 

Ms.  Zina Deretsky, an accomplished artist, 

prepared the report’s cover. The Panel thanks 

Dr. Ellen Kappel and Ms. Johanna Adams 

of Geosciences Professional Services for the 

expert editing and layout of this report under 

extreme time pressure. 

In addition, the Panel is grateful for the time and 

information provided by our hosts and the communities at McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer 

Stations and on board the Research Vessel 

Icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer and Antarctic 

Research and Supply Vessel Laurence M. Gould. 

U.S. Antarctic Program personnel at Lockheed 

Martin’s headquarters in Colorado and at 

the cargo facility in Port Hueneme, as well as 
acknowledgements 3

members of the 109th Airlift Wing in New York 

all spent time with members of the Panel, providing valuable information and insight. In addition to visiting Scott Base in Antarctica, while 

in Christchurch, New  Zealand, discussions 

with the New Zealand Antarctic Programme 

were extremely valuable, as was time spent 

discussing the city’s plans for rebuilding and 

improving its infrastructure with the Mayor of 

Christchurch and officials from Christchurch 

International Airport and the Lyttelton Port of 

Christchurch. Panelists also had fruitful discussions with officials of the Chilean station on 

King George Island. 

Many federal agency officials were also generous with their time, providing background 

information regarding their current activities in 

Antarctica and their future needs:

• Dr. Waleed Abdalati, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration

• Ambassador David A. Balton, Department 

of State

• Mr. Evan Bloom, Department of State

• Dr. James Butler, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

• Ms. Susannah Cooper, Department of State

• Mr. Morgan Geiger, Department of 

Homeland Security

• Mr. Ron Salazar, Department of 

Homeland Security

• Mr. Gordon Tanner, Department of Defense

Last—but by no means least—we thank the 

members of the National Research Council 

Committee on Future Science Opportunities in 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Without the 

work done by this committee, our panel would 

not have had a basis upon which to conduct the 

review that is the subject of this report.
4 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Executive Summary

Introduction

Conducting world-class science is a centerpiece of U.S. activities in the Antarctic and the 

Southern Ocean, but the substantive research 

itself is only the visible part of the iceberg. The 

logistics effort supporting that science is the 

vast base of the iceberg—representing, in terms 

of person-days in Antarctica, nine times the 

number devoted to research activity (Figure 1). 

Interestingly, the 1:9 ratio of science to support 

is almost exactly the same as that of an iceberg’s 

weight above and below the water. Substantial 

opportunities exist to devote a greater share of 

scarce resources to science by reducing the cost 

of logistics efforts. Addressing these opportunities is essential to prevent expenditure for support from consuming funding that is currently 

dedicated to science projects.

In 2011, the National Research Council published the report Future Science Opportunities 

in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. The 

report focused on discovery-driven research 

and global change research. “Discovery” 

addresses fundamental questions such as the 

nature of dark energy and dark matter that 

make up 96 percent of our universe—yet 

neither has yet been observed. “Global Change 

Research” includes the study of trends in and 

the causes and impacts of climate change, such 

as sea level rise and changes in major ocean 

currents. Changes are occurring with the most 

pronounced effects in the polar regions, making those environments important bellwethers 

for these global issues.

Results of past research in discovery and global 

change have been significant. Such research discovered the ozone hole and its cause, leading 

to a ban on the manufacture and use of chlorofluorocarbons as refrigerants. It also determined that the Antarctic Peninsula has been 

the fastest-warming region on Earth over the 

past half-century, with temperatures rising an 

astonishing 5°F (2.8°C). Antarctica captures 

61 percent of Earth’s fresh water as ice. If the 

West Antarctic Ice Sheet disintegrated, sea level 

is projected to rise by approximately 10 feet 

(3.3 meters). If the Antarctic ice sheets melted 

in their entirety, sea level would rise some 

200 feet (66 meters), threatening the one-fourth 

of Earth’s population that lives along coasts at 

an elevation less than 200 feet.

Current scientific efforts in Antarctica include 

the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, one of the 

largest single research activities underway. 

A cubic-kilometer array of 5160 optical sensors has been emplaced deep in the 9000-foot 

(2745-meter) thick ice sheet near the South 

Pole to form the world’s largest detector of 

neutrinos—chargeless, nearly massless particles that rarely interact with other matter. A 
Executive summary 5

principal goal of IceCube is the search for point 

sources of neutrinos, to explore high-energy 

astrophysical processes and help uncover the 

origin of the highest-energy cosmic rays. The 

combination of small neutrino interaction 

probability and these very rare events drives 

the need for a large detector. For most of these 

experiments, Earth itself acts as a shield against 

high-energy particles other than the neutrinos 

that are used for the research being pursued. 

The National Research Council report concluded that future science activity in the 

Antarctic region will involve substantial organizational changes, broader geographical spread, 

increased international involvement, and a 

growth in the quantity and duration of measurements. Implanting and maintaining longterm observing systems require additional 

data storage, communications capacity, transportation reach, and autonomous operation. 

Accomplishing these goals simply by expanding 

traditional methods of logistical support would 

be costly, if possible at all.

O&M Contractor Labor and Grantee Days

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

O&M Contractor Labor Days

Grantee Days (Science)

Figure 1. O&M Contractor Labor 

and Grantee Days (Science)
6 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

The Panel

John P. Holdren, Science Advisor to the 

President and Director of the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, and 

Subra Suresh, Director of the National Science 

Foundation, established a Blue Ribbon Panel 

(hereafter called “the Panel”) in October 2011 

to examine U.S. logistical capabilities likely 

to be needed in Antarctica and the Southern 

Ocean in the decades ahead and to seek means 

of enhancing their efficiency. The 12 panel 

members came from diverse professional backgrounds and, during their careers, have collectively undertaken 82 trips to Antarctica, including 16  to the South Pole and numerous trips 

aboard research vessels in the Southern Ocean. 

One member has wintered-over.

In addressing the Panel’s work, the Department 

of State indicated the continuing importance of 

the U.S. presence in Antarctica. Correspondingly, 

the National Science Foundation and other U.S. 

federal agencies discussed the importance of 

research in Antarctica to their overall science 

pursuits on behalf of the nation during meetings 

with the Panel.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Panel 

met in the Washington, D.C., area a total of 

six days, heard over 100  briefings, read thousands of pages of reports, and traveled to 

McMurdo Station, Palmer Station, South Pole 

Station, and various logistics centers—including 

Christchurch in New Zealand, Punta Arenas 

in Chile, the Antarctic Support Contract headquarters in Colorado and cargo facility in Port 

Hueneme, California, the 109th  New York Air 

National Guard in New York State—and the 

National Science Foundation’s headquarters in 

Arlington, Virginia. The Panel’s members went 

aboard the U.S. Antarctic Research and Supply 

Vessel Laurence M. Gould and Research Vessel 

Icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer, and witnessed 

on the U.S.  West Coast the off-loading of the 

chartered supply ship Green Wave. During its 

deliberations, the Panel held Town 

Hall Meetings at all three U.S. permanent locations in Antarctica and established a website to receive comments 

and suggestions. It also visited Chilean 

and New Zealand stations in Antarctica 

and met with the New Zealand air and 

port authorities and the managers of 

the New Zealand Antarctic Programme 

in Christchurch.

Allotted 270 days to pursue its work, the 

Panel completed its effort on schedule.

MEMBERS

Norman R. Augustine, Chair Don Hartill

Thad Allen Gérard Jugie

Craig E. Dorman Louis J. Lanzerotti

Hugh W. Ducklow Duncan J. McNabb

Bart Gordon* Robert E. Spearing

R. Keith Harrison Diana H. Wall

* Mr. Gordon’s membership on the Panel spanned from the Panel’s creation (October 12, 2011) until May 11, 2012, when a change of his 

employment activities necessitated his withdrawal.
Executive summary 7

Overall Assessment

U.S. activities in Antarctica are very well managed but suffer from an aging infrastructure, 

lack of a capital budget, and the effects of operating in an extremely unforgiving environment. 

Construction of the new station at the South 

Pole, requiring all personnel, building materials and supplies to be transported by air, was a 

truly remarkable achievement, accomplished 

on schedule and nearly within the initially 

established budget. 

The Panel concludes that by making changes to 

the logistics support system, such as those proposed, substantial cost savings can be realized 

using net present value as the basic financial 

metric. In some instances, more detailed analyses will be warranted prior to making substantial funding commitments—a consequence of 

the amount of time and the number of individuals available for this independent assessment. In 

some instances, achieving the savings identified 

will require front-end investments that could 

be supported with additional funding, temporary reductions in research, or both. Funding 

derived solely from reductions in research, 

however, can support only a small fraction of 

the investments because of the scale of the logistical effort relative to science (Figure 2).

The Panel identifies the lack of a capital budget for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) 

as the root cause of most of the inefficiencies 

observed—a situation that no successful corporation would ever permit to persist. If a formal, 

federally endorsed capital budget cannot be 

provided, then the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) should, at a minimum, formulate a capital plan for U.S.  activities in Antarctica that 

adapts to the needs of science and can be used 

as a basis for subsequent annual budgeting. The 

funding of maintenance would likewise benefit 

from more rigorous planning. 

Under current practice, when NSF and its contractors must choose between repairing a roof 

or conducting science, science usually prevails. Only when the science is seriously disrupted because the roof begins to collapse will 

it be replaced; until then, it is likely only to be 

repaired. Examples of this phenomenon abound: 

a  warehouse where some areas are avoided 

because the forklifts fall through the floor; 

kitchens with no grease traps; outdoor storage 

of supplies that can only be found by digging 

through deep piles of snow; gaps so large under 

doors that the wind blows snow into the buildings; late 1950s International Geophysical Yearera vehicles; antiquated communications; an 

almost total absence of modern inventory management systems (including the use of bar codes 

Breakdown of Total NSF Antarctic Science

and Infrastructure Expenditure

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Infrastructure,

Support, Logistics

Science

Figure 2. Breakdown of Total NSF Antarctic 

Science and Infrastructure Expenditure
8 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

in many cases); indoor storage inefficiently dispersed in more than 20 buildings at McMurdo 

Station; some 350,000 pounds (159,000 kilograms) of scrap lumber awaiting return to the 

U.S. for disposal; and more. The status quo is 

simply not an option; sooner or later the atrophying logistics infrastructure will need to be 

upgraded or replaced. Failure to do so will simply increase logistics costs until they altogether 

squeeze out funding for science. A ten percent 

increase in the cost of logistics will consume 40 

percent of the remaining science budget.

Whatever the source of funds, the USAP logistics system is badly in need of remediation and 

will cost more to restore as each year of inattention passes. In the longer term, increased logistical efficiency could yield savings that would 

substantially increase the amount of research 

supported by NSF. Based on the current 

$125,000 median annual size of NSF grants, the 

savings achievable from just one of the Panel’s 

recommendations—to reduce contractor labor 

costs by 20 percent—could fund nearly 60 new 

grants each year. 
Executive summary 9

U.S. Facilities in Antarctica

The three principal U.S. research stations are McMurdo, where 

90 percent of USAP participants are based or pass through on their 

way to research sites; the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station at 

90° South Latitude ; and Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula. 

Amundsen-Scott

South Pole Station

The new South Pole Station (Figure 3b) was 

dedicated in 2008 and is a state-of-the-art facility. It was constructed based upon an extensive assessment of future needs and concern 

for human safety. The station can be accessed 

for only about 100 days each Austral summer. 

It supports some 50 occupants during the winter and approximately 250 during the summer, 

and can be accessed by air or, as in recent years, 

by overland vehicle traverse from McMurdo. 

Appropriate maintenance is critical to sustaining the facility’s operations.

Palmer Station

Palmer Station (Figure 3c) began operation in 

1968. It is the smallest of the U.S. permanent stations, housing 15 to 45 people, depending on the 

season, and it can be accessed throughout the 

year. Most of its research activity is constrained 

to a two-mile (three-kilometer) distance from 

the base because of the limited operating radius 

of the small boats that provide local transportation (and the need to maintain proximity to rescue boats). There is no useful access by air for 

logistics support at the present time. A limited 

McMurdo Station

The population of McMurdo Station (Figure 3a), 

including scientists, the contractor workforce, 

and support personnel from NSF and other 

government agencies, varies from 130 to 1100. 

The total number depends principally on the 

time of year and the level of ongoing science 

and construction activity. The facility, initially 

established in 1955, nominally operates at full 

capacity 147 days of the year. Other months are 

devoted to station-based research and maintenance activities. McMurdo Station is the 

land, sea, and air portal to the South Pole, the 

Dry Valleys, major camps in West Antarctica, 

the Mt. Erebus volcano, ocean and penguin 

research locations, and numerous other field 

sites. Some of the U.S. facilities at McMurdo 

are relatively new, such as the Albert P. Crary 

Science and Engineering Center (21 years old), 

known locally as the “Crary  Lab.” Most structures are old and in imminent need of repair 

or replacement. The site, essentially a small 

town, was constructed with no clear master 

plan but rather in response to the tasks at hand 

and the availability of funds over the years. 

This somewhat haphazard arrangement inevitably leads to wasted resources and also raises 

serious safety concerns.
10 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

a

c

b

Figure 3. Map of Antarctica showing the principal USAP 

research stations, field research sites (red dots), and ship 

tracks of the ice-capable ARSV Laurence M. Gould (blue 

track) and icebreaking RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer (pink 

track). The gray dashed circle indicates the 1000-mile 

(1600-kilometer) range from McMurdo Station, the maximum useful payload delivery and return range of a skiequipped C-130 aircraft. (a) McMurdo Station. Source: 

Joe Harrigan. (b) Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Source: 

Andrew Williams. (c) Palmer Station. Source: NASA.
Executive summary 11

and aging dock is used for USAP research support and resupply vessels, primarily Antarctic 

Research and Supply Vessel (ARSV) Laurence 

M. Gould (Gould). Research Vessel Icebreaker 

(RVIB) Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer) cannot 

safely dock at Palmer Station due to an underwater rock spire near the pier. The dock and 

the boat ramp are in urgent need of repair or 

replacement, but Palmer Station’s overall condition has not yet reached the level of obsolescence 

observed at McMurdo Station.

Field Sites

The United States annually supports more than 

50 field sites from its primary Antarctic bases 

during the summer months. Typically, these 

sites are reached by helicopter, small fixedwing aircraft, or ski-equipped C-130 Hercules 

aircraft, designated LC-130 (Figure 4). Among 

the most commonly visited sites are those in 

the Dry Valleys near McMurdo (pictured on the 

inside covers of this report). This region is categorized as being among the driest and windiest 

deserts on Earth, yet it is surrounded by glaciers 

and contains lakes fed by glacial runoff.

Figure 4. (a) Basler, (b) Twin Otter, (c) helicopters, and (d) LC-130 aircraft used by the USAP in Antarctica. 

Sources: (a) Kevin Bliss, (b) Dominick Dirkse, (c) Charles Hood, and (d) George Blaisdell.

a

c

b

d
12 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Oceangoing Vessels

Two USAP-chartered research ships support 

the U.S.  program in the Southern Ocean and 

Antarctic perimeter (Figure 5). The Gould, 

which operates primarily from Punta Arenas, 

Chile, and Palmer Station, works almost 

exclusively in the Antarctic Peninsula region. 

The Palmer operates from Punta Arenas in 

Chile, Lyttelton in New Zealand, and McMurdo 

Station. In recent years, the vessel has worked 

most frequently in the Ross Sea region and east 

of the peninsula, but historically also worked 

in other Antarctic marine regions. At 15 and 

20 years old, respectively, these ships are well 

into their 30-year operating expectancy and 

undergo continual maintenance to sustain 

their operations in the demanding Antarctic 

marine environment.

Figure 5. The USAP ice-capable ARSV Laurence M. 

Gould (left) and icebreaker RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer 

(right). Source: Zee Evans.
Executive summary 13

The Environmental Challenge

Antarctica is the coldest, driest, windiest, most 

remote, highest (on average), darkest (for half 

the year) continent on Earth. Temperatures as 

low as –128.6°F (–89.2°C) and wind speeds of 

154  miles per hour (248 kilometers per hour) 

have been recorded—as have temperature 

drops of as much as 65 ̊F (36°C) in 12 minutes. 

It is the most challenging place on Earth where 

continuous logistical support has ever been 

attempted (Figure 6). At the South Pole, the ice 

is over 9000 feet (2700 meters) thick. Buried 

under the ice in other parts of the continent are 

mountain ranges the size of the Alps and freshwater lakes larger than Lake Ontario.

The pressure-altitude at the South Pole is 

approximately 11,000 feet (3350 meters) and the 

absolute humidity is lower than that encountered on the Sahara Desert. In many places, 

water is available only in the form of ice. The 

combination of dryness and wind makes fire 

an ever-present danger. As the Panel landed at 

King George Island on its way to visit Palmer 

Station, they were alerted that the Brazilian station 21  miles (34  kilometers) away had been 

destroyed by fire, resulting in two fatalities. A 

few years earlier, a Chilean station was destroyed 

by a volcanic eruption, and the approach to 

McMurdo Station was partially blocked by an 

iceberg, nearly the size of Connecticut, calved 

from the Ross Ice Shelf. 

Logistics lines to support activities in Antarctica 

are immense: 6900 miles (11,100 kilometers) from Port Hueneme to Christchurch; 

2415 miles (3887 kilometers) from Christchurch 

to McMurdo; 840 miles (1340  kilometers) 

from McMurdo to the South Pole; 6700  miles 

(10,800  kilometers) from Port Hueneme to 

Punta Arenas; and 810 miles (1300 kilometers) 

from Punta Arenas to Palmer Station—the latter requiring a three-day crossing of the Drake 

Passage, considered by many to offer some of 

the roughest seas on Earth. 

Almost all activities in the Antarctic Continent 

and the Southern Ocean must be considered to be expeditionary. Extraordinary effort 

must be devoted to safety and contingency 

planning. Opportunities for unanticipated 

hazards abound.

Figure 6. Digging out oil drums buried by winter 

weather. Source: USAP.
14 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Uncertainties in Logistics Planning

Setting aside the ambiguities associated with 

the federal budgeting process, logistics planning in Antarctica is complicated by the shortness of the season during which the continent 

can be reliably accessed for logistical purposes, nominally 21 weeks by air at McMurdo 

Station and 15  weeks at South Pole Station. 

Using U.S.-owned heavy icebreakers, McMurdo 

Station could be accessed by ship during about 

ten weeks each year. As these ships have become 

unavailable and less-powerful icebreakers are 

used, the time in which to accomplish resupply by sea has been reduced to the four-week 

annual sea ice minimum—a challenging and 

unreliable practice. 

In Antarctica, weather changes frequently and 

abruptly, necessitating contingency plans for 

most activities, particularly those in remote 

areas. The cost of energy is high and uncertain, and the behavior of the ice pack can hinder the delivery of energy and other critical 

supplies. During late 2011, a series of storms 

affecting harbor conditions left too little time 

for the McMurdo ice pier to thicken to sufficient strength, thus requiring deployment of a 

portable modular causeway system loaned by 

the Department of Defense (DoD). The Panel 

itself made the final landing of the season at the 

Sea Ice Runway, the airfield closest to McMurdo 

Station, before sea ice conditions deteriorated 

Figure 7. Satellite photo of the 

McMurdo area, 9 November 2004. 

The large iceberg B-15 and other icebergs reduced flushing of the sea ice 

near McMurdo Station, increased the 

extent of ice from the station from the 

typical 10 to approximately 50 miles 

(18 to 93 kilometers), and also 

increased the amount of hard, multiyear ice in the vicinity, greatly increasing the difficulty of accessing the station from 2001 through 2004.
Executive summary 15

to the point that air operations had to be moved 

to a more solid but more remote location. At 

the Pegasus Runway, constructed on glacial 

ice, temperatures now rise more frequently 

to within a few degrees of the point where air 

operations are precluded.

Long-term uncertainties abound. Some 

Antarctic research activity will continue to shift 

from relatively simple to more highly integrated 

research that requires more complex support. 

Further, the impact on the Antarctic region of 

greatly expanded tourism remains to be determined. Many nations do not participate in the 

Antarctic Treaty. Seven countries have made 

claims to parts of Antarctica that remain in 

abeyance while the Treaty is in force—pointing 

to the importance of maintaining an influential 

U.S. science presence as a stabilizing influence. 

Finally, climate change in Antarctica could significantly complicate future runway and ice 

pier construction and thereby impact both air 

and sea operations.
16 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Activities of Other Nations

Researchers from many nations cooperate well 

in conducting science in Antarctica. Mutual 

logistical support among nations, while already 

highly constructive, offers significant opportunities for further expansion, with associated 

cost savings. The mutual activities of the U.S. 

and New Zealand polar programs offer an outstanding example of the benefits of cooperation. 

Many nations around the world are currently 

making significant investments to expand their 

activities in Antarctica (Figure 8). For example, South Korea is in the process of establishing a new station in the Terra Nova Bay region 

of the Ross Sea. Germany replaced an existing 

station in 2009. At approximately the same 

time, the United Kingdom replaced its Halley 

Station. Russia has stated its intent to launch 

five new polar research ships and reconstruct 

five research stations and three seasonal bases. 

Argentina recently announced plans to construct a new scientific base to replace one 

that was partially destroyed by fire. Belgium’s 

Princess Elizabeth Station, now in summer 

operation, is said to be Antarctica’s first zeroemission base. Chile’s plans include developing Punta Arenas as a gateway to Antarctica for 

research, tourism, and mineral research traffic. China is proceeding with upgrades to three 

existing sites as well as building the new Kunlun 

Figure 8. (a) German research station Neumayer III. Source: Ude Cieluch. (b) South Korean research and resupply 

icebreaker Araon, completed in 2009, which supplies the King Sejong Station and will supply their new Jang Bogo 

Station. Source: Dongmin Jin. (c) South African research and resupply icebreaker Agulhas II, completed in 2012. 

Source: Engineering News (online). (d) Chinese Kunlun Station, completed in 2009. Source: Hu Yi, CHINARE.

a

c

b

d
Executive summary 17

Station and constructing several telescopes 

at Dome A, the highest site on the Antarctic 

Plateau (13,428 feet/4093 meters). India is preparing to occupy its third station, and other 

nations are undertaking projects to expand their 

presence and scientific activity in the Antarctic. 
18 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Economic Considerations

The cost of providing logistics support on the 

Antarctic Continent is to a considerable degree 

driven by the number of person-days on the ice 

and the amount of fuel consumed in supporting 

their activities. Any actions that reduce either 

cost component can potentially generate significant financial savings. 

Numerous expenditures need to be calculated 

to determine fully burdened costs. For example, 

placing fuel at the South Pole currently requires 

flying or traversing the fuel from McMurdo. 

Skiways for the LC-130 must be constructed 

or refurbished annually. To move the fuel and 

cargo from the United States to McMurdo 

requires oceangoing vessels, which in turn 

require an icebreaker to open a path in the sea 

ice on the approach to McMurdo. Docking 

the vessels requires periodic construction and 

maintenance of an ice pier for off-loading. The 

people involved in this process generally fly 

to New Zealand and then to assignments at 

McMurdo or the South Pole, and must be provided housing, food, clothing, medical care, and 

other elements of life support. 

Considering all that is involved, the true value 

of a gallon of fuel at the South Pole is, on average, nearly eight times its original purchase 

price. The large premium that will be realized 

from reducing energy consumption would 

seem to be evident; however, this and most 

other cost calculations affecting the USAP are 

highly nonlinear. That is, it is generally not possible to contract for “part” of a ship to transfer 

supplies to Antarctica or to conduct Southern 

Ocean research. Similarly, significant savings 

cannot be realized from flying partially loaded 

aircraft. On the other hand, at certain points 

there may be opportunities for significant savings, for example, by chartering smaller commercial vessels for resupply. 

When it comes to the number of person-days 

on the ice, the opportunity for cost savings is 

clearer. It is always in the interest of economy 

to minimize the number of people traveling 

to the ice and their duration of stay, as well as 

to emphasize energy conservation. Doing so 

always produces at least some savings and the 

cumulative effects of individual actions can 

often eventually lead to major savings. 

The Panel found that USAP researchers and 

other personnel possess limited awareness of 

the true cost of the resources provided to them. 

The same is true for personnel from many other 

nations who periodically use U.S.  resources, 

such as runways, rescue support, and logistical 

assets. Educating users about the true costs of 

Antarctic research would promote greater conservation, and should become a major communications goal for the USAP.

Recent advances in technology, if adopted, 

could also substantially reduce costs. Examples 

range from making greater use of autonomous 

robotic field stations to employing underwater 

gliders to collect oceanographic data. To cite 

just one example, a single “flight” of a glider 

generated as much data as previous monitoring 

techniques produced in a decade.
Executive summary 19

Major Issues

The Panel’s deliberations led it to focus on eight major issues, although 

numerous other important but generally less-consequential matters were 

also evaluated. All are addressed in the body of the main report. Here, we 

provide a brief overview of each of these major considerations. 

1. Capital Budgeting

Capital investment by the USAP is extremely 

limited (Figure 9). The lack of a capital budget and supporting plan to replace out-of-date 

facilities, together with the lack of a funded plan 

to address major maintenance needs, has led to 

a deteriorating and inefficient infrastructure, 

particularly at McMurdo Station. Opportunities 

exist for significant financial savings over the 

longer term through improved maintenance 

and modernization. In a few instances, shortcomings have led to hazardous conditions. At 

present, problems associated with the U.S. government’s prolonged budgeting cycle (well over 

a year) are compounded for the Antarctic program by its seasonal nature. Consequently, an 

item approved in the budget normally will not 

arrive in Antarctica for at least two years after its 

need was established. In the case of structures, 

matters are further complicated by a useful 

building season that stretches only a few months.

2. Alternatives to

McMurdo Station

McMurdo has been a preferred location for 

accessing central Antarctica from the time of 

the earliest explorers until the present day, but 

its susceptibility to heavy sea ice nonetheless 

makes its scientific activities dependent upon 

the availability of icebreakers, which are frequently in short supply and always expensive. If 

another location on the continent were capable 

of supporting activities at the South Pole, within 

reasonable proximity to a major Southern 

Hemisphere port, and offered the possibility of 

a deepwater landing for resupply ships as well 

as a nearby runway for heavy wheeled-aircraft 

operations, the USAP could avoid its dependency upon icebreakers. The Panel conducted a 

search using aerial photography, maps, in situ 

observations, and other sources to determine if 

such a location exists (Table 1). No reasonable 

alternative to McMurdo was found that would 

permit transshipping (sea, air, and land), or that 

would justify abandoning the investment made 

in fixed plant at McMurdo. It would cost on the 

order of $220 million in 2012 dollars to replace 

McMurdo as it currently exists.

Capital as Fraction of Total NSF Antarctica Budget

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Capital

Non-capital

Figure 9. Capital as Fraction of Total 

NSF Antarctic Budget
20 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

3. Icebreakers

The task of maintaining a U.S. icebreaking 

capability transcends NSF’s responsibilities and 

resources. During the Boreal winter of 2011/12, 

the need unexpectedly arose to provide an icebreaker, U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) 

Healy, for access to Nome, Alaska, which has no 

road or rail connectivity to the rest of the United 

States. An intensive storm followed by rapid sea 

ice formation prevented the usual barge-based 

fuel delivery to Nome—an incident that served 

as a reminder of the importance of icebreaking 

vessels. In recent years, NSF has contracted with 

Russian or Swedish firms to enable access to the 

Antarctic Continent, but these ships have not 

been reliably available to the USAP. As a contingency measure, the USAP has stored sufficient 

fuel at McMurdo to support activities at that 

base and at South Pole Station for at least two 

consecutive seasons in case sea resupply is interrupted for any one year. In such a case, a concurrent increase in air operations could, for the 

most part, substitute for ship-based cargo delivery, albeit at approximately four or ten times the 

cost per pound, depending on the aircraft used. 

Even so, the fuel reserve and the ability to fly 

some of the required cargo serves more as 

an insurance policy than a long-term solution to U.S. national interests in both the 

Arctic and the Antarctic that might require 

icebreaking capability.

Figure 10. USCGC Polar Star with Military Sealift 

Command tanker Paul Buck at the McMurdo Station 

ice pier (in the foreground from left to right), with 

RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer and icebreaker Krasin (Russia) 

in the background (left to right). Source: Brien Barnett.

Table 1. Comparison of Potential Options for Location of USAP Activities Now Carried Out at McMurdo Station

McMurdo Bay of Whales

Terra Nova 

Bay

Western Coats 

Land

Harbor for 9 m Draft Ship Yes No No No

Direct Off-load to Shore or Ice Shelf Yes Yes* No Yes*

Distance to South Pole (air) 1340 km 1270 km 1700 km 1370 km

Suitability for Wheeled Aircraft Good; all year No; only skiway Moderate No; only skiway

Sea Ice Extent at Minimum (typical) 10 nm 0 nm 0 nm 30 to >100 nm

Icebreaker Required to Access? (typical) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Suitability for Infrastructure High Low Moderate Low

Surface Access to Antarctic Interior Easy Easy Difficult Easy

most favorable favorable somewhat favorable unfavorable 

*Off-load onto ice shelf, followed by traverse.
Executive summary 21

Repairs and renovations to USCGC Polar Star

that are now underway could make that heavy 

icebreaker available to support McMurdo shipbased resupply operations beginning with the 

2013/14 Austral summer. This project will 

extend the useful life of the vessel for approximately eight more years. Even with Polar Star’s

return to sea, however, the United States will 

possess only a single heavy icebreaker, one that 

is nearing the end of its service life.

The President has requested $8 million in the 

FY 2013 budget “to initiate survey and design for 

a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.” But even 

if construction is fully funded in the planned 

budget years, it will likely be at least eight years 

before such a ship becomes available. The Panel 

concludes that the budget request should be 

vigorously supported and encourages consideration of a design that addresses the USAP’s 

needs, including for example the potential ability to conduct science from the icebreaker itself.

If the United States is to maintain an assured 

research capability and presence in Antarctica, 

particularly at the South Pole, it is essential to 

provide the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) with the 

resources needed to conduct the break-in at 

McMurdo while at the same time meeting its 

responsibilities elsewhere. In accordance with 

Presidential Memorandum 6646, the USCG 

should be in a position to provide icebreaking services upon NSF’s request. The USCG 

and many independent reviews have identified 

the vessels and associated funding that would 

be required. The Panel believes that ensuring U.S. government control of the above icebreaking assets is vital to U.S.-stated interests 

in Antarctica. If for any reason the USCG may 

not be able to provide the needed support, NSF 

should seek long-term commitments from 

U.S. commercial or foreign icebreaking services 

such as those that have been supplied in the past 

on a short-term basis from Russia and Sweden

4. Transportation on

the Continent

The most critical logistics link on the Antarctic 

Continent is arguably that which extends from 

McMurdo Station to the South Pole. Until 

recently, the only access to the South Pole was 

by air, and because the South Pole has only a 

skiway, only the LC-130s that can land on 

skis could be used for resupply. The 840-mile 

(1340-kilometer) air distance between the 

two stations begins to approach that aircraft’s 

useful range, limiting the payload delivered 

to the South Pole to about 26,000 pounds 

(11,800  kilograms). More recently, introduction of overland traversing from McMurdo to 

the Pole (Figure  11) now enables resupply of 

780,000 pounds (354,000 kilograms) per trip 

but the round trip takes 45 days. Modern technology for crevasse-detection and formationfollowing vehicles would make it possible for a 

Figure 11. Tractor and fuel bladders on the overland 

traverse. Source: Paul Thur. 
22 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

single driver to operate more than one tractor 

in a traverse, further reducing the cost of maintaining the facility at the South Pole. It would 

also reduce the demand for LC-130 flights 

and, ultimately, could enable reducing the size 

of the LC-130 fleet.

Based on projected demand for flights to support USAP science and operations, if the traverse platform is automated as the Panel recommends, it is estimated that a 40 percent 

reduction in the number of LC-130 aircraft in 

service (from ten to six) is realizable. The most 

straightforward approach would be to retire the 

four NSF-owned aircraft and outfit one of the 

remaining six as a research vehicle. This allAir National Guard fleet would maintain the 

U.S. reach across Antarctica while also permitting important science data to be acquired from 

an aerial platform rather than costly field camps.

In addition to producing substantial cost savings, such a streamlined fleet would be substantially freed from fuel and cargo deliveries to the 

South Pole, affording the USAP considerable 

flexibility. LC-130 aircraft could be allocated to 

support ground-based research, conduct airborne research, and provide backup in case of 

an interruption of traverse operations.

5. Hard-Surface Ice Runway 

at the South Pole

As noted, the only large aircraft currently capable of operating at the South Pole is the LC-130. 

Snow compaction techniques have been developed that could make it possible to construct a 

runway at the South Pole capable of supporting wheeled aircraft. C-17 aircraft (Figure 12) 

flying from McMurdo Station could deliver a 

payload of 110,000 pounds (50,000 kilograms, 

four times the LC-130’s capability). Use of the 

C-17s would further free the LC-130 fleet to 

support field research sites that are anticipated 

to increase in number, importance, and remoteness throughout the Antarctic Continent. 

6. Energy 

Significant cost savings could be realized by making greater use of alternative energy sources in 

Antarctica, accompanied by a reduction in fossil 

fuel consumption. Examples include expanding 

the use of wind power at McMurdo (Figure 13), 

better insulating buildings not scheduled for 

near-term replacement, and burning scrap 

Figure 12. U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft on the Pegasus 

Runway at McMurdo Station. Source: Dominick Dirksen. 

Figure 13. Wind turbines at McMurdo Station. Source: 

George Blaisdell. 
Executive summary 23

wood and used oil in modern furnaces rather 

than returning it to the United States for disposal. Such action would have the important 

ancillary benefit of reducing the environmental 

footprint of U.S. activities in the region. 

7. Communications

The communications connectivity and bandwidth available at the South Pole significantly 

limit the science that can be conducted in the 

Antarctic interior today and in the future. For 

example, IceCube, after on-site data processing, 

transmits 100  gigabytes of data daily—about 

15 percent of the data collected—via the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) 

“high” data rate (150  Mbits/sec) Tracking 

and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) 

(Figure 14). Other projects also demand support 

from TDRSS, leaving the satellite communications system at the limit of the USAP’s current 

capacity. Further, satellite service is fragmented 

into small windows of time averaging no more 

than four hours daily. The only continuous satellite communications capability at the South 

Pole is extremely slow (28 Kbits/sec), with a limited seven-hour window of additional satellite 

availability at higher speed (the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite [GOES]-3, 

at 1.5 Mbits/sec). With the exception of the lowspeed service, these satellites have already lasted 

well beyond their design life and are at risk of 

imminent failure due to age.

Many research projects are best performed 

when data-gathering protocols can be adjusted 

in near-real time. Severe bandwidth limitations 

encourage researchers to be on site rather than 

at their home laboratories in the United States. 

These barriers to remote access work against 

reducing costs sought by minimizing the number of people on the ice.

8. Safety and Health

Although gradual improvements in safety conditions and practices have resulted in a “reportable-injury” rate that is generally comparable to 

similar commercial activities (for example, the 

North Slope in Alaska), the Panel noted a variety of safety concerns. They include compactors with safety interlocks that can be overridden, a dangerous boat access ramp, a pier meant 

to support shallow-draft oceangoing ships that 

has a large underwater rock adjacent to it, and a 

woodshop with no fire sprinkler system.

The infirmary at McMurdo was described to the 

Panel as representative of a 1960’s clinic serving 

a U.S. community of comparable size located in a 

much less hazardous environment (Figure 15a). 

Some dormitory rooms designed for two occupants house five residents (Figure  15b), virtually guaranteeing that if one person becomes ill 

with a contagious disease, all will be afflicted. 

Figure 14. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite. 

Source: NASA.
24 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

During a 2007–2008 influenza outbreak, at least 

one-sixth of the McMurdo population (48 percent of the 330 persons tested) suffered from 

the flu. Mandatory flu shots have largely alleviated repeat incidents, but the containers of hand 

sanitizer that have proven extraordinarily effective at controlling disease in many U.S. facilities 

Figure 15. (a) The McMurdo Medical Clinic. 

Source: Don Hartill. (b) Original two-person room 

at McMurdo Station, now housing five persons. 

Source: Travis Groh.

are largely absent. Improving preventive health 

measures would have significant economic benefits. When an individual suffers a work-halting 

illness in Antarctica, not only is that person 

unproductive, but he or she also becomes a burden to other members of the community.

b

a
Executive summary 25

Single-Point Failure MODEs

Perhaps the most effective means of assuring 

that projects are not unexpectedly disrupted, 

personnel injured, or equipment damaged is to 

eliminate “single-point failures.” Single-point 

failures are circumstances in which the failure 

of one element of a system renders the entire 

system incapable of performing its function. 

In cases where total elimination of such modes 

through the provision of redundancy or other 

means is not practicable, larger-than-usual 

margins should be provided for the critical links 

that remain (Figure 16). This approach, when 

backed by a “fail-gracefully/fail-safe” philosophy, has been demonstrated to produce a high 

probability of successfully accomplishing goals.

Many USAP features as they exist today raise 

concerns regarding single-point failures. A list 

of the more significant of these, in order of 

deemed concern, follows:

• The Antarctic Treaty and related instruments 

(potential circumvention)

• U.S. icebreaking capability (lack of assured 

access)

• Broadband communications for South Pole 

Station (interruptions to telemedicine, impact 

on research)

• Pier at Palmer Station (vulnerability to 

major accident)

• Multimode hub at Christchurch (earthquake, 

airport restructuring)

• Pegasus Runway at McMurdo (melting, 

accidents)

• Fire Suppression Systems requiring electric 

power (inadequate backups)

• Gould and Palmer (aging with long replacement cycle)

• Single automated dishwasher at McMurdo 

(food service for as many as 1100 people)

Figure 16. When ice conditions in McMurdo Sound 

made the approach to the pier so difficult that the 

tanker could not make it to the pier, the fuel was offloaded over the sea ice via hoses. The USAP recognized this vulnerability and has since decreased fuel 

usage and increased fuel storage capacity so that it 

now has a two-year supply on hand.
26 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Recommendations

Below is a summary of the Panel’s top ten overarching recommendations, in priority order, with brief parenthetical examples of implementing actions. Please see the full report for supporting information. 

1. Antarctic Bases. Continue the use of 

McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer Stations as 

the primary U.S. science and logistics hubs on 

the continent. (There is no reasonable alternative, particularly concerning McMurdo.)

2. Polar Ocean Fleet. Restore the U.S. 

polar ocean fleet (icebreakers, polar research 

vessels, mid-sized and smaller vessels) to support science, logistics, and national security in 

both polar regions over the long term. (Follow 

through on pending action in the President’s 

FY 2013 Budget Request for the USCG to initiate the design of a new icebreaker.)

3. Logistics and Transportation. 

Implement state-of-the-art logistics and transportation support as identified in this report 

to reduce costs and expand science opportunities continent-wide and in the Southern 

Ocean. (Replace some LC-130 flights with 

additional traverse trips by automating the traverse and by constructing a wheel-capable runway at South Pole Station for C-17 use; reduce 

the LC-130 fleet.)

4. McMurdo and Palmer Facilities.

Upgrade or replace, as warranted by an updated 

master plan, aging facilities at McMurdo and 

Palmer Stations, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the efficiency of support provided to science projects. (Modify or 

replace the pier and reconstruct the boat ramp 

at Palmer Station, install fire suppression—with 

backup power—in unprotected berthing and 

key operational facilities, upgrade medical clinics, and improve dormitory use to prevent the 

transmission of illnesses.)

5. USAP Capital Budget. Establish a longterm facilities capital plan and budget for the 

USAP. (Provide phased plan for modernization 

of USAP facilities.)

6. Science Support Costs. Further 

strengthen the process by which the fully burdened cost and technological readiness of 

research instrumentation and observing systems, as well as overall projects, are considered 

in the review and selection of science projects. 

(Increase overall awareness of the true cost of 

resources provided in Antarctica.)
Executive summary 27

7. Communications. Modernize communication capabilities in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean to enable increased science 

output and reduced operational footprint. 

(Provide increased bandwidth on as well as to 

and from the continent.)

8. Energy Efficiency. Increase energy 

efficiency and implement renewable energy 

technologies to reduce operational costs. 

(Provide additional wind turbine generators at 

McMurdo, better insulate selected buildings, 

and invest in technology for converting trashto-energy and burning waste oil so that it does 

not have to be returned to the United States.)

9. International Cooperation. Pursue additional opportunities for international 

cooperation in shared logistics support as 

well as scientific endeavors. (The existence of 

numerous national stations in the peninsula 

region offers a particularly promising opportunity for an international supply system.)

10. Antarctic Policy. Review and revise 

as appropriate the existing documents governing Antarctic Policy (Presidential Memorandum 

6646 of 1982 and Presidential Decision Directive 

26 of 1994) and implementing mechanisms for 

Antarctica, taking into account current realities 

and findings identified by the National Research 

Council report and the present report. (Focus 

on policy and national issues as opposed to 

operational matters.)
28 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Implementing and

Ancillary Actions

In support of the overarching recommendations 

cited above and the additional findings cited in 

the report, the Panel offers a number of specific 

implementing actions. The ten most important 

candidates among them are presented in priority order within each of the following separate but related categories: (1) Essential for 

Safety and Health, (2) Readily Implementable, 

and (3) Significant Investment/Large Payoff. 

Additional actions beyond these highest priority actions in each category are noted in the relevant chapters of the report.

Essential for Safety and Health 

The Panel considers the following actions to 

be mandatory because of the potential adverse 

consequences of failing to pursue them:

• Modify or replace pier at Palmer Station.

• Reconstruct boat ramp at Palmer Station.

• Provide backup power or gravity-feed for all 

fire-suppression systems.

• Add fire suppression in woodshop at Palmer 

Station. 

• Increase emphasis on workplace health and 

safety through much greater use of signage, 

“near-miss” reporting, and widespread use of 

antibacterial liquids (such as Purell); in addition, modernize medical clinic at McMurdo.

• Move power generators out of housing buildings and move dormitory spaces away from 

kitchens at Palmer Station.

• Consolidate hazardous materials at Palmer 

Station into one storage area.

• Manage populations at Antarctic stations 

such that currently crowded conditions do 

not remain a health hazard and morale issue.

• Replace compromised flooring in McMurdo 

warehouse (Building 120). 

• Implement a more comprehensive system of 

safety inspections and ensure that appropriate corrective actions are followed through 

to completion.

Readily Implementable

The following actions could be undertaken 

without substantial financial expenditures or 

inconvenience while offering disproportionately great benefits:

• Establish within NSF’s Office of Polar 

Programs a small systems engineering/cost 

analysis group to continually seek opportunities for cost reduction and better ways of supporting science needs.

• Conduct a review to reduce contractor personnel requirements by approximately 20 percent, particularly among those positioned on 

the ice. Place primary emphasis on reducing 

population at field camps.

• Establish within NSF, and possibly jointly 

with other agencies, modeled after DoD’s 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, funds 

for developing enabling technologies that 

could significantly enhance USAP operations. 

Examples of the latter include advanced gliders, robotic field stations, and automated formation-keeping for traverse vehicles, all of 

which may be of use in both polar regions.
Executive summary 29

• Provide two Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats 

at Palmer Station to substantially enhance 

safety of research performed at that site and 

cost-effectiveness.

• Use some newly freed LC-130 flight hours 

to support airdrop operations and deep-field 

support.

• Work with Christchurch International Airport 

and Lyttelton Port of Christchurch to assure 

that USAP needs are considered in the master 

plans now being produced by New Zealand.

• Review U.S./international logistics activities’ 

“balance sheet” for equity in offsets.

• Adding to existing partnerships with other 

nations, explore possibility of mutual support between McMurdo and the new South 

Korean station.

• Continue reliance on NSF’s merit review system to ensure that science programs are justified for continued support. (This has been 

very effectively accomplished by the French 

and other national Antarctic programs, with 

significant savings being realized.)

• More stringently enforce requirement for all 

instrumentation and related devices deployed 

at unattended field sites be designed for module-level serviceability and undergo predeployment environmental qualification.

Significant Investment/Large Payoff

The following actions may require relatively significant up-front investments but also have the 

potential, on a discounted (and generally conservative) cash-flow basis, to produce material, 

positive net present values:

• Reduce LC-130 usage by increasing the 

number of traverse trips between McMurdo 

and the South Pole by incorporating 

automated formation-keeping to reduce 

personnel demands.

• Construct a runway capable of supporting 

wheeled aircraft at the South Pole to permit 

C-17 operations.

• Consolidate warehousing at McMurdo into 

the minimum practicable number of structures and minimize outside storage.

• Designate Pegasus Field as a permanent site, 

with appropriate fire, rescue, air traffic control, ground transportation, and fuel support. 

Retain Williams Field to support LC-130 

operations. Discontinue constructing the Sea 

Ice Runway each year.

• Deploy an optimal number of additional wind 

turbine generators at McMurdo Station.

• Modernize LC-130s with eight-bladed propellers, fuel-efficient engine modifications, 

and crevasse-detection radars.

• Replace the legacy logistics management software applications with a commercially available Enterprise Resource Program, and significantly expand use of bar coding.

• Implement a phased program for ground 

vehicle modernization.

• Construct a solar heated vehicle storage building at South Pole Station.

• Determine feasibility of converting waste 

wood, cardboard, and paper at McMurdo 

(that must otherwise be retrograded to the 

United States) into clean electric power 

and useful heat.
30 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Concluding Observat ions

During its evaluation, the Panel discerned a 

widespread and commendable “can-do, makedo” culture within the USAP. Flaws in the system, however, diminish the ability of the program’s participants to make the most of their 

research. These flaws persist despite substantial 

financial and human investment. Overcoming 

these barriers requires a fundamental shift 

in the manner in which capital projects and 

major maintenance are planned, budgeted, and 

funded. Simply working harder doing the same 

things that have been done in the past will not 

produce efficiencies of the magnitude needed in 

the future. Not only must change be introduced 

into how things are done, but what is being done 

must also be reexamined. In this regard, the 

ongoing introduction of a new prime support 

contractor provides an extraordinary, albeit 

brief, window to bring about major change.

Although many opportunities for cost savings 

have been cited, this report has not attempted 

in all cases to determine the required front-end 

investment. For example, it is the Panel’s collective judgment, based primarily upon years 

of experience, that a reduction in contractor 

personnel of some 20 percent should be feasible. A more detailed analysis will be needed 

before implementing this. 

The Panel emphasizes that the USAP is facing major expenditures for the replacement of 

existing inefficient, failing, and unsafe facilities and other assets. Delays in initiating the 

needed work will only increase the cost and 

further squeeze the research funding that is 

already only a fraction of total dollars allocated to the program. While significant savings are in fact achievable through operational 

efficiencies, some of the front-end investments 

that are needed if the United States is to continue USAP activities at the present level cannot all be justified solely on an economic basis. 

Some upgrades are essential for personnel and 

equipment safety. The Panel has sought to identify changes that hold initial investment to the 

minimum reasonable level.

In spite of the above challenges, USAP science 

and science support could be vastly enhanced 

within about five years. The improvements 

could be funded by increasing for each of the 

Table 2. Net Present Value Analysis

Investment, $M Net Present Value, $M

Automate and Double Number of Traverses 1.80 15.00

Increase Number of Wind Turbines at McMurdo 0.50 1.40

Construct Solar Garage at South Pole 0.03 0.75

Install Wood Burner at McMurdo 0.40 0.70

Burn Waste Oil at McMurdo 0.09 0.70
Executive summary 31

next four years the USAP’s annual appropriation for support by six percent (real dollars) 

relative to the FY 2012 appropriation (an additional $16 million per year), diverting six percent of the planned science expenditures over 

the next four years to upgrades of the science 

support system ($4 million), and permitting the 

savings accrued from five high payout projects 

(Table 2) and the 20 percent reduction in contractor labor to be reinvested in upgrading support capabilities (averaging $20 million net per 

year for four years).

The investments thus made would be repaid 

in approximately seven years if five high payout projects produce the expected return and 

a 20 percent reduction in contractor staff is in 

fact possible and implemented. Thereafter, the 

annual savings generated will allow the USAP 

to increase science awards while ensuring safe 

and effective science support and appropriately maintained facilities. Given the important 

improvements in safety and science opportunities contained within the above option, a sevenyear financial breakeven is considered by the 

Panel to be a reasonable investment, particularly 

when compared to the cost of not making one. 

In making this proposal the Panel has sought 

to be mindful of the severe budgeting challenge facing the nation while at the same time 

respond to the serious need to rebuild much of 

the nation’s Antarctic infrastructure.

Once the recommendations made herein have 

been implemented, it will be possible to substantially increase science activity—assuming a 

stable overall budget.

It should be noted that this construct does not 

address the extremely important icebreaker 

issue that transcends the Antarctic program’s 

resources and responsibilities, at least as they 

are understood by the Panel.
32 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

The primary stated objectives for United States 

activities in Antarctica are to conduct science 

and to maintain a U.S. presence in the region. 

The two goals are often mutually reinforcing. 

Since the first “permanent” U.S. facilities on the 

continent were established in 1955, American 

scientists and international partners have used 

them to conduct valuable research. These collaborative efforts, in turn, have bolstered a U.S. 

presence in the region that, many believe, facilitates the international control of the continent mandated by the Antarctic Treaty, under 

which no nation exerts ownership of all or 

any part of Antarctica.

Antarctica’s hostile environment and distance 

from the United States make logistical support 

of scientific research complicated and expensive. 

Foods that require refrigeration must be stored 

indoors because of the harshness of the cold 

outdoors. Vehicle tires must be stored indoors 

because the intense ultraviolet radiation from 

the summer sun damages them. Conventional 

aviation fuels turn to slush at the prevailing temperatures. In its report, the National 

Research Council examined trends likely to 

affect future science activities in Antarctica and 

the Southern Ocean. As a follow-on, the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

1. Introduction

Figure 1.1. The South Pole Telescope during the long polar night. Source: Keith Vanderlinde. 
1. Introduction 33

and the National Science Foundation initiated 

this review of the support effort that enables 

the conduct of science, an aspect that dominates the cost of the U.S. Antarctic Program 

(USAP). Because the expense of logistical 

activities affects both the feasibility of conducting science and maintaining a presence in the 

Antarctic region, it is logical to consider new 

approaches to logistical support that might substantially reduce costs and permit expanded scientific pursuits. This report concludes that both 

goals are possible. 

Analyzing the relevant cost issues and executing tradeoffs among various options for providing logistical support are not simple tasks. A key 

issue involves consideration of fully burdened, 

“wraparound” costs. With Antarctic activities, 

these costs are highly nonlinear. For example, 

on average it costs $27.50 to purchase and place 

a gallon of fuel at the South Pole. Avoiding 

the use of that one gallon, however, saves only 

about $3.50, the current cost of a gallon of fuel. 

A tanker ship is still needed to deliver the fuel 

and an icebreaker is still required to open a path 

to the continent, whether or not that marginal 

gallon of fuel is carried. But at some point, if 

enough fuel can be saved, the USAP may be able 

to supply fuel to the continent using a smaller 

and less costly oceangoing vessel, use fewer 

flights or traverses to carry fuel from McMurdo 

to the Pole, or maintain less storage. The nonlinear nature of costs and cost savings play a 

prominent role in making decisions affecting 

logistical support in Antarctica.

The Panel identified and assessed dozens of 

opportunities to save costs or enhance performance. Some of these potential improvements 

are large, some are smaller but cumulatively 

significant, and others are important for safety 

or health reasons. In the pages that follow, the 

Panel begins with a discussion of factors that 

drive logistical activities in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean, then presents its assessments, 

and concludes with ten overarching recommendations and a number of implementing actions.
34 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

2. The Austral environment

U.S. logistics operations in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean have evolved substantially over 

the 57 years since the nation’s continuous presence began. They respond to the Presidential 

directive to protect the environment, support 

science, sustain the peace, and conserve marine 

living resources in accordance with the Antarctic 

Treaty and defined U.S. interests. Federal agencies and their grantees and contractors perform these operations, and the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) and the Department of State 

have lead roles in coordinating them as components of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP).

Scientific research is the principal expression of 

U.S. Antarctic policy and interest. Science and its 

operational support also are the principal avenues of international partnering in the region. 

U.S. logistics operations in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean thus are tasked to safely and 

Figure 2.1. Map of 

Antarctica, showing 

locations of permanent stations. Source: 

Scientific Committee 

on Antarctic Research; 

http://www.scar.org/

information/Antarctica_

stations_map.png.
2. The Austral Environment 35

efficiently support U.S. research activities and 

the U.S. role in international partnerships in the 

region. These support operations are structured 

to place science teams where and when they are 

needed, along with the tools to collect data or 

specimens and make them available to the scientific community at large.

Research in the Antarctic region—the Antarctic 

Continent and Southern Ocean—faces unique 

challenges due to the severe nature of the Austral 

environment and its isolation from regions of 

human habitation and activity. The Antarctic—

land and sea and the atmosphere above—lies 

near the limits of human access and habitability 

and poses major logistical challenges to operations therein, yet provides a uniquely vital and 

productive environment in which to carry out 

research and related activities. 

Although the Antarctic environment is legendarily harsh, it is also vulnerable, requiring that 

special considerations be addressed to reduce 

human impacts and protect the Antarctic 

region’s unique organisms and characteristics. 

With no true settlements and no underlying 

commercial infrastructure, support for much 

of the research—including what would be considered everyday activities in other locales—

is expeditionary. Every item from paper clips 

to bulldozers must be provided from afar 

and, when its role is complete, removed from 

Antarctica in accordance with international 

environmental protection agreements. 
36 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Figure 2.2. Map of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, showing subglacial Antarctic geography and Southern Ocean 

bathymetry. Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

2.1. The Continent

The Antarctic Continent is roughly circular in 

shape, and is capped by several kilometers of 

largely ancient ice representing about 89 percent of all the ice on Earth. Less than one percent of Antarctica is not covered by ice. 

Antarctica is the highest, driest, coldest, windiest, most pristine, and remotest of the continents. Presenting logistical demands somewhat 

analogous to those encountered when operating in space, Antarctica has proved to be a 

vital and productive environment for research 

and scientific discovery. On the continent, isolated lakes exist underneath several kilometers 

of glacial ice. Valleys are so dry and perpetually 

windswept that they remain barren of ice. Novel 

conditions leave thousands of meteorites on the 

surface of ice sheets. The geographic pole is atop 

nearly 1.7 miles (just over 2.7 kilometers) of pure 

ice, and is overlain by an exceptionally cold, dry, 

and, for half the year, dark atmosphere. Each of 

these unique environments, and many more, 

have proved to be superb natural laboratories. 

There are, however, few coastal locations outside 

the Antarctic Peninsula region, and none in the 

Antarctic interior, where permanent research 

stations can be established without contending 

with exceptional construction and preservation constraints. There are presently 81 active, 

staffed research stations on the continent, established by 29 nations. Many are located at seaaccessible regions on the Antarctic Peninsula, a 

few are in the deep interior, and the remainder 

ring the continent on or near coastal boundaries. Forty of the stations are currently 

staffed year-around, and the remainder are staffed only during the 

Austral summer. The USAP operates one of only five runways for 

wheeled aircraft that offer both 

direct access from northern land 

masses to the continental interior and support for routine intercontinental flights (three are operated by national Antarctic programs, 

two are operated by nongovernmental organizations). Nearly all materials in 

Antarctica are brought by sea.
2. The Austral Environment 37

2.2. The Environment at

USAP Research Stations

The USAP Amundsen-Scott South Pole 

Station is located at the geographic South 

Pole on the polar plateau at an elevation of 

9300 feet (2835 meters). It is situated on a 

9000-foot (2745-meter) thick layer of ice. The 

station is drifting with the ice sheet at about 

33 feet (10 meters) a year in a direction parallel to 

the 80 degree West meridian. The mean annual 

temperature is –56°F (–49°C). Average monthly 

temperatures range between –28°F (–33°C) 

in the Austral summer and –76°F (–60°C) in 

winter. The record high of –7.5°F (–22°C) was 

recorded in December 1978, and the record low 

of –117°F (–83°C) was recorded in June 1982. 

Precipitation is about 8 inches (20  centimeters) of snow per year, with very low humidity. 

Drifting is the primary factor in the accumulation of snow around buildings. The South Pole 

is not especially windy: average wind speed is 

12.4 miles per hour (10.8 knots) and a peak 

wind speed of 58 miles per hour (50 knots) was 

recorded in September 2011, breaking the previous record of 55 miles per hour (48 knots) set 

in August 1989.

The USAP McMurdo Station is a coastal facility constructed on volcanic rock and ash at 

the southern tip of Ross Island in the southern Ross Sea. The mean annual temperature 

is 0°F (–18°C). Temperatures may reach 46°F 

(8°C) in summer and –58°F (–50°C) in winter. 

The average wind speed is 13.8 miles per hour 

(12 knots), but recorded winds have exceeded 

115 miles per hour (100 knots). 

The USAP Palmer Station is a coastal station situated on a small rocky point on Anvers 

Island in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Air 

temperatures at Palmer Station typically range 

from 14 to 36°F (–10 to 2°C). The station frequently experiences high winds, sometimes up 

to 81 miles per hour (70 knots). 

Figure 2.3. Example of Automatic Weather Station 

winter air temperature observations, showing central 

Antarctica temperatures below –90°F (–68°C). Source: 

Antarctic Meteorological Research Center, University 

of Wisconsin-Madison.
38 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Figure 2.4. Example of surface wind speed forecast, showing several strong storms circling Antarctica, 

at least two of which were forecast to reach Beaufort 10 (55–63 miles per hour; at sea: “very high 

waves with overhanging crests; large patches of foam from wave crests give the sea a white appearance; considerable tumbling of waves with heavy impact; large amounts of airborne spray reduce 

visibility”; on land: “trees are broken off or uprooted, saplings bent and deformed; poorly attached 

asphalt shingles and shingles in poor condition peel off roofs”). Source: StormSurf.com

2.3. The Southern Ocean

Antarctica is encircled by Earth’s stormiest and 

only circumpolar waters—the vast Southern 

Ocean, itself a uniquely challenging and important research environment. The Southern 

Ocean connects the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

Oceans. It is not geographically defined in the 

same sense as the other oceans. Various definitions of its northern boundary range from 60°S 

(a common definition) to 30°S, or are based on 

physical characteristics. Most of the Southern 

Ocean is extraordinarily remote from port facilities. Research expeditions there require extensive planning and strong, high-endurance ships 

to work in its storm-driven waters. With huge 

areas—many of intense scientific interest—

annually or perennially beset by ice (including 

during scientifically critical times of year), there 

are few research ships worldwide that are capable of working this region—and still fewer available to U.S. researchers.
2. The Austral Environment 39

While every person going to “the ice” as part of 

the USAP must meet specified physical standards and receive training for the potential 

conditions, members of science teams are not 

themselves required to be technical or polar 

operations specialists, nor are they expected to 

provide their own logistical support. The USAP, 

working with its prime support contractor and 

other entities, provides the myriad logistical 

and technical assistance that underlies each 

research project. USAP-supported stations, 

camps, ships and a panoply of related facilities in the United States, New Zealand, Chile, 

and Antarctica provide the essential infrastructure required to support its expeditionary-like 

activities. USAP-supported personnel operate 

the stations and camps, ships and planes, laboratories, and outfitting centers of the U.S. program. These personnel substantially outnumber 

members of science teams.

2.4.1. Indirect Research Support

The USAP provides considerable indirect 

research support. USAP infrastructure and 

logistics capability is currently configured to 

enable terrestrial- and marine-based research 

in the range of disciplines funded by NSF and 

by U.S. mission agencies such as the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS). The USAP also supports five key observing systems as part of the 

U.S. contribution to the Comprehensive Test 

Ban Treaty. In order to do so, stations and other 

resources have been established, and research 

ships and related resources are also supported. 

2.4.1.1. South Pole

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is the 

largest facility in the interior of Antarctica and, 

by virtue of its position, plays a key geopolitical 

role as well as supporting unique science. 

The original South Pole Station was constructed 

in 1956–1957 and is now entirely buried 

beneath the snow and ice. The second station, 

located under a geodesic dome, was completed in 1975. A victim of the passage of time, 

the environment and the evolving frontiers of 

2.4. Logistics for Research

in the Antarctic Region

Figure 2.5. South Pole 

Station. Outdoor storage is 

visible behind the station. 

Source: Haley Buffman.
40 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

scientific research, the Dome was dismantled in 

2009/10 and removed from the continent. The 

new Elevated Station was dedicated in 2008. 

The short Austral summer season, when most 

activity occurs, extends from early November 

through mid-February. South Pole Station is 

isolated for the remaining months of the year. 

The winter population is around 50 and the 

summer population would be 150 if only the 

Elevated Station is occupied. With additional, 

summer-only accommodations, the overall population approaches 250, limited by the 

operational capacities of the water and sewage 

systems. The station provides over 5000 meals 

per week during the summer months and uses 

approximately 450,000 gallons of fuel annually. 

Nearly all USAP personnel reach South Pole 

Station via a three-hour flight from McMurdo 

Station aboard LC-130 aircraft that are operated 

and maintained by the Air National Guard’s 

109th Airlift Wing located at the Stratton Air 

National Guard Base in New York. During 

2010/11, 215 LC-130 missions were flown 

to South Pole Station delivering 631 passengers, 3.7 million pounds of fuel, and 1.8 million pounds of cargo—altogether, 5.5 million 

pounds (2.5 million kilograms). 

Since 2007, the USAP has utilized an overland 

traverse from McMurdo Station to resupply 

some of the cargo and fuel needed to operate 

South Pole Station. By using heavy agricultural tractors and specialized sleds, the traverse 

delivered the equivalent of 30 LC-130 missions 

to South Pole during the 2010/11 field season. Driving time from McMurdo via traverse 

is nominally 30 days to the South Pole and a 

downhill trip back to McMurdo of 15 days. 

The new South Pole Station included a 

50,000 square foot (4650 square meter) logistics facility, located in underground arches, for 

indoor storage of materials and supplies. The 

station confronts a particularly difficult challenge when it comes to storage of some materials and supplies—many items, such as tape and 

other products with adhesives, lose their effectiveness during the extreme cold temperatures 

experienced in the underground arches. The 

station is also heavily reliant on outdoor storage 

for bulk items and supplies that are used only 

infrequently. Materials are stored on elevated 

snow berms marked with inventory locations. 

Substantial maintenance is required annually to 

keep the berms free of snow, conduct inventories, and locate items. 

Figure 2.6. The fuel storage facility at South Pole 

Station. Source: Carlton Walker.

Figure 2.7. McMurdo Station. The ice pier is in the 

lower right. Source: Nathan Hoople.
2. The Austral Environment 41

2.4.1.2. McMurdo and Nearby Region

McMurdo Station is the principal U.S. station 

in Antarctica and its largest scientific base. 

The original station was constructed in the 

mid-1950s. From McMurdo Station, a variety 

of field camps are opened on a seasonal basis, 

some multiyear, such as sites in the Dry Valleys, 

and some short-term. With many additions 

and updates over the years, today’s station is 

the primary logistics facility for resupply and 

waste management of USAP inland operations 

(including South Pole Station) and field science 

projects. The population varies from 130  to 

1100, depending on the season and the season’s 

activities. During the summer months, the station serves more than 30,000 meals per week to 

residents and transients. 

The station is normally isolated from late February 

until early October, except 

for a brief period in August 

or September when several closely spaced flights 

(known as WINFLY, for 

winter fly-in) deliver personnel to prepare the 

station for the operating season, supplies, and 

early science teams. 

McMurdo operates three airfields that are 

used at different times of the summer as a 

result of environmental/seasonal conditions 

and aircraft type. The primary means of moving USAP participants from Christchurch, 

New Zealand, to McMurdo Station is via the 

C-17 Globemaster III, operated by the U.S. Air 

Force’s 62nd Airlift Wing located at the Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. 

The planes are able to land at McMurdo during 

periods of darkness using night-vision goggles, 

making McMurdo accessible on a year-around 

basis. McMurdo has a heliport, with a commercial contractor operating and maintaining a 

helicopter fleet in support of science and operations tasking. Ski-equipped DHC-6 Twin Otter 

and BT-67 Basler Turbo (modified DC-3) aircraft also operate out of McMurdo, serving science and operational needs in the interior.

McMurdo Station has a deepwater harbor. 

Resupply activities involving annual visits by 

a tanker and a cargo ship, chartered from the 

Military Sealift Command, are intense during 

a short window each year from late January to 

Figure 2.9. McMurdo Station’s Pegasus Runway facility. Source: 

Craig Dorman

Figure 2.8. A Dry Valleys field camp (in the McMurdo

Station vicinity). Source: Peter Rejcek.
42 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

pounds (4.2  million kilograms) were shipped 

out by vessel. (More weight is currently being 

retrograded than received due to demolition 

of the old South Pole Station, cleanup of old 

materials, and large volumes of science samples 

leaving Antarctica.) 

McMurdo Station has approximately 

680,000 square feet (63,200 square meters) of 

dedicated storage space for materials and supplies, with much of it spread out among work 

centers and frequently moved from one location to another. Materials are stored outside 

on elevated platforms or in 20-foot shipping 

containers. Indoor storage is at a premium, 

with heated storage space being the most difficult to obtain and manage. McMurdo currently has 22 buildings providing indoor storage. Five decommissioned fuel tanks have been 

converted into covered storage for items such 

as tires and other equipment subject to damage 

from ultraviolet rays.

mid-February, when sea ice conditions permit. 

In lieu of a permanent dock, an ice pier at which 

tankers, cargo ships, icebreakers, and research 

ships dock is normally used at McMurdo. The 

pier is constructed in place during the Austral 

winter and must periodically be replaced. In one 

recent year, the sea ice did not form completely, 

preventing successful completion of the pier and 

necessitating use of a portable modular causeway system shipped from the United States. 

The cargo vessel transits from Port Hueneme, 

California, to New Zealand, and then to 

Antarctica. The ship carries resupply items for 

McMurdo and South Pole and returns retrograde cargo and waste to the United States. The 

annual fuel tanker delivers approximately six 

million gallons of fuel purchased through the 

Defense Fuels Agency to support McMurdo, 

South Pole, and the inland camps. As with 

all coastal locations in the southern Ross Sea 

region, heavy icebreaking is needed to open 

the roughly ten-mile (16-kilometer) channel from the annual sea ice edge to McMurdo 

Station in order to enable the off-load of 

cargo and fuel. A total of 11.2 million pounds 

(5.1 million kilograms) of cargo were shipped 

to McMurdo via ships and aircraft; 9.3 million 

Figure 2.11. Outdoor 

and indoor storage at 

McMurdo Station. Sources: 

(above) Elaine Hood and 

(left) Craig Dorman.

Figure 2.10. Cargo ship off-loading at the McMurdo 

ice pier. Source: USAP photo archives.
2. The Austral Environment 43

2.4.1.3. Palmer Station

Palmer Station, built on solid rock, was completed in 1968 and consists of two major buildings and three small ones, plus two large fuel 

tanks, a pier, and a helicopter landing site. 

Palmer Station is logistically isolated from the 

other USAP stations and is resupplied almost 

exclusively by sea from South America. Tour 

ships and private yachts visit periodically during the summer months. Palmer Station is a 

230-mile (370-kilometer) voyage by ship from 

King George Island, which has a 4265-foot 

(1300-meter) noncommercial gravel airstrip. 

The Chilean base does not presently have a dock 

to support research or resupply ships.

At present, there is no runway 

or other permanent landing 

site at Palmer Station, although 

Twin Otter aircraft have landed 

on the glacier above the station in emergencies. The station supports 40–45 people in 

the summer and 15–20  people 

in the three-month, loweractivity winter period. There is no “no-access” 

time, only periods with reduced activity. 

Personnel exchange and station resupply is possible year-around, though it is most intense 

during the summer season. Palmer Station has a 

rudimentary pier (although no heavy crane and 

limited material-handling capability) and facilities for research vessels that support logistics 

and research in the marine sciences. Resupply is 

carried out approximately every six weeks from 

South America by the USAP Antarctic Research 

and Supply Vessel (ARSV) Laurence M. Gould 

(Gould). During 2010/11, 354,000  pounds 

(160,600 kilograms) of cargo and approximately 

111,000 gallons of fuel were transported, principally on board the Gould. The station serves 

about 1,000 meals per week during the peak 

summer months of October through March.

Palmer Station has very little on-station warehouse space and, as a result, no more than a 

three to four month supply of materials may be 

maintained on site. With the exception of stores 

of food and fuel, the station effectively operates 

on the premise of receiving regular resupply 

from South America. Some indoor storage is 

available and the remainder is kept in containers stored outside. Hazardous materials storage 

and segregation is a particular challenge due to 

the station’s small footprint. 

Figure 2.12. Palmer Station, where cargo from 

Antarctic Research and Supply Vessel Laurence M. 

Gould is being off-loaded. Source: Peter Rejcek.

Figure 2.13. A large deep field camp in the Central Transantarctic 

Mountains. Source: Peter Rejcek.
44 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

2.4.1.4. Continental Deep Field

The USAP has the capability to establish both 

large and small field camps throughout the continent, which covers an area similar in size to the 

United States and Mexico combined, and which 

offer venues for scientific discovery in virtually 

every discipline. The nature of the field camps 

varies, depending on the type and duration of 

the research activity. Extended backpacking 

trips generally are not practicable in Antarctica 

owing to the weight of the equipment and the 

fuel required to melt ice for water, cook and 

combat the cold, and so camps are established. 

These camps, operating during the summer, are 

tailored to the particular missions they support. 

Geology, geophysics, glacial geology, glaciology and terrestrial biology have been pursued 

at these camps, which are located at some of the 

most remote, isolated spots on Earth’s surface, 

sometimes at very high elevations. The camps 

can support small teams or teams as large as 

80 or more people, and may be in place for very 

short time periods or be revisited over a period 

of years. Transportation and resupply are generally by LC-130, smaller fixed-wing aircraft, 

helicopter, or tracked vehicle from McMurdo 

Station, and helicopters or smaller fixed-wing 

aircraft may be used to support local scientific 

operations. Snowmobiles are also extensively 

used for travel over short distances.

Small parties requiring temporary shelter use 

single- or double-walled tents of several designs, 

both modern and traditional. One design still 

used is the Scott tent, a pyramidal-shaped tent 

similar to the design used by Robert F. Scott in 

the early twentieth century. These structures 

are stable in high winds and can be erected 

quickly. Cold-weather sleeping bags are used on 

ground cushions, and cooking is accomplished 

with portable stoves. If summer research projects are expected to continue over several seasons at the same location, pre-fabricated huts 

or temporary structures may be erected, providing heated space, stable working areas, and 

comfort not achievable with tents. In addition, 

the USAP partners with the Antarctic programs 

of other nations to share existing or purposebuilt camps. For some large campaign efforts, 

more elaborate camps are constructed that are 

capable of serving as base camps for helicopter 

and fixed-wing aviation. These types of camps 

are highly effective at supporting a number of 

projects during intense periods of observation 

in a particular area. Access to the interior by 

Figure 2.14. A small deep field camp at Bull Pass in the 

Dry Valleys. Source: Peter Rejcek.

Figure 2.15. Basler aircraft at a deep field camp in 

Antarctica. Source: USAP photo archives.
2. The Austral Environment 45

air/traverse now also allows camps to be established that until recently tended to be clustered 

in West Antarctica. In recent years, South Pole 

Station has begun to function as a hub for field 

activity on the Antarctic Plateau. All deep field 

sites are required to have radios and to maintain 

daily contact with the nearest monitoring station for safety purposes.

2.4.1.5. Southern Ocean

The USAP operates two ships for research 

and related operations in Antarctic waters, the 

Research Vessel Icebreaker (RVIB) Nathaniel B. 

Palmer (Palmer) and the Gould1. Ships owned 

or operated by various institutions, such as the 

U.S. academic fleet and the scientific ocean drilling ship, also periodically undertake research in 

Antarctic waters, and occasionally USAP vessels operate in concert with the research vessels of other national Antarctic programs. For 

example, in recent years, the Swedish icebreaker 

Oden has been contracted to conduct Southern 

Ocean research (and to break the channel to 

McMurdo Station).

The Palmer began conducting science operations in late 1992 when it sailed from Punta 

Arenas, Chile, in support of the U.S. Ice Camp 

Weddell jointly operated with Russia. Since 

then, the 308-foot (94-meter) ship has sailed 

on more than 110  science cruises, and is now 

into its second long-term charter in support 

of marine science research for the USAP. If all 

options are exercised, the charter will expire in 

the year 2022. 

The Palmer’s main engines provide total horsepower of 12,700, a rating that, along with hull 

strength and other criteria, combine to qualify it for classification as an Ice Class A2 icebreaker, able to break three feet (one meter) 

of ice at a continuous forward speed of three 

knots2. A modern, multidisciplinary research 

vessel, the Palmer has six laboratories totaling 3800 square feet (353 square meters) and 

1

 Both ships are owned and operated under charter to the Antarctic Support Contractor by Louisiana-based Edison Chouest 

Offshore (ECO) and were built by North American Ship Building, a subsidiary of ECO located in Larose, Louisiana.

2

 This classification is done by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS); the Palmer’s full classification is ABS Maltese Cross A1, 

Maltese Cross AMS, Ice Class A2, icebreaker.

Figure 2.16. RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer. Source: 

H. William Detrich. 

Figure 2.17. ARSV Laurence M. Gould. Source: 

Jeffrey Kietzmann. 
46 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

can accommodate 39 scientists and technical 

support staff. The Palmer has worked in many 

areas of the Southern Ocean, including the Ross 

and Weddell Seas and Bransfield Strait, and has 

completed two circumnavigations of Antarctica 

in support of research projects, a distance of 

10,500 miles (16,900 kilometers).

The Gould began its service in Antarctica in 

1998, and a new contract ensures that the vessel will continue its USAP mission until the year 

2020. Its missions include both direct support 

of marine research and also transport of passengers to and resupply of Palmer Station. The 

Gould has sailed in support of more than 80 science cruises. The vessel is a 230-foot (70-meter) 

ship with an available horsepower rating of 

4576 in open-water operations and 3900 horsepower during operations in ice. The vessel carries an Ice Class A1 rating, making her capable 

of breaking one foot (0.3 meters) of first-year ice 

while maintaining continuous forward progress. 

It has berthing space to accommodate a total of 

28 scientists and technical support personnel, 

with nine additional bunks available in berthing 

vans in the ship’s hold for USAP personnel transiting to or from Palmer Station.

2.4.1.6. New Zealand and Chile

Nearly all transportation to McMurdo Station, 

and thus most USAP on-continent research 

with the exception of that in the Palmer Station 

region, is staged though New Zealand. The 

principal USAP facilities are in Christchurch, 

in the International Antarctic Centre at the 

Christchurch International Airport. The complex also houses the New Zealand and Italian 

Antarctic programs. Over 75 percent of the 

world’s scientists flying to continental Antarctica 

depart from this facility, including most USAP 

scientists and support staff—3400 passengers 

were transported by air between Christchurch 

and McMurdo during the 2010/11 season. 

USAP facilities in Christchurch include an air 

complex that has a hanger for storing aircraft 

supplies and shops for performing maintenance 

on the aircraft, as well as facilities for flight planning and briefing crews on Antarctic weather 

conditions. Administrative spaces house offices, 

a clothing distribution center, warehousing, and 

a post office. Nearby Lyttelton is the port that 

services USAP-related ships3.

3

 U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers do not typically call in New Zealand ports for reasons related to U.S. and New Zealand policy 

and instead call on Australia when the need arises.

Figure 2.18. The USAP facility in New Zealand. 

Source: Christchurch Photo Library.

Figure 2.19. Loading a C-17 in New Zealand. Source: 

Christchurch Photo Library.
2. The Austral Environment 47

In contrast, USAP operations and research support for Palmer Station are staged through Punta 

Arenas, Chile, where 132 passengers embarked 

for transit to the station in 2010/11. The principal USAP facility in Punta Arenas is located 

at the main port and consists of a contractoroperated, multipurpose warehouse for storage 

of transient cargo and inventory, a clothing distribution center, administrative and meeting 

spaces, and a light industrial area for fabrication and repair of materials for shipboard and 

station use.   The USAP research vessels operate primarily out of Punta Arenas and berth 

directly adjacent to the USAP facility on the 

main pier. The pier currently lacks the capacity to provide power to the vessel while berthed. 

The USAP itself operates no aviation facilities 

in Punta Arenas.

2.4.1.7. Continental United States

Equipment, materials, and supplies are generally purchased in the United States and consolidated for shipment either to New Zealand 

or South America at the USAP shipping 

and receiving hub, located at the Naval Base 

Ventura County in Port Hueneme, California. 

Figure 2.20. The USAP facility in Punta Arenas, Chile. 

Source: James Swift.

The base was the operating site of the former 

Naval Support Force Antarctica and has continued as the USAP point of presence since 

the Navy completed its service to the program 

in the late 1990s.

Most items for shipment to Antarctica are 

repackaged for rough-duty shipping because 

commercial packaging generally does not withstand the severe environmental conditions 

encountered during travel to the ice. In addition 

to using an annual resupply vessel, some items 

are sent from Port Hueneme to New Zealand 

by commercial surface ship and also by commercial air. Commercial surface transport from 

California to Christchurch takes approximately 

three weeks, and commercial air takes anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, depending on the 

time of year and nature of the cargo. The majority of science cargo and equipment is shipped 

via commercial air due to the long lead times 

associated with shipping on the annual resupply vessel and the timing of the annual approval 

of research projects. Emerging requirements 

that are not compatible with the annual resupply vessel schedule also often drive the use of 

more costly airlift.

Figure 2.21. Registering incoming items prior to 

repacking at the USAP cargo facility in Port Hueneme, 

California. Source: Peter Rejcek.
48 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Shipments from Port Hueneme to South 

America are also accomplished by commercial 

surface and commercial air. A commercial surface shipment takes approximately 30 days to 

reach Punta Arenas, while commercial air shipments take roughly three to seven days. These 

longer shipment times are due to the greater 

distances involved and the more limited transportation options available in South America.

2.4.1.8. Support Contractor 

NSF manages the majority of operations in 

Antarctica through a large, multiyear contract for base operations and science support4

. 

The principal contractor facilities are located 

in Centennial, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. 

The contractor is responsible for most activities associated with supporting the USAP—

from research laboratory operations, remote 

field camp support and vessel operations to 

clinic operations, fire fighting, food service, 

and recreation. In briefing the Panel, Lockheed 

Martin said that it will seek to reduce employment and services in selected areas. Reductions 

will be accomplished by analyzing project needs 

and opportunities to integrate services, and by 

rebuilding the science support program with 

a strategic longer-term vision that is backed 

with a budget plan. In this regard, the contractor’s science planning section will move to the 

Washington, D.C., area to be located closer 

to NSF headquarters. This can be expected to 

increase interactions and efficiencies in science 

planning as well as to reduce overall costs. The 

Panel applauds this arrangement. Another area 

being explored is increasing communication 

between USAP management and scientists, an 

effort that should pay dividends. As required 

by NSF, the contractor is developing a master 

plan that integrates all station activities, and 

is appropriately considering the transition to 

be an opportunity to reexamine many present 

activities, such as frequency of training for contractors and scientists, whether a driver’s license 

“test” is needed every year for the same person 

on the same vehicle, and whether a refresher 

course is needed annually. 

2.4.2. Direct Research Support

USAP direct research support bridges research 

in the Antarctic and the underlying logistics 

with project-specific assignments of personnel, 

equipment, and transportation. 

The driver of USAP activity in Antarctica and 

the Southern Ocean is the operational support 

needed by research projects approved by NSF 

as well as other federal agencies and departments. The 2011/12 Austral summer and the 

2012 winter (typical of recent years) involved 

163 projects—the vast majority funded by NSF 

(nearly all university-based) and the remainder by NASA, NOAA, and USGS. The amount 

of operational support per project varies 

widely; for example, data collection at an existing station often needs relatively little support, 

whereas ice coring at a remote location requires 

a great deal of support.

Noting that a project can range in size and scope 

from a single individual at a station to an international team deployed throughout an entire 

region, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station 

supported 26 projects in the 2011/12 Austral 

4

 The prime support contractor for many years had been Raytheon Polar Services Company; however, in late 2011, Lockheed Martin 

was selected to succeed it. During the period the Panel was active, a transition of the Antarctic Support Contract was underway. 
2. The Austral Environment 49

summer. McMurdo Station and field sites supported from there handled 86 projects. Palmer 

Station supported 19, and the two research vessels, Gould and Palmer, supported 32 projects. 

Examples of research support activities are 

described in greater detail in Appendix VI. 

Many research projects, particularly those at 

South Pole Station, operate year-around. In 

the summer, scientists and technicians arrive 

to service and upgrade their equipment. They 

leave behind a small crew to operate the equipment and to transmit data to home institutions during the eight and one-half month 

winter isolation period, when low or no daylight and extreme cold make sustained outdoor 

work impracticable.

The immediate vicinity of McMurdo Station—

including Ross Island, the southwest corner of 

the Ross Sea, the Dry Valleys, and the Ross Ice 

Shelf—is itself a region of high research interest in a range of disciplines. While substantial 

science is pursued in McMurdo’s laboratories, 

the majority of effort requires science teams to 

collect data, samples, or specimens at field locations away from the station. The teams represent the span of scientific disciplines active in 

the Antarctic and the projects are generally seasonal (October to February), when it is practicable for people to operate in the field. On 

13 January 2012, to pick a date, while McMurdo’s 

population was about 1000, 211 researchers 

were at 26 camps in the field—some in tents, 

some in more complex semi-permanent summer facilities. Of them, 57 were within helicopter range of McMurdo (mostly on Ross Island 

and in the Dry Valleys), 136 were far enough 

away to need fixed-wing support (deep field), 

and 18 were supported by traverses.

Palmer Station, the northernmost and smallest of the U.S. year-around stations, principally 

supports local-area projects. Its small boats are 

presently capable of operating within approximately two miles (three kilometers) of the station, although the range can in limited circumstances be extended to five miles (eight 

kilometers) based on a risk analysis of weather 

and sea conditions.

In the Southern Ocean, most, if not all, research 

cruises require the Palmer’s capabilities to navigate and carry out scientific operations in 

sea ice. The Gould also extends researchers’ 

range up and down the Antarctic Peninsula 

and into the Drake Passage between South 

America and Antarctica. The range has been 

further extended in recent years through the 

use of underwater gliders for data collection. 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory 

System or NOAA research vessels support some 

U.S. research in the Southern Ocean that does 

not require working in ice-covered waters. NSF 

is presently arranging for the Palmer to be available to NOAA on a reimbursable basis when 

it would otherwise be in port, thus permitting 

NOAA to execute its responsibilities under the 

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources.

In most all of these research activities, USAPsupported and sponsored scientists increasingly use data collected by satellites. Satellitebased communications are also essential to 

USAP efforts, both for directing and reporting research and for health and safety applications, and will be discussed in greater detail in 

subsequent sections.
50 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

3. Forecast of

Future Science Needs

The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) supports a broad array of research in virtually all 

areas of science. Although research during and 

since the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 

focused on research in geology, glaciology, biology, oceanography, atmospheric sciences and 

space physics, research topics have broadened 

in recent years to include the fields of astronomy and astrophysics. Meanwhile, newer technologies such as gene sequencing and remote 

sensing are changing the character of research. 

In addition, the tradition of international collaboration in research and logistical support 

has been strengthening, as exemplified by experiences in the 2007–2009 International Polar 

Year. The USAP supports National Science 

Foundation (NSF) researchers and the mission 

needs of other federal agencies, notably the U.S. 

Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), whose research projects require access 

to the Antarctic. As previously noted, the USAP 

currently supports research throughout the 

Antarctic Continent and Southern Ocean, with 

focused activities at two coastal stations, a station at the South Pole, and on two research vessels, coupled with measurements made from 

satellites and autonomous instruments. 

The 2011 National Research Council (NRC) 

report, Future Science Opportunities in 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, identifies a number of major scientific thrusts that 

will warrant particular attention over the next 

two decades and discusses opportunities to 

leverage the effectiveness of USAP contributions in those areas. The priority research questions cited in the report are categorized under 

the two, sometimes-related, topics of “Global 

Change” and “Discovery”:

1. Global Change

• How will Antarctica contribute to global 

changes in sea level?

• What is the role of Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean in the global climate system?

• What is the response of Antarctic biota and 

ecosystems to change? 

• What role has Antarctica played in changing 

our planet in the past?

2. Discovery

• What can records preserved in Antarctica 

and the Southern Ocean reveal about past 

and future regional and global climates?

• How has life adapted to the changing Antarctic and Southern Ocean environments?
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 51

• How can the Antarctic platform be used to 

reveal interactions between Earth and the 

space environment?

• How did the universe begin, of what is it 

made, and what determines its evolution?

The 2011 NRC report establishes the following 

priorities to address these key science questions:

• Lead an international effort to improve 

observing networks and Earth system models.

• Continue to support basic scientific research 

toward new discoveries.

• Increase international collaboration.

• Exploit emerging technologies.

• Coordinate integrated polar education.

• Continue strong logistical support for 

Antarctic science while improving efficiency, 

flexibility, and mobility.

The following sections describe current and 

future science pursuits and the resources 

needed for their support.
52 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

3.1. Science at the South Pole 

The South Pole’s remote location, many thousands of kilometers from major sources of 

anthropogenic effluents, makes it the premier 

location for monitoring the well-mixed global 

atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements made at the South Pole date back to 

1957. The total column ozone record over the 

South Pole has been measured since the early 

1960s. The decreasing amounts of stratospheric 

ozone led to the genesis of the term “Antarctic 

ozone hole” when these data were highlighted 

in a scientific paper published in 1985. One of 

the main stratospheric ozone-depleting gases, 

CFC-11, was measured by NOAA at South Pole 

Station nine years before the ozone hole was discovered. There is a marked decrease in CFC-11 

growth following the 1992 Montreal Protocol 

limiting its production and ozone hole recovery is underway. These data are a dramatic verification of the importance of long-term atmospheric monitoring at the South Pole. These data 

are also used to verify satellite measurements.

The cold, clean, dry atmosphere over the South 

Pole provides viewing conditions that, at some 

wavelengths, are equivalent to those in space. 

As a consequence, the Amundsen-Scott South 

Pole Station has become a major astronomy 

and astrophysics research site, enabling measurements of cosmic microwave background 

radiation—important because its distribution provides direct evidence about the energy 

Figure 3.2. Total column ozone measured during the peak stratospheric ozone depletion season measured by NOAA from the South Pole in 

a program initiated in the early 1960s. Note that 

stratospheric ozone was decreasing well before 

the Antarctic ozone hole was observed in 1985. 

The negative slide in stratospheric ozone over the 

South Pole halted during the 1990s.

Figure 3.1. Long-term measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) made at the South Pole by 

the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Air 

Sampling Network showing a steady increase 

in concentration. The annual sawtooth pattern 

reflects the spring-summer growth of plants. 

Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/

graphics/South_Pole_CO2.jpg.

Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at the South Pole

CO2 Concentration (ppmv) 400

380

360

340

320

300

19571962196719721977198219871192199720022007
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 53

distribution in the universe immediately after 

the Big Bang and because it can be used as a 

kind of backlight to detect concentrations of 

mass not otherwise detectable—with unprecedented accuracy by the 10-meter South Pole 

Telescope. The IceCube Neutrino Observatory 

opens a new window on distant and unknown 

parts of the universe. To best advance scientific understanding of astrophysical processes, 

observations from the telescopes (and other 

experiments) at the South Pole must be linked 

to observatories elsewhere in the world. For 

example, in addition to conducting research 

into the origin, evolution, and nature of the 

universe, the observatories at the South Pole 

are significant components of a global network 

for the detection and study of episodic events 

such as supernovae or even asteroid collision 

with planets of our solar system, for example, 

the Shoemaker-Levy 9 event. Studies like these 

depend on the availability of significant satellite 

connectivity in order to enable the timely transmission of data to laboratories in the United 

States and around the world. 

Figure 3.3. Concentrations of the ozone-depleting 

gas CFC-11 measured by NOAA at South Pole 

Station. NOAA was measuring CFC-11 about a 

decade before it was implicated in the formation of 

the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. The data clearly 

show the immediate effect of the 1992 Montreal 

Protocol in reducing ozone depleting gases.
54 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

The Antarctic Peninsula is of special interest 

for several reasons, conditioned in part by the 

pronounced environmental changes underway 

there. One reason is that unique Antarctic ecosystems offer opportunities for research on the 

impacts of change as well as adaptation mechanisms. Another reason relates to the spectacular disintegrations of major ice shelves, such as 

Larsen-B and Wilkins, which had consequences 

for local environments and accelerated the loss 

of land-based ice. The future loss of relatively 

vulnerable land-based ice from the Antarctic 

Peninsula and West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a 

key component for predicting the trajectory of 

global sea level rise. The fastest moving ice on 

the Antarctic Continent presently drains into 

the Amundsen Sea from the West Antarctic Ice 

Sheet. Revealing the driving forces there has 

been identified as a scientific priority. Ocean-ice 

shelf interactions in particular are implicated in 

accelerating ice motions. Changing sea ice conditions may also play a role in those interactions, as well as in ecosystem changes and deepwater formation that is an important driver in 

global ocean circulation. 

Methane, the second most important greenhouse gas next to carbon dioxide, and dozens of 

other trace gas species are measured at Palmer 

and the South Pole Stations.

The most critical need for supporting future 

science in this region is more effective access—

by ship to Palmer Station for research on iceassociated ecosystems and ocean-glacier interfaces, and by air to remote field sites in West 

Antarctica. Reliable high-capacity air access 

to Palmer Station and much of the peninsula 

region is infeasible because of its rugged topography. Palmer Station and U.S. field camps along 

the peninsula are currently supported by the 

Antarctic Research and Supply Vessel (ARSV) 

Laurence M. Gould (Gould), but this ship was 

not designed to operate in heavy ice and thus 

cannot access the areas mentioned above. The 

Research Vessel Icebreaker (RVIB) Nathaniel 

B. Palmer (Palmer) is now 20 years old and, 

because of her limited icebreaking capabilities, 

she is not able to reliably access the seaward 

margins of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The research community has expressed the 

need for a new vessel with capabilities beyond 

those currently available on the Palmer. The new 

ship must be able to penetrate heavy pack ice in 

3.2. Science on the 

Peninsula and West Antarctica

Figure 3.4. Concentrations of methane, the second 

most important greenhouse gas, sampled at Palmer 

Station by NOAA. Clearly visible in the data are the 

methane annual cycle that echoes down from northern latitudes, and changes in the growth rate of global 

methane over time.
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 55

winter to enable investigations of ice shelf processes, high-productivity open water regions, 

and polynyas (areas of open water) within the 

ice pack. The science mission requirements 

for such a Polar Research Vessel (PRV) were 

recently documented in a study carried out 

by the University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System (UNOLS) with NSF support. 

The Gould will be more than 20 years old when 

her current charter expires in 2020. Either a 

replacement vessel will be needed or the USAP 

will need to find different ways of resupplying Palmer Station and transporting personnel 

between the mainland and the station. 

The peninsula hosts 14 year-around research 

stations operated by eight nations, some with 

research vessels and some with aircraft landing sites. The concentration of scientific assets 

in this small, rapidly changing region offers an 

opportunity for increased international cooperation to reduce duplication and to share responsibility for access to research sites. The possibility for such cooperation in the logistics arena 

appears equally promising.

Palmer Station has had only occasional incremental enhancements of its basic research 

capacity since it began operations, and will 

require key upgrades if it is to continue its mission of anchoring USAP research on the peninsula. The pier is essentially unchanged since 

the station was constructed and it cannot safely 

accommodate the Palmer or a new PRV; even 

the smaller Gould must take care to avoid hazardous underwater obstructions when calling 

on the station. Of additional importance is that 

access to research areas near Palmer Station 

when the Gould is not present is typically limited 

to a two-mile (three-kilometer) area in which 

small boats can operate safely. A Rigid-Hull 

Inflatable Boat could safely work over twice the 

present operational radius from Palmer Station, 

extending research to areas of interest. Still, significant processes such as penguin foraging and 

up-canyon water transport extend well beyond 

these limits and can be studied only if the observational range is increased to about 25  miles 

(40 kilometers) from the station, and so some 

other options should be considered.

Figure 3.6. Conceptual drawing of the 

Polar Research Vessel. 

Figure 3.5. ARSV Laurence M. Gould at Palmer Station. 

Source: James Swift. 
56 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Unattended moorings and autonomous vehicles 

such as underwater gliders can supplement and 

even replace many key observations traditionally made by humans from small boats. Palmer 

Station will need new information technology 

and communications capabilities if it is to be 

successful as a host for expanded unattended 

observations in the peninsula region.

Field access in West Antarctica, including areas 

being targeted for drainage glacier behavior 

studies, is generally afforded by air and traverse 

from McMurdo Station.

Figure 3.7. Illustration of current small boating 

area around Palmer Station (red line) and possible 

extension (green line) if Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats 

become available. 
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 57

and chemical processes acting in the region, 

and to developing predictive models of how the 

environment will respond to changing climate 

conditions. In particular, improvements in the 

density of observations, appropriate to the geographic scale of the process of interest, will be 

necessary to advance across the next threshold 

of understanding.

In McMurdo, potential Crary Lab modernization and expansion must be balanced against 

the desire to minimize the on-ice footprint. 

Possible considerations for analytical facilities 

include genomic and other “–omics” capabilities, as well as advanced analytical support for 

field samples. This could include stable isotope and other analytical techniques that are 

now generally performed off-continent. Having 

the analytic capabilities on site to check the 

organism, rock, ice, or atmospheric composition rather than waiting until analyses are performed in the home laboratory could permit 

more efficient sample collection programs and 

promote science progress. Developments in 

Figure 3.8. USAP research facility at a lake in the Dry 

Valleys, within helicopter range of McMurdo Station. 

Source: Craig Dorman.

3.3. Science in McMurdo

 and the Dry Valleys

The Dry Valleys have been a significant research 

focus since the IGY, and have served as an analog of Mars for NASA research. Numerous discoveries have led to a better understanding of 

how organisms survive in extreme environments and how the Earth system functions. 

Continuing to pursue this research is critical for 

understanding how the Earth system worked 

in the past so that we may better predict what 

changes may occur in the future. 

The response of ecosystems and biota to ongoing climate change over the long term remains 

uncertain. The Dry Valleys, with glaciers, freshwater lakes, glacial melt streams and soil ecosystems, have experienced climate fluctuations 

since continuous observations began in the 

1960s. A pronounced warming trend in the 

1980s and early 1990s changed to cooling later 

in that decade. Subsequently, another change 

occurred. The Dry Valleys are now experiencing an increased frequency of warming events, 

resulting in rising lake levels and a decline of 

the dominant animal species in soils across the 

dry landscape. Across McMurdo Sound from 

the Dry Valleys is Ross Island, home to four 

volcanoes and several penguin rookeries and 

other marine life. Although studies of the geology, glaciology, nutrient and hydrologic cycles, 

and biodiversity continue, there are insufficient observations available to discern trends 

in the terrestrial systems, permafrost, glaciers, 

marine life, and ocean-land atmospheric feedbacks. These data are important to developing a 

robust understanding of the physical, biological 
58 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

this regard should take into account whether 

efficiencies to be gained justify the fully loaded 

expense, including the need for specialized 

personnel on ice. 

The 2011 NRC report outlined several pressing 

areas of atmospheric research, notably improving the representation of clouds and precipitation in climate models used to predict the 

potential extent of Antarctic climate change. 

Airborne research campaigns typically span 

periods of up to a month or more, and can cover 

a wide range of environments, from offshore to 

the continental interior. The utility of aircraft for 

geophysical studies of the ice sheet and underlying earth and hydrologic system was also highlighted. While the airfields at McMurdo have 

evolved to support wheeled aircraft for a greater 

part of the year, this is not true elsewhere on the 

continent, limiting the use of existing advanced 

research aircraft (almost entirely wheeled). As 

noted later, a long-range ski-equipped aircraft 

outfitted and dedicated to science would significantly accelerate scientific progress and facilitate U.S. science leadership in these key areas.

Figure 3.10. Aerial view of the Crary Science and 

Engineering Center, known as the Crary Lab, at 

McMurdo Station. Source: Robyn Waserman.

Figure 3.9. A view from the roof of the U.S. Arrival Heights Research Facility, located just north of Hut 

Point on the west side of Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island. The facility houses equipment for a host of 

atmospheric and auroral experiments for universities and other research groups including, by project 

identification number (principal investigator) and title: O257 (Butler): Ultraviolet (UV) measurements 

at McMurdo Station for the NOAA/Global Monitoring Division Antarctic UV network; A109 (Moore): 

Extremely and Very Low Frequency (ELF/VLF) observations of lightning and lightning-induced electron 

precipitation; A110 (Hernandez): Atmospheric dynamic studies employing high-resolution Fabry-Perot 

spectrometers; A111 (Weatherwax and Gerrard): Magnetic, Global Positioning System, and optical 

experiments related to auroras, induced electrical currents, radiowave communications interference, 

and space weather. Source: Lou Lanzerotti.
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 59

3.4. Science in the Continental Interior

The interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is 

key to understanding both the past and future 

climate of the planet. The ice in this two-mile 

(three-kilometer) thick body contains records 

of past climate because ancient gases trapped 

inside successive layers in the ice can provide 

insights into how the global atmosphere has 

changed through past glacial cycles. Beneath 

these key climate records rest vast tectonic terrains the size of the United States that have 

never been sampled. The tectonic history of 

these terrains is critical to deciphering the evolution of the continent. 

Also beneath the Antarctic ice sheets is a vast 

water system that ranges from deep lakes to 

networks where water flows intermittently in 

streams. The deepest, Lake Vostok, rests beneath 

two miles of ice, is approximately the size of Lake 

Ontario, and is up to one-half mile deep. These 

water systems are targets of study as they are 

likely to contain novel ecosystems and because 

they influence ice sheet dynamics. For example, 

floods from the lakes can cause the ice sheets 

to flow faster.

Effective and efficient ground and remote access 

to the high plateau of East Antarctica will be 

needed to support study and sampling of these 

unique scientific frontiers. Establishing multiuse 

base camps in the continental interior as hubs 

for terrestrial, geophysical, and ice dynamics 

research could provide easier access, enabling 

critical research related to climate change. 

Figure 3.11. Illustration of Antarctic subglacial lakes and drainage. Source: Zina Deretsky, for NSF.
60 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

3.5. Science in the Southern Ocean

The Southern Ocean is most commonly considered to comprise the vast region located 

below 60°S, including all the oceans, seas, 

straits, and embayments surrounding the 

Antarctic Continent that are influenced by sea 

ice. This region ranges from the open sea and 

the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, across rich 

continental shelf seas to coastal areas permanently covered by dense pack ice, to the seaward 

margins of the great ice shelves. 

As an important and highly variable region of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake that helps 

regulate the global climate on timescales ranging from decades to tens of thousands of years, 

the Southern Ocean plays a critical role in global 

change. The Southern Ocean is a major controller of global sea level because it influences the 

stability of ice shelves and the continental ice 

sheets at their landward boundaries. In addition, 

the Antarctic coastal seas are highly productive, 

supporting a rich krill fishery and huge populations of seabirds, seals, and whales. As noted in 

the 2011 NRC report and in the above discussion of science at Palmer Station, the Antarctic 

Peninsula is experiencing rapid warming and 

sea ice loss, and its marine ecosystems are 

changing as the region warms. The Ross Sea is 

the largest and most productive of the Antarctic 

coastal seas, with still-pristine conditions now 

being affected by global change. In other areas, 

such as the Amundsen Sea, ocean processes 

influence the stability of the West Antarctic 

Ice Sheet, which in turn could affect the future 

course of sea level rise. The sediments below the 

Southern Ocean seafloor contain an invaluable 

Figure 3.12. Illustration of temperature in the circumpolar Warm Deep Water (WDW) layer, showing intrusion of relatively warm WDW south onto the Ross Sea shelf, under the ice, making the WDW a potential 

source of heat for melting floating glacial ice. q is “potential temperature,” which corrects a small pressure 

effect on temperature. gn is a measure of density, in this case a density layer in the ocean corresponding to 

the WDW. Source: Alex Orsi. 
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 61

archive of past global change that complements 

records of climate change from ice cores and 

provides an indicator of future change across 

the entire planet. 

NSF-supported oceanographic ship-borne 

research is carried out principally from ships 

coordinated by UNOLS, but no present UNOLS 

research ship is ice-capable. (A new ice-strengthened ship, the Sikuliaq, is operated by the 

University of Alaska for research principally in 

North Pacific and western Arctic Ocean waters.) 

Nearly all marine research near Antarctica must 

be carried out by ice-capable ships. Hence, U.S. 

marine research in far-south waters is dominated by that carried out by the two USAP ships.

Table 3.1. Annual Ship-Days-at-Sea for U.S. Research in Southern Waters, 2001–2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

49–64°S

UNOLS 36 68 27 0 76 50 30 22 57 71

NOAA 78 64 80 62 72 70 30 116 61 52

USAP 58* 55* 95 210 218 282 182 243 175 138

Total 172* 187* 202 272 366 402 242 381 293 261

64–80°S

UNOLS 0 45 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 0

NOAA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0

USAP 195* 128* 152 205 234 218 247 226 191 289

Total 195* 173* 152 205 236 218 250 239 191 289

Grand Total 367* 360* 354 477 602 620 492 620 484 550

* No Laurence M. Gould data available

4926 total days; 4199 days 2003–2010; avg 525 days/year 2003–2010

An expanded and modernized capability to 

support marine research will be needed if 

U.S. scientists are to take leadership roles internationally in ocean-based research (notably, 

take a leadership role in the Southern Ocean 

Observing System, which could be a significant component of an Antarctic Observing 

Network). The Gould and the Palmer have contributed to major discoveries in Antarctic science; however, they do not have the suite of 

scientific instrumentation nor the capability to 

support cutting-edge work in many emerging 

research areas. In addition, they are not capable 

of operating in the seasons or regions of heavier 

pack ice that are of interest for ecosystem, ocean 

circulation, and ocean-ice shelf studies. 
62 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

the means to assess ice, biotic, and meteorologic 

changes in the relatively unexplored interior of 

the continent as well as other areas of the continent and Southern Ocean. 

Currently, the Automatic Geophysical Observatory (AGO), consisting of a suite of nearly identical instruments at six locations on the polar 

plateau, actively studies the coupling of the solar 

wind to ionospheric and magnetospheric processes, emphasizing polar cap dynamics, substorm phenomena, and space weather. The Polar 

Earth Observing Network (POLENET) operates 

networks of Global Positioning System (GPS) 

instruments and seismometers for studies of the 

crustal response to ice sheet change. The experience and understanding gained from the AGO 

Figure 3.14. Map of Automatic Geophysical 

Observatory locations. Observatory components are 

aligned along geomagnetic longitudes that converge 

at the geomagnetic south pole. Source: Siena College 

and New Jersey Institute of Technology. 

3.6. Science Using an

Integrated Observat ion System

The lack of geographically extensive, long-term 

observation records and a paucity of observations south of the peninsula and McMurdo 

regions are additional factors limiting the ability to reduce uncertainties in climate change 

models. The 2011 NRC report on which this 

study draws recommends a comprehensive, 

coordinated, and networked interdisciplinary observing and prediction system that 

would encompass all the major elements of the 

Antarctic environment—the atmosphere; terrestrial, marine, and subglacial ecosystems; permafrost; ice shelves; ice sheets; and subglacial 

habits of the interior as well as the ocean and sea 

ice. Thus, observational systems with the latest 

technology to gather atmospheric, ice, and ecological information will be necessary to provide 

Figure 3.13. Photo of an Automatic Geophysical 

Observatory from the rear, with two solar panels 

and close-up of the wind generator. These stations 

operate year-around, unattended, under sun and 

wind power. Source: Siena College and New Jersey 

Institute of Technology.
3. Forecast of Future Science Needs 63

enable continent-wide, long-duration, multidisciplinary research, including partnering with 

and benefitting from other national programs 

seeking to contribute to such an endeavor.

and POLENET programs will prove useful 

in planning, designing, and implementing an 

Antarctic Observing Network and meeting the 

challenge of successfully colocating a diverse 

set of low-power research instrumentation and 

supplying reliable, renewable power along with 

necessary communications year-around. 

An effective observing system approach will 

require enhanced access to the interior of the 

continent for timely data collection (and subsequent transmission), maintenance, and support 

as well as other logistics services. Many research 

topics will span the entire continent in an integrated fashion and are not specifically tied to 

any one of the major USAP stations. The U.S. 

capability in Antarctica will need to evolve to 

Figure 3.15. Examples of planned components for the SOOS (Southern Ocean Observing System): (left) Map of 

proposed moored arrays (red dots) to sample primary Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) formation and export sites, 

superimposed on plot of AABW CFC-11 inventories, and (right) chart showing repeat hydrographic sections to be 

occupied by the SOOS. Source: Rintoul et al. (2010). 
64 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.1. Research Support:

Research Facilities and Equipment

The episodic maintenance requirements of 

long-term, remote deep field sites present further challenges in designing and providing very 

high reliability instruments and power systems 

that can operate unattended year-around. 

Providing the necessary infrastructure and 

logistics requires not only increased exploitation of emerging technologies but also a conceptual framework that relies increasingly on international planning and cooperation. Remotely 

controlled vehicles (aerial drones, autonomous underwater vehicles [AUVs], gliders, and 

robotic traverse tractors) have the potential to 

significantly reduce costs while enhancing scientific reach. International collaboration to 

avoid duplication of research effort is another 

area that has the potential for expanding scientific output. There exists a high concentration of 

stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, a sparse 

distribution along the rest of the coast, and a 

much lesser distribution in the continental interior. A similar picture emerges for vessels conducting research in the Southern Ocean.

This section briefly describes the current 

research support structure and a projection 

of the needed changes to carry out the future 

4. Findings and

Implementing Actions

Scientific research in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean covers a very broad range of 

topics, making the provision of support an 

extremely complex challenge. For example, support of the sciences needed to study the various fish species in the Southern Ocean is very 

different from that needed to study the geology of the Antarctic mountains or the biogeochemistry of the frozen lakes in the Dry 

Valleys. The infrastructure needed to support 

the 10-meter telescope and the neutrino observatory at the South Pole is yet again different. 

Figure 4.1. Penguin with instruments and transmitter for 

research. Source: Alex Isern.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 65

Action 4.1-2. Sponsor workshops to promote 

the development of remote-sensing and other 

equipment that will minimize the number of 

people on the ice and on research vessels. 

The magnitude of Antarctica’s future contribution to global sea level rise is projected to be 

substantial. Reducing uncertainties in the projections requires research into the factors that 

govern the movement of the continental glaciers 

toward the sea and the melting of the glaciers at 

the ocean’s edge. National Science Foundation 

(NSF)-supported research conducted during 

the International Polar Year (IPY) identified a 

number of key factors that need further study. 

Measurements of the motion of those glaciers 

most likely to be major contributors to sea level 

research outlined in the 2011 National Research 

Council (NRC) report—with particular focus 

on increasing efficiency.

In the future it is likely that remote autonomous instruments will contribute significantly 

to the suite of observations used by terrestrial 

and ocean scientists. Such devices will extend 

the observing time beyond the Austral summer 

and facilitate collection of longer-term records, 

creating opportunities, for example, to significantly improve understanding of the response 

of the biota to darkness and low temperatures. 

Unmanned remote observation sites are already 

in use, and expanding this capability to other 

locations on the continent is an obvious path. 

Research and development to improve the reliability and capability of equipment, including 

lighter, more reliable, and cost-effective batteries, would be very beneficial. Use of autonomous 

instruments may also present opportunities to 

reduce the number of people that have to work 

in Antarctica, or otherwise reduce the amount 

of time they need to spend there. 

Action 4.1-1. Extend the observing season, 

especially on the continent, and improve the 

communications network to operate throughout 

the year to enable automated data collection 

and transmission from remote instruments. 

Figure 4.2. (top) Underwater glider used for autonomous ocean research. Source: Don Hartill. (bottom) 

Modern aerial drone for wide-area observations. 

Source: John Cassano.
66 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

rise will be required. Airborne surveys of ice 

sheet thickness and elevation, enabled by the 

long-range science aircraft described in the 

2011 NRC report, could provide much critical 

data. AUVs are needed to obtain detailed measurements of ocean salinity and temperature at 

the ocean-ice sheet interface to improve melting rate predictions. 

Increased access to ice-covered regions of the 

Southern Ocean adjacent to the continent will 

be needed in order to measure and monitor 

factors that help drive global ocean currents as 

well as to study changes in ecosystems caused 

by modifications to their physical environment. 

Almost uniquely among the major nations 

supporting research in Antarctica, the United 

States lacks research ships that can provide 

access to regions of heavy ice. Moreover, the two 

U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) ships that work 

in Antarctic waters will only be under contract 

for at most (if options are exercised) another 

eight (Antarctic Research and Supply Vessel 

[ARSV] Laurence M. Gould [Gould]) and ten 

(Research Vessel Icebreaker [RVIB] Nathaniel 

B. Palmer [Palmer]) years, when they will be 

22 and 30 years old, respectively. 

Sediments beneath the Southern Ocean seafloor 

provide vital information about past changes in 

the global climate system. Establishing a more 

comprehensive ocean floor drilling program in 

the Southern Ocean adjacent to the continent 

can make a significant contribution to understanding this history and its implications for 

future change. This activity requires a research 

vessel with enhanced capabilities compared to 

those of the Palmer or Gould—such as greater 

automation, improved ice capability, and the 

instrumentation and equipment needed to 

accomplish present and future studies. It will 

also be essential for the United States to partner 

with other nations operating research vessels in 

the region in order to achieve pan-Antarctic coverage for a Southern Ocean Observing System.

Action 4.1-3. Aggressively pursue the acquisition of a new polar research vessel with 

enhanced capabilities to ensure U.S. leadership 

in pursuing scientific endeavors in the Southern 

Ocean. Improved capabilities to deploy and 

recover advanced remote-sensing assets should 

be a key feature of such a vessel.

Biosphere-climate interactions are complex and 

understanding them requires a multiparameter observation system. Antarctica provides an 

important natural laboratory for monitoring 

the response of biological and environmental 

systems to rapid change. The 2011 NRC report 

highlighted the need for long-term interdisciplinary observations using a broad observing 

network backed with data integration and scientific modeling. With its track record of longterm observations in Antarctica, the United 

States is well positioned to play a leading role 

Figure 4.3. Polar Research Vessel concept drawing.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 67

in such efforts and in establishing standards 

for data collection, along with guidelines for 

open data access. 

USAP facilities in the Dry Valleys as well as 

the array of national research stations located 

along the Antarctic Peninsula afford opportunities to cost-effectively establish long-term environmental observing networks through international collaboration. Collaborations can be 

enhanced to link such activities on a larger scale, 

thus forming a pan-Antarctic interdisciplinary 

observation system with substantial cost savings 

compared with a U.S.-only system. The United 

States has an opportunity to play an important 

role in developing such a network, thereby accelerating the availability of important research. 

Consistent with Presidential Memorandum 

6646 of February 5, 1982 (United States Antarctic Policy and Programs), since the early 1970s 

NSF has been, and is expected to remain, fully 

responsible for managing and coordinating the 

support of U.S. Antarctic operations. However, 

the projected trends in science and technology 

imply more intensive participation by other U.S. 

agencies, as well as by international bodies, in 

both planning and operations. As opposed to 

the “Arctic Observing Network,” which evolved 

from investigator level projects into a formal 

program, the envisioned integrated, long-term 

Antarctic observatory already entails a significant component of “top-down” planning 

and management—as evidenced, for example, 

in the planning documents for the Southern 

Ocean Observing System. An Antarctic observatory is called for in the planning documents 

of the United States and many other nations, as 

well as international bodies such as the World 

Meteorological Organization, the International 

Council for Science, and the Scientific 

Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).

Further, any continental-scale approach to 

observations and fieldwork will place more 

emphasis upon new communications and data 

management capabilities and remote sensing 

from space and air, as well as access to research 

sites that are well beyond the reach of U.S. air, 

land, and sea assets. The implications are that 

new NSF multidirectorate and national multiagency planning mechanisms will be needed, 

and that new ways must be found to overcome 

the programming and operating challenges 

associated with more integrated international 

efforts. This will likely extend to a more international approach to operation of stations on the 

continent, as well as access to ice-strengthened 

vessels in the Southern Ocean. 

Issues that will need to be addressed include 

the logistical and environmental implications of 

autonomous system installation, operation, servicing, and eventual removal. Both the observing system and the associated design, management, and operating structure will require 

investment well above existing levels (as will 

the associated information technology resilience)—as indicated by a review of current 

grants—especially if the United States desires to 

take the international lead in their development. 

An additional central consideration will be the 

need for significantly expanded communications capacity across the continent5

, with the 

5

 Continuity of an arrangement with Iridium for satellite services (discussed later) is likely to remain essential for the economic viability of much of the planned U.S. contribution.
68 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

likely requirement for international standards 

to ensure that all interested nations can effectively contribute to the observing system. The 

failure to undertake such a coordinating effort 

promptly is likely to lead to the deployment of 

a complex system with incompatible elements 

that is both costly and limited in scientific value. 

One essential early decision is the nature and 

scale of the programs where the U.S. intends 

to take a leadership position, versus those 

where it intends to engage only in a supporting role. The management challenges will be 

much the same as those faced in other major 

global-scale international scientific endeavors 

except that they are magnified by the nature of 

the surrounding environment6.

Basically, any envisioned large-scale system science—whether addressing global change or discovery—mandates the establishment and funding of highly competent program offices as well 

as a “common framework” for system and project engineering, including the establishment 

of “technology readiness levels” and performance metrics similar to those employed by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), Department of Defense (DoD) and 

other agencies, and that NSF and DoD currently engage in during their extensive joint 

annual planning activity. 

The age of informal, “as you go” planning has 

been overtaken by the increased interconnectivity of science and its cost. The USAP should 

enhance its capability to conduct complex operational planning by adding relevant people 

skills and analytical support and, where beneficial, establishing program offices for major and 

long-term efforts.

Action 4.1-4. USAP and its international 

partners should develop a strategy for defining components of the continental-scale 

long-term observing system to ensure that 

all components of the system are compatible 

and complementary.

Figure 4.4. Annotated satellite image of Pine Island 

Glacier showing glacial flow and the grounding line. 

The Ross Sea is on the extreme upper left of the image. 

Just above the grounding line, the glacier’s surface 

shows some large-scale roughness that is evidence of 

subglacier topography. Seaward of the grounding line, 

the glacier is no longer in direct contact with the bottom. Source: British Antarctic Survey and NASA.

6

 The U.S. Ice Drilling Program Office’s parallel Long Range Science Plan and Long Range Drilling Technology Plan is one 

example of the sort of planning that will be required for an Antarctic observatory. A similar planning effort is commencing for 

the Southern Ocean Observing System, but considerably more detail will need to be laid out for this system as well as similar international efforts to ensure that planning, programming, and infrastructure investments can be prioritized and implemented within expected budgetary constraints. Yet another example from a different venue is the multinational program office 

established to coordinate activities surrounding the International Space Station.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 69

Action 4.1-5. Pursue development, with 

international partners as appropriate, of a comprehensive, coordinated, and networked interdisciplinary observing and prediction system 

that would encompass all the major elements 

of the Antarctic environment—the atmosphere, 

terrestrial, marine and subglacial ecosystems, 

permafrost, ice shelves, ice sheets, subglacial 

habitats of the interior as well as the ocean 

and ocean sea ice. 

Key areas of West Antarctica are likely to remain 

priority destinations for research because of the 

relatively rapid movement of the West Antarctic 

Ice Sheet (WAIS) and the concomitant vulnerability of WAIS itself. The glaciers along the 

Amundsen Sea coast are changing and are currently the fastest moving on the Antarctic continent, with glaciers along the Siple Coast and 

the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf closely following. Work at the Pine Island Glacier and the 

Whillans Ice Stream to further understand processes in subglacial and sub-ice-shelf environments are important contributions currently 

underway. The challenge is in delivering and 

maintaining the equipment needed to carry 

out research at these more distant locations. 

Weather and limitations on LC-130 crew time 

conspire to escalate the challenge. It is possible 

that a refueling facility coupled with a minormaintenance facility and crew rest area for the 

LC-130s in West Antarctica could provide a 

much more reliable transportation solution for 

these remote camps; this possibility is discussed 

in greater detail later in this report. 

The new South Pole Telescope and IceCube 

projects are the most recent examples in 

Antarctica of research that can begin to answer 

some of the questions about how the universe 

began and about its current composition and 

behavior. Both experiments take advantage of 

the South Pole environment to carry out measurements that are very difficult to perform in 

the rest of the world. There are opportunities to 

expand these research areas by developing an 

array of telescopes centered on the 2-to-4 mm 

wavelength region studied with the South Pole 

Telescope and by using larger volumes of ice 

compared to IceCube. Currently, a principal 

constraint for this kind of research is the relative 

lack of available communications bandwidth 

from the South Pole. Uniquely among the three 

USAP year-around research stations, South 

Pole Station cannot “see” geostationary satellites: their orbits fall below the horizon north 

of the pole, thus, the station must rely either on 

specialized polar-orbiting satellites or on aging 

satellites that have drifted out of geostationary 

orbits toward the end of their life. The available 

satellites provide just enough capability to meet 

today’s need, but they will not be able to meet 

projected growth in research project needs without augmentation. Of even greater concern is 

the fact that most if not all of these satellites will 

go out of service over the next decade. 

Figure 4.5. 

Aurora image 

over South Pole 

Station, taken 

with an all-sky 

imager that is 

part of a joint 

research project 

of Siena College 

and Nagoya 

University.
70 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

In general, without a significant expansion of 

available bandwidth to the north and on the 

continent itself, all future research activities in 

Antarctica will be limited. 

Action 4.1-6. Increase the available communications bandwidth to Palmer Station, South 

Pole Station, McMurdo Station, and the field 

camps in Antarctica. 

To ensure the success of Antarctic research projects as they increase in complexity and extend 

to larger and even more remote regions of the 

continent, the level of communication and collaboration between scientists, the support contractors, the Air National Guard (ANG), the 

helicopter and small fixed-wing service providers, and NSF will need to increase correspondingly. In developing the concept of operations 

for these more complex projects, the possibility of schedule delays has to be reflected in a 

clearly defined plan so that as many of the scientific goals of the projects as possible can be 

achieved during the short Austral summer season. In addition, an overarching risk analysis 

for each project is needed rather than risk analysis and mitigation of individual components, 

as is currently practiced. With the present planning approach, the effects of the delay or failure 

of one component of logistics support does not 

appear to be propagated in an effective way into 

the planning of other affected activities, thereby 

leading to a success-oriented schedule without 

adequate contingency. Moving from the past 

model of a “service provider to a customer,” 

toward “closer collaboration among all parties 

to determine what is essential at the research 

sites” will minimize the amount of matériel that 

must be transported to the more remote locations. Of course, projects that can be conducted 

without support personnel, scientists, or technicians present will greatly ease the demands 

placed on the logistics system, particularly 

when serving remote sites.

Action 4.1-7. Improve the process for developing plans for fielding complex projects, 

including realistic budgets and schedules that 

incorporate adequate contingency, a defined 

risk analysis, and mitigation measures. 

Long-term programs carry long-term support 

burdens, so should be periodically reevaluated 

to assure that they continue to be effective and 

operate efficiently. Other national Antarctic programs have been very successful in transforming their portfolios by ending support for some 

programs in order to include new approaches, 

leading to a much broader research program 

while staying within the same budget profile. 

For the USAP, this is currently, and should continue in the future to be, accomplished through 

NSF’s merit review system.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 71

4.2. People

The total number of people on the continent and 

on research vessels is a key cost driver because of 

the infrastructure needed to support their presence in the Antarctic environment. Many individually modest changes can cumulatively represent significant cost reduction opportunities. 

For example, routine maintenance of field gear 

needed for the remote camps on the continent 

may be more economically performed by shipping the material out on the annual resupply 

vessel and returning it the next year. Instituting 

modern inventory control techniques using bar 

code scanners would further reduce the number of people required to manage the materials 

needed by scientists to carry out their research. 

Other cost saving could be found by shortening 

researcher deployments to the minimum necessary duration and instituting a more robust 

equipment testing protocol. 

The staff of the prime support contractor 7, 

its subcontractors, and personnel supporting rotary- and fixed-wing operations (a total 

of well over 1000 people, not including shipboard personnel) dominate the USAP population deployed to all Antarctic operating 

locations. Direct labor costs alone represent 

approximately 30 percent of total funding to the 

prime contractor. 

Well over half of the prime contractor’s full-time 

personnel deploy to Antarctica for some or all 

of the summer season, yet some 70 percent of 

the on-ice workforce is “seasonal” or otherwise 

not “permanent.” Staffing seasonal contractor 

positions is a continuous, year-long, complex 

and challenging task, and personnel issues are 

naturally exacerbated by the challenges of the 

working and living conditions on the ice, particularly, but not only, during the winter season. Above-normal personnel costs associated 

with this approach include a lengthy and complicated annual hiring process (involving background checks, yearly medical examinations, 

and, for winter-over staff, psychological examinations) and a significant number (nominally 

15–20 each year) of “difficult-to-hire” positions 

(due to a combination of the prevailing job 

market, unique skill requirements and citizenship, for example). An additional complication 

is the relatively high (up to 50 percent) dropout rate of staff who initially signed up for wintering over. Prospective employees drop out 

throughout the hiring process, and even occasionally as of the last flight out of South Pole 

at the end of the summer season. This personnel issue increases the cost of recruiting, conducting medical and psychological screening, 

7

 Raytheon Polar Services Company at the time of our visit; the statistics quoted here are for the last few years of operation.

Figure 4.6. Chart illustrating McMurdo Station population by categories.

Antarctic 

Support Contractor

68%

Military

12%

Grantees

10%

Other

10%

Average McMurdo Summer Population

(by Support Category)
72 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

and in some cases transporting and training, 

replacements. If replacements cannot be found, 

planned work will not be accomplished.

Employee retention is not unreasonable given 

the nature of the work—roughly 75 percent 

for McMurdo WINFLY (winter fly-in), 60 percent for McMurdo and South Pole summer and 

winter positions, and 80–90 percent for Palmer 

Station staff. Workforce stability can improve 

efficiency, but it also can bring its own set of 

issues, including those of a social and behavioral nature and a lack of innovation, particularly in senior positions. Overall, the Panel 

found the station and shipboard personnel it 

met to be generally well skilled and motivated. 

Nonetheless, the Panel learned of a number of 

issues that had not previously surfaced to management, implying either a degree of complacency or lack of a fully effective suggestion and 

review process. A much more effective “suggestion box” system could prove valuable, but only 

if there is follow through and feedback.

Action 4.2-1. Establish a “suggestion box” 

system that encourages the submission of ideas 

and issues, and ensure that consideration of 

suggestions is thorough and communicated to 

the USAP community.

The sheer number of people required to operate 

the stations and the intracontinental transportation system, especially at McMurdo, is a primary concern. Inefficiencies attributable to the 

age, condition, and nature of the facilities and 

equipment require high staffing levels. These 

inefficiencies adversely impact working conditions, safety, morale, and welfare. In many cases, 

they also increase the demand for specialized 

skills. Turnover of key on-ice staff hampers standardization and the development of a culture 

focused on supporting field science along with 

the imperative to operate safely and achieve all 

reasonable cost savings. Such deficiencies could 

be ameliorated by new facilities and technology, 

both hardware and software, in conjunction 

with process reengineering. Increased communications bandwidth and modern business systems also should enable more tasks to be performed off the ice. 

The current change in the prime contractor provides an extraordinary opportunity throughout the program to rethink levels of service, 

to reemphasize policy objectives such as totalcost consciousness and workplace safety, and 

to reengineer work processes in parallel with 

planned business system upgrades. Because 

labor costs are a very high percentage of the 

support contractor’s funding, devising ways to 

minimize labor requirements is a potentially 

important path toward cost savings. It is the 

Panel’s judgment that the overall goal should 

be a workforce reduction of at least 20 percent 

at McMurdo, allowing a comparable increase 

in stability and decrease in cost. Importantly, 

to reach this level, investments in new infrastructure and other improvements to the supply chain, plus process reengineering and 

the application of modern business systems, 

will be required. 

Action 4.2-2. Working with the USAP prime 

contractor, improve the stability and professionalism of the workforce and reduce the number 

of support personnel on the ice, with a goal of 

a 20 percent smaller workforce at McMurdo 

Station. (This reduction should be achieved 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 73

through investments in infrastructure and other 

improvements to the supply chain, plus process 

reengineering and the application of modern 

business systems.) 

Similarly, NSF should assess the needed support staffing for field camps on the continent 

with an eye toward reducing staffing to the 

minimum level needed. Reducing this population can significantly decrease support costs, 

making the savings available for the conduct of 

additional science.

Action 4.2-3. Ensure that the support population for field camps is streamlined and 

appropriately matched to the needs of the 

science activities.

There is a quite evident lack of understanding of, 

and concern for, the total costs of an Antarctic 

research project, and a culture—likely exacerbated by the very strong and very appropriate 

focus on safety—that generates extremely high 

levels of support. Because only a limited number of people can be accommodated at each of 

the stations and on the research ships, maximizing research productivity means limiting 

time on the ice or at sea to the minimum essential for safely performing the work. The USAP 

should further develop and promulgate policies and procedures for operations and research 

that promote a culture of total cost consciousness and workplace safety throughout the entire 

program and that appropriately matches needs 

of the science activities to resources provided. 

Information needs to be made available to all 

participants in a manner that promotes their 

participation in cost containment. One way to 

accomplish this might be to develop a catalog of 

sorts, such as one uses when shopping at home, 

detailing the costs of items that are consumed 

by research and operations personnel on ice to 

make them more aware of the costs involved in 

supporting their presence in Antarctica.

ACTION 4.2-4. Increase overall awareness of 

the true cost of resources provided in Antarctica.

Action 4.2-5. Foster a culture of efficiency 

and continuous improvement in all aspects of 

research and operations in order to reduce the 

overall footprint of activities and provide greater 

agility to respond to emerging areas of research. 

Areas of focus include reinforcing the notion that 

research supported by the USAP should be composed of activities that can only be performed, or 

are best performed, in the Antarctic.

As with the contractor’s staff, USAP researchers 

are an eclectic and diverse mix of experienced 

personnel and enthusiastic junior scientists, 

many of them the graduate students or postdocs of the senior principal investigators. The 

scientists are often accompanied by highly competent technical staff who design, build, maintain, and operate the increasingly sophisticated 

instrumentation and equipment required for 

the research conducted in the Antarctic region. 

The 2011 NRC report states that there is no perceived difficulty in maintaining the pipeline of 

Antarctic investigators. Nonetheless, we note 

four “people” issues relating to science that 

impact logistics and cost. 

The first issue, as previously noted, is the balance between on-ice and home-laboratory 

activity. Although some in situ sample preparation and analysis is generally essential, there 
74 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

is a tendency to want to do analytical work on 

the ice. This practice increases the time a person 

is deployed and it demands equipment of everincreasing sophistication and cost that remains 

unused most of the year. This is somewhat less of 

a problem in the Southern Ocean where tightly 

constrained cruise times dictate work practices, 

and year-around, 24 x 7 operations are the norm.

The second concern relates to the importance of 

“new blood” to encourage innovation. Although 

experience is important, major breakthroughs 

and novel approaches that open important new 

paths of inquiry often come with new investigators. The tendency of “old hands” to perpetuate their perceived “legacy rights” to primacy in allocation of limited opportunities and 

resources can be counterproductive. In many 

cases, scientists who have not had experience in 

polar environments, or have not been mentored 

by those with such experience, find it hard to 

break into the “club.” While there is much information on the Web, a meaningful understanding of the challenges of the polar environment, 

let alone the peculiarities of the USAP, can be 

difficult to attain. It requires a concerted effort 

by NSF to ensure that opportunities for polar 

science are open to all, and to encourage new 

participants. Similarly, it takes directed effort 

to acclimate new participants to Antarctica. 

The USAP must support the best science, not 

just the best “geographical” science. Extensive 

efforts on the part of NSF to broaden and prepare the participant pool are fully warranted. 

NSF does periodically sponsor new investigator 

workshops, and should continue this practice.

The third issue has to do with the impact of longterm deployments on the fabric of the research 

community. Faculty members who spend 

extended periods on the ice may become less 

integrated with other members of their university community. Their absence may also impact 

their ability to build collaborations outside their 

own areas of expertise or to recruit young scholars from the broader community. Technology 

that enables faculty to effectively work from their 

campus instead of being deployed in Antarctica 

could help alleviate this problem.

The fourth issue is the postulated change in the 

nature of USAP activity toward a combination 

of continent-wide, long-term observing systems supported by modeling and integrated 

communications and data management, and 

sustained year-around system-scale research, 

much of it complex and conducted at deep field 

sites. These trends will require new technology, new modeling, new logistical skills, new 

equipment and facilities, new and strengthened 

international partnerships, and new approaches 

to planning—and some new people with new 

skills, both on and off the ice and on the ships. 

Anticipated changes to both science and logistics support will also increase demand for totalcost consciousness and innovativeness on the 

part of the research community itself.

The USAP is not immune to the changes inherent in evolving approaches to science, technology, and logistics. It is NSF’s responsibility 

to define the policies under which the USAP 

is conducted and thus to establish the needed 

culture of total-cost consciousness for support of research. The full range of USAP science support activities—from announcements 

of opportunity, to proposal review criteria and 

processes, to length of the Antarctic operating 

season, to levels of support to scientists and 

other agencies, to development of interagency 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 75

and international structures—as well as prudent management of the prime contractor—are 

all determinants of program efficiency and thus 

research productivity. In addition, it is NSF’s 

responsibility to have a staff that is adequate in 

size and capabilities to do so.

The challenges of the prime contractor transition combined with these new approaches to 

science, technology and logistics, as well as the 

need to respond to the many recommendations for improvements and cost savings in this 

report, demand advanced business acumen and 

planning expertise. Broad and rapid access to 

external expertise, through a combination of 

independent contractors and federal and state 

agencies and their laboratories, is an essential 

complement to NSF’s existing internal capability. 

The creation of a small systems engineering/

analysis group separate from the prime contractor to perform cost/benefit studies on a routine basis is a top priority. This may be of use 

for the Arctic as well and could thus report to 

the Director of the Office of Polar Programs. 

Although systems expertise as well as management of USAP details provided by the prime 

contractor (and its subcontractors) are crucial 

to success, so too are the nature of NSF policies and oversight as well as astute planning and 

programming and a careful balancing of priorities, incorporating the new infrastructure 

investments recommended herein. 

The need to continue to support wide ranging and increasingly complex research operations safely and efficiently while simultaneously making major repairs and upgrades in a 

cost-effective manner presents extreme challenges of “multivariate analysis,” on timescales 

ranging from those associated with long-term 

capital and master planning to annual budget 

preparation to day-to-day reaction to changing 

weather conditions. 

Action 4.2-6. Establish a small systems engineering and cost analysis group to conduct 

high-level cost/benefit analyses independent of 

the prime contractor, but working openly with 

the prime contractor.

An additional and not inconsequential aspect 

of the “people in Antarctica” topic is outreach 

to the public, including exploiting the excitement of Antarctic research to impact STEM 

(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education at all levels. This, too, will 

influence logistical needs. The USAP’s demand 

for funds, even at current levels, necessitates a 

significant understanding by the public of the 

importance of Antarctic research for issues of 

societal importance and “discovery,” as well as 

NSF’s commitment to cost containment and 

efficiency. The price of essential major new 

infrastructure (for example, icebreaking ships, 

including a polar research vessel, and communications satellites) whether at NSF or other 

agencies is certain to exceed anticipated budget 

levels, placing greater emphasis on the need for 

broad national support and reductions in the 

cost of currently planned operations. 

Finally, the USAP shares with many other 

research activities the demand for STEMcompetent personnel, and thus is obliged to 

contribute to education by offering compelling opportunities and motivation to students. 

The USAP has an unusual opportunity in this 

regard, one that should not be foregone.
76 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.3. Technology

Technology plays a very strong role in determining the number and skills required of USAP 

personnel and its appropriate use can eliminate 

failure points, reduce personnel requirements, 

and leverage the contributions of individual 

support personnel. 

Technology can also greatly improve the reach 

and quality of logistics support. There are dozens of examples, ranging from enabling night 

landings to providing robotic components for 

traverses, new machine tools, and even a modern dishwashing system in the McMurdo galley. 

Many of these efficiencies are well known within 

the USAP. At issue is the investment strategy—

how to balance the funding needed to support 

ongoing science while remedying deficiencies 

and preparing for future demands. Technology 

is only one component of the needed investment—but the lack of it is a significant part 

of the problem at McMurdo, and to a degree 

at Palmer Station. 

A major concern is that NSF has not established 

a long-term capital plan and associated capital 

budget for the USAP. The result has been significant deterioration of the infrastructure and technological currency at both permanent coastal 

stations, to the point that a major overhaul is 

now necessary. Although the need for an overhaul is reflected primarily in the condition of 

facilities, it is equally true for the technology that 

is used to support activities in Antarctica. Many 

upgrades should have been accomplished long 

ago. As was the case with the rebuild of South 

Pole Station, when field research was reduced in 

order to ensure sufficient flights were available 

to deliver construction materials, it may be necessary to reduce scientific activity for a few years 

in order to undertake the very significant facility, information technology, safety and habitability modernization program that is needed, while 

simultaneously investing in the new systems 

and technology required to support long-term 

observing systems and a broader, year-around 

reach across and around the continent. Doing so 

would result in more and better scientific output 

in the longer term.

For many years NSF has maximized research 

within its budget constraints while deferring infrastructure and logistics investments. 

The time has come to make a concerted effort 

over the next several years to redress the situation to ensure science is not severely hampered 

in the future. 

Action 4.3-1. Establish a capital plan and 

capital budget. The investment strategy should 

emphasize upgrades to essential facilities, logistics and support infrastructure as well as new 

technology, all aimed at streamlining operations 

for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Included is 

the establishment of long-range master plans 

for facilities, logistics, support infrastructure, 

and technology for each of the three major 

USAP stations.

Technology enables the pursuit of science as 

least as much as logistics. This has been particularly apparent in recent decades in the biological sciences, but it is equally important in 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 77

the other disciplines of Antarctic and 

Southern Ocean research, particularly for long-term remote observations. An NSF-sponsored workshop 

on autonomous polar observing systems provided a thorough examination of the challenges and ways forward for the disciplines it considered 

(primarily Earth geophysics)8. Much 

of what this workshop reported with 

regard to technological development 

(especially regarding common needs 

for communications and power), 

deployment strategies (for example, integrated or multi-autonomous 

“Super Sites”), shared logistics, rigorous test and 

evaluation in polar conditions, and approaches 

for both technological development and information sharing (such as consortia, crossdisciplinary working groups, conferences, and 

web-based documentation) is equally applicable to other disciplines, including oceanography 

in the Southern Ocean. 

There are many autonomous systems in place 

around Antarctica, but they do not constitute 

the envisioned integrated, continent-wide network that was described earlier. In fact, they 

often function independently. Upgraded cyberinfrastructure integrated with sensing systems 

both on and off the ice—for communications, 

data management, and modeling—must be 

designed and engineered from a systems perspective, including international compatibility. 

Both novel science and research productivity in the USAP depend upon not just good 

ideas, but also innovative, advanced technologies that have been thoroughly tested and vetted 

for operations in the extreme Antarctic environment. Similar challenges pertain to Arctic 

research, and in many cases systems and techniques designed for one pole are equally useful 

at, or readily modified for, the other. There are 

well-known venues where scientists interact to 

exchange ideas and develop collaborations, but 

there are many fewer such opportunities for the 

engineers and technologists who develop and 

operate the equipment that makes the science 

effort possible. To help ensure that its investments are most effective and efficient, NSF 

should promote and support science, technology, and logistics planning and sharing mechanisms to include program offices, consortia, 

8

 Autonomous Polar Observing Systems Workshop, November 2011, available at http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/content/

apos-report-now-available-online.

Figure 4.7. Weather 

instruments and Global 

Positioning Systems 

being placed on 

uncrevassed ice next to 

the Pine Island Glacier 

to allow near continuous observations of the 

weather conditions and 

to monitor its movement. 

This is an example of 

the programs considered during the NSFsponsored workshop 

on “Autonomous Polar 

Observing Systems” 

(2010). Source: 

Cliff Leight.
78 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

cross-disciplinary technical working groups, 

conferences, and web-based documentation of 

best practices and lessons learned. Such mechanisms should be polar in scope, stress programs where the United States intends to take 

the international lead and, to the degree practicable, be integrated with similar international 

planning efforts, in particular, through SCAR. 

This committee is charged with initiating and 

fostering development of ideas for high-quality 

international scientific research in the Antarctic 

region and on the role of the Antarctic region in 

the Earth system.

Overall, most of the technologies that can 

reduce logistical costs and enhance operational 

support are available within industry or government. The challenges are access, adaptation 

to USAP needs, assurance of proven readiness 

for operations in Antarctic conditions, and a 

willingness to modify traditional procedures. 

Invention, in the case of logistics support, is 

generally not the issue. For the support of science, however, invention is at the heart of the 

matter. An example that greatly impressed the 

Panel during its Palmer Station visit was the use 

of gliders and free-drifting profiling floats for 

directed upper-ocean sampling, yielding orders 

of magnitude more data than possible from 

shipboard observations. Most, if not all, of the 

technologies incorporated into early devices of 

this type had been available for years. What was 

lacking was a definitive requirements and funding mechanism to expedite their development. 

The Panel believes that the creation of such 

innovative access and sampling technologies, as 

well as the rapid improvement of “common use” 

components for power and cyberinfrastructure, 

can best be spurred through dedicated technology development programs not directly tied to 

specific individual research projects. 

To achieve the degree of system and project 

engineering expertise needed to cost-effectively 

support and manage the research called for in 

the 2011 NRC report, the USAP will need to 

broaden both its internal capabilities and its 

access to external expertise. It will also need to 

rely ever more heavily upon technology developed by other agencies or by industry. This has 

always been the case with NASA for spacecraft 

and the military for air support, but is likely 

to become equally important with regard to 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

for sensing and communications as well as the 

Department of Energy (DOE) for power technologies. Many current areas of USAP mutual 

support are governed by law, Presidential 

Directives, or Memoranda of Agreement, and 

similar degrees of formality may well enhance 

additional collaborative development. 

Other mechanisms, such as the Interagency 

Arctic Research Policy Committee that coordinates Arctic research, or the National Science 

and Technology Council committees that 

address ocean policy and research, may also 

prove beneficial for Antarctic and Southern 

Ocean technology development and sharing. 

In addition, although there are many differences between the Arctic and Antarctic, there 

are common technological challenges in sensing, communications, power, and maritime 

access to important regions in and under sea 

ice. Although NSF manages the majority of the 

U.S. research portfolio in both regions, it is not 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 79

clear that at a national level there is an adequate 

degree of interaction among related activities 

focused on the opposite poles. 

In parallel with a holistic long-range modernization program for both McMurdo and Palmer 

Stations and for ship upgrades, means toward 

effectively achieving science in new ways will 

need to be pursued.

In conjunction with enhanced participation 

of polar researchers in NSF’s current Major 

Research Instrumentation program, a dedicated 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA)-like polar technology and instrumentation program would yield major dividends—and will likely be required to achieve 

the science “opportunities” detailed in the 2011 

NRC report.

Action 4.3-2. Continue to sponsor workshops 

that promote the development of remote sensing equipment that will minimize the number of 

people on the ice and on research vessels. Such 

workshops should encourage polar researchers to participate in NSF’s Major Research 

Instrumentation program. 

Action 4.3-3. Establish a dedicated DARPAlike polar technology development program 

within NSF and with other agencies. This could 

include investments in cyberinfrastructure and 

activities to enable broad observing systems as 

recommended in the 2011 NRC report.

People newly involved in the program and new 

technology need to be “customized” for polar 

research. Summer schools have proven particularly effective for science training at the 

collegiate and graduate level, and this practice 

should be broadened to include polar engineering, technology, and logistics. Similarly, NSF 

should explore the possibility of expanding the 

scope and stature of its annual polar technology 

workshop. The current field safety training program seems to work well to enhance the safety 

and operational readiness of personnel on their 

first visit to McMurdo. As research programs 

become more international, opportunities for 

similar training for U.S. personnel who deploy 

with or through the stations of other nations 

will be increasingly important. 

Action 4.3-4. Foster mechanisms to ensure 

the readiness and training of scientists, engineers, modelers, and technologists that participate in Antarctic and Southern Ocean research.

Finally, it is essential to test and evaluate any 

new technology, whether it be equipment or 

instrumentation destined for Antarctica prior 

to deployment, particularly those having to do 

with encountering harsh environmental conditions. At issue are the degrees of formality for 

verifying technological readiness and the associated approval processes. Test sites are available 

at McMurdo for final verification and, for example, at the U.S. Army’s Cold Regions Test Center 

in Alaska and the Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory in New Hampshire, for 

pre-deployment testing and evaluation. 

Researchers are aware of the career-jeopardizing penalties of failed equipment and are highly 

motivated to ensure that their instrumentation 

is thoroughly tested. Nevertheless, especially 

for new USAP participants and new technical 

approaches, failures do occur, and when they 
80 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

do, the consequences can be severe in terms 

of loss of productivity and resources. The peer 

review process can and should add a significant degree of rigor in assuring technological 

readiness. For logistics and support equipment, 

including new approaches to items such as shelters, cold weather clothing, power supplies and 

vehicles, particularly in an era of greater international collaboration, it may be appropriate to 

consider more formalized approaches to both 

preparing specifications and validating equipment performance. It is a costly proposition to 

have equipment deployed to Antarctica fail. 

Action 4.3-5. Ensure that instrumentation to 

be deployed for operation at remote field sites 

has passed a thorough pre-deployment testing 

process, including environmental testing, and 

has been developed to enable module-level serviceability and remote calibration.

Action 4.3-6. Adopt more formal approaches 

such as successful ones practiced by industry 

and other agencies for test and evaluation of 

new systems and technologies and formalize 

the assessment of technological readiness of new 

equipment and processes.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 81

4.4. Transportation

4.4.1. Alternatives To

McMurdo Station

McMurdo Station on Ross Island is the operational hub for all continental activities. The 

current array of logistics and infrastructure at 

McMurdo is built around the requirement for 

science and support operations at the South 

Pole, in the deep field across Antarctica, and in 

the vicinity of McMurdo, as well as for science 

support and research laboratories at McMurdo 

itself. Palmer Station, on the Antarctic Peninsula, 

is independently supported and resupplied. 

The choice of Ross Island as the principal USAP 

base was historically guided by its proximity to 

the site chosen by polar explorers, notably the 

1910–1913 Scott Expedition. As researchers 

and logistics experts increasingly learned, the 

Ross Island location is the best overall site for 

supporting continental research in Antarctica. 

Table 4.1. Scientific Attributes of McMurdo Station and Nearby Region

Key Advanta ges Limitations

Dry Valleys Proximity (helicopter accessible); Vast array of valuable 

research topics and sites available

Distance requires intermediate refueling camp for helicopters

Sea Ice and 

Glacial Ice Shelf

Proximity (easy access by light vehicle or helicopter) to 

largest ice shelf; Persistence None

Ocean Biology 

and Chemistry 

(McMurdo Sound)

Proximity (easy access through sea ice for divers, fishing); Persistent ice cover for stable research platformPersistent ice cover limits water 

access and biological diversity

Penguins

Several major rookeries nearby; Several species 

frequent region; Extent and persistence of sea ice 

allows natural and long-term observation of controlled 

populations

Emperor and Adélie species

Seals

Several species summer in McMurdo Sound; Persistence 

of sea ice allows natural and long-term observation of 

controlled populations

Weddell species

Whales Several species frequent McMurdo Sound Orca and Minki species

Volcanology Active (Mt. Erebus) and extinct volcanoes within easy 

helicopter range None

Long-Duration, 

High-Altitude 

Ballooning

Good latitude; Good launch site characteristics None

Glaciology

Proximity (easy helo access to glaciers in the northern 

Transantarctic Mountains, icebergs, and snowfields and 

ice shelf features)

Ice streams are distant

Geospace & Upper 

Atmosphere

Highest geomagnetic latitude; Conjugacy to sites in 

northern Canada None

Gateway to Interior 

Field Sites

Good accessibility to significant portions of East and 

West Antarctica, all of the Ross Ice Shelf, and nearly all 

of the Transantarctic Mountains

Much of the region from 115oW longitude (clockwise) to 115oE not easily 

accessible with current capabilities

Gateway to South 

Pole

Three hour flying connection; Trail established for overland traverse None
82 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

If McMurdo Station existed only to support 

itself, its present location arguably might not 

be optimal. However, McMurdo exists primarily to support Antarctic science over much of 

the continent. Even if the station existed only to 

support local-area research, its present location 

would still be desirable due to the wide range of 

scientific interests in the region.

Because the science and related support activity 

is essentially expeditionary, and because expeditionary activities in turn require a pyramidlike broad base of support, it is clear that what 

is needed is in essence a town, providing all 

the necessities to a population scaled roughly 

in proportion to the number of researchers 

supported in the field (including South Pole 

Station). Even with paying increasing attention 

to moving non-critical activities off-continent, 

a substantial presence is still required to support science on the continent.

Due to the relatively large number of persons 

involved in the support pyramid, and the need 

for moving some cargo by air, if at all possible 

there should be reasonable access to a location 

for landing wheeled aircraft originating outside 

Antarctica, such as C-17 and commercial passenger aircraft from New Zealand, Australia, 

South Africa, or South America. Considering 

the volume of cargo and fuel that is required 

to support science in Antarctica—and the cost 

savings associated with transportation by sea as 

compared with air, the location should be accessible to large, ice-strengthened ships that are 

capable of making these deliveries. 

Access to the continental interior—for deep 

field research and access to the South Pole 

Station—should also be afforded by the USAP’s 

logistics hub. For decades this access has been 

dominated by the LC-130 aircraft and, more 

recently, by traverses. Thus, the location must 

Figure 4.8. Map 

of Antarctica showing LC-130 range 

circles, potential 

ship-accessible 

locations capable 

of supporting South 

Pole Station (in 

terms of aircraft 

range), and closest coastal sites 

offering support of 

South Pole Station. 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 83

offer a skiway for the LC-130 (and the smaller 

fixed-wing aircraft that are also used) and 

research sites of interest should be within the 

operating range of the aircraft. For the traverse, 

reasonable terrain, routing, and proximity to 

research sites and stations is required.

The Panel conducted a search for a location with 

these characteristics using aerial photography, 

maps, in situ observations, and other sources to 

determine if such locations exist. 

No reasonable alternative to McMurdo was 

found that would permit transshipping (sea, air, 

and land), or that would justify abandoning the 

investments made in fixed plant at McMurdo. 

There is no other location on the Antarctic continent offering the USAP the advantages of the 

McMurdo area: a deepwater port—which is also 

the closest such port to the South Pole—accessible in the summer via an icebreaker (56 years 

of successful deliveries); runways capable of 

handling large aircraft, whether on skis or on 

wheels; developed infrastructure for research 

Table 4.2. Comparison of Logistical Factors Influencing Choice of Ross Island as the Present Location of 

Resupply and Support for USAP Continental Research and Related Activities

McMurdo

Bay of

Whales Terra Nova Bay

Western

Coats Land

Harbor for 9-m Draft Ship Yes; 

Winter Quarters Bay

No; 

Ice Shelf Edge No No; Ice Shelf 

Edge

Direct Ship to Shore 

Off-Load Yes Yes No Yes

Vertical Offset for Ship 

Off-Load Land at Sea Level 15–50 m N/A 40 m

Location for Wheeled 

Runway(s)

Yes; Sea Ice and 

Glacial Ice Shelf No; Skiway

Yes; Active Glacier 

(reached only 

by helo)

No; Skiway

Length of Season for 

Wheeled Runway(s) All year N/A Oct–Nov and Feb N/A

Distance to South Pole (air) 1340 km 1270 km 1700 km 1370 km

Dates of Sea Ice Minimum 15 Jan – 15 Mar 11 Dec – 26 Feb 26 Dec – 10 Mar 10 Jan – 10 Mar

Sea Ice Extent at Minimum 

(typical) 10 nm 0 nm 0 nm 30 to >100 nm

Icebreaker Required for 

Access (typical) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ice Free Land for 

Infrastructure ~1.5 mi2 None Some None

Level Surfaces for 

Infrastructure ~0.75 mi2 Unlimited; On 

Snow Limited Unlimited; On 

Snow

Stability of Infrastructure 

Site High Low High Moderate

Surface Access to Interior 

Antarctica

Easy; Via land to Ross 

Ice Shelf

Easy; Directly 

across Ross Ice 

Shelf

Difficult; Across active 

glaciers and through 

mountain ranges

Easy; Directly 

across Filchner 

Ice Shelf
84 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.4.2. Air and Land

4.4.2.1. Traverse Operations 

Operations during the early years of Antarctic 

exploration were highly dependent on overland 

traverse because large ski-equipped aircraft that 

could operate in the interior had not yet been 

developed. Most of the early interior stations 

were constructed using traverse technology 

or, in the case of South Pole Station, airdrop. 

During the mid-1960s, development of the 

LC-130 and the capability it offered for remote 

transportation virtually eliminated the need to 

make deliveries by traverse, and the capability 

gradually faded away. Recognizing the potential 

single-point failure represented by total reliance 

on the LC-130, for the past ten years the USAP 

has been gradually redeveloping the capability 

to traverse fuel and cargo between McMurdo 

Station and locations in Antarctica’s interior, 

relearning old techniques and combining them 

with new technology. 

The primary focus of traverse operations has 

been the route between McMurdo and South 

Pole Stations. The Ross Ice Shelf provides a 

nearly level route as far as 84°S, or about twothirds of the distance to be traveled. After a 

climb up the Leverett Glacier to the Antarctic 

Plateau, the remainder of the trip is also nearly 

level. Currently, each “swing” of the traverse 

requires a crew of ten, and the one-way transit 

from McMurdo to South Pole takes 30 days. The 

9

 In Appendix VI, the Panel provides the results of an evaluation of alternative sites for USAP support operations now carried 

out at McMurdo Station, confirming the present McMurdo site as the best available alternative, particularly given the investment, albeit aged, that it represents. 

support, including storage for 11 million gallons 

of fuel and an advanced laboratory; and access 

to the Ross Ice Shelf that enables efficient traverse operations to much of the Antarctic interior. In addition, McMurdo is an ideal location 

from which to provide support for NASA’s satellite links and long-duration balloon program as 

well as the polar space programs of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and DoD9.

ACTION 4.4-1. Continue the use of McMurdo, 

South Pole, and Palmer Stations as the primary 

U.S. science and logistics hubs on the continent.

As discussed in the remainder of this section, 

multimodal blending of each transportation 

resource at key locations can maximize cargo 

movement and minimize cost by exploiting the 

relative strengths of each, providing a range of 

options now and into the future. 

Figure 4.9. Map of Antarctica illustrating potential locations for bases in a multimodal transportation system.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 85

vehicles are operated for 12 hours each day, with 

12 hours allocated for equipment maintenance 

and crew rest. 

Crevasse detection, modern vehicles, sleds, and 

other equipment have made traverse operations 

much safer and more efficient. The USAP currently fields two traverse trips per year to the 

South Pole. The capital investment for traverse 

equipment is large, but it is only a fraction of 

the real cost of air support. That said, the only 

way to take full advantage of the investment is 

to increase the daily use rate. The Panel believes, 

consistent with the success of recent traverse 

operations, that NSF can achieve significant 

benefits in four major areas that should be analyzed in more detail. 

First, examine routings to reduce time, wear 

and tear on equipment, and risk. Traverse 

equipment should be tailored to mission set. 

In other words, it may be more cost-effective 

to use different equipment for different parts 

of the routing. Equipment that is tailored for 

relatively smooth portions of the route (Ross 

Ice Shelf and Plateau) might be different from 

equipment needed for the climb up the Leverett 

Glacier. Similarly, equipment used for the transit to hubs might be different from that used on 

spokes to field camps. Matching equipment to 

conditions could pay significant dividends.

Second, increase equipment utilization rates. 

Currently, a round trip to the South Pole from 

McMurdo takes about 45 days. This is primarily 

because operations are limited to 12-hours per 

day, driven mainly by crew limitations. By using 

the Global Positioning System (GPS), manned 

“mother vehicles” can be coupled to unmanned 

“follower” vehicles using robotics and automatic operations, and significant reductions 

could eventually be made to the crew size per 

traverse operation while also increasing safety. 

This would significantly reduce the logistics burden overall and allow smaller and better crew 

rest facilities. A small traverse crew, augmented 

with robotic capabilities on all or most tractors, 

would permit up to 20-hour utilization rates that 

by itself would almost double current capability 

using existing equipment. 

Third, use multimodal operations. Linking the 

traverse with ski-equipped aircraft operations 

shows significant promise for reducing the cost 

of field support. For instance, traverse operations across the Ross Ice Shelf followed by the 

use of LC-130 flights to the South Pole would 

make the traverse more efficient by obviating the 

need for the traverse to make the difficult climb 

up to the Antarctic Plateau, thereby increasing 

system through-put and reducing wear and tear 

on traverse equipment. The LC-130s could even 

double-shuttle to the South Pole, carrying additional payload. This might also allow stockpiling cargo and fuel using the traverse before the 

Figure 4.10. 

Photos illustrating 

traverse equipment. Source: 

USAP photo 

archives.
86 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

period when flying is feasible and then surging LC-130 operations to more efficiently move 

cargo and fuel to the South Pole itself. 

In the reverse, using the multimodal approach 

in an air-to-land configuration could aid science by delivering matériel to a forward supply 

point via the LC-130 aircraft and then using the 

traverse to deliver that material to field camps. 

By flying from McMurdo to this depot instead 

of all the way to the South Pole, the LC-130s 

could deliver an additional 10,000 pounds of 

fuel while saving over $20,000 per flight in fuel 

burned and flight-hour cost savings. A new 

camp at this depot could store fuel as well, serving as an intermediate hub for smaller aircraft 

and as an alternate LC-130 airfield to be used 

in the event of adverse weather. This approach 

could reduce LC-130 missions supporting 

South Pole by more than half and would reduce 

the per gallon cost of fuel delivered by as much 

as one-third. 

NSF may find that the flight-hour cost and fuel 

savings generated by either of these alternatives could fund the traverse operation and a 

new camp at the transfer point. The USAP has 

used the South Pole and other waypoints as 

lesser hubs for field support, but they have not 

been developed as intermodal way stations. In 

addition to the stated benefits, either of these 

approaches would reduce the cost of cargo and 

fuel deliveries and decrease LC-130 air-miles 

for South Pole deliveries, thereby making additional flights available for direct science support.

Fourth, modify the maintenance support concept. Development of a new traverse equipment maintenance program 

could increase availability. The 

concept could include more 

refined periodic maintenance 

at McMurdo, or use of leases 

to enable the equipment to be 

exchanged for rebuilt hardware 

on a periodic basis.

Action 4.4-2. Invest in robotics 

and automation to improve the 

efficiency of the delivery of cargo 

and fuel via overland traverse, 

particularly between McMurdo 

and South Pole stations. 

Figure 4.11. Detail of an Antarctic map illustrating geography along 

the traverse route. The multimodal transportation concept determines the 

best methods for transporting cargo in areas of level terrain versus areas 

of steep topography.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 87

4.4.2.2. C-17 and LC-130 

DoD provides C-17 and LC-130 support to the 

USAP each year through a Memorandum of 

Agreement with NSF. Each year, approximately 

70 C-17 missions fly between Christchurch 

and McMurdo Station and approximately 

400  LC-130 missions fly to multiple destinations throughout the interior of Antarctica 

delivering people, cargo, and fuel. Depending 

on range and the availability of alternate airfields, the C-17 is approximately four times 

more efficient than the LC-130 in terms of cargo 

delivered, and more than twice as efficient on 

a cost per pound basis. Transporting cargo via 

LC-130 costs $5.25 per pound, whereas via the 

C-17 it costs $2.37 per pound. The C-17 is, however, limited to wheeled-operations and therefore can only fly to McMurdo and provide an 

occasional airdrop to the interior.

The LC-130 has the unique ability to land reasonably large payloads throughout the continent on its skis and is therefore a critical 

component of the system enabling scientific 

exploration. Unfortunately, this same ski system 

creates inefficiencies: it is heavy, requires specialized maintenance, and slows the aircraft due 

to added aerodynamic drag. Although much 

faster than traverse operations, the LC-130’s 

operating costs make it very inefficient for routine airlift to developed stations such as the 

South Pole. Its forte remains with science logistics support to distant locations with minimally 

developed infrastructure—a demand that is 

expected to increase significantly as the character of Antarctic science evolves.

The C-17 has revolutionized the way in which 

expeditionary sites, such as those in the 

Antarctic, are resupplied. It is designed to deliver 

Figure 4.12. Southern Hemisphere map illustrating air routes from New Zealand to 

Antarctica and onward.
88 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

people and equipment to small, austere airfields 

and rapidly off-load and onload with minimum 

external support. Also, because of its size, the 

C-17 can carry much larger equipment, including containers, thereby simplifying cargo handling. In particular, it would be more effective 

than the current LC-130 operation at delivering 

fuel to the South Pole and performing large retrograde operations. The USAP, working with its 

DoD partners, has a significant opportunity to 

identify concepts of operations that maximize 

use of dedicated C-17s and refocus LC-130 

operations to missions that exploit its unique 

capabilities. In order to do this, it would be necessary to construct and maintain a wheeledcapable runway and taxiway at the South Pole 

(discussed in detail later in this section).

Action 4.4-3. Work with DoD and ANG to 

maximize use of dedicated C-17s and thereby 

refocus most LC-130 operations to support 

field activities.

4.4.2.3. Airdrop

NSF has the opportunity to take full advantage 

of new airdrop operations developed by DoD 

for routine and emergency resupply of forward field camps and multimodal hubs in the 

Antarctic. Airdrops are one of the most effective 

tools for periodic resupply of forward operating 

bases where terrain and adverse weather make 

ground resupply too costly. Such considerations 

relate to Antarctic resupply efforts.

The C-17 and LC-130 are both ideally suited 

for airdrop missions and the crews operating 

them almost all have the benefit of this experience. Low-altitude, low-cost, pre-packaged 

parachutes have dramatically reduced the 

complexity of these operations. GPS-guided 

precision airdrop capability also provides an 

important all-weather backup that would 

increase the dependability of service.

The LC-130s and C-17s have used parachute 

delivery across the Antarctic and have blended 

these operations with traverse support, but the 

use of airdrops currently is not part of the routine logistics support plan. This proven capability is therefore underutilized for remote 

field delivery. Airdrop eliminates the considerable expense of a runway or a ski-way, and 

also avoids the penalty of reduced cargo-carrying capacity that is associated with landing the 

LC-130 in remote areas without groomed surfaces. Significantly heavier cargo loads can be 

delivered by airdrop while eliminating landing 

stress and fatigue on the aircraft. 

The airdrop equipment itself is nonetheless expensive at $100,000 each, and a C-17 

flight to and from the South Pole would cost 

$60,000. However, a single C-17 airdrop could 

deliver the equivalent of four LC-130 loads to 

the deep field which would cost $168,000. The 

savings are slight, but new, lower cost, disposable parachutes in wide use by DoD could further reduce costs. These chutes could eventually 

be burned on site in a future waste-to-energy 

program, eliminating the expense associated 

with return and repacking. In addition, it may 

Figure 4.13. Airdrop from a C-17. 

Source: U.S. Air Force.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 89

still be more cost-effective to use airdrops for 

high-altitude or hard-to-reach deep field sites. 

Complementary use of conventional C-17 and 

LC-130 flights with a robust airdrop program 

would improve the utilization rate of both aircraft while accelerating the flow of fuel and 

cargo to remote camps.

Action 4.4-4. Consider more widespread use 

of airdrops for resupply operations, particularly 

for South Pole Station and deep field camps.

4.4.2.4. LC-130 Fleet

NSF owns four of the LC-130 aircraft that are 

operated and maintained by the ANG (four 

additional NSF-owned aircraft are in storage), 

and six are owned by the ANG. The ten-aircraft fleet is used in support of both Arctic and 

Antarctic research programs.

For at least the past decade, the USAP has 

mounted a program of approximately 400 flights 

per season, deploying seven LC-130 aircraft to 

the Antarctic theater. A significant number of 

the flights each year were used to shuttle fuel, 

cargo, and passengers to South Pole Station, 

and they were vital to the successful completion 

of the projects to modernize the station, install 

the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, and erect 

the 10-meter South Pole Telescope. Now that 

these major projects are complete, and with the 

advent of the overland traverse—and the potential improvements to it outlined herein—NSF 

is in a position to reduce the number of flights 

each year from approximately 400 per season 

to 300. This action, together with reducing the 

number of aircraft deployed from seven to five, 

could save just over $7 million per year in flying 

hour, fuel, personnel, and travel costs.

If as a result of reduced flying hours the LC-130 

fleet could be reduced by four aircraft, additional savings could be realized. If the NSF 

aircraft were the ones retired, additional costs 

could be avoided, including Programmed 

Depot Maintenance (PDM) that must be performed on each aircraft every 69 months. At 

$4  million per PDM, this represents average 

annualized savings of nearly $2 million per year. 

NSF would then also avoid the cost of upgrading its aircraft to the eight-bladed propeller system, currently estimated to cost $8 million total 

for the four aircraft. Thus, if the four NSF aircraft were retired, there would be recurring savings of $2 million per year and a one-time cost 

avoidance of $8 million.

While the Panel does not attempt to estimate 

the savings that might accrue from reducing 

the fixed cost of operations at the ANG, where 

NSF supports approximately 220 full-time personnel and all incremental costs, the Panel certainly encourages NSF to do so. If, for example, 

a reduction in just two crews were possible, 

the annual savings would be approximately 

$1.5 million. Additional savings could be gained 

if the reduced flight operations enabled other 

organizations, such as the U.S. Navy contractor 

providing air traffic control and weather forecasting, to reduce operations below the current 

Figure 4.14. NSF-owned LC-130 aircraft operating in 

Antarctica. Source: Robyn Waserman.
90 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

24 x 7. Less significant, but nonetheless real, 

savings could also be realized in food, travel, 

and other ancillary support costs, regardless of 

which aircraft were retired.

As mentioned earlier, NSF should explore 

whether one of the remaining aircraft should be 

modified for use as a platform for research. A 

2005 workshop report, Scientific Opportunities 

for a Long-Range Aircraft for Research in 

Antarctica10, articulated the potential value that 

a modified LC-130 could bring to the Antarctic 

science enterprise. The 2011 NRC report made 

similar observations. The research that could be 

facilitated includes in situ observations of the 

atmosphere and ocean as well as remote sensing for solid Earth sciences, glaciology, and 

ocean sciences. A ski-equipped aircraft was 

found to be a requirement because of the longrange operations needed to survey areas of interest—typically 800–1000 miles (1300–1600 kilometers from established stations—and because 

of the small number of existing landing sites for 

wheeled aircraft. A further requirement was for 

development and use of science payloads that 

integrate multiple sensors and that could deploy 

drop-sondes for in situ atmospheric observations or similar sensors for in situ oceanographic 

observations. An LC-130 would meet all these 

requirements and would be capable of using 

existing instruments developed by the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research for use in 

other, smaller, NSF-sponsored science aircraft. 

NSF investment in a long-range science aircraft would have ancillary benefits to a future, 

more efficient, USAP. The long-range capability, coupled with the advanced sensors and data 

acquisition systems available today, would mean 

that acquisition of data sets could be accomplished when operating directly from McMurdo 

or from other nations’ established stations. This 

avoids setting up remote camps deep in the interior that would be needed to support shortrange aircraft attempting this kind of work. 

For example, if the multinational “Antarctica’s 

Gamburtsev Province” project to explore the 

history of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and lithospheric structure of the region had been supported with a long-range aerogeophysical aircraft instead of with two remote camps and two 

small aircraft, support planners conservatively 

estimate that about $6 million in logistics costs 

would have been saved in one field season.

The cost to complete the science modifications of an LC-130 so that it could complete 

a Gamburtsev-like project is estimated to be 

approximately $5 million. When considering 

other costs that could be avoided by use of this 

airborne facility in appropriate circumstances, 

the payback is nearly immediate. There would 

also likely be considerable interest on the part 

of other national Antarctic programs in this 

capability on a cost-reimbursable basis, allowing NSF to increase the breadth of its partnerships and amortize the cost of ownership of 

the research aircraft.

Action 4.4-5. Reduce the flying hour program 

and the LC-130 fleet by 40 percent, and modify 

one of the remaining aircraft as an airborne science platform to both reduce costs and expand 

science opportunities continent wide.

10 Available at http://bprc.osu.edu/PolarMet/lara/lara_report.pdf.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 91

4.4.2.5. Airships

DoD is developing hybrid airships for longduration surveillance, and technology that could 

enable lighter-than-air aircraft delivery of heavy 

or outsize payloads to remote locations. Even 

given the extreme environment in Antarctica 

(including strong winds), new technology and 

concepts of operation could allow safe and efficient use of airships for some missions. 

Although production models are likely many 

years in the future, airships may someday be 

a viable component of the USAP’s multimodal 

transportation system, offering unique research 

and support opportunities, such as rapid 

deployment of scientific equipment and field 

camps in a cost-effective manner. Given the terrain and challenges of traverse operations in 

the Antarctic, airships may be an ideal asset for 

shuttling material across the ice shelf for staging 

of onward movement by traverse or fixed-wing 

aircraft. They could be particularly useful in 

moving heavy/bulky commodities such as fuel. 

They could also serve as a platform for remote 

aerogeophysics, allowing further exploration 

of the continent—for example, high-intensity 

remote sensing over a large area of the Antarctic 

from relatively low altitudes could advance ice 

sheet monitoring and geophysics. As this new 

technology evolves, NSF should explore the 

possibilities and opportunities it offers. 

The USAP has a 20-plus year history of supporting lighter-than-air operations in Antarctica 

through long-duration ballooning, and additional expertise to support such operations may 

be available through other government agencies. NSF could benefit from monitoring DoD 

activities in lighter-than-air technology.

Action 4.4-6. Continue to explore lighterthan-air hybrid airship technology for possible 

Antarctic use.

4.4.2.6. Runways 

The traditional concept of operations at 

McMurdo has been to operate three airfields.

1. An annual Sea Ice Runway, located a few miles 

from McMurdo, operating from October to 

December and supporting all aircraft types. 

2. The Pegasus Runway on the glacial ice of the 

McMurdo Ice Shelf with a thin compacted 

“white ice” pavement, for landing wheeled 

or ski-equipped aircraft (on the skiway) from 

early December through February. This runway is located 19 miles (30 kilometers) from 

McMurdo and its port, necessitating an extensive ground transportation link.

Figure 4.15. Polar airship concept illustration. Source: 

Institute of the North.
92 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

3. The Williams Field Skiway, located on the 

Ross Ice Shelf approximately nine miles 

(15  kilometers) from McMurdo, operating 

from early December through February for 

ski-equipped aircraft only.

In 2008, the USAP began to shift all fixed-wing 

operations to the Pegasus Runway in a proof of 

concept project to consolidate all runway operations. Although the Sea Ice Runway continues 

to be used, Williams Field is no longer used for 

aircraft operations. 

Consolidating operations provides clear efficiencies, but combining them at Pegasus has 

posed several challenges. First, the site is far 

from McMurdo, making ground transportation 

to and from the site arduous, especially since 

the condition of snow roads can be unpredictable. When a portion of the McMurdo Ice Shelf 

recently broke free, it was necessary to relocate 

the snow road to Pegasus, further increasing 

the travel distance. Additional vehicles have 

been purchased to support transportation to 

the site, but the distance still represents a significant disadvantage. Another disadvantage is the 

requirement to pipe fuel for aircraft operations 

to the Pegasus site. 

The distance from McMurdo to Pegasus is 

more than double that to Williams Field where 

the LC-130s traditionally operated. The fuel 

line requires frequent maintenance, as well 

as supplemental pumping at a half-way point. 

Under present practices, the line is installed 

and removed each year. Given these challenges, 

the Panel concludes that the USAP should consider reactivating Williams Field as the primary site of aircraft operations for ski-equipped 

aircraft. This would allow some consolidation by avoiding the need to build the Sea Ice 

Runway every year and focuses resources on 

Figure 4.16. McMurdo-area diagram showing the three runway facilities used by the USAP, 

and the ground transit times to each.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 93

more permanent infrastructure such as compacted roads for improved transportation and 

improvements in material handling, fire fighting and fuel supply, all of which would help 

optimize air operations11. Compacting the runway and taxiways would allow more efficient 

LC-130 operation and also reduce wear and tear 

on skis while providing an alternate runway in 

the McMurdo area. 

Importantly, a Pegasus Runway/Williams Field 

combination also reduces the single-point failure now present when the Sea Ice Runway 

becomes unusable and air operations move to 

Pegasus Runway. Given that McMurdo Station 

is the major support facility for the USAP, this 

in itself may justify the investment in activating 

Williams Field. 

Action 4.4-7. Make the Pegasus Runway 

more permanent, including support facilities, 

fire rescue, air traffic control, and fuel support. 

Examine the possibility of retaining Williams 

Field for LC-130 operations to eliminate the 

need to construct the Sea Ice Runway each 

year and to provide an alternate runway in the 

McMurdo Area, eliminating the single point 

failure represented by the Pegasus Runway. In 

addition, compact roads to the runways and at 

Williams Field to reduce wear and tear on skis 

and the aircraft.

4.4.2.7. Potential Ice Runway at South Pole

In the 1960s and 1970s, the USAP used snowmilling to construct load-bearing snow infrastructure (for example, the foundation for the 

South Pole Dome). Unlike the current use of 

drags and wheel compaction, snow-milling 

uses high-speed rotating devices to pulverize 

and mix several inches of surface snow that is 

then smoothed and allowed to set into a hardened surface. Milling breaks the bonds of the 

snow crystals, which then reform into a strong 

and uniform surface. 

Advances in ice engineering and snow milling technology may be applicable to the South 

Pole, making it possible to compact the surface 

at the station to the hardness required for C-17 

wheeled landings. Currently, only ski-equipped 

aircraft land at South Pole Station. Developing 

the hardened surface would take up to three 

years at an estimated cost of approximately 

$4 million. Even so, a compacted runway at the 

South Pole for wheeled operations could be a 

true game changer. A C-17 could deliver outsized payloads (the LC-130 and the traverse 

cannot). Further, passengers and cargo could 

move directly between New Zealand and the 

South Pole, stopping in McMurdo only to fuel 

the aircraft. On the return flight, the C-17 could 

retrograde waste and cargo more efficiently. 

With this concept of operations in mind, there 

may also be opportunities to redesign the 

Figure 4.17. NASA’s Long-Duration Balloon facilities 

at Williams Field, near McMurdo Station. Source: 

Robyn Waserman.

11 Compacted roadways could increase speeds for some vehicles by up to 40 percent, reducing the time it takes to travel to the 

airfields and also the amount of specially designed equipment that is currently required.
94 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

cargo packaging and transportation system 

beginning in the United States, before it ever 

reaches Antarctica. 

As stated, the C-17 is generally capable of delivering in one trip the equivalent of four LC-130 

loads. If there were an associated reduction in 

LC-130 flights, an action that would also extend 

the service life of the LC-130s by reducing the 

annual flight hours, 30 such C-17 flights would 

save approximately $2 million and the investment in the runway would be quickly recovered. 

Action 4.4-8. Construct a compacted snow 

runway at South Pole Station that is capable of 

supporting C-17 operations to allow heavy airlift from McMurdo Station or direct resupply 

of South Pole Station from Christchurch when 

conditions warrant. 

4.4.2.8. LC-130 Modernization

The average age of the ten LC-130 aircraft supporting polar operations is 30 years. At the current use rate, the fleet should last 15–20 more 

years without major (perhaps cost prohibitive) 

wing repair. Fleet replacement of the ten aircraft 

using the relatively new C-130J is estimated to 

cost nearly $1 billion, including ski modifications, spare engines, propellers, and other parts.

Given the relatively short service life remaining on the LC-130s compared to acquisition of 

replacement aircraft, the USAP should work 

with its DoD partners to plan and program for 

the follow-on LC-130J aircraft12. 

Two unfunded initiatives to increase the capabilities of the LC-130 exist that could be particularly beneficial to the USAP. These initiatives 

have the potential to extend the service life of 

the LC-130 aircraft. They include adopting the 

eight-bladed propeller (which yields an eight 

percent fuel savings) and using the Rolls Royce 

Advanced Engine Technology (ADVENT) 

(yielding a ten percent fuel savings). Both modifications would extend the range of the aircraft and/or increase the cargo weight delivered by reducing the amount of fuel that the 

aircraft needs for each flight. The eight-bladed 

propeller also brings additional efficiencies 

by allowing heavier cargo loads when operating in deep snow or from fields at high elevations by reducing the need for Assisted Take 

Off bottles. The current inventory of 1950s-era 

bottles will be depleted in approximately five 

years and replacement bottles are virtually cost 

prohibitive—each bottle costs over $20,000, and 

12 The Australian Antarctic Program has plans to purchase and modify a C-130J prototype with a removable ski system. The 

USAP is monitoring this initiative and may itself be able to field a modernized ski-equipped LC-130.

Figure 4.18. (top) A USAP LC-130 aircraft using 

assisted takeoff. Source: Charles Kaminski. (bottom) 

An LC-130 with eight-bladed propellers. Source: USAP 

photo archives.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 95

eight are needed for each take off. The propeller 

and engine modifications are not inexpensive, 

but the real savings come not only from fuel 

not used but also from extended life for the airframe and repair and replacement of the components, which can be done in the field with no 

specialized equipment.

In an effort to reduce the crevasse hazard to 

LC-130 ski landings, DoD has developed, and is 

in the final stages of deploying, a crevasse detection radar that fits onto the side of an LC-130. 

Using the Special Airborne Mission Installation 

and Response System (SABIR), this radar will 

attach to any of the LC-130 aircraft. Although 

not as capable as the dedicated airborne platform that was discussed earlier is envisioned 

to be, the success of this development has been 

recognized by the USAP as a valuable asset for 

scientific research in both polar regions. A parallel project is now under development to field 

several remote-sensing instruments, including 

a science radar version of the crevasse detection 

radar called the “Ice Pod.” Given the same basic 

hardware and interchangeable components, 

the system can be rapidly modified for surface, 

subsurface, and deep penetrating radar for use 

on the polar icecaps. In essence, a new mission 

has evolved that will allow the LC-130 fleet to 

spread across the continent, reaching locations 

that are inaccessible to smaller, shorter-range 

aircraft. Another benefit of this system is that it 

does not preclude using the cargo compartment 

for moving supplies while directly engaged in 

supporting science. 

Action 4.4-9. Modernize the LC-130s with 

eight-bladed propellers, ADVENT engine 

modification, SABIR, and crevasse detection 

radar, and begin building a transition plan 

to the LC-130J. 

4.4.3. Sea

Both U.S. coastal stations in Antarctica—

McMurdo Station on Ross Island in the Ross 

Sea at 77.88°S, 166.73°E, and Palmer Station on 

Anvers Island west of the Antarctic Peninsula 

at 64.77°S, 64.08°W—are most economically 

resupplied by sea. As discussed above, resupply of South Pole Station is accomplished by 

air and land from McMurdo, and McMurdo is 

also the single critical point for support of the 

vast majority of other U.S. operations on the 

continent13. Although personnel and a significant amount of cargo are transported between 

Christchurch and McMurdo via the U.S. Air 

Force, ANG and, occasionally, other nations’ 

Figure 4.19. Military Sealift Command tanker Paul 

Buck at McMurdo Station (right), with U.S. Coast Guard 

Cutter Polar Star alongside (left). The Russian icebreaker 

Krasin (right) and the USAP RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer

(left) are in the background. Source: Brien Barnett.

13 McMurdo is likewise critical to the support and operations of New Zealand’s Scott Base, located almost adjacent to McMurdo 

on Ross Island. It is an important gateway for access to the new French and Italian Concordia Station, and for Italy’s Zuchelli 

Station in Terra Nova Bay, some 230 miles (370 kilometers) to the north. It also offers opportunities for future collaboration 

with South Korea’s new Jang Bogo Station, also in Terra Nova Bay.
96 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

aircraft, both the volume and the mix of matériel required to support operations on the continent (and the lack of suitable air facilities at 

Palmer Station) make resupply by sea the only 

feasible means for sustaining U.S. presence and 

operations in Antarctica.

4.4.3.1. McMurdo Station and Resupply

The traditional resupply strategy for McMurdo 

involves a single annual visit, usually in late 

January14, by two Military Sealift Command 

(MSC)-chartered ships—a tanker for fuel and a 

freighter for cargo—supported by a medium or 

heavy icebreaker (in years of heavy ice, a second 

icebreaker is available as a backup, either on site 

or in the United States, to assist the primary icebreaker if it becomes necessary due to ice conditions or mechanical failure). 

The track of the fuel tanker is constrained by the 

need to obtain USAP-specific cold-weather fuel 

(AN-8) from either Greece or Australia, where 

the only two refineries manufacturing this fuel 

are located. The specialty nature of this item 

makes it very difficult for the USAP (or DoD) 

to gain commercial leverage. It would be prudent to find a fuel that is more readily available 

or to increase the number of refineries capable of producing the specialty fuel. The Panel 

assumes that the scale of the DoD purchase 

allows best-in-class pricing, but this should be 

benchmarked against other large fuel consumers using similar types of fuels (most likely airlines) to assure that the USAP is benefiting from 

the best-in-class pricing which it deserves. In 

addition, it is noteworthy that DoD charges a 

$700,000 per year administrative fee for its services on behalf of the USAP. 

Action 4.4-10. Seek alternate cold weather 

fuels or otherwise develop alternate sources for 

AN-8 in order to reduce the refining costs associated with procuring this particular blend of 

fuel and the transportation costs involved in 

picking it up from these refineries.

Figure 4.20. Military Sealift Command cargo ship 

American Tern unloading onto the ice pier at McMurdo 

Station. Source: Ralph Maestas.

Figure 4.21. USAP resupply chain sea routes.

14 A 2009 analysis of ice conditions indicated that the annual resupply is scheduled to commence near the beginning of the 

lowest risk period, appropriately providing for contingency delays before ice and risk increase sharply in mid- to late February. 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 97

With respect to the cargo vessel, USAP cargo is 

staged at Port Hueneme, with additional matériel from New Zealand loaded at Christchurch’s 

Port Lyttelton as the vessel transits south. Waste 

and other cargo from the continent are generally returned by the vessel to the United States, 

although time sensitive or otherwise critical 

items can and do get shipped to the United 

States from New Zealand.

Although the MSC reports no difficulties in 

annually acquiring the services of ice-strengthened tankers and freighters now or for the 

foreseeable future, the modernization of Port 

Lyttelton and the Christchurch International 

Airport that is currently in the planning stages 

may necessitate changes to USAP facilities and 

operations there. This also offers an opportunity to expand the use of Christchurch as 

a multimodal logistics hub for support of 

McMurdo Station to enhance sea (and air) 

aspects of Antarctic resupply. One possibility would be to use commercial ships to transport USAP cargo between Port Hueneme and 

Port Lyttelton throughout the year instead of 

via the single, dedicated, chartered vessel from 

Port Hueneme. The cargo thus staged could be 

moved to McMurdo by an MSC-chartered vessel from New Zealand, minimizing the length 

of the charter that currently costs $65,000 per 

day. Alternatively, the cargo could be moved by 

smaller vessels undertaking shorter and perhaps 

more frequent runs between Christchurch and 

McMurdo, thereby reducing costs and increasing flexibility. Further, as noted by the captain of 

the 2011/12 cargo vessel, changing conditions in 

the Arctic are spurring rapid advances in polar 

logistics in that region that should be of value 

to the USAP. For example, there are systems 

and techniques that could reduce on- and offload time and effort, such as “roll on-roll off ” 

capabilities built into modern cargo vessels that 

greatly facilitate the loading and unloading process. Also, new classes of icebreakers are being 

constructed that have the ability to carry cargo 

and/or fuel, and access to such ships as an augmentation to the annual break-in could enable 

multiple trips between New Zealand and the 

continent during the resupply period. 

Action 4.4-11. Continue to examine options 

to support and improve the delivery and retrograde of cargo to and from McMurdo Station. 

For example, work with DoD and MSC and in 

consultation with the appropriate New Zealand 

Figure 4.22. Maps of the Pacific Ocean with schematics of the current shipping method versus a methodology focusing on cargo consolidation in New Zealand.
98 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

authorities to explore the possibility of incorporating the use of commercial vessels to move 

cargo throughout the year from Port Hueneme 

to USAP staging facilities in Christchurch 

and also the use of vessels sourced from New 

Zealand to deliver cargo to McMurdo.

The most significant issues for McMurdo 

Station resupply are off-loading locations and 

ice conditions in the local area (moderate concerns), and long-term assured access to the 

services of a U.S.-controlled icebreaker for the 

break-in (a major concern). 

Off-loading cargo and fuel at McMurdo is typically accomplished across an “ice pier.” It is 

made more difficult when the ice leading to the 

pier itself is sufficiently thick, having grown over 

multiple years, or when (as happened in 2011/12) 

warm winter conditions prevent construction of 

a sufficiently strong ice pier. Illustrating the former case, in one year when the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) could not break a channel to the pier 

for the fuel tanker due to the severe ice conditions, it became necessary to off-load fuel across 

some six miles of sea ice using hoses15. It has 

not yet been necessary to off-load cargo across 

such distances. Illustrating the latter case, the 

lack of an ice pier in 2011/12 required use of a 

portable modular causeway provided by the U.S. 

Army and brought to Antarctica on the cargo 

ship. Although this method was effective, it was 

also expensive and it reduced the cargo-carrying 

capacity of the vessel in both directions. 

In general, there appear to be workable solutions to most conditions that can be envisioned 

without the need for major reinvestment or 

modification of the basic strategy for McMurdo 

resupply. Thus, the Panel considers that the 

fundamental strategy of a single annual cargo 

resupply/retrograde and fuel delivery mission—supplemented by air support and buttressed against failure by recent increases in fuel 

storage capacity and decreases in fuel usage—

is appropriate and adequate when balancing 

risk and cost16. 

However, the USAP could not operate effectively or for very long without the services of 

an icebreaker capable of breaking a channel to 

McMurdo Station and escorting the resupply 

vessels to the pier (whether it be ice or portable) and this represents a significant singlepoint failure mode.

15 These and a wide range of other resupply issues were thoroughly examined in the NSF Office of Polar Programs Advisory 

Committee’s August 2005 Report of the Subcommittee on U.S. Antarctic Program Resupply. A follow-on December 2006 assessment of potential ship off-load sites in the McMurdo area concluded that it is reasonable to conduct sea ice fuel off-load at 

distances up to three miles (five kilometers) from the station, but that sea ice off-load of cargo is too high risk. This study did 

identify tentative locations on the Ross Ice Shelf for cargo off-load, with the provision that such sites should be no higher than 

23 feet (seven meters).

16 NSF recently conducted an analysis of biennial, as opposed to annual, resupply. The analysis notes this should be feasible if 

warehouse and waste management upgrades are properly designed, and that “the most significant impact appears to be on the 

science program, with delivery to the ice of large science project equipment and the timely return of sensitive or high volume 

field samples presenting the greatest challenges.” The analysis found that the investment could be quickly recaptured, and a 

switch made in roughly four years pending an aggressive schedule of warehouse renewal. It does state that extensive additional 

analysis of this option will be required. The Panel notes that many of the upgrades needed for a biennial resupply option are 

encompassed within the scope of our recommendations; however, lacking the details of a full analysis including the anticipated impact on the types of new science (and associated logistics) suggested by the 2011 NRC report and Chapter 5 of this 

study, it is premature to support this option.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 99

The McMurdo break-in was historically accomplished first by U.S. Navy and then by USCG 

icebreakers. Since the 2004/05 Austral summer, 

due to reliability concerns and other operational 

considerations regarding the USCG polar class 

vessels, the USAP has had to charter icebreakers 

from other nations such as Russia and Sweden. 

Initially, these vessels were backups to deployed 

USCG vessels. Subsequently, they were used in 

the primary role with the USCG icebreakers in 

standby. During the last two years, foreign icebreakers have been the only ones used for the 

McMurdo break-in. 

The U.S. inventory of icebreakers relevant to 

McMurdo resupply operations is effectively 

limited to three USCG ships—the medium icebreaker Healy and two polar class icebreakers, 

Polar Sea and the Polar Star17. 

Healy, commissioned in 2000, participated in 

the McMurdo break-in mission in 2002/03. 

Healy is more ice-capable, albeit less maneuverable, than the Russian Vladimir Ignatyuk

that successfully conducted the 2011/12 breakin under the very light ice conditions that prevailed prior to the arrival of Iceberg B15 in the 

McMurdo Sound area and again over the past 

two years. The Healy does not possess either the 

power or the maneuverability required for unassisted break-in operations in heavy, multiyear 

ice. In addition, Healy is typically fully engaged 

in Arctic science operations for its entire annual 

operating schedule (approximately 185 days per 

year) and is expected to be committed to such 

duties indefinitely into the future. Healy could, at 

least in principle, be made available as a backup 

vessel to assist another vessel with the break-in 

under exigency situations, or, if deemed in the 

national interest and other options are unavailable, to conduct the break-in at McMurdo 

under light ice conditions (much as it did for 

a fuel delivery to Nome, Alaska, in early 2012). 

The relevant studies assume that the Healy will 

eventually undergo a service life extension that 

would permit it to remain in operation for the 

foreseeable future. 

Figure 4.23. The ice pier at McMurdo Station, February 

2011. Source: James Swift.

Figure 4.24. Unloading cargo in February 2012 from 

the Military Sealift Command cargo ship Green Wave

via the portable modular causeway system supplied 

and operated by the U.S. Army 331st Transportation 

Company. Source: William Henriksen.

17 The USAP’s Palmer is a dedicated scientific research vessel, fully committed to Southern Ocean research, and in greatest 

demand during the Austral summer when resupply occurs. Its moderate icebreaking capabilities render it unsuitable for the 

break in mission. 
100 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

icebreaking support for the annual resupply. 

Additionally, it is not clear that the Swedish and 

Russian icebreakers used in recent years will be 

available in the future. This approach to resupply of U.S. operations in Antarctica is unsatisfactory in the long term. The lack of a U.S. capability to conduct the McMurdo break-in severely 

jeopardizes the U.S. commitment to its stated 

policies regarding the Antarctic Continent. As 

soon as possible, the break-in should again be 

supported by icebreaking services reliably controlled by the U.S. government, preferably an 

icebreaker owned and operated by the USCG. 

Given U.S. national polar policies and the resultant commitment to operations in the Arctic 

and the Antarctic18, a number of studies have 

examined the need for U.S. icebreakers and various approaches to modernization of the fleet19. 

Polar Sea, commissioned in 1978, is in “commissioned, inactive” status and has been incapable of operating since May 2010, when it 

experienced an unexpected catastrophic failure 

of five of its recently refurbished engines. It is 

not decided whether the Polar Sea will return 

to active status. 

Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is undergoing a $60 million service life extension that 

should provide an additional seven to ten years 

of operating life. Polar Star would not be available for operational icebreaking services until 

2013/14 at the earliest, and is unlikely to be 

operational much past the 2020/21 season. 

At present, and perhaps again in the future, 

the USAP is in the position of being principally or totally reliant upon foreign sources for 

Figure 4.25. U.S. icebreakers (a) USCGC Polar Sea, (b) USCGC Healy, (c) Shell icebreaker Aiviq, 

(d) RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer, and (e) ASRV Laurence M. Gould. Sources: (a, b) U.S. Coast Guard, (c) EdisonChouest Offshore for Shell, (d) James Swift, (e) Jeffrey Kietzmann.

a

d

e

b

c

18 NSPD-66/HSPD-25 of January 9, 2009, for the Arctic and PDD/NSC-26 of June 9, 1994, for the Antarctic.

19 Several studies particularly informed the Panel’s findings with respect to the USAP’s icebreaking needs, including a 2005 

report by NSF’s Office of Polar Programs Advisory Committee (Report of the Subcommittee on U.S. Antarctic Program 

Resupply), a 2006 report by the National Research Council (Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. 

Needs), and other reports on USCG missions and requirements. The latest of these was the 2011 Congressional Research 

Service report Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 101

Although there is not yet a national consensus 

on the size and characteristics of the appropriate 

U.S. fleet of icebreakers, initial funding for the 

definition and development of a new icebreaker 

to be owned and operated by the USCG is in the 

President’s FY 2013 budget request to Congress. 

ACTION 4.4-12. Follow through on pending action in the President’s FY 2013 Budget 

Request for the USCG to initiate the design of 

a new icebreaker, giving due consideration to a 

design that addresses the USAP’s needs, including for example the potential ability to conduct 

science from the icebreaker itself.

In summary, the Panel notes the following with 

regard to McMurdo resupply:

1. The United States will continue to conduct 

operations at and from McMurdo Station for 

the foreseeable future.

2. McMurdo resupply (and retrograde) 

should normally be conducted annually.

3. The resupply operation requires the support 

of at least one icebreaker, of a class suitable 

for the prevailing ice conditions.

4. It is in the U.S. national interest that McMurdo 

break-in and resupply be provided by a U.S.-

flag vessel owned, controlled, and scheduled 

by a U.S. government entity.

5. Presidential Memorandum 6646 of 

February  5, 1982, affirming NSF’s responsibility for budgeting and managing the entire 

U.S. national program in Antarctica, tasks 

the Departments of Defense and [Homeland 

Security] to provide the logistics support 

requested by NSF20. Thus, NSF both can and 

should request the support of the USCG (on 

a cost-reimbursable basis)—assuming a capable USCG icebreaker is available. 

6. USCG Polar Star, upon completion of its 

retrofit, and a new USCG icebreaker, if and 

when constructed, should support the annual 

break-in to McMurdo Station as part of its 

primary mission requirements.

The Panel further notes that it is prudent for 

NSF, with support from other federal agencies 

that have polar ship construction and operations experience, and with oversight from the 

Department of State, Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), to thoroughly 

examine, and prepare to exercise, a range of 

other options for icebreaking support of the 

annual break-in, both as a stop-gap measure 

and as a contingency against future inability of 

the USCG to carry out the mission. Among such 

options discussed by the Panel are the following: Figure 4.26. Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignyatuk aside 

the McMurdo ice pier. Source: USAP photo archives.

20 See Section 4.11 for a more thorough analysis and discussion of Presidential Memorandum 6646 and other governing directives for U.S. Antarctic operations.
102 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

the near future, and will support it with the 

new light icebreaker Akademik Treshnikov

(launched in 2011). Partnership with 

Australia, such as the opportunity to homeport a ship in Hobart to significantly reduce 

transit times, or a combination of Australia 

and France in this regard, could be particularly beneficial because of other mutual interests between our nations.

4. Should NSF acquire a Polar Research Vessel 

(PRV) possessing the characteristics specified 

in the science mission requirements, it should 

be able to support the break-in under conditions similar to those under which Healy is 

capable of operating. The Panel recognizes 

that redirection of a PRV for break-in duty 

would make it unavailable for and adversely 

impact Southern Ocean research.

The Panel stresses, however, that we strongly 

believe that it is in the U.S. national interest 

that support of the annual resupply break-in 

1. NSF has successfully managed to charter foreign flag icebreaking vessels to support the 

break-in for several years and it is not unreasonable to expect that one or more such ships 

could be similarly chartered in the future. 

2. A U.S. government commitment to enhance 

the national icebreaker fleet could generate U.S. commercial interest in constructing 

appropriate vessels to be operated in support 

of the USAP via a lease, government-owned/

contractor-operated, or other arrangement.

3. There may exist opportunities for securing 

an icebreaker from other nations on a quid 

pro quo or joint venture basis. South Korea is 

constructing its new year-around Jang Bogo 

Station in Terra Nova Bay and has indicated 

an interest in cooperative logistics arrangements with the United States at McMurdo 

Station. Australia is planning a new resupply/

science support vessel for Antarctica. Russia 

is planning to reopen its Russkaya Station in 

Figure 4.27. Examples of nonU.S. icebreakers: (a) Agulhas II 

(South Africa), (b) Araon (South 

Korea), (c) Oden (Sweden), and 

(d) Krasin (Russia). Sources: 

(a) Engineering News (online); 

(b) Dongmin Jin; (c) Dave 

Bresnahan; (d) Mike Usher.

a

b

c d
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 103

to McMurdo Station be performed by a USCG 

owned and operated icebreaker whenever such 

a vessel is available.

Finally, the Panel notes that NSF’s interest in 

icebreakers goes well beyond the McMurdo 

break-in, and includes research access to icecovered waters in the Southern Ocean and 

polar Arctic. The possibility also exists that 

any new icebreaker could itself have an inherent capability to support science. Therefore, 

NSF should be a party to deliberations at the 

national level with DoD, DHS, the Department 

of State, OSTP and OMB on the size, composition, and operating profiles of the national fleet 

of icebreakers and other polar-capable ships to 

ensure that the nation’s icebreaker and ice-capable fleet is fully adequate to support not just the 

McMurdo break-in but all national missions in 

both polar regions.

Action 4.4-13. In collaboration with DoD, 

DHS and the Department of State, and with 

oversight from OSTP and OMB, ensure reliable, long-term access to icebreaking services for 

resupply of McMurdo and South Pole stations. 

4.4.3.2. Palmer Station and 

Antarctic Peninsula Region

Since 1998, the at-sea component of resupply and the majority of personnel transfers 

between Punta Arenas, Chile, and Palmer 

Station have been performed by the purposebuilt, ice-strengthened Gould21.The contract for 

this vessel was recently extended to July 2015, 

with further yearly options for an additional 

five years. Gould, with a range of 12,000 miles 

(nearly 20,000 kilometers) and a 75-day endurance, also performs a number of research 

cruises in the Antarctic Peninsula region22. 

The Gould is fully capable of supporting yeararound oceanographic research in the peninsula area, although her resupply and personnel 

transportation tasks have traditionally kept her 

in the vicinity of the Punta Arenas to Palmer 

Station route most of the year. The Gould

spends considerable time at the Palmer pier, 

on some occasions providing additional berthing for researchers, and supporting field camps 

along the peninsula. The combined functions of 

personnel transport, resupply and research have 

proven generally satisfactory, although there are 

a number of promising alternative options23. 

As the United States will presumably continue 

to maintain a station and to conduct significant 

amounts of sea-based research in the rapidly 

changing Antarctic Peninsula region far beyond 

the expiration of the Gould’s current charter, the 

USAP should now select and act upon one or 

more of the available options and plan for the 

ultimate replacement of the Gould.

Action 4.4-14. Collaborate within NSF and 

with the University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System and other interested federal agencies to develop science mission 

requirements for Antarctic Peninsula marine 

21 The Gould carries the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) classification “ABS A1.”

22 See www.usap.gov/usapgov/vesselScienceAndOperations/documents/lmg_history.pdf for the Gould’s cruise history. 

23 Re-supply and Science Support Evaluation of Palmer Station and the Antarctic Peninsula Region, Martin, Ottway, van Hemmen 

& Dolan, Inc, Final Report April 26, 2010. 
104 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Table 4.3. Summary U.S. and Foreign Icebreakers

Ship Name Country Ice Breaking 

(m @ kts)

Propulsion

Power (hp)

Propulsion

Type*

Displacement

(Ton)

Year in

Service

50 Let Pobedy Russia 2.8 @ 3 75,000 N 25,800 2007

Yamal Russia 2.8 @ 3 75,000 N 25,800 1993

Rossiya Russia 2.8 @ 3 75,000 N 23,625 1985

Sovietskiy Soyuz Russia 2.8 @ 3 75,000 N 23,625 1990

Xue Long China 1.2 @ 2 17,700 NA 21,200 1993

Yermak Russia 1.8 @ 2 36,000 DE 20,241 1974

Taymyr Russia 2.0 @ 2 47,600 N 20,000 1989

Vaygach Russia 2.0 @ 2 47,600 N 20,000 1990

Krasin Russia 1.8 @ 2 41,000 DE 20,000 1976

Admiral Makarov Russia 1.8 @ 2 36,000 DE 20,000 1975

Shirase Japan 1.5 @ 2 30,000 DE 17,600 1982

Polarstern Germany 1.0 @ 5.5 20,000 DE 17,300 1982

Healy USA 1.4 @ 3 30,000 DE 16,400 1999

Akademik Federov Russia 1.3 @ 2 18,800 DE 16,000 1987

Kapitan Sorokin Russia 1.4 @ 2 22,000 DE 15,000 1977

Kapitan Dranitsyn Russia 1.4 @ 2 22,000 DE 15,000 1980

Kapitan Nikolayev Russia 1.4 @ 2 22,000 DE 15,000 1978

Kapitan Khlebnikov Russia 1.4 @ 2 22,000 DE 15,000 1981

Almirante Irizar Argentina 1.2 @ 2 16,000 DE 14,899 1978

Polar Star USA 1.8 @ 3 18,000/60,000 DE/GT 13,400 1974

Oden Sweden 1.9 @ 3 23,200 DE 13,042 1989

Agulhas II South Africa 1.0 @ 5 11,700 DE 11,700 2011

Louis St. Laurent Canada 1.2 @ 3 30,000 DE 11,400 1993

James Clark Ross England 0.8 @ 2 8,500 DE 7,700 1990

Kigoria Russia NA 17,400 DE 7,200 1979

Vladimir Ignatyuk Russia 1.2 @ 3 23,200 DE 7,007 1983

Terry Fox Canada 1.2 @ 3 23,200 DE 7,007 1983

Araon Korea 1.0 @ 3 13,400 DE 6,950 2010

Nathaniel B. Palmer USA 0.9 @ 3 12,700 DE 6,640 1992

Aurora Australis Australia 1.2 @ 2.5 12,000 DE 6,574 1990

KV Svalbard Norway NA 13,410 DE 6,500 2002

Almirante Oscar Veil Chile NA 15,525 GT 6,500 1969

Fennica Finland 0.8 @ 9.5 20,000 DE 6,370 1993

Nordica Finland 0.8 @ 9.5 20,000 DE 6,370 1994

Botnika Finland 0.8 @ 8 13,000 DE 6,370 1998

Aiviq USA 1.0 @ 5 21,800 DE 5,100 2012

Aura II Finland 1.0 @ 1.5 4,850 DE 3,350 2012

Austrolabe France NA 6,200 DE 1,700 NA

* N = nuclear; D = Diesel; DE = diesel electric; GT = gas turbine; NA = not available
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 105

ships, or ship power to the shore station25, could 

also reduce costs and improve maintenance 

flexibility. Solutions to the pier/off-loading platform problem should simultaneously address 

improvements to the adjacent boathouse and 

associated small-boat handling, maintenance, 

and safety discussed below.

Six- and ten-passenger Zodiac boats are used to 

support diving, oceanography, and land-access 

operations in close proximity to Palmer Station. 

The Zodiacs are tied up adjacent to the boathouse near the pier and are accessed by clambering across the steep, rocky, and frequently 

icy, shoreline. The boats must be lifted from the 

water each evening during some periods of the 

year because leopard seals chew on them. These 

boating conditions present both a safety hazard and a logistics burden, and the limitations 

of the Zodiacs severely restrict the range and 

type of science operations in the area around 

the station. These first-order problems require 

immediate rectification. 

operations in the post-2020 time frame to 

address sea support after the Gould is no longer 

suitable or available.

The principal conclusion reached by the Panel 

following its visit to Palmer Station and the 

Gould is that there are significant, comparatively low-cost opportunities for increasing the 

use and scientific output of Palmer Station via 

improved sea support. However, Palmer Station 

is over 40 years old and is in need of significant 

infrastructure upgrades24, the most pressing 

of which is stabilization of the existing pier—

or, preferably, replacement with an improved 

off-load platform. 

Studies of Palmer Station have addressed the 

high-priority need to replace the existing, badly 

degraded pier, and have suggested a phased 

approach for other essential or desirable station upgrades. Virtually all of the options evaluated in these studies entail improving access 

to the station by blasting or otherwise removing the hazardous rock shelves and underwater pinnacles near the pier. These hazards make 

docking conditions for the Gould difficult and 

altogether preclude access for larger vessels 

such as the Palmer.

In addition to replacing the pier, the Panel 

believes the USAP should consider options to 

improve the sea-based resupply system. For 

example, barges could serve simultaneously as 

off-load platforms and fuel storage facilities. 

Providing shore power to the Gould or other 

Figure 4.28. ARSV Laurence M. Gould at the Palmer 

Station pier. Source: Craig Dorman.

24 Palmer Station Major Systems Study. RSA Engineering, Inc., January 5, 2011.

25 The Gould has 3700 kW main generators. The ship’s load at the pier is approximately 450 kW and Palmer Station’s is approximately 150 kW. When tied up at the station, the ship could easily provide power to the station as well as herself with a single 

generator. It may also be worthwhile to investigate options for providing shore power to the Gould in Punta Arenas, enabling 

her to go “cold iron” when tied up for extensive periods instead of remaining fully crewed and operational.
106 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Two relatively modest additions to the USAP 

ship and boat fleet could significantly enhance 

science operations and safety near Palmer 

Station. First, augment the Zodiac fleet with at 

least two (one for work, the second as a rescue 

standby) Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats (RIBs). 

RIBs are commercially available in a wide 

range of sizes and could significantly extend 

the range and safety of both water- and landbased research around the station. Research 

productivity at Palmer Station would be significantly enhanced if present restrictions on 

ship access and work in local waters could be 

reduced. Second, assign a regional or coastal 

class research vessel to Palmer Station during 

the Austral summer months for both research 

and some aspects of resupply and personnel 

transfer26. This action would release the Gould

for a broader range of oceanographic research 

operations during the summer and she could 

then revert to combined support/research operations during the winter. 

In 2012/13, the USAP plans to experiment with 

this second option by assigning the UniversityNational Oceanographic Laboratory System 

(UNOLS) research vessel Point Sur, operated by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 

to Palmer Station. If this arrangement proves 

satisfactory and there are both adequate funds 

and sufficient research interest, it may be feasible to use UNOLS research vessels in this 

manner on a more routine basis, or to make 

collaborative arrangements with neighboring 

international stations for comparable support. 

This action and others that further strengthen 

collaboration between the Office of Polar 

Programs, which supports the USAP and its 

two ships, and the Division of Ocean Sciences, 

which supports most other NSF oceanographic 

research, could foster broader participation 

of the national oceanographic community in 

Southern Ocean research. 

Action 4.4-15. Retrofit the Palmer Station 

off-load platform to include sufficient draft to 

and at the platform to accommodate a range 

26 Using the classification system of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (see http://www.unols.org), 

nominally a vessel of approximately 125–150 feet (38–46 meters) length, similar to R/V Hero, which supported Palmer Station 

from 1968–1984.

Figure 4.30. Zodiac boat launch facility at Palmer 

Station. Source: Craig Dorman.

Figure 4.29. The Blue Ribbon Panel inspecting the 

Palmer Station pier. Source: Craig Dorman. 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 107

of resupply and research vessels, improve small 

boat access, and introduce RIBs into the Palmer 

Station boating fleet. 

Action 4.4-16. In consultation with the NSF 

Division of Ocean Sciences, and other marine 

research agencies as appropriate, assign a 

regional or coastal class research vessel to 

Palmer Station during the Austral summer. 

Many nations operate stations in the Antarctic 

Peninsula region, raising the possibility of 

employing commercial or other nations’ ships 

for personnel transfer and resupply, offsetting some or all of Gould’s transportation 

duties and thus freeing the ship to engage in 

more research activities. 

As noted, the Gould is the primary means used 

to get research and support personnel to and 

from Palmer Station. The transit from Punta 

Arenas across the Drake Passage and then along 

the peninsula to the station takes at least four 

days, limiting the number of researchers who 

can reach Palmer Station each year (a number that is further restricted by berthing limits 

onboard and at the station) and increasing significantly the ratio of time spent on logistics to 

research time for science teams. It would appear 

that a relatively simple modification to the logistics chain could enhance the pursuit of science 

and reduce costs. This would entail private charter, or possibly DoD, flights from Punta Arenas 

to either the Chilean base on King George 

Island or the U.K. base at Rothera, followed by 

a one-day sea voyage to Palmer Station. The 

Panel followed this route and, even with a day’s 

weather delay, the time required to transit to 

Palmer Station was significantly reduced. 

The Gould’s captain noted that the ship would 

burn 40,000 fewer gallons of fuel—approximately $140,000 at today’s cost—for this round 

trip compared to the voyage to and from Punta 

Arenas, nearly offsetting the $190,000 cost of a 

charter flight. With the potential to sell some 

seats on these flights to the Chilean or U.K. programs, the cost of the charter could be completely offset by the amount saved in fuel. This 

is just one example of the many options that 

should be examined for collaboration with 

other nations that maintain stations in the peninsula area. A study of the Palmer resupply system also examined several other options for 

shared sea-based resupply, personnel transfer, 

and science in the area27. 

Figure 4.31. Example of a Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boat. 

The USAP version would likely have an enclosed wheelhouse, given the prevailing temperature and weather 

conditions in the vicinity of Palmer Station. Source: 

Tim McGovern.

27 Op cit footnote 23. Routine, direct air support of Palmer Station is not currently a viable option for a range of operational, 

safety, and environmental reasons. 
108 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

There may also exist the possibility of transferring personnel through collaborations with the 

cruise ships that routinely operate in the area 

and seek to visit the station. 

Action 4.4-17. Commence discussions with 

counterparts in Chile and the U.K. regarding 

collaborative logistics and ocean-based research 

operations in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 

including personnel transfer to U.S. research 

sites in the peninsula via King George Island or 

Rothera Station.

In summary, recent and potential developments in transportation infrastructure provide 

the USAP with many opportunities to improve 

the productivity and efficiency of its broad 

transportation system. Focus should be put on 

matching the best transportation assets to the 

mission and conditions in order to optimize the 

overall enterprise. Given the challenges of providing logistics support in the Antarctic, optimizing the use of transportation assets, and the 

assets themselves in the case of new developments, is essential. The most dramatic improvements will be realized through the use of a true 

enterprise approach, taking best advantage of 

all transportation modes—air, land, and sea. 

This approach requires much improved connectivity among transportation modes and, 

most importantly, command and control that 

can direct multimodal operations rapidly and 

effectively in a changing environment. As a 

practical matter, to take full advantage of multimodal operations, the ability to use containers 

and transfer equipment among transportation 

modes is critical. Containers that can be easily transferred between large and small traverse operations, and between land and air, will 

pay significant dividends by reducing the time 

and number of people involved. Given today’s 

advances in transportation support, none of 

these prerequisites are overly difficult to put in 

place, and the benefits far outweigh the cost. 

The result will increase the resources available 

for the pursuit of science.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 109

4.5. Supply Chain

Except for its local access to air, water and ice 

(for breathing, drinking, runways, wharves, 

and more), the U.S. program in the Antarctic 

could be a space station: everything else it uses 

has to come from far away—mainly the United 

States. External factors affect the schedule for 

cargo acquisition and shipment, including the 

annual cycles for Congressional appropriation of funds, science proposal evaluation and 

award, the duration of a research award (multiyear awards enable forward surface shipment 

for subsequent seasons), and the Antarctic seasonal extremes of sea ice, cold, and darkness. 

Still other factors that affect supply operations 

include the lengthy supply-line procurement 

lead times and the availability of appropriate 

aircraft and vessels for shipment.

The supply chain, both intercontinental and 

within Antarctica, is intermodal and mixes 

government, chartered, and commercial transport. In comparison to other supply systems, 

an atypical factor for the Antarctic is that most 

aircraft flights and outdoor operations are limited to five months of the year or less, and economical ship/icebreaker access to McMurdo is 

limited to approximately an 18-day period each 

year. Palmer Station, requiring a small fraction 

of the USAP’s total cargo, lacks air transport but 

has year-around ship access. Palmer’s distance 

to a commercial port (Punta Arenas, Chile) is 

less than 1000 miles (1610 kilometers) compared to more than twice that distance between 

McMurdo and Christchurch.

Figure 4.32. Illustration of the USAP supply chain.
110 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Figure 4.33. Illustrations of resupply windows for (a) aircraft and (b) ships. (b) also shows long-term 

ice-edge-to-McMurdo distance data, month by month, along with calculated probability of open-sea 

transit through the Ross Sea north of McMurdo Sound.

a

b

Location Aircraft Dates of Typical Operation Limit to Operations

McMurdo

C-17 Late Aug; 1 Oct – Late Feb Daylight

LC-130 Late Oct – Late Feb Tasking in Interior

Small Fixed-Wing Mid Nov – Mid Feb Tasking in Interior

Helicopter Early Oct – Early Feb Tasking

South Pole

LC-130 Early Nov – Mid Feb Temperature

Small Fixed-Wing Late Oct – Late Feb Tasking

Deep Field 

Camps

LC-130 Early Nov – Mid Feb Temperature

Small Fixed-Wing Mid Nov – Mid Feb Tasking

Helicopter Mid Oct – Mid Feb Tasking
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 111

Material enters the USAP supply chain from 

three main sources: grantees (equipment specific to their projects), military support organizations (internal supplies), and—the largest 

fraction—the support contractor (programwide needs). Passengers are subject to constraints, not the least of which is station capacity. 

The USAP warehouse at Port Hueneme is the 

marshaling and packaging facility for most 

USAP cargo leaving or entering the United 

States. The facility handles some 40  million 

pounds (more than 18 million kilograms) each 

year. Full-time employees of the support contractor are supplemented by personnel from 

the DoD packaging facility and by others 

during ship calls.

At Port Hueneme, items headed for the 

Antarctic are repackaged as necessary to comply with Antarctic Treaty regulations (for example, no plastic “peanuts” allowed) and to withstand transport across the tropics and into the 

cold. Items received at Port Hueneme from the 

Antarctic include sorted hazardous and nonhazardous waste, worn equipment and scientific 

cargo such as ice cores, all of which the facility 

forwards to U.S. destinations. 

McMurdo receives more than 11 million 

pounds of cargo a year, more than 60 percent 

of it on a single ship with icebreaker escort during the January-February sea ice minimum. The 

backload is also substantial: the ship in recent 

years has retrograded more tonnage than it 

delivered, ranging from waste not permitted to 

remain in Antarctica to scientific samples—that 

are in some cases irreplaceable.

The delivery modes and delivered amounts do 

not vary much from year to year, except during periods of heavy construction, when southbound cargo volumes can increase significantly. 

Storage of cargo in Antarctica is principally at McMurdo as the continental hub, 

although each station stores at least several 

Figure 4.34. Chart illustrating how McMurdo Station planned population varies over a summer season, 

showing that some cannot arrive until others leave due to station capacity issues.
112 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

months’ worth of resources for its own use. At 

McMurdo, storage is widely dispersed, with no 

consolidated warehouse. 

Automated functions associated with the supply 

stream use software systems called MAPCON 

for maintenance planning and control, CTS 

(Cargo Tracking System) for cargo tracking, 

PTS (Passenger Tracking System) for personnel tracking, and Power 1000 (P-1000) for procurements. These “legacy” software systems 

were custom-developed for the USAP years 

ago and date back to the early 1990s. They are 

sorely in need of replacement. In addition to 

a lack of compatibility with modern inventory 

technology and material management systems, 

the software is becoming unsupportable. The 

new contractor will at least initially be forced to 

adopt these systems. 

In general, USAP supply chain operations can 

be characterized as “willing people doing their 

best” (Edward Deming), but with seriously outof-date systems, facilities, and processes. It is 

evident that there has not been any substantial 

investment in supply chain systems and infrastructure for a considerable period of time. It 

is also apparent that best practices common in 

the private sector are not in use in the program. 

Operating standards fall short of those at wellrun companies, and there are a number of situations where best practices from a safety or efficiency standpoint are not being followed. 

In general, and especially at McMurdo Station, 

there is no clear plan for development and 

optimization of facilities. Expansion largely 

has been determined by the annual availability of funds and has thus resulted in substantial inefficiencies that lead to increased personnel requirements and substantially higher 

overall costs. The lack of investment and lack of 

Figure 4.35. USAP cargo packing facility at Port 

Hueneme. Source: USAP Port Hueneme Archives.

Figure 4.36. 

Illustration showing type of cargo 

shipped from 

McMurdo Station 

in early 2012.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 113

planning has also resulted in facilities—housing 

and recreational—that fall short of what should 

be expected at a national research facility. 

The remainder of this section of the report 

addresses maintenance, warehousing and storage, purchasing, and inventory aspects of 

the USAP supply chain.

4.5.1. Maintenance 

Maintenance activities occur in numerous 

places throughout the Antarctic program, 

including McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer 

Stations. There is also maintenance activity at the 

Christchurch, New Zealand, complex and some 

limited maintenance of scientific equipment at 

the USAP warehouses in Punta Arenas, Chile.

4.5.1.1 Christchurch, New Zealand

In Christchurch, maintenance activities consist principally of aircraft-oriented work. There 

is a hangar in USAP-leased spaces for storage 

of LC-130 spares, including engines, propellers, 

and skis. The ANG personnel in Christchurch 

during the operating season perform routine 

maintenance on the aircraft. Air New Zealand 

also has a substantial aircraft maintenance facility located at the Christchurch International 

Airport. This commercial repair facility performs unscheduled and depot-level maintenance—such as engine, communications, and 

structural repairs—that is beyond the ability of the small ANG maintenance contingent. The Air New Zealand facility also performs maintenance on the C-17 aircraft when 

they are based in Christchurch. No other substantial aircraft maintenance activities are performed in Christchurch. 

4.5.1.2 McMurdo Station

McMurdo, as the largest and most complex 

facility on the Antarctic Continent, is where 

the bulk of maintenance activities for the USAP 

take place. In general, maintenance facilities 

throughout McMurdo Station are out-of-date, 

poorly maintained, and below acceptable standards of safety and appearance. Separately, the 

Figure 4.37. Chart illustrating year-to-year variations in cargo shipped 

to and from McMurdo 

Station by air and by sea 

from 2006–2012.
114 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

overall site itself is disorganized with substantial amounts of material stored apparently randomly across the site. 

One of these activities is vehicle maintenance. 

The vehicle maintenance shop at McMurdo 

consists of eight bays in which routine maintenance can be performed on the variety of vehicles in use at the site, including bulldozers, graders, tractors, lift trucks, trucks and vans, and 

shuttles. The facility is under-sized. The work 

is made much more challenging by the variety 

and age of the vehicles to be serviced. Many of 

the vehicles date from the 1950s, and there are 

a number of situations (not limited to maintenance alone) where spare parts are no longer 

commercially available. Maintenance of such 

vehicles requires a skilled cadre of mechanics 

and machinists who may also be called upon to 

fabricate parts that can no longer be purchased 

or scavenged—thereby reducing productivity 

and increasing costs. With the exception of a 

new fleet of vans, it is the Panel’s view that the 

vehicle fleet at McMurdo Station is woefully 

out-of-date and is a liability to the USAP, especially when combined with other inefficiencies 

in the existing infrastructure.

Starting with vehicles and vehicle maintenance, 

a planned program of modernization across 

the entire fleet is urgently required. The USAP 

should investigate the opportunity for a collaborative arrangement with a major heavy equipment manufacturer (Caterpillar is an example 

of a possible choice because much of the equipment at the site was built by that company) as a 

way to reduce the cost of replacing and maintaining the vehicle fleet. In addition, the vehicle 

maintenance facility, while structurally sound, 

needs to be expanded by at least two and ideally four additional service bays. There is room 

directly adjacent to the facility to accommodate this expansion, so it should be a relatively 

straightforward proposition. In addition, the 

doors on the vehicle bays are out-of-date and, 

because poorly insulated, substantial heat is 

lost from this facility. New highly insulated and 

tightly fitting doors would improve the integrity 

of the maintenance facility. 

Action 4.5-1. Develop and implement a vehicle modernization plan, possibly in conjunction 

with a major vehicle manufacturer. Figure 4.38. Vehicle maintenance facility at McMurdo. 

Source: Peter Rejcek.

Figure 4.39. Aerial photo of McMurdo vehicle maintenance facility (large building) surrounded by storage 

area for vehicles and materials, shops, and small warehouses. Source: Joe Harrigan.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 115

Action 4.5-2. Expand the vehicle maintenance facility at McMurdo, adding four bays 

and replacing the existing bay doors with insulated models.

A second category is facilities maintenance and 

construction, which includes carpentry, electrical, plumbing, pipefitting, and metal work. 

Each craft is located in its own building, which 

is relatively distant from the others. The buildings are old and in uniformly poor repair. The 

equipment used for maintenance is generally 

out-of-date. 

One place where investment is needed is the 

machine shop. Recruiting skilled machinists 

has become a substantial challenge because 

almost all milling machines used commercially today are computer-controlled, whereas 

the McMurdo machines are not. One machinist with whom the Panel spoke took pride in the 

fact that he was one of the few people who still 

had the skills to operate these machines—but 

this is obviously a risky situation. Secondly, the 

fact that the maintenance facilities are physically dispersed makes communication and 

sharing of skills and materials between the sites 

inconvenient in the summer and difficult in the 

winter when snow, cold, and ice create an additional challenge. 

The existing collection of dilapidated and 

widely distributed sites for carpentry, electrical, 

plumbing, pipefitting, and metal work should 

be consolidated into a unified maintenance 

facility. Given that none of the existing maintenance facilities are worthy of retention, this 

new facility should be designed as part of the 

overall facilities master plan. The design should 

include sufficient inside (but unheated) storage 

for routine usage items such as lumber, piping, 

and metal in order to facilitate access during the 

difficult winter months. As a part of this consolidation work, a complete inventory of existing tools and machinery in use in these facilities 

should also be performed with an eye toward 

upgrading to current technologies. There 

should be a complete study of equipment needs 

as part of the overall planning effort. Figure 4.40. Repair shops for generators and snowmobiles at McMurdo. Source: Peter Rejcek (top) and 

Kris Kuenning (bottom).

Figure 4.41. Helicopter maintenance facility at 

McMurdo. Source: USAP Archives.
116 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Maintenance performed at the site also addresses 

the support equipment provided for scientists 

in the field, such as tents, sleeping bags, sleds, 

and snowmobiles. The employees working in 

this area appear to be doing a remarkable job 

with what they are provided, but it also appears 

that there is an unnecessarily large variety of 

equipment and that this diversity puts pressure 

on staffing, space, repairs, and inventory cost. In 

addition, the facility is undersized for the work 

involved. Over time, this operation should be 

moved to a more appropriate location, but in 

the short-term this area is workable. 

Most communication equipment is maintained 

at the McMurdo site. Again, this is an area that is 

woefully out-of-date, thereby degrading the efficiency and productivity of maintenance activities. Maintenance employees told the Panel of 

having to shop for parts on eBay because no 

manufacturer supports or maintains some of 

the items currently in routine use at McMurdo. 

Again, the employees seem to do a good job 

keeping most of the equipment in operation; 

however, the cost of doing so is substantial.

Finally, some aircraft maintenance is performed 

at McMurdo. The helicopter operations contractor performs maintenance and stores spare parts 

in a warehouse and hangar at the helicopter pad. 

The hangar, while needing some improvements 

(for example, new floors, upgraded lighting, and 

a coat of paint), seems adequate for the task. 

ANG personnel also perform some maintenance on the LC-130s at McMurdo. This is 

accomplished outside at the airstrip and seems 

to be well managed and sufficient for the operation. Finally, there is maintenance of the equipment that supports the aircraft. Aerospace 

Ground Equipment such as generators and 

heaters are maintained and repaired by the 

Antarctic Support Contractor (ASC). These 

operations appear to be adequate as well. 

Action 4.5-3. Provide a single consolidated 

facilities maintenance building to house carpentry, electrical, plumbing, pipefitting, and 

metal work at McMurdo Station.

4.5.1.3 South Pole

Maintenance activities are also performed at the 

South Pole, but on a much more limited basis 

than at McMurdo. South Pole maintenance 

activity consists primarily of vehicle maintenance, which is performed in a two-bay repair 

area. There is also a dedicated snowmobile 

maintenance facility at the station. Some minor 

facility and communication equipment maintenance is also performed. Reflecting the relative 

newness of the station, these activities appear to 

be appropriately up-to-date and well organized. 

However, there is an opportunity to expand 

the vehicle maintenance facility that is now too 

Figure 4.42. Air National Guard crew maintaining 

an LC-130 at the McMurdo airstrip, air temperature 

–7°F (22°C), winds 17 miles per hour (15 knots). 

Source: USAF Air National Guard.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 117

small for the work at hand from the current two 

to four bays. The remaining maintenance facilities and operations at South Pole Station appear 

to be well managed and well maintained. 

4.5.1.4 Palmer Station

Palmer Station, the smallest of the U.S. permanent Antarctic sites, has much the same maintenance tasks as those at South Pole Station. In 

addition, Palmer Station has a boat maintenance 

facility where the majority of maintenance work 

needed at that site is performed. Station personnel are challenged to keep an aging fleet of 

Zodiac boats in safe operational working order 

for science and rescue operations. Other activities at Palmer Station include routine maintenance, modernization, and repair of the laboratory and housing buildings that date from the 

station’s establishment. A preliminary study has 

been conducted that could serve as a reasonable 

master plan for phased modernization of the 

maintenance, hazardous materials handling, 

and personnel safety at Palmer Station28.

4.5.2. Warehousing/Storage 

Warehousing and storage activities are performed at all permanent locations in the 

Antarctic program. With the exception of South 

Pole Station, the warehouse facilities are out-ofdate, in poor repair, too small and not conducive to efficient operations. As a result, they are 

costly and lead to low productivity across all 

of the operation, particularly in Christchurch 

and at McMurdo. 

4.5.2.1 Christchurch

USAP activities are located within two separate 

complexes. The buildings in the aviation complex are USAP-owned, situated on land leased 

from the Christchurch International Airport. 

The complex of administration and other buildings, also leased, is located immediately outside 

the boundaries of the airfield. Staging and palletizing are performed in an outdoor storage 

yard. This bonded area requires no New Zealand 

customs clearance for throughput of items to 

Antarctica rendering this yard, from a customs 

standpoint, a highly efficient operation. Because 

28 Op cit footnote 23. 

Figure 4.44. Blue Ribbon Panel members and NSF 

staff visit the Palmer Station boat maintenance facility. 

Source: Craig Dorman.

Figure 4.43. South Pole Station vehicle maintenance 

facility. Source: Josh Landis.
118 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

it is outdoors, however, it can be very inefficient 

in periods of rain or cold. There is also a combined warehouse and distribution center for the 

Extreme Cold Weather (ECW) clothing used 

by all personnel in Antarctica. This facility is in 

reasonable condition, well laid out, and appears 

adequate for its purpose. There is a large and 

underutilized 1950s-era aircraft hanger that is, 

in part, used as a warehouse for LC-130 parts 

and supplies. The exterior cladding of the hangar is in poor condition and it is not insulated, although the basic structure appears to 

be sound. Finally, there is an empty warehouse 

that is small, but offers the opportunity for some 

utilization improvement. The ECW warehouse 

and the empty warehouse are colocated with 

the USAP Administration Building and are not 

directly on the airfield; the LC-130 parts hangar and the palletizing yard are on the airfield 

proper. Longer term, the airport authority has 

indicated a desire to expand. Should this occur, 

it is likely that USAP activities at the airport will 

be relocated, providing an opportunity to consolidate USAP administration, warehousing, 

and aviation support functions in Christchurch 

at a single location. 

At Christchurch, the first order of business in 

the warehouse and storage area is to work with 

the airport authority on the development of its 

new master plan to assure that USAP needs are 

included. A key aspect of this input should be 

fully identifying the economic benefit of the 

USAP’s Christchurch activities to the local community and to ensure that this benefit is considered in the eventual relocation. 

ACTION 4.5-4. Work with Christchurch 

International Airport and Lyttelton Port of 

Christchurch to assure that USAP needs are 

considered in the master plans now being produced by New Zealand.

Between now and the re-siting of the USAP 

facilities, there should be no permanent construction activities unless these facilities would 

continue to be used by the USAP at its new 

location. In the interim, there is a substantial 

opportunity to better utilize the existing hangar 

at Christchurch. One option would be simply to 

use this facility more effectively by optimizing 

the layout. Another, more radical, idea would be 

to move the building to McMurdo Station and, 

Figure 4.45. Extreme Cold Weather clothing warehouse in Christchurch. Source: Linda Martel.

Figure 4.46. Cargo staging area in Christchurch. 

Source: Christchurch Photo Library.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 119

once a highly insulated roof and siding, cement 

floor and racking system were added, using it 

as part of the warehousing plan for McMurdo. 

Other than that, the Panel recommends no 

short-term investments at Christchurch.

4.5.2.2 McMurdo Station

At McMurdo Station, total storage is 680,000 

square feet (63,200 square meters) for materials and supplies. The vast majority of this storage is outside, either in racks, on pallets, or 

in shipping containers. Consistent with the 

relatively haphazard growth at this site, storage is not well organized for efficiency. Only 

slightly over 100,000 square feet (9300 square 

meters) of warehousing space is enclosed, and 

it is contained in 22 separate buildings spread 

across the site. 

Without exception, the warehouse facilities 

are out-of-date and, in some cases, effectively 

unusable. The Panel visited one warehouse 

where some areas of the flooring would not 

support the weight of the lift truck, and it was 

said to be not unusual for lift trucks to break 

through floors while pulling items out of storage. Materials are stored in ways that professional warehousing operations would consider 

both inefficient and unsafe. Employees climb 

on top of multiple layers of pallets to retrieve 

materials. Warehouse conditions are often dirty 

and not up-to-date from an electrical or safety 

Figure 4.47. Photo of McMurdo Station showing the diversity and geographic spread of USAP warehouses (circles). 

Source: George Blaisdell.
120 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

standpoint. Modernizing these facilities will 

require one of the larger investments among the 

productivity and safety improvements identified 

in this report. The need for improved efficiency 

will grow as year-around activity becomes more 

the norm. Given the cost effectiveness of ship 

versus air transportation and the need to provide for contingencies in the event that ships 

cannot reach McMurdo, inventory levels will, 

by necessity, increase. 

At McMurdo Station, there needs to be a complete reexamination of the site’s warehousing, 

storage, and logistics flow. The site will require 

300,000–400,000 square feet (28,000–37,000 

square meters) of inside warehouse storage 

space. It should be in a single consolidated site 

with proper racking and, where appropriate, 

temperature control. (The site requires a freezer 

storage unit and an above-freezing storage 

unit in addition to unheated warehouse space, 

the latter of which should take up the majority of the space.) Consolidating into a single 

unit would allow demolition of eleven outdated 

and inefficient warehouses plus five former 

fuel storage tanks now being used for material 

storage. Separately, a single warehouse would 

improve the flow of materials; today, materials 

are moved numerous times between their initial arrival and final disposition. Each of these 

moves represents a loss that leads to the need 

for additional people, versus a more optimized 

and streamlined design. In addition, the vast 

majority of the current storage space is outside 

so that staff must look for materials in the snow, 

often spending hours to do so. 

Action 4.5-5. Consolidate warehousing 

and storage at McMurdo Station into a single 

inside facility, totaling an estimated 300,000-

400,000 square feet, and minimize outside storage; in the interim, correct deficiencies in flooring so that they no longer represent safety risks 

to personnel needing to work in the warehouses.

Action 4.5-6. Reevaluate on-site transportation and personnel “touches” to streamline 

product flow, especially at McMurdo Station.

NSF should fully explore the construction of 

a new high-density storage warehouse with a 

high-insulation factor. A high-density shelving 

system installed in a two-story storage building 

would cost approximately $11 million. Savings 

would include approximately 175,000 gallons 

of fuel per year (approximately $600,000 annually at today’s cost per gallon), an estimated 

275,000  kilowatt hours per year in lights, furnace fans, and miscellaneous electrical consumption ($55,000 annually at $.20/kW); 

reductions in parts and labor; and an unknown 

value for the avoidance of future life-cycle costs. 

In addition, the quality of service will improve 

as inventory accuracy dramatically improves. 

Figure 4.48. Example of unsuitable warehouse at 

McMurdo Station. In this warehouse, the forklift cannot be driven in some areas because breakthroughs 

and other floor damage have occurred. Source: 

USAP photo archives.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 121

Fuel storage capacity is 11 million gallons, equal 

to about two years’ supply under normal usage. 

McMurdo has one fuel tank that serves as a 

backup should there be a problem with another 

of the tanks. This is a prudent safety precaution. Considering that fuel is delivered only 

once per year and that no deliveries are possible 

during the winter months, the system seems to 

be appropriately configured and generally well 

managed. Proper maintenance of this facility is 

critical, but in terms of existing infrastructure, 

no substantial new investment is required here. 

4.5.2.3 South Pole

At the South Pole, warehousing is much less 

complex because of the lesser volume involved. 

Fuel storage capacity is 500,000 gallons. There 

are also storage areas for operating supplies and 

food. A substantial amount of the materials 

stored at the station are redundant and should 

be removed. Even so, the site requires additional capacity to store the remaining materials. 

This requirement should be studied as a part of 

the overall master planning. As with McMurdo 

Station, substantial quantities of materials are 

stored outside, and dealing with these materials is even more challenging than at McMurdo 

given the weather extremes. 

4.5.2.4 Palmer Station

At Palmer Station, there are a variety of small 

storage areas that would benefit substantially 

from consolidation and removal of materials 

no longer being used. There is also the opportunity to obtain supplies more frequently by 

using research and, perhaps, cruise vessels. 

Hazardous materials are processed and stored 

in containers located near the entry to Palmer 

Station. In many cases, there is not adequate 

ventilation, lighting, or emergency plumbing 

for safe and efficient hazardous waste processing. The Panel advises consolidating all of the 

hazardous material operations in one area farther away from the main facility.

ACTION 4.5-7. Consolidate hazardous materials at Palmer Station into a building that 

is properly constructed and located away 

from the station.

4.5.2.5 Port Hueneme

Storage at Port Hueneme is primarily used for 

in-transit goods that are assembled in California 

for deployment on the annual supply ship to 

McMurdo. Storage capacity appears to be sufficient and the activity seems to run smoothly. 

4.5.3. Purchasing

From a USAP standpoint, purchasing activities are relatively straightforward, with two 

major blocks of sourcing activity. The principal 

Figure 4.49. Covered storage at South Pole Station. 

Source: Craig Dorman.
122 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

one is fuel, which is purchased in three grades: 

unleaded gasoline, JP5 (fuel that is burned for 

power generation and in all vehicles), and AN-8 

(fuel used in aircraft and at South Pole Station). 

Except for vessel fuel, which is purchased on the 

open market, fuel for aircraft and ground operations is purchased as a part of an overall procurement through DoD. 

The remaining sourcing activity concerns all 

other materials associated with USAP activities. This spend pool is primarily managed by 

the ASC. It was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the contractor’s purchasing effort 

and it is not clear, given the transition in contractors, how changes in this area might lead 

to reduced costs and efficiencies. To start, it 

will be important to understand the purchasing methodology used by the new contractor. 

This understanding should include an assessment of whether appropriate incentives are in 

place to drive lower acquisition costs for materials and supplies in a manner that benefits the 

USAP. Given that the contract was only recently 

awarded, the Panel did not have the opportunity to develop this understanding, but it is a 

key leverage point that should be central to the 

USAP’s improvement efforts. 

4.5.4. Inventory 

Essentially all USAP inventory is at McMurdo 

Station. There are small amounts of inventory 

at the staging area in Christchurch, as well as at 

Palmer and South Pole Stations, but they consist 

largely of food and fuel supplies. 

Methods of delivery to Antarctica dramatically 

influence overall inventory levels. Because of the 

cost difference between ocean freight and air 

freight, it makes sense to deliver via ship even 

with the higher inventory levels sea transport 

entails, especially given that no delivery is possible for six months out of the year.

The economic value of the overall material and supply inventory totals $60 million. 

Inventory inaccuracy is about $1 million dollars per year—a very high number. Most of the 

inventory inaccuracy appears to be due to the 

amount of inventory stored in open, unsecured 

areas. A contributing factor is the antiquated, 

difficult-to-use inventory management software 

that is unreliable and requires extensive manual intervention. No bar code readers or other 

productivity-enhancing technology are used 

at most sites except for the small warehouse in 

McMurdo that manages the food supplies being 

sent into the field with scientists—put in place 

on the initiative of the staff working in this area. 

In general, there is little standardization and the 

resulting complexity drives excessive levels of 

inventory. Finally, the inventory statements do 

not document the very large quantities of scrap 

materials that are present throughout the system. They consist not only of food and human 

waste that must be transported back to the 

United States, but also large quantities of scrap 

wood, cardboard, paper, metal cans, and remnant construction materials. 

The Panel recommends an aggressive program 

of simplification and standardization—there 

are simply too many unnecessary options in 

the system today, all of which require inventory (and staffing) to maintain. This complexity 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 123

extends across the entire spectrum of activities, from vehicles, to tents and sleeping bags, 

to electrical components, to food. An aggressive standardization program will reduce 

inventory—and costs.

Separately, the inventory management system, 

MAPCON, is in urgent need of replacement 

with a commercially available system that can be 

supported by outside vendors. Any system chosen should be one that is widely used in industry today. This would allow the private sector to 

drive improvements in the system and allow the 

USAP to benefit from the private sector focus. 

Use of modern productivity-enhancing technologies like bar code scanners or radio frequency identification chips where appropriate 

should also be implemented. Given the importance of improving productivity and reducing headcount to the overall cost of McMurdo 

Station operations, there must be a very clear 

focus on productivity-enhancing investments. 

This is an area where the technology is already 

well established and the risks are low. As will be 

discussed, the ASC will be implementing new 

commercial software to replace the legacy logistics management software systems. 

Action 4.5-8. Replace the government-owned 

MAPCON materials management system with 

a modern, commercially available, inventory 

management system.

At South Pole Station, the LC-130s and traverses from McMurdo Station provide supplies and food to the site. They also remove the 

excess construction materials first to McMurdo 

Station and then on to the United States. There 

is limited opportunity for inventory reduction. 

As discussed earlier, cost savings involve optimizing the traverse and using C-17s at South 

Pole. Either or both could provide an opportunity to lower inventory levels at South Pole 

Station. Short of these actions, the Panel had 

no major recommendations in this area for the 

South Pole Station. 

c

a

Figure 4.50. (a) Consolidated 

waste, in this case baling cardboard waste, at McMurdo Station 

for shipment off continent. (b) South 

Pole waste materials are returned 

to McMurdo Station, in the case 

shown via the return trip of the traverse. (c) Processing metal waste 

at McMurdo Station. Sources: 

(a) Lisa Harding; (b) Paul Thur; 

(c) USAP photo archives.

b
124 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

At Palmer Station, frequent year-around supply obviates the need for extensive on-site 

warehousing. The Palmer supply chain is constrained by the three-mode mission of resupply, personnel transport and research, all performed by a single vessel, the Gould. The supply 

chain’s dependence on the vessel needs to be 

reevaluated well prior to the scheduled end of 

the Gould’s current charter in 2020. 

At Christchurch, other than parts and supplies 

for the LC-130s and the ECW clothing issued 

to all USAP participants, there is essentially 

no inventory stored there. Christchurch serves 

largely as a transshipment point, with materials arriving at the airport and loaded onto the 

C-17s for delivery to McMurdo Station. 

In summary, in order to create an efficient, effective and low-cost supply chain to support future 

research activities in Antarctica, major elements 

of the existing operation need to be dramatically 

redesigned and upgraded. The primary focus of 

this work should be on simplification and cost 

reduction. Central to the cost reduction effort 

must be a very clear focus on organizational 

productivity, with a goal of substantial reduction in headcount required at McMurdo Station 

(and to a lesser extent at South Pole Station) to 

support the scientific operations in place today 

and envisioned for the future. As previously 

noted, over time, with proper investment and 

training, the Panel estimates that a 20 percent 

reduction in support staff should be achievable. 

This reduction will not come simply by reducing headcounts, but through a major effort to 

improve systems, reduce the need for multiple handling steps for materials throughout 

the system, and simplify the organization and 

every aspect of the operation, particularly at 

McMurdo Station. This work must be based on 

a holistic master plan for the site that not only 

includes an assessment of facility requirements, 

but also a complete redesign of logistics flows, 

information systems, housing, recreational, 

and support facilities. In addition, there needs 

to be a separate assessment of the best ways to 

provide for investment in routine maintenance 

and repair and a method to upgrade the overall 

daily operating standards at the operating sites. 

Absent these improvements, any short-term 

investment coming from the Panel’s work will 

simply deteriorate over time back to the current 

unacceptable level.

Action 4.5-9. Develop a multifactor life-cycle 

planning and implementation process to better organize, implement, and prioritize supply 

chain projects.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 125

4.6. Energy and Utilities

an energy master plan for implementing midand long-term goals. Additionally, the USAP 

should clarify the role of the individual working 

in this area and ensure that the energy manager 

has the requisite authority and responsibility to 

implement the program.

At McMurdo Station, there are both short- and 

long-term opportunities to reduce energy costs. 

In the short term, most buildings are underinsulated and not sufficiently weather-tight. 

Consistent with the development of a master plan for the site, there should be an assessment of return on investment for insulating or 

re-insulating individual buildings. It has been 

determined that the 14 buildings at McMurdo 

with the poorest insulation consume 50 percent 

of the fuel used for heat. The return on investment from improving the insulation in seven of 

the buildings would be realized in fewer than 

ten years. For the remainder, the payback period 

extends past the anticipated life of the building.

The provision of energy in Antarctica affords a 

major opportunity for the USAP to reduce costs 

and become a demonstration site for carbonfree energy. There has been commendable progress, and there are already some excellent projects underway that deserve to be pursued more 

boldly. The Panel believes that the USAP should 

establish a goal of supplying 100 percent of the 

nontransportation energy requirement for the 

Antarctic summer by renewable energy sources 

over the mid-term (five years) and by zero-carbon-generating energy sources over the longer 

term (15–20 years). As has been discussed, it is 

apparent that many USAP participants are not 

fully aware of the true cost of energy. Improving 

transparency in this regard will undoubtedly 

promote savings.

The USAP has undertaken a number of energyrelated studies. The status of these studies and 

associated recommendations are unclear. Using 

its current experiences, and with the improvements noted below, the USAP should develop 

Figure 4.51. 

Illustration of energy 

production scheme at 

McMurdo Station.
126 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Action 4.6-1. Develop a priority list for 

improving the insulation of buildings and 

implement an appropriate plan that includes 

the previously identified seven buildings with 

the poorest energy efficiency that are expected 

to remain in use.

Over the mid-term, there are a number of 

activities that could lower costs at McMurdo 

and improve the environmental footprint of 

this important link in the Antarctic logistics chain. The site, in cooperation with New 

Zealand’s Scott Base located directly adjacent 

to McMurdo Station, currently operates three330 kilowatt wind turbines. The New Zealand 

Antarctic Programme provided the capital 

investment in the turbines, while the USAP 

funded site preparation and connectivity to its 

power plant. In addition to providing essentially 

all the electric energy required for Scott Base, 

these turbines provide about 20–30 percent 

of McMurdo’s electric energy requirements. 

For the USAP, this equates to annual savings 

of approximately 118,000 gallons of fuel. The 

Panel’s judgment is that additional wind turbines would be an appropriate investment to 

reduce costs and improve the environmental 

impact at McMurdo Station. The Panel’s calculations in this regard assume that New Zealand 

again provides the capital investment.

Action 4.6-2. Together with the New Zealand 

Antarctic Programme, develop a plan to 

expand the highly successful Ross Island wind 

turbine project to achieve the maximum practicable wind energy penetration for the unified 

McMurdo-Scott Base power grid.

The 350,000 pounds (159,000 kilograms) of 

scrap wood generated annually at McMurdo is 

accompanied by waste paper, cardboard, and 

burnable food and human waste. All of these 

substances are stored until they are eventually transported to the United States via the 

outbound cargo ship. These materials are a 

renewable fuel that could reduce—or ideally 

eliminate—the need for oil-driven generators. 

Substantial advances have been made in the 

clean conversion of wood-based waste materials into energy, and they should be adopted at 

McMurdo. A preliminary study of using this 

renewable fuel as a clean heat and electricity 

source in modern burners was completed in 

2009, with attractive economics—for an initial investment of $400,000, annual savings of 

$100,000 would be generated. Technology has 

progressed over the past three years such that 

the investment might be even more attractive.

Action 4.6-3. Together with DOE, determine 

the feasibility and cost of converting the waste 

wood, paper, and cardboard into building heat 

and electricity at McMurdo Station and substantially reduce the amounts that must be 

transported off-continent. 

Figure 4.52. Wind turbines at McMurdo Station. 

Source: Craig Dorman.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 127

With the exception of some very creative solar 

applications for remote field operations and 

the extensive renewable system in place at the 

Black Island Telecommunications Facility, there 

was no significant evidence of solar investment 

at any of the fixed stations. Given that for six 

months of the year there is a substantial amount 

of sunlight, this seems like a missed opportunity and the Panel recommends that an assessment of solar opportunities be included in the 

overall energy study for McMurdo. 

Action 4.6-4. Develop a plan to maximize solar generation of heat and electricity at all sites, including both fixed-base and 

field locations.

Longer-term, the Panel also recommends that 

an updated geothermal study be performed. An 

assessment should be made, possibly in collaboration with New Zealand which has extensive 

geothermal capability, to determine whether 

geothermal energy production could be viable at McMurdo and whether such development would be considered allowable under the 

Antarctic Treaty. 

Action 4.6-5. Together with New Zealand, reexamine geothermal opportunities for producing heat and electricity at McMurdo Station.

The Panel believes that by combining the use 

of waste wood, additional wind power generation, better insulation of some existing facilities, and solar and possibly geothermal energy 

production, McMurdo could become completely energy independent, with the exception 

of transportation requirements. These actions 

would likely create major cost savings and provide the opportunity for an exciting demonstration project in the sustainability arena.

At South Pole Station, essentially all energy 

needs are currently met by fuel oil generators 

and waste heat recovery. NSF has started discussions with DOE’s National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) regarding the feasibility of 

introducing alternative energy technology at 

South Pole Station. Use of alternative energy 

will not only reduce fuel consumption (a goal 

in and of itself), but will also be beneficial to 

the environment itself and to the atmospheric 

research that requires a clean environment.

South Pole “summer camp,” initially associated 

with construction of South Pole Station, the 

10-meter telescope, and the IceCube Neutrino 

Observatory, typically housed 100 people over 

and above those housed in the station. The 

original design for South Pole Station was for 

150 residents, which should be the target population for annual planning. If it becomes necessary to once again exceed the design occupancy 

on a short-term basis, the USAP has a project 

plan to provide energy-efficient supplementary 

Figure 4.53. Wood chips at McMurdo Station, a 

potential source of renewable fuel. Source: USAP 

photo archives.
128 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

accommodations powered and heated by solar 

energy sources to save the 13,000 gallons of fuel 

per year needed to operate the former summer camp. At the purchase price of fuel, savings would be $46,000, but when considering 

the average cost to deliver that fuel, the savings 

rise to $350,000. These estimates do not include 

personnel savings that would be associated with 

100 fewer people at the station nor the labor 

savings associated with opening, maintaining, 

and later winterizing the camp each summer; 

these reductions are anticipated from changes 

in the ASC’s concept of operations. Although 

South Pole Station has a very low wind regime, 

wind energy may also be applicable to this site 

and should be included in the overall energy 

assessment, again with an eye toward elimination of fuel oil as an operating energy source. 

The USAP also has a design for a solar garage 

at South Pole Station. The garage could be procured for $25,000, and is estimated to save 

8,000 gallons of fuel per year. In addition, the 

solar garage may also alleviate the vehicle maintenance work space shortage identified above 

and may be relevant to other stations and sites 

through the USAP.

Action 4.6-6. Introduce the solar garage concept at South Pole Station and other locations 

where similar operating and environmental 

conditions prevail.

At Palmer Station, traditional fuel oil generators 

produce needed power and heat. Opportunities 

exist for wind and solar energy production, and 

it is likely that the use of fuel oil as an energy 

source can be considerably reduced.

It is likely that modernization of the vehicle fleet 

will result in the use of substantially less energy 

than today. Separately, a well-designed master 

plan for the site will reduce the overall amount 

of vehicle travel because of the implementation of site efficiencies, again reducing energy 

use. The USAP has undertaken some early work 

to introduce electric vehicles at McMurdo, and 

this should continue. 

One of the largest sources of fuel use is the 

resupply of South Pole Station from McMurdo 

Station by LC-130s. The key opportunity here 

is to reduce the amount of LC-130 use between 

these two locations. Recommendations in this 

regard appear earlier in this report.

Efficiencies in energy production and use provide major opportunities for the USAP, not 

only in reducing costs but also in demonstrating NSF’s commitment to the viability 

and advisability of renewable and ultimately 

carbon-free energy.

Figure 4.54. Solar-powered remote instrument on the 

Mt. Erebus volcano. Source: Peter Rejcek.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 129

4.7. Communications and

Informat ion Technology

4.7.1.1. Antarctic Astrophysics and 

Geospace Sciences

The South Pole, with its high elevation and very 

low air temperatures, is a unique place to carry 

out essential and cutting-edge research in particle astrophysics and astronomy. A large array of 

computers at South Pole Station preprocess and 

compress IceCube Neutrino Observatory data. 

These data are transferred daily to the University 

of Wisconsin-Madison (~100 GB/day), along 

with instrument control, technical support, and 

remote maintenance exchanges (~5 GB/day). 

The availability of near-real-time data transfer 

permits distribution of alerts of significant transient events so that the research community can 

immediately compare IceCube data to signals 

Communications and Information Technology 

(C&IT) is a relatively new, yet indispensable, 

component of the USAP infrastructure. Supply 

chain and deployment management, medical 

services and scientific research support (and socalled morale services), all depend heavily upon 

C&IT. Communications are severely challenged 

at latitudes of 81° where the line of sight to the 

satellites are blocked by Earth’s horizon. 

4.7.1. Examples of C&IT 

Demands within the USAP

The examples that follow highlight the growing demand for and the required diversity 

of the C&IT portfolio in support of USAP 

science and operations. 

Figure 4.55. The South Pole Telescope back-lit by an aurora. Source: Don Hartill.
130 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

from space- and ground-based detectors around 

the globe. Minutes make the difference between 

capturing the event and missing it. Similarly, 

the South Pole Telescope requires a mix of reliable daily bulk data transfer (~60 GB/day) and 

real-time telescope control and maintenance 

(~5 GB/day). Planned upgrades will increase 

the daily data rate to 80 GB/day and, in future 

years, to 200 GB/day.

4.7.1.2. Automatic Remote Observations

Antarctica hosts remote instrumentation used 

for both operations and research. Automatic 

Weather Stations (AWS) provide meteorological observations that are critical for developing 

weather forecasts for USAP aircraft operations, 

and provide the scientific record of Antarctic 

weather that is crucial to international operational weather forecasters’ computer models 

and to the study of climate change and other 

Antarctic phenomena. Satellite communications 

provided by polar low Earth orbiting satellites 

provide the essential communications link from 

the isolated weather stations scattered across 

the Antarctic continent.

The continent-wide array of automated Polar 

Earth Observing Network (POLENET) stations includes locations equipped with seismic detectors. On June 1, 2012, at 0501 hours 

GMT, a rare seismic event occurred in Marie 

Byrd Land. This event was captured and transmitted in real time by seismic sensors participating in the Incorporated Research Institutions 

for Seismology Global Seismographic Network, 

allowing the data to be introduced in global 

real-time data sets for epicenter and magnitude 

determination, among other parameters. The 

real-time capture and transmission via satellite 

enabled immediate analysis of a rare event that is 

likely to lead to follow-on investigations. 

The AWS and POLENET rely on two different 

satellite systems—the international, government-hosted system ARGOS-2 (“ARGOS” is 

not an acronym, but rather the chosen name for 

the system) for the former and Iridium for the 

latter. Researchers supporting POLENET and 

other remote instruments anticipate improvements in design to include reliability and power 

generation/usage during the Austral winter 

when solar energy is unavailable. These innovations are expected to enable increased data relay 

throughout the year, eliminating the need for 

annual physical site visits for the sole purpose of 

data recovery, and extending the site visitation 

Figure 4.56. POLENET seismic sensor site in Antarctica. 

Source USAP photo archives.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 131

frequency from annually to biannually or longer. The savings in field logistics (aircraft support, staff), when coupled with the added benefits of data fusion with real-time global feeds, 

will afford a significant return on investment 

and scientific value. Ultimately, the innovations 

will also increase the demand for transmission 

of data out of Antarctica. 

4.7.1.3. Supply Chain Management

Supply chain management relies on three major 

software database applications that were introduced during the 1990s. The software and associated databases are sustained at the ASC facilities 

in Colorado, at the logistics hubs in California, 

New Zealand and Chile, and in Antarctica. The 

present operation requires each location to be 

a full data center operation with server equipment, network file storage, and telecommunications links—and require full-service, on-site 

C&IT support staff. When changing business 

processes cannot be easily supported by the 

existing applications, C&IT analysts and developers must develop customized applications.

With the award of the ASC in late 2011, the USAP 

is now looking forward to replacing the legacy, 

heavily customized software with leading commercial-off-the-shelf applications. However, the 

need to exchange supply chain data and manage 

supply chain processes between all USAP operating locations will continue. Thus, the role and 

importance of C&IT to supply chain management will not diminish, but its focus will shift. 

4.7.1.4. Telemedicine

NSF provides small-clinic medical services to 

USAP personnel at all three Antarctic stations, 

staffed mainly to address routine out-patient 

issues and emergency medical services. Critical 

care patients are stabilized for medical evacuation from Antarctica. However, there are occasions, such as during the Austral winter, when 

evacuation is not possible. To help address 

these gaps, NSF introduced telemedicine, providing a means for on-site medical personnel 

to consult with U.S.-based experts in any field 

of medicine and to transmit x-rays and other 

diagnostic information. The telemedicine capability was instrumental, for example, when the 

winter-over physician at South Pole Station 

self-diagnosed breast cancer and began working with NSF and U.S. physicians for a detailed 

diagnosis and treatment plan, using a proof-ofconcept high speed satellite link developed for 

science data transmission and Internet service. 

A USAP physician later analyzed program data 

and found that, during 2002–2004, ultrasound 

imaging enabled by the telemedicine capability made intercontinental medical evacuation 

unnecessary in one-quarter of potential cases. 

The USAP telemedicine program is now available at all three Antarctic stations.
132 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.7.2. Implementation

of USAP C&IT

The C&IT portfolio is extensive, providing 

technical services, communications, information systems and governance. The C&IT budget portfolio is divided into categories that serve 

to demonstrate the nature of the various technical systems, services, applications, and management requirements. Of the approximately 

$28 million annual budget, sustainment expenditures dominate at 49 percent, with 12 percent 

dedicated to the direct support of science, and 

18 percent to governance activities such as policy and strategy, and information security and 

assurance. This latter category consumes more 

of the operating budget each year as regulatory 

requirements increase. 

The implementation of C&IT requires expert 

suppliers and a skilled workforce to sustain, 

refresh, and evolve services and infrastructure. C&IT services supporting the USAP are 

obtained largely from the ASC. The performance and success of the USAP C&IT services 

is directly proportional to the skills and expertise of the contracted personnel. 

There are additional, noncontractor-supplied 

personnel supporting USAP C&IT services, 

such as the Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Command (SPAWAR), providing project management office support to NSF. It should be 

noted that NSF now has only a single individual who is responsible for oversight of the entire 

USAP C&IT enterprise. The complexity of the 

C&IT enterprise, the short turnover time of its 

Figure 4.57. USAP C&IT lines of function.

Hardware/Software

Cable Television

Campus Local Area

Network

Electromagnetic 

Spectrum Management
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 133

technology underpinnings, and the essential 

nature of C&IT services require significant time 

and expertise to oversee. Another complexity 

is the use of a seasonal workforce that is largely 

temporary, complicating configuration management and other key processes needed to sustain 

a modern C&IT enterprise. A single person at 

the NSF program office level is not sufficient to 

cover all of the issues and provide the technical, operational, and managerial oversight of the 

large supplier/contractor support base. A strong 

case can be made for providing additional NSF 

staff resources to meet the workload and also to 

assure continuity of operations. 

Action 4.7-1. Augment the NSF Program 

Office for C&IT to accommodate its growing 

responsibilities. 

4.7.3. Summary of Key 

C&IT Issues

Several issues threaten the USAP’s ability to 

provide its basic C&IT functions, especially 

with the volume and quality of service that is 

now the normal expectation.

4.7.3.1. Future Science Requirements

Future USAP science requirements will place 

increased demand on satellite communications. 

An NSF-funded workshop in June 2011 projected future communication and data transmission needs through the end of the decade29. 

The projected requirements are staggering, and 

many are not supportable with the present USAP 

satellite communications capability. In fact, they 

outstrip current capacity by 100–600 percent. 

While some economies may be achievable 

through improvements in experiment design, 

there remains a significant gap between capability and requirements. The results of this 

Figure 4.58. Historical 

trend of South Pole science data daily transmission volumes. Note that 

the vertical axis is logarithmic; the straight line 

relationship would be an 

exponential curve if the 

vertical axis scale were 

instead linear. 

0.00

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

Average Daily Transmission Requirements 

(GBytes/Day)

Ice Cube Operational

Exponential

Trend Line

Ice Cube 

Approved

South Pole Telescope

Approved

SPIREX

Telescope Era

South Pole TelescopeFirst Light

29 Available at http://www.usap.gov/conferencesCommitteesAndWorkshops/contentHandler.cfm?id=2684.
134 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

workshop and others have yet to be synthesized 

into an overall plan for the conduct of the C&IT 

program, but it is clear that the USAP must take 

steps to increase its ability to support the C&IT 

needs of future science. 

Action 4.7-2. Develop and implement a new 

architecture for C&IT that is consistent with 

future program needs, including the provision 

of increased bandwidth.

4.7.3.2. Satellite Communications

Communications-equipped satellites are the 

only means available to implement modern highspeed digital communications to the Antarctic 

Continent and ships at sea. Conventional geosynchronous satellites, stationed directly over 

Earth’s equator, have limited coverage of the 

polar regions, with all coverage ending at 81°N 

and 81°S. McMurdo is at 78°S, but South Pole 

Station is at 90°S and beyond reach.

It is possible, and current practice, to overcome 

this limitation for South Pole Station by using 

satellites that have drifted out of their intended 

orbit over time. Assuming that the satellite continues to function, it can continue to provide 

telecommunications services, although the quality and the daily contact time varies by satellite, 

depending upon the degree of inclination of the 

satellite’s orbit. The maximum contact is approximately 7.5 hours/day, while the minimum useful contact is approximately 3 hours/day. 

The USAP has marshaled an eclectic collection 

of aged satellites to provide operational broadband Internet and high-speed data transfer services for South Pole Station. The Tracking and 

Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) are the first generation of NASA’s space data system launched 

in the 1980s. The 34-year-old Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-3, 

the only satellite directly owned by NSF, began 

life as one of the first generation of 1970s-era 

operational weather satellites managed by 

PALMER 

SOUTH POLE 

McMURDO 

TDRS 5 

TDRS 3 EDGE OF

COVERAGE

TDRS 3

TDRS 5

EQUATORIAL PLANE

OCCUPIED BY STANDARD

GEO SATELLITES

SOUTH POLE STATION

•Inclined geosynchronous 

communications satellites provide 

partial coverage in the polar regions 

at latitudes beyond ± 81°. As the 

Earth rotates, the satellite travels 

alternately above and below the 

equator.

•The NASA TDRS satellites servicing 

South Pole Station provide several 

hours per day of coverage when the 

satellites’ orbit position is below the 

equator each day. 

SOUTH POLE CONTACT WHEN

ORBIT INCLINATION (“TILT”) IS

GREATER THAN 9 DEGREES

Figure 4.59. 

Schematic showing how inclined 

geosynchronous orbit 

satellites such as 

NASA’s Tracking and 

Data Relay Satellites 

(TDRS) extend coverage into the deep 

Antarctic interior.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 135

NOAA. Skynet-4C is an aged military communications satellite formerly owned by the United 

Kingdom Ministry of Defense that has been 

outsourced to commercial operators. 

NSF continually works to identify potential candidate satellites to ensure a steady supply of communications resources. Viable and available satellites are rare, requiring a confluence of factors 

(economics of operations, international space 

debris mitigation conventions, U.S. national and 

commercial space policy) and acceptance of risk 

incurred by dependence on aged satellite systems far beyond their design life. NSF has already 

experienced the loss of two of these inclinedorbit satellites—NASA’s TDRS 1 and Intelsat’s 

MARISAT 2—due to age far beyond the design 

requirements and the need for the operator to 

move satellites to “graveyard orbits” to prevent 

space debris hazards. New (to USAP uses) satellites are occasionally found—NSF recently 

initiated discussions with DoD to explore the 

feasibility of repurposing the Defense Satellite 

Communications System (DSCS)-3B12 satellite for NSF use. Two additional Skynet satellites 

and three additional DSCS satellites may also 

be viable options.

In order to address the risk of reduced or no 

access to aged, out-of-planned-orbit satellites in 

an era of rapidly increasing research data transmission requirements, NSF issued a Request For 

Information (RFI) to the commercial satellite 

industry for solution concepts for all Antarctic 

communications requirements, with emphasis on South Pole Station. The RFI included an 

NSF initiative to test the interest of the industry in government-industry partnerships. NSF 

received 19 distinct solutions, with a broad 

cross-section of industry representation, ranging from well-known and established satellite 

builders and systems operators to entrepreneurial start-ups. Nearly all solutions proposed new 

satellite construction and dedicated launch vehicles. Solutions that were capable of meeting all 

of NSF’s requirements predictably carried the 

highest cost. The lowest-cost solution was a variant of the method currently employed by NSF—

the repurposing of aged inclined satellites.

The current strategy for managing the ebb and 

flow of inclined geosynchronous satellites supporting South Pole Station is predicated upon 

a successful agreement with DoD to retain 

legacy DSCS satellites as they approach the 

end of their mission lives. Antenna needs of 

some other candidate satellites could require 

a new 9-meter antenna at South Pole Station 

(estimated to cost $7 million or more to construct) if current data rates are to be sustained. 

NSF is considering a new Earth station complex of smaller, 2.4- to 4-meter, antennas that 

require less costly infrastructure and facilities. 

However, the smaller antenna size would also 

restrict the data rates available.

Action 4.7-3. Complete the ongoing assessment of alternatives for future South Pole bulk 

date transfer service and baseline an approach 

that does not depend on the TDRS system or 

GOES satellites. Consider both satellite and terrestrial capabilities, including a “New Start” 

(new satellite program) option that would provide high reliability and long-term capability.
136 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.7.3.3. IRIDIUM Mobile Satellite 

Communications

USAP field activities in the deep Antarctic interior are almost totally reliant on the Iridium 

mobile satellite communications system, the 

only commercial system with true global 

coverage. NSF receives steeply discounted 

Iridium service rates from the DoD Defense 

Information Systems Agency. This satellite system has been key to current successes for both 

automated field instrumentation used by scientists and for reliable operational communications to supplement legacy high-frequency, or 

HF, radio communications. 

The Iridium system is used to link South Pole 

Station to the USAP’s main hub in Colorado, 

providing gap-filling network communications during the extensive times when broadband satellites are not visible. A bank of twelve 

single-channel Iridium data modems has 

been fashioned into a link that combines the 

2.4 kb/s rate of each individual modem into an 

effective single channel of 28 kb/s—approximately equivalent to dial-up modems of the 

late 1980s. The resulting email traffic to/from 

South Pole Station has overcome former long 

delays in communications, a major benefit for 

both science and operations. IceCube uses the 

Iridium link for real-time instant messaging. 

A real-time seismic data feed is also supported 

by this link, contributing seismic sensor data 

in real time to the global Comprehensive Test 

Ban Treaty Organization monitoring network. 

(The Organization placed such importance on 

receiving real-time data from the South Pole 

sensor that it cofunded the development of 

the Iridium link system.) Lower data rate versions of this same design have been developed 

for the South Pole traverse and large deep field 

camps, facilitating operations and logistical 

support from McMurdo. 

Iridium is actively working to implement a 

follow-on constellation of satellites (named 

IridiumNEXT), scheduled for service circa 

2017, with the potential to provide even more 

capability. It is not known if DoD will execute a 

discounted rate contract for this future service. 

If not, it may be very expensive for NSF to support the projected needs of the deep field science 

program, let alone its current requirements.

Figure 4.60. 

FY 2011 

Iridium air time 

science usage.

Antarctic 

Organisms and 

Ecosystems 

1%

Antarctic Ocean 

and Atmospheric 

Sciences 

3%

Antarctic 

Glaciology

3%

Antarctic 

Integrated System

Science 

12%

Antarctic 

Astrophysics and 

Geospace 

Sciences 

17%

Antarctic Earth 

Sciences 

64%
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 137

Action 4.7-4. Identify those science projects 

that can benefit from real-time experimental 

data delivery to the United States and other 

off-ice sites and establish new Service Level 

Agreements that reduce the demand for scientists to be on-site in Antarctica.

4.7.3.4. McMurdo Station 

Communications and the Black Island 

Telecommunications Facility

At McMurdo Station there is a region blind to 

viewing key satellites. The primary off-continent satellite communications services supporting McMurdo Station are thus provided from 

the Black Island Telecommunications Facility 

(BITF). This facility is 22 miles (35 kilometers) 

from McMurdo and offers the necessary clear 

horizon for viewing geosynchronous communications satellites.

The BITF had its beginnings in the mid-1980s 

when an existing single-voice channel Inmarsat 

land Earth station was relocated from McMurdo 

in order to see a satellite blocked by Mt. Erebus. 

Over the years, continuous improvements, additions, and changes have been conducted at the 

facility as its core mission of telecommunications 

has grown. Preventative and corrective maintenance, systems replacement, and other upgrades 

are conducted during the Austral summer 

when helicopter service is available. During the 

Austral winter, the facility is largely unattended. 

C&IT technicians in McMurdo remotely monitor the health and status of the satellite communications and facility systems, and local weather 

conditions. Black Island receives the brunt of 

damaging storms and high winds that occur 

year-around due to the regional topography. 

Recent technical assessments of the radomes 

protecting the antennas indicate that they have 

reached their nominal 20-year design life and 

are recommended for replacement.

The BITF power system is essentially a large 

uninterruptable power system using 288  leadacid deep-cycle batteries. Recent maintenance 

inspections revealed that the usable life of the 

batteries has been reached. The cost of replacement batteries is estimated at $250,000. Failure 

to replace the batteries in time could result in a 

loss of McMurdo Station off-continent primary 

communications. Recent innovations in the 

battery industry indicate there are newer technologies available that could provide longer service lifetimes and represent a lower total cost of 

ownership. These so-called “lead-carbon” technologies should be explored during the anticipated battery replacement effort.

The winds from a storm in May 2012 incapacitated three of the four wind turbines used 

for power generation at the BITF. The turbines 

cannot be repaired until the Austral summer. 

Unfortunately, these turbines are no longer in 

production and, while the ASC has been able 

to secure all remaining parts available and has 

Figure 4.61. Black Island Telecommunications Facility. 

Source: Steve Martaindale.
138 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

sufficient spares to support approximately three 

to four more years of operation, searches of the 

marketplace have not uncovered viable alternatives for the power, physical size, and ruggedness 

needed to withstand the rigors of the Black Island 

climate. The ASC is working with NREL for 

alternatives. NREL in turn is seeking to establish 

a joint venture with private sector entrepreneurs 

to restart production of these turbines, while 

incorporating design improvements gleaned 

over years of use at Black Island. Solutions must 

be found soon if the BITF is not to revert to diesel power during the Austral winter. 

With the introduction of a collaboration among 

NSF, NOAA/Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), 

and NASA for operational weather satellite 

data acquisition in McMurdo for rapid return 

to worldwide weather processing centers, there 

are multiple players who now have a stake in 

the BITF and its satellite communications link. 

NOAA invested significant funding over the past 

several years to refurbish the NSF-owned satellite Earth stations in preparation for the higher 

data rates that are required for the composite 

daily traffic flow of the USAP and these other 

stakeholders. Based on an initial introduction 

facilitated by NSF, NOAA and its contractors 

worked with the Australian satellite operator 

SingTel-Optus to modify a commercial communications satellite that was still under construction to make it capable of supporting the 

data rates needed from the existing Earth station 

antennas. This modification provided the innovation needed to break through the bandwidth 

barrier that plagued McMurdo in the past. 

A continuing partnership is being sustained. 

NSF hosts NOAA/JPSS telecommunications 

equipment in the McMurdo data center, provides the microwave telecommunications link 

to the BITF, provides and sustains the upgraded 

satellite Earth stations, operates and maintains 

the BITF facility, and participates jointly with 

NOAA for trouble reporting, troubleshooting, 

fault resolution, and service restoration activities. NOAA/JPSS serves as a telecommunications services provider by supplying the “pipe” 

that is transmitted over the Earth station, the 

lease for the satellite transponder, the primary 

and backup teleport in Australia, and return of 

the pipe to the United States via its global leased 

network from AT&T. 

The BITF also hosts the primary HF radio 

communications receiving system that supports air-ground communications for USAP 

flight operations. The BITF provides a television receive-only satellite downlink to recover 

Armed Forces Network live television broadcast 

feeds, distributed over a cable television distribution system, with radio feeds broadcast over 

the local radio station. 

Action 4.7-5. Assess the risk posture of the 

Black Island facility and develop and implement 

a plan to modernize it over the next five years. 

4.7.3.5 Obsolescence of Major 

C&IT Systems

Beyond the future requirements for connectivity and bandwidth, a more immediate problem 

is obsolescence of essential systems, some far 

beyond end of life. There are both software and 

hardware elements that are becoming difficult 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 139

to maintain and for which vendors no longer 

provide support, creating a high risk of failure. Examples cited previously include supply 

chain software and the BITF. The McMurdo 

private branch exchange for telephone service 

was also found to be at the end of its service life 

and in need of replacement. In addition, the 

outside wire/cable plant at McMurdo Station 

has architectural, capacity, business continuity 

and potential security deficiencies, and there is 

a similar situation at Palmer Station. Much of 

the facility infrastructure (such as power systems and building features) were not designed 

with consideration of C&IT needs. An effective 

disaster recovery plan and capability should 

be developed now and a more structured and 

systematic life cycle process put into place to 

address hardware/software aging, capacity, and 

performance issues.

Action 4.7-6. Identify all legacy elements of 

the C&IT program that represent serious risk to 

the mission and develop and implement a plan 

to mitigate those risks.

4.7.4. Information

Assurance/Security

Management of information security (or, more 

broadly, information assurance) is a significant 

consideration for the USAP C&IT program. 

The news media is now filled with stories about 

hacking. Because the USAP C&IT environment 

is connected to the Internet, it faces similar risks 

and has experienced hacking events, “spyware,” 

computer viruses, and the like. As required by 

federal laws, guidance and standards, NSF has 

improved the USAP C&IT information security posture, and in the process has expended 

significant energy, time, and funds. The USAP 

is responsible for safeguarding sensitive information contained in participants’ medical 

records, in mission systems such as aeronautical communications, in control systems for satellite Earth stations, and in computing systems 

embedded in essential communications systems such as the McMurdo HF radio system.
140 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.8. Human Care

Because of the remote location and demanding 

environment of the Antarctic Continent and 

surrounding seas, the well-being and morale 

of all who work in the USAP are high priorities. Among the issues that affect people working there are housing conditions in the field and 

on stations and ships, food supply, the availability of recreational opportunities, establishment of a safe and pleasant working environment, access to appropriate medical care, and 

the provision of ECW clothing and personal 

protective equipment. 

The challenges of working in Antarctica’s environment are severe at any time, but they impact 

scientists and support personnel differently 

depending on the season, location, and activities being undertaken. Continuous attention to 

human needs assures fewer accidents, a safer 

and healthier Antarctic experience, and continuation of the overall long-term success of 

the science and of the U.S. contribution to the 

objectives of the Antarctic Treaty. Addressing 

the issues of “human care” for all USAP participants requires a range of strategies. For example, different factors can affect the health of 

those working at sea level at McMurdo Station 

compared with those working at high elevations 

at the South Pole or at some deep field sites, or 

at sea. There are also diverse safety issues (ocean 

survival versus laboratory safety versus ice survival), differing access to medical and health 

care, and contrasts in risk levels for different 

types of jobs, durations, seasons, and locations 

depending on whether a person is located in the 

field or at a station. Housing requirements differ according to these same factors and by the 

number of people needing to be housed. For 

example, housing in the field may be required 

for small teams of two to five scientists with no 

on-site contractor support, or for larger projects that include 50 or more researchers with 

contractor support. 

4.8.1. Housing

Living space and sleeping arrangements significantly contribute to well-being, but each permanent U.S. station differs in the character of 

its accommodations and in the requirements of 

its community30. Most, if not all, locations operate 24 x 7. In all cases, lack of sleep and privacy 

can seriously affect morale and health and safety, 

and reducing the population density at permanent research stations could have a very positive 

effect on human welfare. As a result, it is important to provide an environment where restful 

sleep can take place irrespective of what else is 

going on. Scientists at McMurdo, South Pole, or 

Palmer Stations can be in transit status (en route 

to the field, to another permanent station, or to 

and from vessels), or based on station for longer periods, including the winter-over period. 

Dorm rooms are used primarily for sleeping and 

their schedules are highly variable, dictated by 

their laboratory and field work. For contractor 

30 For personnel in field camps and onboard ships, accommodations are limited. Field camps range from small tents to larger 

semi-permanent structures, with varying degrees of comfort. Investigator-run camps rely on shared cooking and cleaning 

duties, while at the larger field camps, contractor personnel provide food service and medical care. Shipboard accommodations 

tend toward spartan, with small, shared cabins and in-suite restroom facilities, frequently with unreliable toilets.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 141

staff housed for the summer or winter at one of 

the three permanent stations, dorm rooms are 

a place for relaxation, recreation, and entertainment as well as sleep.

At Palmer Station, there are cramped dorm 

rooms with bunk beds and limited toilet and 

shower facilities. Palmer Station participants 

are housed in two locations. One is in the “Bio 

Building,” where a third floor housing area is 

located above the ground floor laboratories and 

the second floor administrative offices and galley. The other is in the “GWR Building,” which 

houses a garage, warehouse, and the power 

plant. Both of these locations present potential 

risks to personnel, with significant concerns for 

fire safety. 

Action 4.8-1. As part of the master plan for 

Palmer Station, consider health and usability 

issues, including upgrading or replacing housing and baths as needed.

McMurdo Station has overcrowded sleeping 

quarters that affect sleeping, privacy, and health. 

Because of the differences in job requirements, 

work schedules and operations at McMurdo, 

options might include designating separate 

dorms for support staff with different but standard work schedules, and scientists with highly 

variable work schedules. Additional consideration might be given to providing single rooms 

or fewer roommates as the population changes, 

allowing personnel to move to less crowded 

rooms. This would require the use of modern 

hotel software or a similar mechanism.

Action 4.8-2. Consider a dedicated dorm 

for those with similar work schedules, such as 

those working at night at McMurdo Station 

and researchers, aided by commercially available software to more efficiently and effectively 

manage housing and minimize the number of 

residents per room. 

Housing in the new South Pole Station is modern and relatively comfortable. However, as discussed previously, the demand for bed space at 

the station requires daily management attention 

to population issues. In addition, when used, 

the “summer camp” used for population overflow is an energy-intensive proposition.

Figure 4.63. Double 

cabin on ARSV Laurence 

M. Gould. Source: 

Craig Dorman.

Figure 4.62. (top) Housing for the summer-only population at South Pole Station (“summer camp”) in Jamesway 

buildings. Source: USAP photo archives. (bottom) Inside 

a dorm room in the Elevated Station at Amundsen-Scott 

South Pole Station. Credit: Calee Allen. 
142 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.8.2. Food

The quality of food can profoundly affect morale 

and health. The Panel found that, overall, food 

quality, quantity and options at all stations, field 

camps, and ships are generally healthy. Fresh 

vegetables and fruits are highly valued by all 

participants. McMurdo and South Pole Stations 

have small greenhouses that provide the community with some fresh vegetables (as well as 

a source of recreation and light during the long 

winter), but vegetarian options are few and, 

at all stations, certain foods can be depleted 

before the end of a season. At all USAP locations, food quality and quantity vary from year 

to year depending on the food order made the 

previous year and the capabilities of the kitchen 

staff. Comments made to the Panel reinforced 

the observation that effort devoted to hiring 

and retaining highly qualified and motivated 

kitchen staff is a good investment. 

Real and perceived shortcomings have led people to bring their own food, which is an inefficient means of solving the problem and may 

result in food waste not being dealt with in 

an appropriate manner. Assuring a sufficient 

amount and variety of food, options for various food preferences and requirements, and a 

supply of fresh (when at all feasible) fruits and 

vegetables are imperative for health and morale. 

The nutritional content of meals is generally not 

displayed—but should be—for those who wish 

to choose food based on nutritional value. 

Action 4.8-3. While the Panel commends 

the ongoing efforts to provide freshly prepared 

foods at the stations and on ships, the USAP 

is encouraged to emphasize the provision of a 

variety of fresh vegetables and fruits to those 

deployed and the hiring of highly competent, 

motivated galley staff.

Figure 4.64. Food preparation and dining areas at USAP stations and ships. Sources (clockwise from top left): 

David Holland; Craig Dorman; James Swift; Brien Barnett; Craig Dorman; James Swift.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 143

The Panel recognizes that the food production 

system at the permanent stations cannot be 

duplicated at field camps, but newly developed 

food alternatives may reduce transportation and 

cooking requirements while providing nutritious and tasty meals, and should be explored.

Action 4.8-4. Investigate means to reduce 

the time, personnel and energy required for 

food preparation at remote field camps, such as 

by utilizing modern prepared foods requiring 

reduced energy in their preparation, similar to 

those used in military operations.

4.8.3. Recreation and Morale 

Recreational activities help to improve morale 

and health and can positively impact work 

quality and efficiency. Morale, in turn, is 

enhanced by the sense of community that 

exists among scientists and support staff, and 

can be particularly strong and important at the 

smaller stations and during the winter when the 

population decreases. 

All permanent stations and both research vessels (Palmer and Gould) have some cardioexercise and weight equipment. At McMurdo 

Station there is a centralized cardio-exercise 

facility, a weight room and a gym for basketball, 

volleyball, and exercise classes. There are a variety of recreational classes and activities, such 

as yoga, knitting, painting, chess, card games, 

and band practice that are distributed in many 

buildings across McMurdo. Some of them take 

place in dorm lounges, which can negatively 

impact personal space in the dorms. A centralized facility for classes, recreation, and meetings was listed as a priority in a recent survey of 

more than 900 members of the McMurdo community. Including many options for activities at 

each station and on the ships can also help to 

build a sense of community. 

Action 4.8-5. Upgrade or build a centralized 

recreation building at McMurdo, or make recreation a principal function of a centralized multipurpose facility.

Figure 4.65. 

Recreation facilities at (a) McMurdo 

Station and (b) on 

RVIB Nathaniel B. 

Palmer. Sources: 

(a) Craig Dorman and 

(b) James Swift.

a

b
144 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Communication can also help to build a 

shared sense of community among deployed 

personnel—NSF, contractors, military, and 

research teams alike. Communication tools 

to be used would differ by station and on the 

research vessels, but include suggestion boxes, 

staff meetings, announcements regarding items 

of general interest to those deployed, newspapers, blogs, and closed-circuit televised 

information services.

In the United States, wi-fi technology and 

the Internet are now considered essential for 

communication and entertainment, as well 

as for real-time data collection, transfer, and 

analysis. However, as previously described, 

that degree of connectivity does not exist in 

Antarctica, and likely cannot for some time. 

Nonetheless, both science and support personnel at McMurdo Station noted the need for and 

benefits of enhanced communications capabilities—within the station and from the stations 

to the United States. 

Action 4.8-6. Investigate and establish practices that would improve communications 

between the various colocated deployed teams 

at all Antarctic sites—including NSF personnel, contractor support staff, military personnel, and scientists—and thus promote increased 

overall awareness and appreciation of ongoing 

activities, interests, and priorities.

4.8.4. Safety and Health

Maintaining personnel safety and health is a 

major challenge in the Antarctic. Activities span 

operating heavy equipment, flying over trackless and hostile terrain, mountaineering, and 

scuba diving under the ice. Nonetheless, the 

USAP has a generally good record of maintaining the health and safety of participants, particularly when considering the remoteness of the 

continent and extreme working conditions. 

4.8.4.1. Safety and Risk Management

Direction, integration, and oversight of all 

safety activities associated with the USAP are 

the responsibility of NSF. Day-to-day execution of safety programs is the responsibility 

of the support contractor that operates and 

maintains the infrastructure for research in 

the Antarctic region. Safety responsibilities 

also extend to participating military organizations, other government institutions, and subcontractors. Safety is, in effect, the responsibility of all participants in USAP activities. This 

is a significant challenge that requires constant 

attention. Safety is both a precursor to and an 

enabler of operational success. The impacts of 

the environment, the higher cost of replacing 

lost or damaged property, the limitations in the 

rapid provision of advanced medical care, and 

the hazards imposed on rescuers in Antarctica 

make the risks associated with virtually all 

endeavors higher than they would be for similar operations in the United States. 

Safety issues regarding facilities and equipment, transportation, supply chain (maintenance, warehousing), energy and utilities, communications, and human care are identified or 

alluded to elsewhere in this chapter. Members 

of the Panel identified safety issues during site 

visits to McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer 

Stations. The findings and associated recommended implementing actions discussed in 
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 145

this section address strategic, high-level safety 

issues and the most significant issues identified 

from site visits. 

There is no single overarching safety framework 

that encompasses all aspects of safety related 

to the broad spectrum of activities that take 

place in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. 

Facility operations, occupational health and 

safety, transportation, and personal safety are 

addressed under the terms of the support contract. The contractor provides safety directives and executes safety-related activities that 

conform to Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration (OSHA) standards (for example, 

respiratory protection, hearing conservation, 

confined space safety), except in cases where not 

feasible due to environmental or logistical considerations. NSF also directs conformance with 

other U.S. regulations or industry standards. 

Military operations in support of the USAP are 

conducted under the safety guidelines for the 

Service involved (Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, 

and Army). Certain activities, such as aircraft 

rescue and firefighting, require the contractor 

to conform to DoD requirements. As a result, 

when assessing the value and risk of research, 

especially research conducted at remote locations, diving operations, small boat operations 

and research involving heavy equipment, it is 

challenging to create and sustain a process that 

ensures safety and creates accountability for 

compliance involving all players. Nonetheless, 

this is a necessity.

The mixed contractor-research population 

(largely at McMurdo Station but extant at all 

locations) creates a challenge in uniformly 

enforcing safety standards, communicating 

risk, and developing and sustaining a “safety 

culture” that focuses first on individual behavior and responsibility. Overall, the safety record, 

as reflected in the statistics provided, is much 

better than one would anticipate based on a 

cursory inspection.

While there has not been a recent catastrophic 

event that has resulted in death, multiple injuries or extensive physical damage, the current 

distributed assignment of safety responsibilities 

does not represent a comprehensive and sustainable safety management system (SMS). An SMS 

is a systematic approach to safety that has been 

incorporated by numerous international regulatory bodies such as the International Labor 

Organization, International Civil Aviation 

Organization, and the International Maritime 

Organization. A review of this approach is currently underway in the USAP and the Panel 

encourages this activity to continue. Further, 

corporations operating in challenging environments have developed safety practices that 

could be adapted by the USAP. In general, the 

appearance is that these commercial organizations place greater emphasis on safety than 

does the USAP.

The perception, assessment, and acceptance of 

risk associated with research activities vary with 

the individual or organization involved and 

their respective responsibilities for outcomes 

related to research and research support. One 

of the most discussed safety topics in the Panel’s 

deliberations involved the tension between 

safety systems and oversight on the one hand, 

and individual responsibility and autonomy on 

the other. The research community has varying 
146 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

degrees of risk acceptance as it relates to the 

goals of their research and the value of the science. This creates a dynamic tension with standard operating procedures, safety regulations, 

and oversight of support and research activities. 

The Panel does not seek to resolve this tension, 

but does note that maturation of this discussion, greater clarity of shared values related to 

the research and support missions, and a collective focus on the development of an SMS that 

serves the goals of both the science and support 

communities should be an explicitly stated goal.

Comprehensive data on safety performance is 

a critical component of an SMS. Compilation 

and collection of records, performance measures, and statistics related to safety programs 

are the responsibility of the support contractor. Although historical injury data are available, accurate population data for calculating 

rates are generally available only for contractor 

personnel. Therefore, the overall safety performance of activities conducted in Antarctica and 

the Southern Ocean cannot be credibly calculated. In addition, data provided to the Panel 

regarding lost workdays and restricted duty 

were of limited usefulness due to the number of 

caveats associated with them and differences in 

medical judgment of the various physicians in 

treating and reporting injuries. 

Recordable injury rates for USAP contractor 

personnel versus those in other commercial and 

government sectors reflect only on-duty injuries 

of a severity greater than first aid. (Treatment in 

excess of first aid is considered “medical treatment” and makes the injury “reportable.”) The 

USAP contractor uses the same definitions as 

OSHA to permit comparability (100 employees working 50 weeks per year at 40 hours per 

week; 200,000 hours). All of the USAP rates are 

declining, reflecting increasing emphasis on 

safety and better-engineered workplaces and 

processes. However, there are some other factors that are probably at work as well, having to 

do, for example, with how injuries are treated, 

which now keeps some in the first aid category. 

The widely distributed and diversely organized 

elements of the USAP would benefit from a 

more nearly unified SMS that specifies policies, 

expectations, and responsibilities. Such a system should incorporate the concepts of personal 

responsibility and reasonable accountability 

Table 4.4. Total Recordable Injury Rate Comparisons

Year

Raytheon

Polar Services 

Company

All Private 

Industry

Private Trade, 

Transportation 

and Utilities

Local 

Government

Federal 

Government

2004 7.62 4.8 5.5 Not readily available 4.95

2005 8.29 4.6 5.2 Not readily available 4.90

2006 6.42 4.4 5.0 Not readily available 4.45

2007 4.22 4.2 4.9 Not readily available 4.26

2008 4.26 3.9 4.4 7.0 4.24

2009 3.58 3.6 4.1 6.3 3.94

2010 4.07 3.5 4.1 6.1 3.87
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 147

for exercising appropriate care and avoiding 

unnecessary risks. It should mandate appropriately detailed and documented risk assessments 

of science and support projects and clearly state 

the authority and responsibility of the support 

contractor for implementing the safety system 

and enforcing safe practices. Although workforce turnover and multiple organizational relationships can be a challenge, the USAP should 

strive to strengthen the workforce culture for 

avoiding inappropriate risks.

Action 4.8-7. Promulgate a uniform set of 

safety policies and procedures for USAP operations and research that promote a culture 

of workplace safety throughout the program. 

Greatly increase usage of signage and other 

forms of communication in promoting safety.

Action 4.8-8. Provide training to all participants in the use of fundamental operational 

risk management tools that can be continuously 

employed to identify and avoid high-risk safety 

situations. 

Action 4.8-9. State in a written procedure 

that the authority and responsibility of the ASC 

is to enforce safe practices among its employees, 

scientists, and subcontractors.

Action 4.8-10. Provide statistics concerning 

safety mishaps and other key measures of station performance to the participant population 

in a readily available form.

Members of the Panel visited McMurdo Station, 

received briefings, and conducted tours during 

which safety issues were discussed. McMurdo 

Station, as the largest and most complex facility 

in Antarctica, hosts significant logistical, diving, 

and industrial activities. Many maintenance 

and supply chain issues, discussed in other sections, also have safety implications.

Outdated buildings, facilities, and infrastructure create maintenance and safety concerns. 

The condition of warehousing was of particular concern, as was the reliance on pumppressurized water for some major firefighting 

systems at the station. These systems are susceptible to mechanical failure and, as currently 

configured, lack redundancy for continued 

operation in the event of a loss of power.

Action 4.8-11. Investigate the feasibility of 

storing McMurdo fire protection water in a 

gravity tank to improve reliability of the supply 

and the quantity of water available. 

South Pole Station’s unforgiving environment 

and lack of access for a good portion of the year 

make it the most significant safety challenge. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, during the 

Austral winter this environment imposes challenges similar to some of those associated with 

operations in space. That said, many past conditions and facility shortfalls have been corrected 

with the construction of the new station.

At Palmer Station, waterside facilities, small 

boats, and boat handling equipment are critical to research operations and support. As has 

been discussed, the pier is in need of improvement, and access to the Zodiac inflatable boats 

is over a rocky and frequently slippery shore 

that is traversed by persons carrying heavy and 

bulky loads and wearing cumbersome clothing. Housing and maintenance shops at Palmer 
148 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Station do not meet reasonable fire safety standards. The Panel noted that there are fire protection issues at Palmer Station similar in nature to 

those observed at McMurdo Station, suggesting 

value for a USAP-wide evaluation. 

Action 4.8-12. Address safety concerns at 

Palmer Station regarding fire protection associated with personnel berthing in direct proximity to kitchen, power plant, and industrial 

workspaces.

Action 4.8-13. Undertake a comprehensive evaluation of safety hazards and 

repeat periodically. 

4.8.4.2. Health and Medical

Advanced medical facilities do not exist on the 

continent and the distance to New Zealand or 

South America can delay emergency transport 

even under the most favorable weather conditions. As discussed, modern communication 

technologies have made it possible for physicians at these stations to consult with offcontinent medical experts via a telemedicine 

system. The ability to use telemedicine remains 

a priority and is dependent on access to the 

communications infrastructure and in most 

cases satellite communications. 

Each permanent station has a medical facility but these facilities are neither staffed nor 

equipped to treat major illnesses or severe injuries. Facilities at the South Pole are more modern, having just been constructed as part of 

the new station. Capabilities at the other stations, however, are not, but can (and should) 

be improved. The medical facilities and equipment at all permanent stations will need to be 

evaluated on a regular basis to assure the appropriate level of medical care. McMurdo Station, 

in particular, appears to have dated and inadequate facilities—even as compared with Palmer 

Station. On the ships, the Marine Projects 

Coordinator and usually one other person are 

trained as Emergency Medical Technicians, 

and their facilities appear to be adequate 

given the circumstances. 

Action 4.8-14. Upgrade medical facilities 

and equipment at USAP Antarctic continental and marine locations on a routine basis, 

with current priority to McMurdo Station, and 

introduce an electronic medical records management system.

To assure risks to health are minimized while 

working in Antarctica, all personnel currently 

must undergo a physical examination and medical tests and be found physically qualified (PQ’d) 

before deploying. Medical risks in Antarctica 

vary with the job assignment as well as location and duration of deployment, but the current medical screening guidelines, while taking 

Figure 4.66. Boarding Zodiac boats at Palmer 

Station over snow and ice covered rocks. Source: 

Craig Dorman.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 149

age into account, are otherwise basically the 

same for everyone. That is, the same tests and 

examinations apply whether one is spending the 

winter at the South Pole, deploying on a ship 

for a few weeks, living in the deep field, or visiting McMurdo for a few days. Most medical crises and evacuations are due to injuries, acute 

illnesses, or other conditions that are not preventable or foreseeable through the PQ screening. Reevaluating the required medical tests and 

determining if all tests are necessary for all personnel, or whether a newer medical test replaces 

several previously required tests, may reduce 

costs while still providing confidence that an 

individual is physically qualified to deploy.

Simple innovations could improve safety and 

health and reduce costs because time lost 

while personnel are sick or injured is a nontrivial expense. At McMurdo and Palmer, 

placing a hand-washing sink near the galley 

has encouraged hand washing before meals 

as a ritualized means of reducing illness, and 

there might be opportunities for additional 

preventive measures. 

Those working outdoors, at the ice edge, in 

the Dry Valleys, and in the interior in remote 

camps are trained in survival and other safety 

skills. Field safety training, including refresher 

courses for those who have previously deployed, 

is required for everyone working or traveling 

beyond the boundaries of established stations 

and is generally viewed as effective. 

Action 4.8-15. Revise the criteria for physical 

qualification examinations to better and more 

individually match qualification to task, location, and risk.

4.8.5. Personal Equipment

The USAP provides an array of protective clothing and field gear to assure that all individuals are 

protected against the sometimes brutal weather. 

A full issue of ECW clothing is provided offcontinent prior to traveling to Antarctica. The 

clothing issued to all researchers and employees 

is a baseline preventive measure for safety. The 

type of work, the location of the work, and the 

ever-changing weather all influence how long 

an individual may be exposed and the types of 

conditions to which individuals will be exposed. 

The minimal personal gear package assures that 

all personnel are outfitted for the prevailing 

weather conditions and usages. 

Figure 4.67. Medical facilities at (a) McMurdo, (b) South Pole, and (c) Palmer Stations. The facilities at South Pole 

and Palmer Stations are up-to-date, but that at McMurdo has not yet received modernization. Sources: Don Hartill, 

Brien Barnett, and Kristan Hutchison.

a b c
150 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Continued research and development related 

to new fabrics and materials can bring benefits in health and safety. DoD makes considerable investments in this area that may 

benefit the USAP. 

With approval, personally owned clothing can 

be substituted for items of required clothing. 

However, the use of personal gear in place of 

standard clothing can be problematic because of 

the inability to subject the wide variety of available clothing to quantitative tests. In addition, 

the approval process is inherently subjective 

and findings may not be consistent from year to 

year or site to site. Research on ECW clothing 

and protective gear conducted by the military, 

mountain rescue teams, and other organizations periodically offers new alternatives, and it 

might be useful for the USAP to develop a standard list of approved alternatives from which 

those desiring to do so could choose. 

The USAP also provides tents, cookware, skis, 

snowmobiles, and other general field gear that 

can be reused year after year. 

Action 4.8-16. Continue to provide basic 

clothing for safety and health reasons (rather 

than leaving to individual option).

Action 4.8-17. Provide modern replacements 

for obsolete or inappropriate field gear as the 

latter ends its useful life.

Action 4.8-18. Provide greater clarity 

and consistency in guidance concerning gear 

approved for use in the field and when flying.

Figure 4.68. Illustrations of Extreme Cold Weather 

clothing: (a) examples of USAP-provided clothing, 

and (b) outer wear required for USAP flights over 

Antarctica. Source: (a) Craig Dorman; (b) USAP.

b

a
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 151

4.9. Environmental Stewardship

every year and with them come the potential 

for adverse environmental impacts, such as oil 

spills and the transport of alien organisms and 

infectious disease agents.

The Antarctic Treaty that came into force in 

1962 was designed to ensure that Antarctica is 

set aside for peaceful purposes, with freedom 

of scientific research. Subsequently, a number 

of policy instruments, collectively referred to 

as the Antarctic Treaty System, added environmental protection to the original agreement. 

4.9.2. The USAP as an

Environmental Leader

The USAP evinces true dedication to environmental stewardship. All logistics and research 

activities conducted by the USAP are subject 

to an Environmental Impact Assessment process in order to mitigate or minimize adverse 

consequences while allowing critical activities 

to proceed in a responsible fashion. The USAP 

Environmental Monitoring Program that is 

currently in place at McMurdo Station is widely 

considered the most comprehensive among 

similar programs undertaken by other nations 

in Antarctica. Annually, all USAP participants 

are required to participate in training to learn 

proper waste management practices, environmental codes of conduct for work in the field, 

and acceptable behavior near wildlife. At a minimum, the USAP follows U.S. federal standards 

for assuring clean water, removal of pollutants, 

and clean-up of spills of fuel, hazardous chemicals, or other pollutants. 

The USAP is recognized for its leadership in 

environmental stewardship and has a record 

of utilizing science to address emerging issues 

that affect the natural environment. Cases in 

point are the U.S. approach to benchmarking carbon emissions and the introduction of 

alternate energy sources at McMurdo Station. 

The approach was recommended to all Treaty 

Parties following an NSF presentation at a 

Treaty-organized workshop.

4.9.1. Introduction

For over 100 years, people traveling to 

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have 

impacted the environment, yet many regard 

this area still to be relatively unchanged—with 

the Ross Sea region considered the last “pristine” ocean in the world. Nonetheless, there is 

widespread recognition that oil and clothing 

industries benefitted from humans slaughtering whales and seals in the 1800s. In the 1960s, 

intensive commercial fishing around Antarctica 

resulted in the collapse of the fisheries, an outcome that was followed in the 1980s by industrial-scale krill fishing. At many scientific stations, researchers, explorers, and tourists have 

released sewage onto ice-free land, left food 

and refuse from expeditions in remote areas of 

the continent and, more recently, have brought 

non-native species to the continent. Human 

activities outside Antarctica have also affected 

the Antarctic environment—for example, climate change, creation of the ozone hole, and 

global transport of pollutants. Increasing numbers of cruise vessels now arrive in Antarctica 
152 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

In Antarctica, any area sampled or occupied by 

scientists—as well as sites of remotely operated 

instruments—must be documented, providing 

geographic coordinates recorded in a database 

to inform future scientific work in the area. All 

human waste in ice-free regions such as the Dry 

Valleys is now removed to the nearest U.S. station and disposed of according to the applicable 

regulatory regime. 

In recent years, the USAP has successfully instituted a number of changes to decrease human 

impacts. These include removal and cleanup of 

legacy research sites, upgrades to the fuel system at McMurdo, development of SPCC (Spill 

Prevention, Control and Countermeasures) 

plans for all stations as well as for Marble Point 

and the BITF, alternatives to fossil fuels, and 

preparation of a carbon footprint study.

4.9.3. Environmental

Planning

NSF’s environmental and operations staff 

annually prepare, prioritize, and fund projects 

selected from an Environmental Top Ten list 

that is regularly maintained. Projects must meet 

two criteria to be added to the list: (1) a possibility of significant environmental risk and 

(2) retiring or mitigating the risk requires cooperation between multiple programs and work 

centers. Projects are prioritized based on significance and immediacy of the risk. 

The availability or lack of funding does not 

always control whether a project is implemented—oftentimes, the availability of logistics is a factor. For example, drums of fuel are 

occasionally strategically placed in the field as 

emergency supplies for aircraft. These caches 

can become unrecoverable or unusable if they 

are not properly tracked and maintained. Once 

a cache is deemed unusable it must be removed 

(often by aircraft) to assure that there cannot be a release of hazardous substances to 

the environment. These sites are remediated 

as resources allow; however, it may be possible 

to make changes in flight planning that would 

reduce the need for fuel caches, cache maintenance, or recovery flights. 

There is a large accumulation of nonhazardous waste at the South Pole that must be flown 

out or removed by traverse. The “waste berms” 

where this material is stored require annual 

maintenance so that the waste does not become 

permanently buried by drifting snow. The portable modular causeway system deployed for 

ship off-load at McMurdo in 2010/11 displaced 

shipboard containers that otherwise would 

have been available to remove waste at the end 

of the season. As a result, waste will further 

accumulate at McMurdo Station. A pilot program to employ a shredder to reduce the volume of waste prior to retrograde from South 

Pole to McMurdo Station was recently funded 

and shows considerable promise. As previously 

noted, modern compactors and incinerators 

would also likely be advantageous. 

Action 4.9-1. Expedite removal or conversion 

into energy of the significant volume of waste 

remaining at South Pole Station.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 153

4.9.4. Other Environmental

Issues

4.9.4.1. Wastewater Treatment

The wastewater treatment plant at McMurdo 

Station is generally state-of-the-art; however, those at Palmer and South Pole Stations 

are in need of upgrading. Upgrades would 

enhance water conservation and environmental stewardship.

Action 4.9-2. Install a modern wastewater 

treatment facility at Palmer Station and review 

the priority now assigned to providing such 

facilities for South Pole Station.

4.9.4.2. Water Quality and Quantity

Although the need for water conservation is 

already emphasized, making USAP participants 

more aware of the true cost of the water used 

in living quarters, galleys, and research projects 

could increase conservation consciousness—

which in turn could produce energy savings. 

Action 4.9-3. Increase emphasis on water 

conservation, especially at McMurdo Station, 

and improve understanding of water costs 

among all deployed participants.

4.9.4.3. Climate Change

Climate change is affecting infrastructure and 

operations on the continent and adding new 

costs. Planning that includes the most recent 

scientific data and forecasts could assist the 

USAP in understanding the ramifications of 

environmental change on the USAP, its budget 

and its Treaty obligations. Noteworthy changes 

include rising lake levels in the Dry Valleys 

that have required moving camps, laboratories, and helicopter pads; melting permafrost 

at McMurdo that has caused the fuel line stanchions to list; and warm temperatures and runoff into Winter Quarters Bay that have imposed 

limitations to the ice pier and the Pegasus 

Runway. These and other emerging concerns 

have long-term implications for the conduct 

of science as well as maintaining leadership in 

environmental stewardship.

Action 4.9-4. Utilize frequently updated scientific data concerning climate change to better 

understand and plan for its impacts on operation of the USAP, its budget and its obligations 

under the Antarctic Treaty.

In summary, the Panel notes that:

• The USAP has placed a priority on environmental protection.

• A process exists to select, evaluate, and 

achieve priority goals that affect Antarctica’s 

environment but there are areas where that 

effort can be improved. 

• The changing natural environment in 

Antarctica itself is likely to impose new challenges that will need to be addressed.

The USAP has an aggressive and highly commendable program to assure its continued environmental stewardship, including a process to 

assess and address the impact of its activities.
154 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

4.10. International Considerations

the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1972), the 

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources (1980), and the 

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the 

Antarctic Treaty (1991). The Treaty and these 

additional instruments are collectively referred 

as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). 

Following the tenets of environmental protection in the ATS, the USAP has set high environmental standards for the conduct of scientific research and the logistical and operational 

activities required that support that research. 

4.10.2. Logistics

Collaboration

The Council of Managers of National Antarctic 

Programs (COMNAP) was established in 1988 

and is composed of the leaders of the national 

4.10.1. Governance 

The Antarctic Treaty has a primary stated purpose that is to ensure “in the interests of all 

mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object 

of international discord.” The basic principles of the Treaty include agreement that:

• Antarctica shall be set aside for peaceful 

purposes 

• Freedom of scientific investigations throughout Antarctica, as applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue 

• International cooperation in scientific 

research shall be promoted

• Scientific observations in Antarctica shall be 

freely available

• Participating nations do not have to relinquish a territorial claim, but no new claims 

will be made and no existing claim pursued

• Nuclear explosions and disposal of radioactive waste are prohibited

• Observers from member nations can freely 

carry out inspections of other members’ 

installations

Since the first Antarctic Treaty meeting, the 

Parties have addressed a variety of issues with 

decisions taken by consensus. Discussions of 

environmental issues have resulted in agreements to increase the protection of Antarctica and 

the Southern Ocean. These include the Agreed 

Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Flora and Fauna (1964), the Convention for 

Figure 4.69. Map of Antarctica showing territorial 

claims. Source: Brad Herried.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 155

Antarctic operating agencies. The head of 

NSF’s Office of Polar Programs serves as the 

manager of the U.S. national program. The 

aim of COMNAP is to develop and promote 

best practices in managing scientific research 

in Antarctica and to encourage international 

cooperation in logistics support. Additionally, 

COMNAP provides advice to the Treaty Parties 

on a range of practical matters. 

Several national Antarctic programs operate in close proximity to McMurdo in the 

Ross Sea region or otherwise exchange logistics support, including New Zealand, Italy, 

France, and Australia. South Korea intends 

to develop a permanent station in the area of 

Terra Nova Bay (225 miles, 362 kilometers, 

from McMurdo) and has expressed an interest 

in cooperative logistics arrangements. A recent 

Memorandum of Understanding entered into 

between the United States and Russia also calls 

for cooperative logistics. 

Cooperative logistics arrangements are generally negotiated annually on a quid pro quo 

basis, with each party supplying mutually beneficial resources. The most evolved of these 

arrangements is with New Zealand, dating 

back to the early days of the U.S. program. The 

United States and New Zealand exchange support annually through a joint logistics pool 

from which each can withdraw assets in proportion to its contributions. For example, both 

countries contributed fixed-wing and helicopter 

flights in accord with an annual program plan, 

New Zealand recently provided capital funding 

for three wind turbines at McMurdo Station, 

and the United States contributes other in-kind 

resources from McMurdo Station. 

The planning and execution of emergency medical support and evacuation is another area 

where national Antarctic programs provide 

cooperative services. The USAP has considerable expertise in planning and executing these 

missions, and it is also a core mission for the 

U.S. Air Force and ANG that is often called 

upon by other international programs. The 

USAP has performed rescue evacuations from 

virtually every corner of the continent for multiple national programs and nongovernmental organizations. Rescue operations are not an 

Figure 4.71. The U.S. HF meteor radar array at the 

U.K.’s Rothera research station, used to study thermospheric winds. Source: David Fritts.

Figure 4.70. Balloon launch for the U.S.-France 

Concordiasi project. Source: USAP photo archives.
156 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

exclusive USAP capability; the New Zealand 

Air Force and Australian Antarctic Division 

aircraft have also supported USAP emergencies. 

As activity increases across Antarctica, the 

need for aeromedical support will also increase. 

National programs are willing to reimburse 

the USAP for expenses, but the unpredictable 

nature of the support can be quite disruptive to 

the USAP’s work and it is not at all clear to the 

Panel that fully burdened costs are used when 

calculating the value of or the bill for providing 

these important services.

Collaborations in support of research are coordinated by NSF staff working with their counterparts in other countries. For example, joint 

studies of the upper atmosphere are conducted 

using balloons launched at U.S. and French 

research stations. France provides the launch 

equipment and controls while the United States 

transports the equipment to Antarctica. Each 

country places its own instruments on the balloons. Another example is the radar array operated by the U.K. at its Rothera research station 

in support of U.S. research. 

4.10.3. Scientific

Collaboration

Exchanges of scientists and other cooperative research practices have taken place among 

nations for many decades; however, integrated scientific and logistics collaborations 

have enabled the achievement of major scientific goals that were previously not possible. 

The International Geophysical Year (IGY) was 

a major milestone in collaborative activities by 

providing an opportunity for wide-scale international cooperation in the physical sciences. 

Published international Antarctic papers with 

coauthors from two or more nations increased 

from 15 papers in 1980 to 41 papers in 2007, 

the start of IPY. International collaborations 

during IPY were also extensive—with NSFfunded researchers collaborated with colleagues 

in 28 other countries. The bibliographic record 

also shows that other scientists cite international papers more often than they cite singlenation papers, offering further evidence that 

Figure 4.73. U.S. Antarctic research publications from 1980 to 2004, showing those with 

U.S.-only and multinational authorship. Data 

source: Dastidar and Ramachandran (2008).

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 

Numbers of Publications 

National 

Multinational 

Figure 4.72. Transantarctic Mountains Camp. Source: 

Peter Rejcek.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 157

Another IPY effort, the Larsen Ice-Shelf System, 

Antarctica (LARISSA) project, involved collaboration by Argentina, Belgium, Korea, Ukraine, 

and the United States to study another apparent 

regional anomaly having significant potential 

global change implications. The abrupt disintegration of Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf system 

triggered substantial interest in investigating 

the effects this change had on the overall natural ice-atmosphere-ocean system as well as the 

effects on the marine ecosystem in the region. 

The Larsen Ice Shelf system was investigated 

using marine and terrestrial geosciences, cryosphere and ocean studies, and research into 

marine ecosystems. 

As an example of the role of education in IPY, 

a course was presented in the United States in 

2010 under the auspices of the Australia-based 

International Antarctic Institute using marine 

international cooperation increases the progress of science and enables research that otherwise would be unaffordable or even infeasible.

Partnerships developed for and since IPY 

enabled dramatic advances in major scientific 

challenges. China, the United Kingdom, France, 

the United States, and several other countries 

have worked together to study and model the 

future evolution of the entire Antarctic ice 

sheet in order to reduce uncertainties in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

estimates of long-term global sea level rise. Of 

particular importance are the efforts maintained over a number of years to characterize 

the rates of loss of ice from the main drainage 

basins. Given that the continent is as large as 

the United States and Mexico combined, linking individual nations’ projects together can 

produce efficiencies as well as broader reach of 

research observations. Antarctica’s Gamburtsev 

Province project was an IPY effort, in this case 

involving the United States, United Kingdom, 

Germany, China, and Australia. The collaboration discovered river valleys in the Gamburtsev 

Mountains under the Antarctic ice sheet. This 

is the region where the ice sheet first began to 

grow some 34 million years ago and it is thereby 

believed to harbor very old ice. The mountains 

themselves were a tectonic enigma because 

there was no evidence of a low-density root—a 

characteristic that should be present for mountains if they were truly 34 million years old. In 

addition to the above discoveries, the project, 

with its strong international collaboration in 

science, technology and logistics, provided the 

first detailed insight into what that part of the 

continent, as large as the Alps, might have been 

like before it was covered with ice. 

Figure 4.74. Antarctic ice sheet drainage. Source:

Snowball Earth.
158 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

data, sediment cores, and imagery 

acquired during the LARISSA project to structure its curriculum. 

Today, twenty-eight countries collaborate in POLENET to map 

uplift of the Antarctic crust resulting from the decrease in mass of 

the covering ice sheet. Data from 

new GPS and seismic stations spanning much of the Antarctic and 

Greenland ice sheets are being 

used to model how much ice was 

lost over the 10,000 years since 

the Last Glacial Maximum. These 

data, derived from measurements 

recorded by satellites, help to determine where, and at what rate, the 

ice sheets are changing in response 

to recent climate change. Such measurements are critical in refining 

estimates of future global sea level 

rise. The collaborations have led to 

new technology for making continuous measurements at autonomous 

observatories operating in polar 

conditions and have provided a legacy framework for ongoing international geophysical observations. 

Thirteen countries are participating in the International TransAntarctic Scientific Expedition 

(ITASE) that is collecting ice core 

samples that provide signatures of 

how constituents of the atmosphere 

have changed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

Having started in 1990, ITASE is 

Figure 4.75. Map of the Larson Ice Shelf System, Antarctica 

(LARISSA) study area. Source: LARISSA project team.

Figure 4.76. (map) A-NET GPS/seismic network sites and 

related logistics for the 2009/10 Antarctic field season. 

(photo) POLENET installation on Cordiner Peak, Antarctica. 

Source: Seth White.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 159

an example of a project that flourished during 

the IPY period. Like the ice sheet drainage collaborations, ITASE has distributed its goals geographically among the participating nations. A 

workshop identified the tasks for each national 

participant and the SCAR Global Change 

Program provides coordination. 

Germany, Italy, New Zealand, and the United 

States contributed to the Antarctic Geological 

Drilling Program (ANDRILL) and obtained 

deep sediment cores from the seabed that record 

Earth’s climate 15–30 million years ago. These 

paleoclimate perspectives increase confidence 

in the ability to predict future change. Using the 

McMurdo Ice Shelf as a drilling platform, the 

project found new evidence that even a slight 

rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide affects the 

stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

France and the United States combined their 

capabilities in the Concordiasi project to develop 

a new way of measuring the constituents of the 

atmosphere, layer by layer, with instruments 

that are dropped from long-duration stratospheric superpressure balloons deployed from 

McMurdo. Their data are coupled with surface 

Figure 4.78. ANDRILL field site, Source: ANDRILL 

Science Management Office.

Figure 4.77. Map 

of completed International Trans-Antarctic 

Scientific Expedition 

(ITASE) traverses, 

August 2004. 

Source: ITASE/SCAR.
160 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

observations at a number of Antarctic locations 

to reduce uncertainties in aspects of climate 

change that could affect the mass balance of the 

Antarctic ice sheet. 

In biology, a major impetus for marine science was the Census of Antarctic Marine Life 

(CAML). The Southern Ocean comprises 

approximately ten percent of the world’s ocean, 

yet it is perhaps the least studied. It is a major 

carbon sink and may also have been the center 

for the evolution of much of the world’s deepwater organisms. The five-year CAML program 

involved 27 cruises on research vessels of the 

United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New 

Zealand, France, Russia, Belgium, Germany, 

Spain, Italy, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru and 

Japan, all searching both the seafloor and the 

water column for new species, hundreds of 

which have been identified to date. 

These international collaborations have not only 

enabled scientists to attack problems requiring 

capabilities beyond those of any single nation, 

they have also breathed new life into Antarctic 

science, focusing it in many cases on altogether 

new areas of research. They have also had major 

implications for future logistics, suggesting that 

this support will be not only geographically 

more dispersed and continuous in time, it will 

also require international cooperation—with 

greater standardization, interoperability and 

efficiency, if it is to be affordable.

Figure 4.79. Boundaries of 

Commission for the Conservation 

of Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources reporting areas.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 161

4.10.4. Coordination

of International

Collaboration

Multinational projects in Antarctica are particularly effective when nations share access to 

their national infrastructure and logistics pipelines. There are many such examples:

• The French-Italian station at Dome C hosts, 

among many other projects, a significant portion of the Concordiasi project

• The Airbus A-319 operated by the Australian 

Antarctic Program is an important component of the logistics pool, as are the wheeled 

and ski-equipped C-130s that New Zealand 

and the U.S. operate

• The Swedish icebreaker Oden has hosted 

joint U.S.-Swedish research in the Southern 

Ocean and has opened the channel through 

the sea ice that enables annual resupply of 

the U.S. research stations at McMurdo and 

the South Pole

The USAP’s new Amundsen-Scott South Pole 

Station hosts researchers from around the world 

in the tradition of partnership that characterizes 

Antarctic activity. Clearly, Antarctica itself, 

with its unique treaty and its long heritage of 

scientific research, remains a model of international cooperation, one with lessons for international science and perhaps other activities 

everywhere. At the same time, much more 

will be accomplished through future international cooperation, particularly with regard to 

logistical support. 

Scientists from one or more nations working 

together can perform some forms of research 

at the frontier of science. But when complicated logistics partnerships are required, as is 

the case for much of the research in the huge 

and distant Antarctic, a legal framework such 

as that provided by the Antarctic Treaty and 

the intellectual framework provided by IPY are 

essential. Together, these frameworks enable 

partnerships to develop and flourish over the 

several years required for planning, the conduct 

of fieldwork, and follow through in laboratories 

on other continents. 

One of the duties of COMNAP is to provide 

a venue for discussion among the national 

Antarctic program managers concerning 

Figure 4.80. Australia’s Airbus A-319 at McMurdo. 

Source: USAP photo archives.

Figure 4.81. Swedish icebreaker Oden working in 

Antarctic sea ice. Source: USAP photo archives.
162 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

logistical support of their nation’s science 

programs. This often results in barter agreements. The United States has the largest and 

most important presence, providing assets 

that most other countries could not replicate. 

Additionally, the United States provides redundancy of services that relieves other countries of 

that responsibility.

Action 4.10-1. Periodically review the activities of other national Antarctic programs 

to identify opportunities for collaborative 

research, logistics, energy provision, technology, 

infrastructure, education and other areas that 

would eliminate duplication of effort, standardize equipment, and reduce costs to the international community.

Action 4.10-2. Periodically review the current and projected shared-service “balance 

sheet” to assure equity of international cooperative activities.

Action 4.10-3. Initiate an effort to better “standardize” equipment and through 

COMNAP to reduce costs and eliminate unnecessary redundancy.

Action 4.10-4. Engage with Italy, New 

Zealand, and South Korea to identify opportunities for collaborative science and logistics 

arrangements that would appropriately benefit 

all three programs due to the proximity of their 

stations in the Ross Sea region.

Figure 4.82. National flags of the original Treaty signatories at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. 

Source: Craig Dorman.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 163

The ATS provides the overall framework governing nearly all human activities south of 60°S 

or just about 10 percent of Earth’s surface. The 

Department of State leads the U.S. delegation 

to the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative 

Meeting where issues can be addressed with 

other parties to the Treaty. For over 50 years 

since the United States became an original 

signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, U.S. policy 

related to Antarctica has endorsed the ATS as 

serving the national interests. Moreover, an 

active and influential U.S. science presence in 

Antarctica is recognized to be paramount to 

a U.S. leading role in the ATS. NSF has been 

charged since 1971 with the responsibility of 

budgeting for and managing the entire United 

States national program in Antarctica, including logistic support activities, so that the program may be managed as a single package. 

The most recent extant expressions of U.S. 

Antarctic policy are recorded in two documents 

now decades old31:

• Presidential Memorandum 6646 (PM 6646) 

of February 5, 1982, United States Antarctic 

Policy and Operations

• Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-26 

(PDD/NSC-26) of June 9, 1994, United 

States Policy on the Arctic and Antarctic, 

superseded for the Arctic by NSPD-66/

HSPD-25 of January 9, 2009, but still in effect 

for the Antarctic

For several decades the USAP has sought to 

operate in strict accordance with these directives, and both the 2011 NRC report and the 

deliberations of this Panel have been based 

upon them. The Panel found no reason to suggest changes to their fundamental objectives 

or provisions that have led to today’s strong 

U.S. scientific and operational presence in the 

Antarctic32. However, the Panel believes that 

there are several reasons that, as was recently 

accomplished for the Arctic, PDD/NSC-26 and 

PM 6646 should be reviewed and updated for 

the Antarctic. One specific deficiency is that 

the organization charged with coordination 

and implementation of Antarctic policy called 

out by PDD/NSC-26—the Antarctic subgroup 

of the Interagency Working Group on Global 

Environmental Affairs—no longer exists and 

has no extant successor. The existence and character of interagency bodies resides within the 

purview of each administration and modifications through several administrations account 

for the current lack of an Antarctic policy group. 

4.11. Governance of U.S. Program

31 The full text of these documents is reproduced in Appendix III.

32 Specifically, strong support for the ATS; maintenance of a strong and influential science presence including year-around 

occupation of the South Pole and two coastal stations; management of the program in a manner that maximizes costeffectiveness and return on investment; single-point budgeting and management of the entire program including logistic 

support activities by NSF; and provision, on a reimbursable basis, of logistic support requested by NSF, by the Departments 

of Defense and [Homeland Security]. 
164 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Among changes in the Antarctic region in 

the decades since these documents were put 

into place that prompt the Panel to suggest 

a review of U.S. Antarctic policy at this time 

are the following:

• The USAP is increasingly reliant upon support from partner nations, most notably 

New  Zealand and Chile; collaborations and 

logistics support agreements are evolving 

or under development with many nations 

including the United Kingdom, Italy, South 

Korea, Australia, France, and Russia.

• As cited in the 2011 NRC report, changing climate conditions in the Antarctic—one of the 

major topics driving research interest in the 

region—have global and societal impact, not 

the least being the potential for sea level rise 

related to changes in the ice sheets.

• Both the NRC and this report call for a significantly greater degree of international 

collaboration in both science and logistics, 

potentially to include joint ownership and/

or operation of resupply and support ships, 

as well as internationalization of increasingly 

sophisticated deep field research camps and a 

continent-wide observing system.

• Other nations’ stations in the vicinity of 

McMurdo are increasingly interested in, and 

to a degree already dependent upon, USAP 

support for air operations.

• Because of the strong U.S. presence on the 

continent and the diversity and capability of 

U.S. logistics assets, the USAP is frequently 

called upon to support search and rescue 

(SAR) operations; given the increasing number of Antarctic stations and the growing complexity, geographical spread and international 

nature of field operations, the demand for 

U.S. SAR support will undoubtedly increase 

in both assets required and cost.

• Certain Treaty parties that are claimant states 

are combining oceanographic cruises with 

mapping of continental shelf extensions, 

with the potential to support claims under 

the United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea.

• Commercial harvesting of marine resources 

in the area—particularly the krill fishery in 

the peninsula region and the toothfish fishery in the Ross Sea—as well as illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing—is increasing 

in the Southern Ocean.

• The International Maritime Organization 

is developing a mandatory Polar Code to 

address safety for ships operating in both 

polar regions; the Code will address design, 

construction, equipment, operations, training, search and rescue, and environmental 

protection matters.

• Antarctic tourism is increasing dramatically 

in both scope and character and with it interest in access to U.S. research stations and 

commercial use of U.S. logistics resources in 

Antarctica is growing—as are SAR events for 

nongovernmental entities.

• The U.S. polar ocean fleet has decreased significantly in size and capability, mandating at 

least temporary reliance on foreign icebreakers to support the annual break-in for resupply of McMurdo and South Pole Stations.

• Economic interests may drive bio-prospecting and mineral, oil, and gas exploration in 

the Antarctic and Southern Ocean regions, 

potentially by non-Treaty states.
4. Findings and Implementing Actions 165

• Non-Treaty states have expressed interest in 

joining the Treaty and establishing stations 

in Antarctica.

• USAP research continues to be broad in scope 

as it was at its inception, but over the last 

15  years has entailed considerably stronger 

participation by physical and biological scientists supported by NSF, other federal agencies, 

and international partners.

• Technology developments pioneered by federal agencies (DoD, NASA, DOE, and NOAA 

for example) hold great promise for facilitating Antarctic research and for advancing scientific frontiers in areas ranging from astrophysics to microbiology.

While altogether new policies do not appear to 

be warranted and the Panel believes that NSF 

should remain as the U.S. agent for planning 

and operating matters concerning the Antarctic, 

some national-level government body should 

be charged with high-level review, coordination 

and oversight of policy issues that transcend 

NSF, such as the need for a national icebreaking capability and other high-level matters of 

import that arise for the USAP, possibly in both 

polar regions. It is noted that revisions in U.S. 

policies concerning environmental protection 

have traditionally been addressed through coordination chaired by the Department of State. 

Taking the other changes described above into 

account, it would be useful to strengthen implementing mechanisms for interactions with 

other federal agencies. In this regard, it is worth 

emphasizing that the USAP is a national program budgeted and managed as an entity by 

NSF. One implementing mechanism in place 

is memoranda of agreement or understanding 

for logistics and scientific support between NSF 

and DoD, NASA, DOE and NOAA, to name 

a few organizations. The May 1, 2007, DoDNSF Memorandum Of Agreement for logistics support and its predecessors have been 

extremely effective. 

Agreements should be reviewed and revised as 

appropriate in order that long-term science and 

support activities and interests of other agencies are well governed. Although NSF is responsible for all U.S. activity in the Antarctic, it is not 

always fully apprised of such activity or enabled 

to thoroughly and effectively review and manage it with regard to compliance. Further, the 

scientific programs of other agencies (especially 

NASA) both have, and will continue to require, 

financial support well beyond the ability of NSF 

to provide within the USAP budget. 

NSF should establish and exercise agreements 

that take advantage of technological developments and logistical capabilities possessed by 

other agencies. These could lead to improvements in areas such as supply chain management, transportation, energy, utilities usage, 

waste management, communications, and 

advanced sensor systems. Means to achieve 

improvements in these areas could assist NSF in 

carrying out its overall responsibilities.

The NSF Director has appropriately sought 

to induce recommendations for Antarctic 

research from across the entire Foundation 

and from their research communities. Research 

programs in polar regions must be competitive 

with any other program in any other scientific 

discipline and geographical area. The Director’s 
166 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

“One NSF” initiative, construed broadly, is of 

great significance for the quality and stature of 

NSF’s scientific contributions to the USAP. 

The Panel considers it critically important that 

the budgetary, logistical, environmental, and 

other ATS compliance issues remain under the 

management of a qualified, dedicated, and fully 

staffed office reporting to the NSF Director. 

This will ensure that, as mandated by PM 6646, 

the total national Antarctic program is “managed as a single package” so as to continue 

to successfully serve national scientific and 

geopolitical interests.

Action 4.11-1. Review PM 6646 and 

PDD/NSC-26 to update these governing policy documents, as necessary, to ensure full 

implementation of their requirements under 

today’s environment.

NSF and its Office of Polar Programs should be 

commended for the effectiveness of its management of the USAP, including its handling of 

responsibilities for consolidated budgeting and 

logistics support for the program, and for compliance with environmental requirements of the 

Antarctic Treaty and applicable U.S. statutes.
5. Cost Considerations 167

5. Cost Considerations

undertaking detailed analyses before making 

final decisions. The following are examples of 

this complexity:

• A gallon of fuel that is conserved at the South 

Pole may only reduce the overall cost to the 

USAP by about $3.50—in contrast with the 

average allocated cost of placing it there of 

$24.00—unless the gallon saved happens to 

be the gallon that permits use of a smaller and 

less expensive tanker or eliminates the need 

for an LC-130 flight or the need for an additional storage tank—in which case it produces 

major savings.

• Reducing the use of water (which, at South 

Pole Station, must be melted from ice, with 

a corresponding energy usage) may produce 

no savings because the ice is normally melted 

using waste energy resulting from electricity generation. However, if that same waste 

energy could be diverted to, say, heating a 

building, the resulting cost reduction from 

conserving water could be substantial.

On behalf of the Panel, the Institute for Defense Analyses Science & Technology Policy Institute performed a number of cost evaluations relating to the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP). In doing so it 

created a cost model that should prove valuable to the USAP as it refines the trade studies reported 

herein. The Panel conducted certain trade studies—generally those where ancillary impacts on cost 

could be isolated from secondary effects.

5.1. Sensitivity Analysis

Costs used in the formal tradeoff analyses were 

fully burdened. For example, the cost determined for a container of food at the South Pole 

includes not only the initial cost of purchasing 

the food but also the cost of special packaging, 

a pro rata share of the charge for sailing a cargo 

vessel to McMurdo as well as a portion of the 

icebreaker that must precede it, a share of the 

cost of flying the container to South Pole Station 

in an LC-130 aircraft, plus a charge for storage 

at the station. The impact of such an allocation 

on the ultimate cost of an item or service is significant. The Panel believes that if there were 

greater awareness of these numbers by researchers and support personnel there would be more 

conservation of resources. 

The formal analyses that were performed use 

net present value as the decision criterion (with 

zero ten-year terminal value). Nonetheless, the 

calculations can only be considered as indicators because the complexity of Antarctic operations (for example, the extreme nonlinearity 

of costs and savings) in many cases mandates 
168 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

• A similar argument pertains to energy savings derived from insulating buildings in 

Antarctica. It seems reasonable that if it is justified to insulate homes in the U.S. Midwest it 

should make even more sense at McMurdo—

with its average winter temperature of –58°F 

(–50°C). However, if the above consideration 

regarding the cost savings from fuel economy 

applies, it becomes difficult to justify the considerable expense of improving the insulation 

of buildings at such a remote location unless 

enough fuel can be saved collectively to permit the use of a smaller tanker, etc.

• If it becomes possible through, for example, 

fuel economy to avoid a number of LC-130 

flights, there will be a significant saving to the 

USAP—but that savings may not accrue to the 

United States Treasury because it may be that 

the United States wishes to maintain a fleet of 

operational LC-130s for military contingencies, irrespective of the aircraft’s performing, 

or not performing, missions in Antarctica.

The hazard in marginal analyses of the type 

described above is that one can demonstrate that 

there is modest benefit in attempting to conserve fuel, water, heat, etc.—a conclusion that 

in general would be unjustified. Cumulatively, 

small savings can, in a nonlinear process, eventually have a very large impact in reducing the 

overall cost of operations. The tradeoff analyses 

conducted herein can thus be viewed as analogous to mathematical partial derivatives and, in 

most cases, will understate potential savings.

It should be noted that in monitoring costs 

the USAP uses a less complex cost allocation 

model based upon direct outlays. For example, 

there is no cost of seagoing vessels included in 

bookkeeping the cost of operating the South 

Pole Station—which seems logical in that obviously no such vessels can reach the South Pole. 

However, this approach does not recognize the 

nontrivial cost of oceangoing vessels in performing the sea leg of supplying South Pole 

Station. Such accounting serves a useful purpose, particularly in budgeting; however, the 

user of the results must be mindful of the inherent assumptions when making choices among 

alternative allocations of funds. 
5. Cost Considerations 169

Table 5.1. Annual USAP Costs by Location

Annual Cost a ($ Millions)

McMurdo 231 

South Pole 32 

Palmer 9 

Vesselb 28 

Total $300 

a Includes an estimate of the annual depreciation cost of NSF 

equipment and buildings

b The vessel cost includes Palmer re-supply

From either of these analyses certain fundamental observations become evident. For example, it 

is beneficial to reduce researcher-days on the ice 

because many other costs tend to scale with that 

factor. Correspondingly, reducing the amount 

of fuel consumed on the ice can be highly leveraged because air transport and shipping are also 

major cost drivers.

For each research grantee-day spent on the ice 

approximately seven days on the ice are devoted 

by those performing operations and maintenance functions. Only 20 cents of each dollar 

assigned to Antarctic activities is devoted to 

science—a figure that nonetheless represents 

an improvement from the 16 cents experienced 

as recently as a decade ago. 

By the above accounting technique, the annual 

cost of operating the USAP’s vessels is $28M; 

the cost of Palmer Station is $9M; South Pole 

Station is $32M; and McMurdo is $231M—

revealing the dominant impact of McMurdo as 

a principal logistics base. 

Figure 5.1. Annual USAP 

costs by activity.
170 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

5.2. Cost Tradeoffs

And Investment Strategy

A number of specific revisions to operational 

practices have been assessed and discussed 

herein. Among the more significant of these, in 

terms of their cost saving potential, are: 

• Reduce person-days on the ice

• Reduce fuel consumption

• Automate “follower” vehicles in a traverse 

using station-keeping technology (to reduce 

crew size), thereby doubling the number of 

traverse trips and reducing the equivalent 

number of LC-130 flights

• Construct a runway at the South Pole to permit C-17 operations at that location

• Place additional wind turbines at McMurdo

• Place a wood burner at McMurdo

• Burn waste oil at McMurdo to save fuel and 

handling costs during retrograde

• Construct a solar-heated garage at the South 

Pole Station

During its evaluation, the Panel discerned a 

widespread and commendable “can-do, makedo” culture within the USAP. Flaws in the system, however, diminish the ability of the program’s participants to make the most of their 

research. These flaws persist despite substantial 

financial and human investment. Overcoming 

these barriers requires a fundamental shift 

in the manner in which capital projects and 

major maintenance are planned, budgeted, and 

funded. Simply working harder doing the same 

things that have been done in the past will not 

produce efficiencies of the magnitude needed in 

the future. Not only must change be introduced 

into how things are done, but what is being done 

must also be reexamined. In this regard, the 

ongoing introduction of a new prime support 

contractor provides an extraordinary, albeit 

brief, window to bring about major change.

Although many opportunities for cost savings 

have been cited, this report has not attempted 

in all cases to determine the required front-end 

investment. For example, it is the Panel’s collective judgment, based primarily upon years of 

experience, that a reduction in contractor personnel of some 20 percent should be feasible. 

A more detailed analysis will be needed before 

implementing this. 

The Panel emphasizes that the USAP is facing major expenditures for the replacement of 

existing inefficient, failing, and unsafe facilities and other assets. Delays in initiating the 

needed work will only increase the cost and 

further squeeze the research funding that is 

already only a fraction of total dollars allocated to the program. While significant savings are in fact achievable through operational 

efficiencies, some of the front-end investments 

that are needed if the United States is to continue USAP activities at the present level cannot all be justified solely on an economic basis. 

Some upgrades are essential for personnel and 

equipment safety. The Panel has sought to identify changes that hold initial investment to the 

minimum reasonable level.
5. Cost Considerations 171

Table 5.2. Five High Payout Projects

Investment, $M Net Present Value, $M

Automate and Double Number of Traverses 1.80 15.00

Increase Number of Wind Turbines at McMurdo 0.50 1.40

Construct Solar Garage at South Pole 0.03 0.75

Install Wood Burner at McMurdo 0.40 0.70

Burn Waste Oil at McMurdo 0.09 0.70

In spite of the above challenges, USAP science 

and science support could be vastly enhanced 

within about five years. The improvements 

could be funded by increasing for each of the 

next four years the USAP’s annual appropriation for support by six percent (real dollars) 

relative to the FY 2012 appropriation (an additional $16 million per year), diverting six percent of the planned science expenditures over 

the next four years to upgrades of the science 

support system ($4 million), and permitting 

the savings accrued from five high payout projects and the 20  percent reduction in contractor labor to be reinvested in upgrading support 

capabilities (averaging $20 million net per year 

for four years).

The investments thus made would be repaid 

in approximately seven years if five high payout projects produce the expected return and 

a 20 percent reduction in contractor staff is in 

fact possible and implemented. Thereafter, the 

annual savings generated will allow the USAP 

to increase science awards while ensuring safe 

and effective science support and appropriately maintained facilities. Given the important 

improvements in safety and science opportunities contained within the above option, a sevenyear financial breakeven is considered by the 

Panel to be a reasonable investment, particularly 

when compared to the cost of not making one. 

In making this proposal the Panel has sought 

to be mindful of the severe budgeting challenge facing the nation while at the same time 

respond to the serious need to rebuild much of 

the nation’s Antarctic infrastructure.

Once the recommendations made herein have 

been implemented, it will be possible to substantially increase science activity—assuming a 

stable overall budget.

It should be noted that this construct does not 

address the extremely important icebreaker 

issue that transcends the Antarctic program’s 

resources and responsibilities, at least as they 

are understood by the Panel.
172 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Charter of the Review of the 

U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel

international collaborations, and strong U.S. 

presence in Antarctica. The identification and 

characterization of these options should address 

the following objectives:

(a) expediting a renewed and more efficient U.S. 

capability to support the changing landscape 

of scientific requirements in Antarctica and 

the Southern Ocean;

(b) supporting U.S. federal agencies’ needs 

for access to Antarctica and the Southern 

Ocean;

(c) stimulating scientific and technological 

innovation in polar endeavors; and 

(d) fitting within the current budget profile of 

the U.S. Government’s Antarctic activities.

In addition to the objectives described above, 

the review should examine the appropriate 

amount of R&D and complementary scientific 

activities (e.g., satellite and observational missions) needed to make Antarctic activities most 

productive and affordable over the long term, 

as well as appropriate opportunities for international collaboration.

4. Description of Duties 

The Panel will provide advice only.

Appendix I.

Statement of Work

1. Official Designation 

Review of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue 

Ribbon Panel (“the Panel”), #76826

2. Authority

Having determined that it is in the public interest in connection with the performance of National Science Foundation (NSF) 

duties under law and in consultation with the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy in the 

Executive Office of the President (OSTP), the 

NSF Director hereby establishes the Review of 

the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel 

pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.2.

3. Scope and Objectives

The Panel will conduct an independent review 

of the current U.S. Antarctic Program to ensure 

the nation is pursuing the best twenty-year trajectory for conducting science and diplomacy 

in Antarctica—one that is environmentally 

sound, safe, innovative, affordable, sustainable, 

and consistent with the Antarctic Treaty. The 

Panel should aim to identify and characterize a 

range of options for supporting and implementing the required national scientific endeavors, 
Appendix I: Statement of Work 173

5. Official to Whom the Panel Reports

The Panel reports to the Director, NSF and 

the Director, OSTP. The Panel will submit its 

report within approximately 270 days of its 

first meeting.

6. Support 

The NSF Office of Polar Programs will provide 

financial and administrative support (including contractor staff as necessary) and operating 

funds for the Panel.

7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs 

and Staff Years 

The estimated operating cost associated with 

supporting the Panel’s functions is estimated 

to be approximately $673,500, including all 

direct and indirect expenses. It is estimated that 

approximately 2 full-time equivalents will be 

required to support the Panel.

8. Designated Federal Officer 

The DFO will be either a full-time or a permanent part-time employee who will approve 

or call all of the Panel’s meetings, prepare and 

approve all meeting agendas, attend all Panel 

and subcommittee meetings, adjourn any meeting when he/she determines adjournment to be 

in the public interest, and chair meetings when 

directed to do so by the Directors of NSF and 

OSTP. The DFO will be the Director, Office of 

Polar Programs, NSF. The Alternate DFO will be 

the Division Director, Antarctic Infrastructure 

& Logistics, Office of Polar Programs. NSF. 

Other DFO’s may be designated by the DFO.

9. Estimated Number and Frequency 

of Meetings 

The Panel will conduct approximately four 

meetings as appropriate at various locations 

throughout the United States.

10. Duration 

The Panel will exist for a term not to exceed 

12 months, unless earlier renewed.

11. Termination 

The Panel will terminate no later than 12 months 

from the date of its establishment.

12. Membership and Designation 

The Panel will consist of members to be 

appointed by the Director, NSF and the 

Director, OSTP. The Directors will ensure a balanced representation in terms of the points of 

view represented and the functions to be performed. Each member serves at the pleasure of 

the Directors. The Panel will consist of approximately 10–12  members. It is anticipated that 

the members will serve as Special Government 

Employees for the duration of the Panel, renewable at the discretion of the Directors. The NSF 

Director will designate the chair of the Panel.
174 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

13. Subcommittees 

Subcommittees, task forces, and/or work groups 

may be established by NSF to conduct studies 

and/or fact-finding requiring an effort of limited duration. Such subcommittees, task forces, 

and work groups may not work independently 

and must report their recommendations and 

advice to the full Panel for full deliberation and 

discussion. If the Panel is terminated, all subcommittees, task forces, and work groups will 

also terminate.

14. Recordkeeping

The records of the Panel will be handled in 

accordance with General Records Schedule 26, 

Item 2, and the applicable agency records disposition schedule.

15. Certification 

This Panel is determined to be necessary and in 

the public interest.

(signed)

Karl A. Erb 

Director, Office of Polar Programs 

National Science Foundation
Appendix I: Statement of Work 175

Charge to the Blue Ribbon Panel

Excerpt from letter to Director, National 

Science Foundation from Director, Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

The second, independent blue ribbon panel, 

should use the results from the NRC Panel to 

review and make recommendations on the 

operational plans needed to deliver future 

Antarctic science. The Panel should evaluate the status and capabilities of NSF’s current 

Antarctic infrastructure, examine appropriate opportunities for international Antarctic 

collaborations, examine the role of and future 

requirements for permanent stations, remote 

camps, mobile stations, ships, and aircraft support, and review the management and logistics 

support options required for this projected suite 

of scientific operations. The blue ribbon panel 

should also examine the appropriate amount 

of R&D and complementary scientific activities (e.g., satellite missions) needed to make 

Antarctic activities most productive and affordable over the long term. 

Revised for the Blue Ribbon Panel

The Blue Ribbon Panel should assess the current U.S. Antarctic Program operations, logistics, and management and make recommendations on a long-term strategy to deliver 

an efficient and effective national research 

Program for Antarctica and the Southern 

Ocean, informed by the recommendations of 

the National Research Council. To this end, the 

Panel should consider:

• the status and capabilities of the current U.S. 

Antarctic infrastructure; 

• appropriate opportunities for international 

collaborations; 

• the role of and future requirements for permanent stations, remote camps, mobile stations, ships, and aircraft support;

• the management and logistics support options 

required to support the projected scientific 

Program; and, 

• complementary R&D activities (e.g., satellite measurements, technology development, 

etc.) that would help make Antarctic activities even more productive and affordable over 

the long term. 

The Panel is strongly encouraged to consider 

and recommend innovative operational and 

technological approaches to maximize the scientific impact of the U.S. Program in a necessarily constrained budget environment.
176 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Context for the 

U.S. Antarctic Program Review

The Office of Science and Technology Policy 

and the National Science Foundation have 

initiated a major review of the U.S. Antarctic 

Program to ensure that it continues to support 

the most relevant and important science in the 

most effective, efficient, sustainable, technologically advanced, innovative, safe, and environmentally-friendly manner, and to set the 

stage for the next two decades of U.S. research, 

discovery, and environmental stewardship in 

Antarctica. The results of the study will inform 

policy and future budget requests.

The formal charge to the Blue Ribbon Panel 

contains the primary elements of interest to the 

Administration, recognizing that the Panel may 

well also consider and make recommendations 

on other appropriate topics. In addition to the 

formal charge, the Administration would like 

to share a number of important questions and 

considerations that should be helpful to the 

Panel during its deliberations:

• agility: options for increasing the ability of 

logistics and infrastructure to respond to 

evolving and changing challenges in the 

Southern Ocean and on the continent as new 

scientific drivers evolve;

• complexity: what are the implications for 

logistics and infrastructure associated with 

the increasing sophistication of forefront 

research;

• efficiency: options for maximizing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of research stations, ships, and short-term and multi-year 

field camps;

• research and development: concepts and 

investments that could improve USAP efficiency and effectiveness and reduce infrastructure and logistics life-cycle costs;

• research station resupply: options for reducing annual resupply requirements and for 

meeting resupply requirements more reliably 

and efficiently;

• sustainability: options and tradeoffs for moving toward more sustainable USAP science 

and operations; and using renewables, alternative energies, and other means to reduce the 

logistics burden and the carbon footprint of 

fossil fuels;

• technology: options for increasing utilization 

of remote sensing, autonomy, and information 

technology to reduce environmental footprint 

and increase scientific reach, including a sustained technology development effort;

• communications: options for meeting forecasted information, computational, and 

communication infrastructure needs 

and challenges; 

• data legacy: options for assuring that important data and specimens from scientific investigations are accessible, curated, and preserved for long-term use;
Appendix I: Statement of Work 177

• international cooperation: the pros and cons 

of cost- and resource-sharing with international partners in meeting U.S. requirements; 

and

• agency collaboration: ways in which mission agency capabilities can be brought to 

bear to enhance Program capabilities and 

performance.

The Administration would also appreciate a 

review that examines potential management, 

programmatic, logistics, and infrastructure 

options relative to the following evaluation 

parameters: 

• environment, safety, and health standards; 

• interagency logistical support;

• 20-year life-cycle costs (including operations 

costs); 

• programmatic and technical risks; 

• potential to spur innovation, encourage competition, and lower the cost of Antarctic 

operations; 

• potentially expanded opportunities for 

science; 

• potential for enhanced international 

cooperation; 

• potential for inspiring the nation, and motivating young people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects; and,

• contractual implications. 

The Panel is encouraged to fully examine more 

than one approach for meeting the Program’s 

future needs. Where more than one option 

exists, it would be helpful if the Panel were to 

examine the costs and benefits of the several 

alternative approaches. It would be helpful if 

the options considered were framed in terms 

of whether different logistics or infrastructure 

approaches would achieve more or less research 

since in practice the Program seeks to balance 

research and operations funding within a given 

top line funding envelope. 

The Panel is encouraged to consider existing 

and evolving collaborations, partnerships, and 

partnership needs within the NSF, across the 

Federal agencies, and with the international 

community of researchers and operators. The 

Panel may also wish to recommend means by 

which the private sector might further contribute to the advancement of the Program goals 

through collaborative arrangements.

The Panel is encouraged to consult with the 

Department of State concerning foreign policy 

objectives and the way they intersect with the 

Program’s support for research, education, and 

environmental protection, given the role of the 

Department in coordinating U.S. policy relating 

to the Antarctic Treaty and related instruments.
178 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Norman R. Augustine, Chair

Norm Augustine was raised in Colorado and 

attended Princeton University where he graduated with a BSE in Aeronautical Engineering, 

magna cum laude, and an MSE. He was elected 

to Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi, and Sigma Xi. In 

1958 he joined the Douglas Aircraft Company 

in California where he worked as a Research 

Engineer, Program Manager, and Chief 

Engineer. Beginning in 1965, he served in the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense as Assistant 

Director of Defense Research and Engineering. 

In 1973 he was confirmed as Assistant Secretary 

of the Army and in 1975 became Under 

Secretary, and later Acting Secretary. Joining 

Martin Marietta Corporation in 1977 as Vice 

President of Technical Operations, he was 

elected CEO in 1987, and chairman in 1988. 

He served as president of Lockheed Martin 

Corporation upon the formation of that firm 

in 1995, and became CEO later that same year. 

He retired as chairman and CEO of Lockheed 

Martin in 1997 and he became a Lecturer with 

the Rank of Professor on the faculty of Princeton 

University. He has served as President of the 

Boy Scouts of America, Chairman and Principal 

Officer of the American Red Cross, Chairman 

of the Council of the National Academy of 

Engineering, Chairman of the Defense Science 

Board and a member of the president’s Council 

of Science and Technology for 16 years. He is 

a former member of the Board of Directors of 

ConocoPhillips, Black & Decker, and Proctor 

& Gamble, and was a member of the Board 

of Trustees of Colonial Williamsburg. He is a 

Regent of the University System of Maryland, 

Trustee Emeritus of Johns Hopkins, and a 

former member of the Board of Trustees of 

Princeton and MIT. 

Mr. Augustine was presented the National 

Medal of Technology by the President of the 

United States and the National Science Board’s 

Vannevar Bush Award. He has received the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Distinguished Public 

Service Award. He has five times received the 

Department of Defense’s highest civilian decoration, the Distinguished Service Medal. He is a 

member of the National Academy of Sciences, 

the American Philosophical Society, and the 

National Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has 

traveled in 111 countries and stood on both the 

North and South Poles of the Earth. 

Thad Allen

Admiral Thad W. Allen (U.S. Coast Guard, 

retired) was the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard from 2006 to 2010. He has been extensively involved in polar policy issues during 

his career. He was a member of the President’s 

Ocean Policy Task Force and has spoken and 

written frequently in favor of United States ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. He led the 

United States delegation to the International 

Appendix II. 

Member Biographies
Appendix II: Member Biographies 179

Maritime Organization for four years. He 

has traveled to Antarctica and the South Pole 

and made several visits to New Zealand. The 

Antarctic visit coincided with the last simultaneous deployment of both the Polar Sea and 

Polar Star to break out McMurdo Base. As 

Commandant he commenced summer deployments of Coast Guard personnel and equipment to the North Slope of Alaska to develop 

operating concepts and lessons learned in executing missions to expanded open water due to 

the shrinking Arctic ice cap. He has had extensive interaction with the Native populations of 

Alaska. He has worked closely with Canadian 

counterparts to increase cooperation and joint 

operations in the Arctic. More recently he has 

worked with both the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies and the Pew Charitable 

Trust on issues related to oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. 

In 2010 Allen was designated the National 

Incident Commander for the unified response 

to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of 

Mexico. In 2005 he was designated the Principal 

Federal Official for the response to Hurricane’s 

Katrina and Rita. Allen has lectured widely on 

emergency response and crisis leadership. He 

is a Distinguished Professor of Practice at the 

Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public 

Administration of The George Washington 

University where he teaches Leadership in 

Large Complex Organizations in Crisis.

Allen is a 1971 graduate of the Coast Guard 

Academy. He holds two masters degrees from 

George Washington University (MPA ’86) 

and the MIT Sloan School of Management 

(MS ’89). He has been awarded honorary doctorate degrees from George Mason University 

and the National Defense University.

Craig E. Dorman

Craig Dorman attended Dartmouth College on 

a Navy scholarship and remained in naval service until he retired as Rear Admiral in 1989. 

His naval career was equally divided between 

operational tours and command in Naval 

Special Warfare (UDT/SEAL Teams) and management of oceanographic and antisubmarine 

warfare research and development programs 

from Washington, D.C. 

After leaving the Navy, he served as Director 

of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

until 1993. He returned to Washington, 

D.C., to become Deputy Director, Defense 

Research and Engineering for Laboratory 

Management, and then moved to London as 

Chief Scientist and Technical Director of the 

Office of Naval Research’s International Field 

Office from 1995 to 1997. While in London, 

he was on an Intergovernmental Personnel 

Act assignment from the Applied Physics 
180 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Laboratory of Pennsylvania State University 

and held an appointment as Visiting Professor 

at Imperial College.

He returned to Washington to serve as special 

assistant and then Chief Scientist at the Office 

of Naval Research from 1998 through 2001. 

During this period, he was actively involved 

in interagency issues dealing with the intersection of national security, intelligence, and 

the environment. In 2002, he began service as 

Vice President for Research for the University 

of Alaska Statewide System, and in 2003 

added responsibility for Academic Affairs. 

Mr. Dorman retired from the University of 

Alaska in September 2007. He has served on 

Boards of both industry and academic institutions and directed studies and reviews for 

the National Research Council, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

the National Science Foundation, and the 

Smithsonian Institution.

Hugh W. Ducklow

Hugh Ducklow is the Director of The 

Ecosystems Center at the Marine Biological 

Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, MA.

Dr. Ducklow is a biological oceanographer 

and has been studying plankton foodwebs 

in estuaries, the coastal ocean, and the open 

sea since 1980. He and his students work on 

microbial ecology and ocean biogeochemistry. 

Dr. Ducklow has participated in oceanographic 

cruises in Chesapeake Bay, the North Atlantic 

Ocean, the Bermuda and Hawaii Time Series 

observatories, the Black Sea, the Arabian Sea, 

the Ross Sea, the Southern Ocean, the Equatorial 

Pacific, and the Great Barrier Reef. Much of the 

work was done in the decade-long Joint Global 

Ocean Flux Study of the ocean carbon cycle, 

which he led in the 1990s. He has led or participated in 15 expeditions to Antarctica since 1994.

Currently, Dr. Ducklow leads the Palmer 

Antarctica Long Term Ecological Research 

Project on the West Antarctic Peninsula and is 

investigating the responses of the marine ecosystem to rapid climate warming in one of the 

world’s most rapidly changing areas. After majoring in History of Science at Harvard College, 

Ducklow received his Ph.D. in Environmental 

Engineering from Harvard University in 1977. 

Before coming to the MBL in 2007, Ducklow 

was Glucksman Professor of Marine Science at 

The College of William and Mary.

Bart Gordon

Mr. Gordon served 26 years in the U.S. Congress 

representing the 6th Congressional District of 

Tennessee. During that time he served on a variety of committees, including the House Science 

and Technology Committee, where he was ranking Member from 2005–2006 and Chairman 

from 2007–2011. The Science and Technology 

Committee has jurisdiction over the National 

Science Foundation and the U.S. Antarctic 

Program; pursuant to these duties, he visited the 

Antarctic in 1995. Mr. Gordon was also a senior 

member of the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and served on the House Committee 

on Financial Services and the House Committee 

on Rules, Transatlantic Parliamentary Dialogue, 

and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. 

Mr. Gordon is currently a partner at K&L Gates 

in Washington, D.C.
Appendix II: Member Biographies 181

R. Keith Harrison

Keith Harrison recently retired after 41 years 

at Procter & Gamble. For the last ten years at 

P&G he was the Global Product Supply Officer, 

responsible for the company’s global supply chain including purchasing, engineering, 

manufacturing, quality and customer service, 

and logistics. Previously, he held positions of 

increasing responsibility in product supply, 

marketing, and general management.

Mr. Harrison is on the Boards of the Midmark 

Corporation, Hayco (Hong Kong), THP 

(Ho  Chi Minh, Vietnam), and Hauser Capital 

Partners. He is a past Chair of the Cincinnati 

Museum Center and currently Chair of the 

Cincinnati Museum Center Foundation. 

Mr. Harrison is also advising a number of companies on supply chain, corporate strategy, and 

leadership challenges.

Keith Harrison was born in Union City, 

Indiana. He graduated from Duke University 

in 1970 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in 

Mechanical Engineering.

Don Hartill

Dr. Hartill is a professor of physics at Cornell 

University.  He received his B.Sc. in physics from 

MIT and his Ph.D. in physics from Caltech.  He 

is an experimentalist in high-energy physics currently specializing in accelerator physics with a 

focus on RF accelerating systems, including lowfrequency superconducting cavities suitable for 

accelerating muon beams.  In the past, he developed large cylindrical drift chambers and their 

associated fast high sensitivity electronics as the 

central tracking detectors for the e+e- collider 

experiment CLEO at Cornell.

He has served as Chair of several NSF review 

panels for Major Research Equipment and 

Facilities Construction projects, including 

the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave 

Observatory (LIGO) and IceCube, and participated in the initial reviews of the U.S. portion of 

the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) 

and Ocean Observing Initiative (OOI). He currently is a member of the High Energy Physics 

Advisory Panel (HEPAP) and is the Chair-elect 

of the Division of the Physics of Beams of the 

American Physical Society and is a Fellow of the 

society.  From 2004 to 2010 he was a member 

of the Scientific Policy Committee of CERN. 

During the 2008–2009 winter, he chaired one of 

the two external review committees formed to 

recommend modifications to the Large Hadron 

Collider (LHC) to avoid future cryogenic accidents due to system failures. 

Since 1996 he has served as Mayor of the Village 

of Lansing, New York, which has 3,300 residents 

and is adjacent to Ithaca in the Finger Lakes 

Region.  It has an annual budget of $3.9 M, has 

one of the lowest village tax rates in New York 

State, and has no debt.

Gérard Jugie

Dr. Gérard Jugie is an Emeritus Research 

Director of the French government-funded 

research organization CNRS, formerly working in the field of coordination chemistry and 

nuclear resonance spectroscopies. He has published more than 50 papers in refereed journals 
182 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

and presented at more than 100 conferences 

both in fundamental chemistry, science policy, 

and more recently polar subjects. Jugie received 

his graduate degrees from the University of 

Toulouse (France) and has been research fellow of the Royal Society for two years at Queen 

Elizabeth College (London-Kensington).

Jugie began at the CNRS headquarter as director of the industrial office and then became 

responsible for the western part of France and 

later for Languedoc Roussillon district.  From 

1997 to 2010, Jugie was Director of the French 

Polar Institute (IPEV). During this period, he 

was elected chairman of COMNAP (Council 

of Managers of National Antarctic Programs), 

chairman of EPB (European Polar Board), and 

chairman of EPC (European Polar Consortium).

Louis J. Lanzerotti

Louis J. Lanzerotti joined the technical staff of 

AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1967, after serving 

two years as a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard 

University and at Bell Laboratories.  He retired 

in 2002 and remained a consultant to AlcatelLucent through 2008. In 2002, he was appointed 

a Distinguished Research Professor of Physics 

in the Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research 

at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 

Newark, New Jersey.

Lanzerotti has conducted geophysical research 

in the Antarctic and the Arctic since the 1970s, 

directed largely toward understanding Earth’s 

upper atmosphere and space environments. 

He has served as principal investigator or coinvestigator on several U.S. NASA interplanetary 

and planetary missions, including Applications 

Technology Satellites (ATS), IMP, Voyager, 

Ulysses, Galileo, and Cassini. Currently, he is a 

principal investigator on the NASA Radiation 

Belts Storm Probes mission scheduled for an 

August 2012 launch.

He has co-authored one book, co-edited four 

books (one on Antarctic upper atmosphere 

research), and is an author of more than 500 refereed engineering and science papers. He is founding editor for Space Weather, The International 

Journal of Research and Applications, published 

by the American Geophysical Union. He has 

eight patents issued.

Lanzerotti is an elected member of the 

National Academy of Engineering and of the 

International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), 

and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(AIAA), the American Geophysical Union 

(AGU), the American Physical Society 

(APS), and the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science (AAAS). He is the 

recipient of two NASA Distinguished Public 

Service Medals, the NASA Distinguished 

Scientific Achievement Medal, the COSPAR 

William Nordberg Medal, the AGU William 

Bowie Medal, the IAA Basic Science Award, 

and the Antarctic Service Medal of the United 

States. Minor Planet 5504 Lanzerotti recognizes 

his space and planetary research, and Mount 

Lanzerotti (74.50°S, 70.33°W) recognizes his 

research in the Antarctic. He was appointed to 

the National Science Board in 2004.
Appendix II: Member Biographies 183

Duncan J. McNabb

General McNabb is the former Commander, 

U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force 

Base, Illinois.  USTRANSCOM is the single 

manager for global air, land, and sea transportation for the Department of Defense. He 

had command of all DoD’s strategic transportation assets and over 150,000 Soldier, Sailors, 

Airmen, Marines and civilians. This included 

responsibility for DoD’s transportation support 

to the National Science Foundation and the 

Antarctic mission.

General McNabb graduated from the U.S. Air 

Force Academy in 1974. A command pilot, 

he has amassed more than 5600 flying hours 

in transport and rotary wing aircraft and has 

held command and staff positions at squadron, 

group, wing, major command, and Department 

of Defense levels.  In his most recent assignments, General McNabb served as the Director 

for Logistics on the Joint Staff and was responsible for operational logistics and strategic mobility support to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.  He then 

commanded the USAF Air Mobility Command 

and led 134,000 airmen in providing rapid 

global mobility, aerial refueling, special airlift, and aeromedical evacuation for America’s 

armed forces. Before taking command of 

USTRANSCOM, Gen. McNabb served as the 

33rd Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

Robert E. Spearing

Robert   Spearing was the Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Space Communications 

within the NASA’s headquarters Space 

Operations Mission Directorate. He retired from 

that position in April 2007. His duties encompassed all aspects of the NASA space communications program including policy development, 

strategic planning, program oversight, budget development and defense, and senior level 

interface with other government organizations 

both nationally and internationally. The program encompasses spaceflight mission operations, systems acquisition, architecture planning, data standards development, technology 

maturation, and spectrum management. 

He has managed, both at Goddard Space Flight 

Center and NASA Headquarters, space and 

ground communications networks including 

the Space Network (TDRSS), the Deep Space 

Network (DSN), the Ground Network (GN), and 

the NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN).

Before his most recent assignment, Mr. Spearing 

held several positions at the division president 

and senior vice president level with private 

sector IT companies. His earlier career totaling 27 years was with the NASA at Goddard 

Space Flight Center where he rose to the position of Director of Mission Operations and 

Data Systems. He joined the Senior Executive 

Service in 1985.

Mr.  Spearing was recognized for his accomplishments with a number of awards, including NASA’s outstanding leadership medal 

and its distinguished service medal. His academic degree is in electrical engineering from 

Clarkson University.

Since his retirement from NASA Mr. Spearing 

has maintained a consulting practice.
184 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Diana H. Wall

A soil ecologist and environmental scientist, 

Dr. Wall is actively engaged in global research to 

sustain soils and has spent more than 20 seasons 

in the Antarctic McMurdo Dry Valleys examining how global changes impact soil biodiversity, 

ecosystem processes and ecosystem services.

Dr. Wall is a University Distinguished 

Professor and Director of the School of Global 

Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State 

University. She is a member of the U.S. Standing 

Committee on Life Sciences for the Scientific 

Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and 

Scientific Chair of the Global Soil Biodiversity 

Initiative. She received the 2012 SCAR 

President’s Medal for Excellence in Antarctic 

Research, and Wall Valley, Antarctica, was designated to honor her research contributions. In 

2011 she was named as The British Ecological 

Society 2011 Tansley Lecturer. 

Dr. Wall is a National Associate of the National 

Academy of Sciences, has an Honorary 

Doctorate from Utrecht University, the 

Netherlands, and is a Fellow of the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science. She 

served as member of the NRC Polar Research 

Board and the U.S. Commission of UNESCO, 

and was co-lead author of the Millennium 

Development Goals Committee Chapter of the 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. She is a 

Board Member of the World Resources Institute 

and Island Press, and has served as President 

of the Ecological Society of America, and the 

American Institute of Biological Sciences, 

and as Chair, Council of Scientific Society 

Presidents and other scientific societies. Diana 

is a Professor of Biology and received her Ph.D. 

from the University of Kentucky, Lexington. 
Appendix III: Governance documents 185

III.1. Antarctic Treaty Summary

The 48 Antarctic Treaty nations represent about 

two-thirds of the world’s human population.

Consultative meetings have been held approximately every other year since the treaty entered 

into force, but since 1993 they have been held 

more frequently. Each meeting has generated 

recommendations regarding operation of the 

treaty that, when ratified by the participating 

governments, become binding on the parties to 

the treaty.

Additional meetings within the Antarctic 

Treaty system have produced agreements on 

conservation of seals, conservation of living 

resources, and comprehensive environmental 

protection. For detailed information about the 

Treaty System, please visit the Antarctic Treaty 

Secretariat web site at http://www.ats.aq.

What follows is the complete text of the 

Antarctic Treaty. The headings for each article 

were added by the National Science Foundation 

and are unofficial.

Appendix III.

 Governance Documents

The 12 nations listed in the preamble (below) 

signed the Antarctic Treaty on 1 December 

1959 at Washington, D.C. The Treaty entered 

into force on 23 June 1961; the 12 signatories 

became the original 12 consultative nations.

As of April 2010, 16 additional nations (Brazil, 

Bulgaria, China, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, 

India, Italy, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Republic 

of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, and Uruguay) 

have achieved consultative status by acceding to 

the Treaty and by conducting substantial scientific research in Antarctica. Russia carries forward the signatory privileges and responsibilities established by the former Soviet Union.

Another 20 nations have acceded to the 

Antarctic Treaty: Austria, Belarus, Canada, 

Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic 

Peoples Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, 

Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Monaco, Papua 

New Guinea, Portugal, Romania, Slovak 

Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, and Venezuela. 

These nations agree to abide by the treaty and 

may attend consultative meetings as observers.
186 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

[preamble]

The Governments of Argentina, Australia, 

Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, 

New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South 

Africa, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern Ireland, and the United States of 

America, Recognizing that it is in the interest of 

all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes 

and shall not become the scene or object of 

international discord; Acknowledging the substantial contributions to scientific knowledge 

resulting from international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica; Convinced 

that the establishment of a firm foundation 

for the continuation and development of such 

cooperation on the basis of freedom of scientific 

investigation in Antarctica as applied during 

the International Geophysical Year accords with 

the interests of science and the progress of all 

mankind; Convinced also that a treaty ensuring the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes 

only and the continuance of international harmony in Antarctica will further the purposes 

and principles embodied in the Charter of the 

United Nations; Have agreed as follows:

Article I [Antarctica for peaceful 

purposes only]

1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes 

only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any 

measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the 

carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as 

the testing of any type of weapons. 2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military 

personnel or equipment for scientific research 

or for any other peaceful purposes.

Article II [freedom of scientific investigation 

to continue]

Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica 

and cooperation toward that end, as applied 

during the International Geophysical Year, 

shall continue, subject to the provisions of the 

present Treaty.

Article III [plans and results to be 

exchanged]

1. In order to promote international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica, as 

provided for in Article II of the present Treaty, 

the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable: (a)  information regarding plans for scientific programs in Antarctica shall be exchanged to 

permit maximum economy and efficiency of 

operations; (b) scientific personnel shall be 

exchanged in Antarctica between expeditions 

and stations; (c) scientific observations and 

results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and 

made freely available. 2. In implementing this 

Article, every encouragement shall be given to 

the establishment of cooperative working relations with those Specialized Agencies of the 

United Nations and other international organizations having a scientific or technical interest 

in Antarctica.

Article IV [territorial claims]

1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty 

shall be interpreted as: (a) a renunciation by 

any Contracting Party of previously asserted 

rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty 

in Antarctica; (b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of 

claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica 

which it may have whether as a result of its 
Appendix III: Governance documents 187

activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, 

or otherwise; (c) prejudicing the position of 

any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or nonrecognition of any other State’s right 

of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. 2. No acts or activities 

taking place while the present Treaty is in force 

shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting 

or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in 

Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an 

existing claim, to territorial sovereignty shall be 

asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Article V [nuclear explosions prohibited]

1. Any nuclear explosions in Antarctica and 

the disposal there of radioactive waste material 

shall be prohibited. 2. In the event of the conclusion of international agreements concerning the use of nuclear energy, including nuclear 

explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste 

material, to which all of the Contracting Parties 

whose representatives are entitled to participate 

in the meetings provided for under Article IX 

are parties, the rules established under such 

agreements shall apply in Antarctica.

Article VI [area covered by Treaty]

The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply 

to the area south of 60° South latitude, including all ice shelves, but nothing in the present 

Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the 

rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State 

under international law with regard to the high 

seas within that area.

Article VII [free access for observation 

and inspection]

1. In order to promote the objectives and ensure 

the observation of the provisions of the present 

Treaty, each Contracting Party whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings 

referred to in Article IX of the Treaty shall have 

the right to designate observers to carry out any 

inspection provided for by the present Article. 

Observers shall be nationals of the Contracting 

Parties which designate them. The names of the 

observers shall be communicated to every other 

Contracting Party having the right to designate observers, and like notice shall be given of 

the termination of their appointment. 2. Each 

observer designated in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall 

have complete freedom of access at any time 

to any or all areas of Antarctica. 3. All areas of 

Antarctica, including all stations, installations 

and equipment within those areas, and all ships 

and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica, shall be 

open at all times to inspection by any observers designated in accordance with paragraph 1 

of this Article. 4. Aerial observation may be 

carried out at any time over any or all areas of 

Antarctica by any of the Contracting Parties 

having the right to designate observers. 5. Each 

Contracting Party shall, at the time when the 

present Treaty enters into force for it, inform 

the other Contracting Parties, and thereafter shall give them notice in advance, of (a) all 

expeditions to and within Antarctica, on the 

part of its ships or nationals, and all expeditions 

to Antarctica organized in or proceeding from 

its territory; (b) all stations in Antarctica occupied by its nationals; and (c) any military personnel or equipment intended to be introduced 
188 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

by it into Antarctica subject to the conditions 

prescribed in paragraph 2 of Article I of the 

present Treaty.

Article VIII [personnel under jurisdiction of 

their own states]

1. In order to facilitate the exercise of their 

functions under the present Treaty, and without prejudice to the respective positions of the 

Contracting Parties relating to jurisdiction over 

all other persons in Antarctica, observers designated under paragraph 1 of Article VII and 

scientific personnel exchanged under subparagraph 1(b) of Article III of the Treaty, and members of the staffs accompanying any such persons, shall be subject only to the jurisdiction of 

the Contracting Party of which they are nationals in respect to all acts or omissions occurring 

while they are in Antarctica for the purpose of 

exercising their functions. 2. Without prejudice 

to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, 

and pending the adoption of measures in pursuance of subparagraph 1(e) of Article IX, the 

Contracting Parties concerned in any case of 

dispute with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica shall immediately consult 

together with a view to reaching a mutually 

acceptable solution.

Article IX [Treaty states to meet 

periodically]

1. Representatives of the Contracting Parties 

named in the preamble to the present Treaty shall 

meet at the City of Canberra within two months 

after date of entry into force of the Treaty, and 

thereafter at suitable intervals and places, for 

the purpose of exchanging information, consulting together on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica, and formulating 

and considering, and recommending to their 

Governments, measures in furtherance of the 

principles and objectives of the Treaty including measures regarding: (a) use of Antarctica 

for peaceful purposes only; (b) facilitation of 

scientific research in Antarctica; (c)  facilitation of international scientific cooperation in 

Antarctica; (d) facilitation of the exercise of the 

rights of inspection provided for in Article VII 

of the Treaty; (e) questions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica; (f)  preservation and conservation of living resources in 

Antarctica. 2. Each Contracting Party which 

has become a party to the present Treaty by 

accession under Article XIII shall be entitled 

to appoint representatives to participate in the 

meetings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present Article, during such time as the Contracting 

Party demonstrates its interest in Antarctica by 

conducting substantial scientific research activity there, such as the establishment of a scientific station or the dispatch of a scientific expedition. 3. Reports from the observers referred to 

in Article VII of the present Treaty shall be transmitted to the representatives of the Contracting 

Parties participating in the meetings referred 

to in paragraph 1 of the present Article. 4. The 

measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this 

Article shall become effective when approved 

by all the Contracting Parties whose representatives were entitled to participate in the meetings held to consider those measures. 5. Any or 

all of the rights established in the present Treaty 

may be exercised as from the date of entry into 

force of the Treaty whether or not any measures 

facilitating the exercise of such rights have been 

proposed, considered or approved as provided 

in this Article.
Appendix III: Governance documents 189

Article X [discourages activities contrary 

to Treaty]

Each of the Contracting Parties undertakes to 

exert appropriate efforts, consistent with the 

Charter of the United Nations, to the end that 

no one engages in any activity in Antarctica 

contrary to the principles or purposes of the 

present Treaty.

Article XI [settlement of disputes]

1. If any dispute arises between two or more of 

the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, those 

Contracting Parties shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved 

by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, 

arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice. 2. Any dispute 

of this character not so resolved shall, with the 

consent, in each case, of all parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of 

Justice for settlement; but failure to reach agreement on reference to the International Court 

shall not absolve parties to the dispute from the 

responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it 

by any of the various peaceful means referred to 

in paragraph 1 of this Article.

Article XII [review of Treaty possible after 

30 years]

1. (a) The present Treaty may be modified or 

amended at any time by unanimous agreement 

of the Contracting Parties whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings 

provided for under Article IX. Any such modification or amendment shall enter into force 

when the depositary Government has received 

notice from all such Contracting Parties that 

they have ratified it. (b) Such modification or 

amendment shall thereafter enter into force as 

to any other Contracting Party when notice 

of ratification by it has been received by the 

depositary Government. Any such Contracting 

Party from which no notice of ratification is 

received within a period of two years from the 

date of entry into force of the modification or 

amendment in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 1(a) of this Article shall 

be deemed to have withdrawn from the present Treaty on the date of the expiration of such 

period. 2. (a)  If after the expiration of thirty 

years from the date of entry into force of the 

present Treaty, any of the Contracting Parties 

whose representatives are entitled to participate 

in the meetings provided for under Article IX 

so requests by a communication addressed to 

the depositary Government, a Conference of 

all the Contracting Parties shall be held as soon 

as practicable to review the operation of the 

Treaty. (b) Any modification or amendment to 

the present Treaty which is approved at such 

a Conference by a majority of the Contracting 

Parties there represented, including a majority of those whose representatives are entitled 

to participate in the meetings provided for 

under Article IX, shall be communicated by the 

depositary Government to all the Contracting 

Parties immediately after the termination of 

the Conference and shall enter into force in 

accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 

of the present Article. (c) If any such modification or amendment has not entered into force 

in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph  1(a) of this Article within a period of 

two years after the date of its communication 

to all the Contracting Parties, any Contracting 

Party may at any time after the expiration 

of that period give notice to the depositary 
190 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Government of its withdrawal from the present Treaty; and such withdrawal shall take effect 

two years after the receipt of the notice by the 

depositary Government.

Article XIII [ratification and accession]

1. The present Treaty shall be subject to ratification by the signatory States. It shall be open 

for accession by any State which is a Member 

of the United Nations, or by any other State 

which may be invited to accede to the Treaty 

with the consent of all the Contracting Parties 

whose representatives are entitled to participate 

in the meetings provided for under Article IX 

of the Treaty. 2. Ratification of or accession 

to the present Treaty shall be effected by each 

State in accordance with its constitutional 

processes. 3. Instruments of ratification and 

instruments of accession shall be deposited 

with the Government of the United States of 

America, hereby designated as the depositary 

Government. 4. The depositary Government 

shall inform all signatory and acceding States 

of the date of each deposit of an instrument of 

ratification or accession, and the date of entry 

into force of the Treaty and of any modification 

or amendment thereto. 5. Upon the deposit 

of instruments of ratification by all the signatory States, the present Treaty shall enter into 

force for those States and for States which have 

deposited instruments of accession. Thereafter 

the Treaty shall enter into force for any acceding State upon the deposit of its instrument of 

accession. 6. The present Treaty shall be registered by the depositary Government pursuant to 

Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article XIV [United States is repository]

The present Treaty, done in the English, French, 

Russian, and Spanish languages, each version 

being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the 

archives of the Government of the United States 

of America, which shall transmit duly certified 

copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States. In witness whereof, 

the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, duly authorized, have signed the present Treaty. Done 

at Washington the first day of December, one 

thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine.

For Argentina: Adolfo Seilingo and F. Bello

For Australia: Howard Beale

For Belgium: Obert de Thieusies

For Chile: Marcial Mora M., L. Gajardo V., 

and Julio Escudero

For the French Republic: Pierre Charpentier

For Japan: Koichiro Asakai and T. Shimoda

For New Zealand: G.D.L. White

For Norway: Paul Koht

For the Union of South Africa: Wentzel C. 

du Plessis

For the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics: V. Kuznetsov

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern Ireland: Harold Caccia

For the United States of America: Herman 

Phleger and Paul C. Daniels
Appendix III: Governance documents 191

III.2. Presidential Memorandum 6646

Memorandum 6646 February 5, 1982

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

MEMORANDUM FOR

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

SUBJECT: United States Antarctic Policy and Programs 

I have reviewed the Antarctic Policy Group’s 

study of United States interests in Antarctica 

and related policy and program considerations, 

as forwarded by the Department of State on 

November 13, 1981, and have decided that:

• The United States Antarctic Program shall be 

maintained at a level providing an active and 

influential presence in Antarctica designed to 

support the range of U.S. antarctic interests.

• This presence shall include the conduct of 

scientific activities in major disciplines; yearround occupation of the South Pole and two 

coastal stations; and availability of related 

necessary logistics support.

• Every effort shall be made to manage the program in a manner that maximizes cost effectiveness and return on investment.
192 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

I have also decided that the National Science 

Foundation shall continue to:

• budget for and manage the entire United 

States national program in Antarctica, including logistic support activities so that the program may be managed as a single package;

• fund university research and federal agency 

programs related to Antarctica;

• draw upon logistic support capabilities of 

government agencies on a cost reimbursable 

basis; and

• use commercial support and management 

facilities where these are determined to be 

cost effective and will not, in the view of the 

Group, be detrimental to the national interest.

Other agencies may, however, fund and undertake directed short-term programs of scientific activity related to Antarctica upon the recommendation of the Antarctic Policy Group 

and subject to the budgetary review process. 

Such activities shall be coordinated within the 

framework of the National Science Foundation 

logistics support.

The expenditures and commitment of resource 

necessary to maintain an active and influential 

presence in Antarctica, including the scientific 

activities and stations in the Antarctic, shall be 

reviewed and determined as part of the normal budget process. To ensure that the United 

States Antarctic Program is not funded at the 

expense of other National Science Foundation 

programs, the OMB will provide specific budgetary guidance for the antarctic program.

To ensure that the United States has the necessary flexibility and operational reach in the area, 

the Departments of Defense and Transportation 

shall continue to provide, on a reimbursable 

basis, the logistic support requested by the 

National Science Foundation and to develop, 

in collaboration with the Foundation, logistic arrangements and cost structure required 

for effective and responsive program support 

at minimum cost.

With respect to the upcoming negotiations on 

a regime covering antarctic mineral resources, 

the Antarctic Policy Group shall prepare a 

detailed U.S. position and instructions. These 

should be forwarded for my consideration by 

May 15, 1982.

Ronald Reagan
Appendix IV: State Department’s View 193

Appendix IV. 

State Department’s Views
194 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Appendix V. 

U.S. Science Support Activities in

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for scientific research, a directing 

mission of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP). 

The number of projects supported annually 

depends on the available funding, cost and 

complexity of the projects supported, and competition for resources from non-science activities such as major construction. 

30 27 30 32 33 35 30 31 27 34 36 

33 39 41 

56 60 

70 

57 

37 

31 

42 

49 

26 24 23 

28 19 

23 

23 

23 

22 

24 

32 20 18 16 

14 

10 

13 

15 

17 

11

13 

14 

1 

2 

5 

6 

17 17 15 

17 

17 

18 

15 

8 

7 

19 

22 

5 6 6 

12 

12 

12 

13 

11

14 

14 

11

4 4 6 

6 

6 

8 

6 

7 

8 

5 

4 

7 

4 

4 

2 

3 

5 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 

Total Number of Science Events 

Season 

Supported Science Events 00-01 Through 10-11

Other 

IPY/Education & 

Outreach 

Artists & Writers 

Technical Events 

with Heavy 

Science Support 

Ocean & 

Atmospheric 

Sciences 

Integrated 

Systems Science 

Glaciology 

Earth Sciences 

Organisms & 

Ecosystems 

Aeronomy & 

Astrophysics 

Figure V.1. U.S. Antarctic Program science events requiring logistics support from the USAP contractor, 2000–2001 through 2010–2011, sorted by scientific discipline.

NSF also provides direct support for scientific 

research—the bridging of research requirements 

to the project-specific assignments of personnel, 

equipment, transportation, and infrastructure—

through the Antarctic Support Contractor. 

Examples of 2010–2011 activities are noted 

below. Although not exhaustive, the accomplishments are representative of the types and 

extent of support required on an annual basis.
Appendix V: U.S. Science Support Activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean 195

V.1. USAP Science Support Activities

During the 2010–2011 Field Season

Crary Lab was at more than 90 percent capacity. 

The contractor is responsible for providing science support and on-site training for grantees, 

as well as for specialized support that included: 

• Coordinating a new type of forecast process to 

conform flying schedules for the Polar Earth 

Observing Network project;

• Providing data recorded from deep-field 

ceilometers to a researcher at Ohio State 

University;

• Supplying liquid helium for McMurdo Station 

and liquid nitrogen for McMurdo and South 

Pole stations;

• Constructing a temporary camp and launch 

pad on the sea ice adjacent to McMurdo 

Station to support the Concordiasi stratospheric balloon campaign;

• Designing, constructing and installing a 

Fe-Boltzmann Light Detection and Ranging 

(lidar) instrument (elecromagnetic interference required the contractor to undertake an 

extensive assessment to identify and remedy 

the issue);

• Supporting 20 scientific divers; and,

• Issuing 330,000 pounds (150,000 kilograms) 

of gear for field camps.

V.1.3 Antarctic Peninsula

Palmer Station supported 19 projects, with the 

laboratory at more than full capacity during the 

peak summer season. Other activities included:

V.1.1. South Pole

At the South Pole, 26 science projects required 

planning and support. Grantee deployments 

ranged from eight during the Austral winter 

to approximately 80 at the peak of the summer 

season. Contractor activities included:

• Installing several cryogenically cooled receivers for a multiyear cosmic microwave background effort at the Martin A. Pomerantz 

Observatory;

• Establishing a test-bed of radio frequency 

neutrino receivers and erecting three trial 

wind turbines for the IceCube Lab;

• Providing liquid helium and a cryogenics 

technician for various experiments;

• Installing the Gattini ultraviolet camera and 

the High Elevation Antarctic Terahertz telescope for testing and possible deployment at 

Dome A/Ridge A on the east Antarctic plateau; and,

• Replacing the data acquisition recording system and extending the Global Positioning 

System (GPS) antenna masts at the South Pole 

Remote Seismic Science Observatory.

V.1.2. McMurdo and

Nearby Region 

(including Dry Valleys) 

More than 560 grantees in almost 100 research 

projects participated in McMurdo-based science. For a majority of the summer season, the 
196 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

• Providing a flow-through seawater system for 

ambient incubations; 

• Modifying small boat operations and 

regulations to accommodate growing 

research needs;

• Remodeling the Terra Lab Building for installation of a Fabry-Perot Interferometer; and,

• Supporting six science divers and working on 

repairs to the station pier.

V.1.4 Continental Deep Field

The contractor supported field science events 

based out of both McMurdo and South Pole 

stations; the field camp population peaked at 

333 personnel at 36 locations in December 2010. 

Contractor activities included:

• Supporting ice core drilling to 10,981 feet 

(3331 meters) and retrograding ice cores to 

McMurdo Station from the West Antarctic Ice 

Sheet Divide project;

• Supporting a project at Siple Dome, originally 

planned as a three-person refueling camp, 

when bad weather at the intended destination 

put the project in jeopardy;

• Supporting four balloon launches and 

planned balloon recoveries for the National 

Atmospheric and Space Administration’s 

Long Duration Balloon Program; and,

• Relocating an Automated Weather Station, 

repairing two existing stations and installing new systems at Bear Peninsula, Thurston 

Island, and Evans Knoll for the Pine Island 

Glacier project.

V.1.5 Southern Ocean

The Research Vessel Icebreaker (RVIB) 

Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer) and the Antarctic 

Research and Supply Vessel (ARSV) Laurence 

M. Gould (Gould) supported 32 science projects. Contractor activities included:

• Supporting a multinational science cruise 

involving the Palmer and the Swedish icebreaker Oden into the Amundsen Sea Polynya;

• Successfully recovering all data and all scientific instruments (except for one set of acoustic releases) from two Catenary Anchor Leg 

Moorings after automatic release failures on 

both moorings left them stranded;

• Assisting researchers who attached digital 

acoustic recording tags to 10 whales, deployed 

three “critter-cam” tags, and surveyed for 

krill populations;

• Installing a state-of-the-art, high-resolution 

three-dimensional GPS system on the Gould;

• Providing technical support for the continent-based Whillans Ice Stream Subglacial 

Access Research Drilling project through 

evaluations of proposed winch and wire systems and assistance in the development of the 

operational platforms that, although mounted 

on a sled, resemble working from the deck of 

a ship; and, 

• Acquiring and putting into service a new 

Trace Metal Clean water sampling system for 

use on both the Gould and Palmer.
Appendix VI: Evaluat ion of Alternative Sites to McMurdo 197

In the analysis which follows, we assume that 

the USAP will continue to support activities at 

South Pole Station and research at various field 

camps in the interior of the Antarctic continent. 

These assumptions are essential to the analysis. We make note of alternatives were these 

assumptions are not valid.

What are the basic logistics requirements?

• Access to the continental interior has been 

dominated by air support for recent decades. 

With development of new technologies and 

practices, traverse support is now practical 

to some locations, saving fuel and lowering 

pollutants and cost. Hence a location for a 

USAP continental research and support facility must offer both skiway support for LC-130 

and similar aircraft used in the interior, and 

also reasonable terrain, routing, and distances 

for ground traverses. Because aircraft carriedcargo capacity drops rapidly with increasing flight distance (and in Antarctica aircraft 

normally carry sufficient fuel to support their 

return to base), the continental support facility must be as close as practical to South Pole 

Station and much of the continental interior. 

This also reduces traverse time and cost, if 

overall routing is practical and safe. 

Appendix VI.

 Evaluation of Alternative

Sites to McMurdo

For the continental U.S. Antarctic Program 

(USAP)—McMurdo Station, South Pole Station, 

field camps, and research traverses—McMurdo 

Station is the present operational hub. (Palmer 

Station, on the Antarctic Peninsula, is essentially a separate USAP activity, supported and 

resupplied independently.)

The choice of the Ross Island location for the 

principal USAP base was historically guided by 

its proximity to the site chosen by polar explorers, notably the 1910-1913 Scott Expedition, as 

their base camp due to its being nearly the farthest south sea-accessible point in Antarctica 

in the majority of years, with a significant portion of the access route to the South Pole over 

the large, floating Ross Ice Shelf. The Ross 

Island location was chosen by Admiral Dufek 

in 1955 for Operation Deep Freeze 1 to support 

International Geophysical Year (IGY) activities. 

It was originally intended to locate that base at 

the Bay of Whales, where Admiral Byrd had 

set up four prior camps, but the IGY needed a 

site capable of supporting wheeled aircraft. As 

researchers and logistics experts increasingly 

learned, the Ross Island location is the best 

overall site for supporting continental research 

in Antarctica. This view is supported by an 

examination of the Ross Island location vis-avis other locations which might be considered. 
198 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

• Considering that the USAP support facility 

exists primarily to support Antarctic continental science, that all such science and related 

activity is essentially expeditionary, and that 

expeditionary activities require a pyramidlike broad base of support, it is clear that the 

USAP continental support facility will need 

to be a substantial “town” providing housing, 

warehousing, fuel supply, ground transportation, assorted shops and maintenance activities, construction crews, marine support, 

aircraft support, laboratories and research 

support facilities—and power, water, and 

waste support and the like—with a population 

scaled roughly in proportion to the number of 

researchers supported in the field (including 

South Pole Station). Even with paying increasing attention to moving non-critical activities off-continent, a substantial presence is 

required to support continental science.

• The support facility itself should be located on 

ground (as opposed to ice or snow) if possible, because ice moves and shifts, and ice and 

snow are thermally unstable.

• Due to the huge cost advantage of marine 

cargo transportation over air cargo, the USAP 

continental support facility should be accessible to cargo ships and tankers of appropriate 

construction for Antarctic marine conditions.

• If at all possible, sufficient draft and seasonal 

ice conditions should exist for cargo ships and 

tankers to reach the base itself, rather than 

(for example) an ice shelf or seasonal ice sheet 

near the base. This requirement is not absolute, but considering the large size of the present USAP annual delivery of cargo and fuel, 

and U.S. and other nations’ prior experiences 

off-loading onto an ice shelf or seasonal ice, 

this condition should be met for safety, personnel, expediency, and related issues.

• Due to the relatively large number of persons 

involved in the overall USAP continental support pyramid, and the need for moving some 

cargo by air, if at all possible the support facility should have reasonable access to a location for landing wheeled aircraft originating 

outside Antarctica, such as C-17 and commercial passenger aircraft from New Zealand, 

Australia, South Africa, or South America.

• To reduce transit distances to research sites—

and hence reduce personnel, facilities, and a 

host of costs—the USAP continental support 

facility should if possible be located nearby a 

wide range of top-priority research sites. 

The research reach of the USAP on-continent program includes nearly all the continent, when supported from the present sites of 

McMurdo and South Pole stations. The USAP 

ice-capable research and supply ship Laurence 

M. Gould (Gould) operates almost exclusively 

in the Antarctic Peninsula region. The USAP 

light/medium research icebreaker Nathaniel B. 

Palmer (Palmer) has operated most frequently 

in the Ross Sea region and east to the peninsula in recent years, but historically has also 

operated in other Antarctic marine regions. In 

Figure VI-1 the yellow lines show all Antarctic 

coastal locations where, if an airfield of some 

type could be established, a ski-equipped 

LC-130 aircraft could, in theory, reach the 

USAP South Pole station and return, with a partial (“greater than nil”) cargo load. (The yellow 
Appendix VI: Evaluat ion of Alternative Sites to McMurdo 199

line relates only to aircraft range to the USAP 

South Pole station. It does not indicate areas 

where ships can be safely and expeditiously 

unloaded, where airfields could be established, 

where a permanent base could be established, 

where an icebreaker or any other ship could 

reasonably reach, or where any of myriad other 

USAP requirements might be met.) The closestto-South-Pole sites in Antarctic coastal regions 

are circled in red. “Coastal” in Antarctica 

means only a location where either the continent (itself mostly ice-covered) meets the 

ocean, or the leading edge of a massive floating 

ice shelf extruding from the continent reaches 

the ocean. In particular there is no necessary 

coincidence with a non-ice-covered region 

(“land”), a harbor, a location where an airfield 

can be constructed, a region an icebreaker or 

ice-strengthened ship can reach, and so forth. 

The USAP McMurdo Station is located on one 

of the three closest-to-South-Pole locations on 

the Antarctic coastal region. Terra Nova Bay in 

the western Ross Sea is another location considered for Antarctic bases.

One area of the Ross Ice Shelf well east of 

Ross Island has been used for U.S. and other 

Antarctic interior support: the Bay of Whales, 

near the eastern (left) end of the red-circled 

region on the Ross Ice Shelf. The Bay of Whales 

Figure VI.1. Map of Antarctica showing LC-130 range circles, potential ship-accessible locations capable in terms 

of aircraft range for supporting South Pole Station, and closest coastal sites offering support of South Pole Station 

(see text). Source: George Blaisdell
200 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

was a natural ice harbor indenting the front of 

Ross Ice Shelf just north of Roosevelt Island 

(a completely ice-covered island). This is the 

southernmost point of open ocean. The natural harbor made the Bay of Whales a suitable 

point of entry and logistics support for several Antarctic expeditions, including the first 

three Byrd expeditions (1928–1941). The configuration of the Bay of Whales is continuously changing because it lies at the junction 

of two separate glacial ice systems, the movements of which are influenced by the presence 

of Roosevelt Island. Calving of the ice shelf formerly rendered the use of the bay as a port temporarily unusable. But the natural bay itself was 

eliminated in 1987 when an iceberg broke off 

from the Ross Ice Shelf, so there is no longer a 

natural harbor there. 

The remainder of the northern front of the 

Ross Ice Shelf west (right) of Roosevelt Island 

has a very tall ice edge (much too tall to reach 

with ship’s cranes, for example), and is a moving, floating, frequently calving ice shelf highly 

unsuitable for use as a major USAP scientific 

base and logistical support facility. There are 

times, however, at a few locations on the Ross 

Ice Shelf within traverse range from McMurdo 

Station where some ships’ cranes can reach the 

top of the ice. In theory, then, it may be possible 

in those places to transfer cargo onto the shelf 

for traverse to McMurdo Station, and pump fuel 

into large containers for traversing. Considering 

safety issues such as the instability of the ice shelf 

(including the routes to McMurdo Station), 

the enormous amount of cargo and fuel delivered annually for the USAP, the cost and complexity of the traverse infrastructure, the large 

personnel complement that would need to be 

dedicated to this single aspect of station operation, and so forth, this is not regarded as a viable means of resupply for normal use, though it 

has potential for supporting partial/emergency/

caretaker resupply in the event that ship access 

to McMurdo Station was temporarily not possible. Another similar mode of resupply would be 

to unload cargo and fuel onto nonglacial sea ice 

within traverse reach of the station, and transport them to the station. This is widely considered as unsuitable for the present-day USAP 

for essentially the same reasons as unloading on the glacial Ross Ice Shelf would be. The 

chief positive compared to unloading on the ice 

shelf would be shorter traverses, and the chief 

negative would be even more hazardous conditions. But this might be considered for partial/

emergency/caretaker resupply in the event that 

ship access to McMurdo Station was temporarily not possible.

Also assessed was a Weddell Sea (Filchner Ice 

Shelf) region in the western Coats Land region. 

Assessment of this site for location and/or 

resupply of a major USAP facility follows nearly 

the same arguments as those made for the Ross 

Ice Shelf. For example, Berkner Island is a completely ice-covered island, there is very little 

exposed rock in the wider Western Coats Land 

coastal region, most of the Filchner Ice Shelf 

has a tall ice edge and is a moving, floating, frequently calving ice shelf. Small bases have been 

constructed in this vicinity, but not major stations on the order of one needed to support 

continental science.

Terra Nova Bay, along the coast of Victoria 

Land, is often ice free. The Italian (summeronly) Zucchelli Station is located in the bay, 
Appendix VI: Evaluat ion of Alternative Sites to McMurdo 201

as will be the South Korean Jang Bogo Station. 

There is limited level rock exposure for station 

infrastructure, no deep water harbor to directly 

support cargo and tanker ship operations, weak 

sea ice which does not offer support for a seaice runway, no nearby or drivable site for a 

full-summer-season runway, very challenging 

(steep, crevassed) vehicle access to the continental interior, and relatively long air distance 

to the South Pole.

McMurdo Station on Ross Island has unique 

characteristics to Ross Island itself has large 

areas of permanently exposed rock, and it abuts 

a deep natural harbor. Ross Island is adjacent 

to the glacial McMurdo Ice Shelf, which is used 

to support a glacial ice runway, a skiway, and a 

balloon launch facility. Sea ice seasonally forms 

on McMurdo Sound, and provides a seasonal 

runway and area for sea-ice research. Surface 

access from Ross Island to the Antarctic interior is excellent.

Sea ice is an important consideration in siting of an Antarctic base. Partly because sea 

ice is not a dominating factor in the Antarctic 

Peninsula region—and partly for ease of access 

from outside Antarctica—many nations who 

wish to maintain an Antarctic presence have 

bases there. To support continental research 

and related operations, bases further south are 

required, and there, Antarctic sea ice must be 

taken into account. Sea ice conditions around 

Antarctica vary hugely with the seasons, and 

also vary year to year in any given location. 

Figure VI.2 illustrates one reason the southern Ross Sea region was chosen for early 

polar exploration and present-day continental 

Figure VI.2. Early season and near-ice-minimum sea ice conditions around Antarctica during the 2011/12 Austral 

summer season.
202 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

research support: sea ice conditions are more 

favorable there. The figure does not, however, 

illustrate well an important consideration—

every southern Ross Sea coastal site which is 

considered suitable for siting a logistics support 

facility requires icebreaker support to reach the 

site itself (as opposed to a seasonal ice edge or 

ice shelf edge), though Terra Nova Bay and the 

(former) Bay of Whales potentially require a 

lower level of icebreaking (somewhat less powerful icebreaker) than does the Ross Island location of McMurdo Station.

The physical characteristics of the four top 

locations examined by the Panel for locating a 

research and logistics support facility to support a continental research program, including 

South Pole Station, are compared in Table VI.1. 

The Panel also compared the research opportunities offered nearby these four locations, partly 

because the closer the proximity to research 

sites the lower the effort and cost of supporting research at those sites. Table VI-2 lists the 

research-related attributes of McMurdo Station.

Table VI.1. Comparison of Logistical Factors Influencing Choice of Ross Island as the Present Location of 

Resupply and Support for USAP Continental Research and Related Activities

McMurdo

Bay of

Whales Terra Nova Bay

Western

Coats Land

Harbor for 9-m Draft Ship Yes; 

Winter Quarters Bay

No; 

Ice Shelf Edge No No; Ice Shelf 

Edge

Direct Ship to Shore 

Off-Load Yes Yes No Yes

Vertical Offset for Ship 

Off-Load Land at Sea Level 15–50 m N/A 40 m

Location for Wheeled 

Runway(s)

Yes; Sea Ice and 

Glacial Ice Shelf No; Skiway

Yes; Active Glacier 

(reached only 

by helo)

No; Skiway

Length of Season for 

Wheeled Runway(s) All year N/A Oct–Nov and Feb N/A

Distance to South Pole (air) 1340 km 1270 km 1700 km 1370 km

Dates of Sea Ice Minimum 15 Jan – 15 Mar 11 Dec – 26 Feb 26 Dec – 10 Mar 10 Jan – 10 Mar

Sea Ice Extent at Minimum 

(typical) 10 nm 0 nm 0 nm 30 to >100 nm

Icebreaker Required for 

Access (typical) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ice Free Land for 

Infrastructure ~1.5 mi2 None Some None

Level Surfaces for 

Infrastructure ~0.75 mi2 Unlimited; On 

Snow Limited Unlimited; On 

Snow

Stability of Infrastructure 

Site High Low High Moderate

Surface Access to Interior 

Antarctica

Easy; Via land to Ross 

Ice Shelf

Easy; Directly 

across Ross Ice 

Shelf

Difficult; Across active 

glaciers and through 

mountain ranges

Easy; Directly 

across Filchner 

Ice Shelf
Appendix VI: Evaluat ion of Alternative Sites to McMurdo 203

In its analyses, the Panel considered South Pole 

Station’s needs. McMurdo Station has the closest 

deep water port to the South Pole, an important 

consideration for transshipment of sea cargo by 

air and ground. No other Antarctic coastal location—except for the deep southward embayment of the Weddell Sea with sea ice notably 

more severe than that of the Ross Sea—is as far 

south as McMurdo’s seaport at the southwest 

corner of the Ross Sea. Proximity to the South 

Pole and other regions of the Antarctic interior 

is critically important for economical high latitude transportation.

The proximity of the Ross Ice Shelf to McMurdo 

also has allowed the building of Antarctica’s 

most active ice runway, allowing the routine 

operation of large wheeled aircraft from offcontinent including C-17, Airbus 319s, and 

Boeing 757s. This is the only combination of 

deep water port and large-aircraft airfield on the 

continent, and identifies McMurdo as an excellent multimodal operations location.

The distance from McMurdo to South Pole 

is within the effective LC-130 cargo delivery 

range. An LC-130 burns 4,400 gallons of fuel to 

Table VI.2. Scientific Attributes of McMurdo Station and Nearby Region

Key Advanta ges Limitations

Dry Valleys Proximity (helicopter accessible); Vast array of valuable 

research topics and sites available

Distance requires intermediate refueling camp for helicopters

Sea Ice and 

Glacial Ice Shelf

Proximity (easy access by light vehicle or helicopter) to 

largest ice shelf; Persistence None

Ocean Biology 

and Chemistry 

(McMurdo Sound)

Proximity (easy access through sea ice for divers, fishing); Persistent ice cover for stable research platformPersistent ice cover limits water 

access and biological diversity

Penguins

Several major rookeries nearby; Several species 

frequent region; Extent and persistence of sea ice 

allows natural and long-term observation of controlled 

populations

Emperor and Adélie species

Seals

Several species summer in McMurdo Sound; Persistence 

of sea ice allows natural and long-term observation of 

controlled populations

Weddell species

Whales Several species frequent McMurdo Sound Orca and Minki species

Volcanology Active (Mt. Erebus) and extinct volcanoes within easy 

helicopter range None

Long-Duration, 

High-Altitude 

Ballooning

Good latitude; Good launch site characteristics None

Glaciology

Proximity (easy helo access to glaciers in the northern 

Transantarctic Mountains, icebergs, and snowfields and 

ice shelf features)

Ice streams are distant

Geospace & Upper 

Atmosphere

Highest geomagnetic latitude; Conjugacy to sites in 

northern Canada None

Gateway to Interior 

Field Sites

Good accessibility to significant portions of East and 

West Antarctica, all of the Ross Ice Shelf, and nearly all 

of the Transantarctic Mountains

Much of the region from 115oW longitude (clockwise) to 115oE not easily 

accessible with current capabilities

Gateway to South 

Pole

Three hour flying connection; Trail established for overland traverse None
204 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

hard runway at Marble Point. But this is not the 

case—McMurdo’s critical function to the USAP 

is as an intermodal freight depot, resupplied by 

sea, supporting its continental activities. The 

present location fits this very well.

South Pole Station and on-continent research 

are  dependent upon marine resupply. Shipbased resupply into McMurdo Station requires 

vessels to travel through the Southern Ocean, 

the Ross Sea and McMurdo Sound. Southern 

Ocean storms usually only slightly slow the 

progress of the USAP resupply vessels in their 

transit from New Zealand or Australia, their 

typical final port call points before steaming 

for McMurdo. The Ross Sea is subject to annual 

build-up and retreat of seasonal sea ice. Pack ice 

in the Ross Sea is currently the controlling factor in the overall timing of the resupply activity, which requires approximately 18-22 days 

of operations in the ice-susceptible waters 

south of 60°S.

Sea ice in the Ross Sea does not simply grow 

north from the Antarctic continent and retreat 

south from the ultimate ice edge over the course 

of a year. At the beginning of the Austral summer 

season, a polynya-like behavior in the southern 

Ross Sea results in the growth of a large circular melt area at the same time as the northern 

edge of the sea ice begins to retreat southward. 

In many years, a nearly or completely ice-free 

corridor naturally opens to allow ships to pass 

through the Ross Sea with little likelihood of the 

need for icebreaker support in the region north 

of McMurdo Sound. Data from U.S. sources 

show that, on average, an ice-free passage is 

most likely to be present between 21  January 

deliver 3,500 gallons of fuel plus 2,000 pounds 

(910 kilograms) of cargo to the South Pole. 

Lengthening that distance only 220 miles would 

increase the fuel burned to 5,100 gallons and 

cut the fuel delivered to 2,800 gallons, hiking 

the ratio of fuel burned to fuel delivered from 

1.3 to 1.8 to 1. 

The geography is also well suited to surface traverse of cargo from McMurdo to South Pole. 

The Ross Ice Shelf provides a nearly level route 

to 84°S, about two-thirds the distance to the 

pole. After a climb through mountain passes 

to the polar plateau, the rest of the way also is 

nearly level.

While the linkage of South Pole to McMurdo is 

an excellent fit for both surface and air delivery, McMurdo also is well situated to support 

the extensive reach of surface and air operations across the continent that make the U.S. 

Antarctic Program so productive scientifically. 

If McMurdo Station existed only to support 

local-area research, its present location would 

still be desirable due to the wide range of scientific interests in the region. It is possible, 

however, that if the USAP no longer supported 

South Pole Station or deep field on-continent 

research, and if McMurdo Station were closed, a 

much smaller, local-science-only station might 

be placed across McMurdo Sound at Marble 

Point, because that location is closer to more 

local research areas. Such a base would conceivably be small enough—if science activities were 

constrained—to risk its much-reduced logistics 

support to ice edge off-load, traversing fuel and 

supplies across the ice, or, much more expensively, nearly exclusively via air, via building a 
Appendix VI: Evaluat ion of Alternative Sites to McMurdo 205

and 4 March, but the duration of open water in 

the Ross Sea varies interannually from as little 

as a few days to more than two months.

Timing the USAP marine resupply dates to 

align with the window when the least amount 

of Ross Sea ice is present is the most efficient 

and also represents the least amount of risk. Use 

of this window of opportunity, skewed toward 

its beginning to provide a safety margin against 

unforeseen delays, has for many years permitted the USAP to resupply successfully.

The final marine approach to McMurdo Station 

requires icebreaking. The chief limitation of the 

Ross Island location is usually thought to be 

that an icebreaker is required annually to open 

a channel in the sea ice for shipborne delivery 

of cargo and fuel. 

The recent use of contracted icebreakers which 

require no fuel from McMurdo (unlike the 

Coast Guard icebreakers that had been used 

previously), combined with energy saving initiatives, have provided greater flexibility in 

scheduling the fuel tanker and the cargo ship 

to coincide with more favorable ice conditions. 

Flexibility for later arrival of the fuel tanker is 

important because there is a later, naturallyoccurring local ice break-out in McMurdo 

Sound which can be relied on to do some 

of the work previously done by icebreakers. 

Thus, since 2007, icebreaking activities have 

been initiated after 8 January to take advantage of this naturally-occurring sea ice behavior. Icebreaking to prepare for arrival of the first 

resupply ship now requires about seven days, 

a savings of 13 to 23 days of icebreaker effort 

(and cost) over past practice. Additionally, this 

Table VI.3. Recent First and Last Dates of an Ice-Free Corridor Through the Ross Sea

Ross Sea Pack Ice Statistics (0 tenths ice)

Year First Open Date Last Open Date

Duration of 

Open Period

2003 3 Feb 10 Feb 7

2004 13 Jan 26 Feb 44

2005 5 Jan 9 Mar 63

2006 6 Jan 14 Mar 67

2007 12 Jan 8 Mar 55

2008 16 Feb 18 Feb 2

2009 1 Feb 5 Mar 32

2010 10 Jan 9 Mar 58

2011 5 Jan 17 Mar 71

Average 21 Jan 28 Feb 09 44

Earliest (Shortest) 5 Jan 10 Feb 09 (2)

Latest (Longest) 16 Feb 14 Mar 09 (67)
206 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

flexibility has allowed increased use of the icebreaker for science activities when not engaged 

in icebreaking. 

It is clear from the historical data that after 

January 15th, on the average, a long-duration 

window opens during which the icebreaking 

distance to reach McMurdo station is minimum, and that optimum Ross Sea marine transit—in terms of minimal sea ice en route—takes 

place approximately three weeks after the start 

of the local ice minimum. 

Figure VI.3. Long-term ice-edge-to-McMurdo distance data, month by month, along with calculated probability of open-sea transit through the Ross Sea north of McMurdo Sound. 
Appendix VII: Recommendations and Implementing Actions 207

Appendix VII. 

Recommendations and 

 Implementing Actions

VII.1. Recommendations

3. Logistics and Transportation. 

Implement state-of-the-art logistics and transportation support as identified in this report 

to reduce costs and expand science opportunities continent-wide and in the Southern 

Ocean. (Replace some LC-130 flights with 

additional traverse trips by automating the traverse and by constructing a wheel-capable runway at South Pole Station for C-17 use; reduce 

the LC-130 fleet.)

4. McMurdo and Palmer Facilities.

Upgrade or replace, as warranted by an updated 

master plan, aging facilities at McMurdo and 

Palmer Stations, thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the efficiency of support provided to science projects. (Modify or 

replace the pier and reconstruct the boat ramp 

at Palmer Station, install fire suppression—with 

backup power—in unprotected berthing and 

key operational facilities, upgrade medical clinics, and improve dormitory use to prevent the 

transmission of illnesses.)

The Panel’s ten recommendations are presented 

below in priority order, with brief parenthetical 

examples of implementing actions. Supporting 

information is presented in the relevant sections of this report. 

1. Antarctic Bases. Continue the use of 

McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer Stations as 

the primary U.S. science and logistics hubs on 

the continent. (There is no reasonable alternative, particularly concerning McMurdo.)

2. Polar Ocean Fleet. Restore the U.S. 

polar ocean fleet (icebreakers, polar research 

vessels, mid-sized and smaller vessels) to support science, logistics, and national security in 

both polar regions over the long term. (Follow 

through on pending action in the President’s 

FY 2013 Budget Request for the USCG to initiate the design of a new icebreaker.)
208 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

5. USAP Capital Budget. Establish a longterm facilities capital plan and budget for the 

USAP. (Provide phased plan for modernization 

of USAP facilities.)

6. Science Support Costs. Further 

strengthen the process by which the fully burdened cost and technological readiness of 

research instrumentation and observing systems, as well as overall projects, are considered 

in the review and selection of science projects. 

(Increase overall awareness of the true cost of 

resources provided in Antarctica.)

7. Communications. Modernize communication capabilities in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean to enable increased science 

output and reduced operational footprint. 

(Provide increased bandwidth on as well as to 

and from the continent.)

8. Energy Efficiency. Increase energy 

efficiency and implement renewable energy 

technologies to reduce operational costs. 

(Provide additional wind turbine generators at 

McMurdo, better insulate selected buildings, 

and invest in technology for converting trashto-energy and burning waste oil so that it does 

not have to be returned to the United States.)

9. International Cooperation. Pursue additional opportunities for international 

cooperation in shared logistics support as 

well as scientific endeavors. (The existence of 

numerous national stations in the peninsula 

region offers a particularly promising opportunity for an international supply system.)

10. Antarctic Policy. Review and revise 

as appropriate the existing documents governing Antarctic Policy (Presidential Memorandum 

6646 of 1982 and Presidential Decision Directive 

26 of 1994) and implementing mechanisms for 

Antarctica, taking into account current realities 

and findings identified by the National Research 

Council report and the present report. (Focus on 

policy and national issues as opposed to operational matters.)
Appendix VII: Recommendations and Implementing Actions 209

VII.2. Compilation of

Implementing and Ancillary Actions

Action 4.1-5. Pursue development, with international partners as appropriate, of a comprehensive, coordinated, and networked interdisciplinary observing and prediction system that 

would encompass all the major elements of the 

Antarctic environment—the atmosphere, terrestrial, marine and subglacial ecosystems, permafrost, ice shelves, ice sheets, subglacial habitats of 

the interior as well as the ocean and ocean sea ice. 

Action 4.1-6. Increase the available communications bandwidth to Palmer Station, South Pole 

Station, McMurdo Station, and the field camps 

in Antarctica. 

Action 4.1-7. Improve the process for developing plans for fielding complex projects, including 

realistic budgets and schedules that incorporate 

adequate contingency, a defined risk analysis, 

and mitigation measures. 

People 

Action 4.2-1. Establish a “suggestion box” 

system that encourages the submission of ideas 

and issues, and ensure that consideration of suggestions is thorough and communicated to the 

USAP community.

Listed below are all implementing and ancillary actions recommended 

by the Panel in the order they appear in Chapter 4 of the report. 

Research Support: Research

Facilities and Equipment

Action 4.1-1. Extend the observing season, 

especially on the continent, and improve the communications network to operate throughout the 

year to enable automated data collection and 

transmission from remote instruments. 

Action 4.1-2. Sponsor workshops to promote 

the development of remote-sensing and other 

equipment that will minimize the number of people on the ice and on research vessels. 

Action 4.1-3. Aggressively pursue the acquisition of a new polar research vessel with enhanced 

capabilities to ensure U.S. leadership in pursuing scientific endeavors in the Southern Ocean. 

Improved capabilities to deploy and recover 

advanced remote-sensing assets should be a key 

feature of such a vessel.

Action 4.1-4. USAP and its international 

partners should develop a strategy for defining 

components of the continental-scale long-term 

observing system to ensure that all components 

of the system are compatible and complementary.
210 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Action 4.2-2. Working with the USAP prime 

contractor, improve the stability and professionalism of the workforce and reduce the number of support personnel on the ice, with a goal 

of a 20 percent smaller workforce at McMurdo 

Station. (This reduction should be achieved 

through investments in infrastructure and other 

improvements to the supply chain, plus process 

reengineering and the application of modern 

business systems.) 

Action 4.2-3. Ensure that the support population for field camps is streamlined and appropriately matched to the needs of the science activities.

ACTION 4.2-4. Increase overall awareness of the 

true cost of resources provided in Antarctica.

Action 4.2-5. Foster a culture of efficiency and 

continuous improvement in all aspects of research 

and operations in order to reduce the overall footprint of activities and provide greater agility to 

respond to emerging areas of research. Areas of 

focus include reinforcing the notion that research 

supported by the USAP should be composed of 

activities that can only be performed, or are best 

performed, in the Antarctic.

Technology

Action 4.3-1. Establish a capital plan and 

capital budget. The investment strategy should 

emphasize upgrades to essential facilities, logistics 

and support infrastructure as well as new technology, all aimed at streamlining operations for 

efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Included is the 

establishment of long-range master plans for facilities, logistics, support infrastructure, and technology for each of the three major USAP stations.

Action 4.3-2. Continue to sponsor workshops that promote the development of remote 

sensing equipment that will minimize the number of people on the ice and on research vessels. 

Such workshops should encourage polar researchers to participate in NSF’s Major Research 

Instrumentation program. 

Action 4.3-3. Establish a dedicated DARPAlike polar technology development program 

within NSF and with other agencies. This could 

include investments in cyberinfrastructure and 

activities to enable broad observing systems as 

recommended in the 2011 NRC report.

Action 4.3-4. Foster mechanisms to ensure 

the readiness and training of scientists, engineers, 

modelers, and technologists that participate in 

Antarctic and Southern Ocean research.

Action 4.3-5. Ensure that instrumentation to 

be deployed for operation at remote field sites has 

passed a thorough pre-deployment testing process, including environmental testing, and has 

been developed to enable module-level serviceability and remote calibration.

Action 4.3-6. Adopt more formal approaches 

such as successful ones practiced by industry and 

other agencies for test and evaluation of new systems and technologies and formalize the assessment of technological readiness of new equipment 

and processes.

Transportation

ACTION 4.4-1. Continue the use of McMurdo, 

South Pole, and Palmer Stations as the primary 

U.S. science and logistics hubs on the continent.
Appendix VII: Recommendations and Implementing Actions 211

Action 4.4-2. Invest in robotics and automation to improve the efficiency of the delivery of 

cargo and fuel via overland traverse, particularly 

between McMurdo and South Pole stations. 

Action 4.4-3. Work with DoD and ANG to 

maximize use of dedicated C-17s and thereby 

refocus most LC-130 operations to support 

field activities.

Action 4.4-4. Consider more widespread use 

of airdrops for resupply operations, particularly 

for South Pole Station and deep field camps.

Action 4.4-5. Reduce the flying hour program 

and the LC-130 fleet by 40 percent, and modify 

one of the remaining aircraft as an airborne science platform to both reduce costs and expand 

science opportunities continent wide.

Action 4.4-6. Continue to explore lighterthan-air hybrid airship technology for possible 

Antarctic use.

Action 4.4-7. Make the Pegasus Runway more 

permanent, including support facilities, fire rescue, air traffic control, and fuel support. Examine 

the possibility of retaining Williams Field for 

LC-130 operations to eliminate the need to construct the Sea Ice Runway each year and to provide an alternate runway in the McMurdo Area, 

eliminating the single point failure represented by 

the Pegasus Runway. In addition, compact roads 

to the runways and at Williams Field to reduce 

wear and tear on skis and the aircraft.

Action 4.4-8. Construct a compacted snow 

runway at South Pole Station that is capable of 

supporting C-17 operations to allow heavy airlift from McMurdo Station or direct resupply of 

South Pole Station from Christchurch when conditions warrant. 

Action 4.4-9. Modernize the LC-130s with 

eight-bladed propellers, ADVENT engine modification, SABIR, and crevasse detection radar, and 

begin building a transition plan to the LC-130J. 

Action 4.4-10. Seek alternate cold weather 

fuels or otherwise develop alternate sources for 

AN-8 in order to reduce the refining costs associated with procuring this particular blend of fuel 

and the transportation costs involved in picking it 

up from these refineries.

Action 4.4-11. Continue to examine options 

to support and improve the delivery and retrograde of cargo to and from McMurdo Station. 

For example, work with DoD and MSC and in 

consultation with the appropriate New Zealand 

authorities to explore the possibility of incorporating the use of commercial vessels to move 

cargo throughout the year from Port Hueneme to 

USAP staging facilities in Christchurch and also 

the use of vessels sourced from New Zealand to 

deliver cargo to McMurdo.

ACTION 4.4-12. Follow through on pending 

action in the President’s FY 2013 Budget Request 

for the USCG to initiate the design of a new icebreaker, giving due consideration to a design that 

addresses the USAP’s needs, including for example the potential ability to conduct science from 

the icebreaker itself.
212 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Action 4.4-13. In collaboration with DoD, 

DHS and the Department of State, and with 

oversight from OSTP and OMB, ensure reliable, 

long-term access to icebreaking services for resupply of McMurdo and South Pole stations. 

Action 4.4-14. Collaborate within NSF and 

with the University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System and other interested federal 

agencies to develop science mission requirements 

for Antarctic Peninsula marine operations in the 

post-2020 time frame to address sea support after 

the Gould is no longer suitable or available.

Action 4.4-15. Retrofit the Palmer Station offload platform to include sufficient draft to and at 

the platform to accommodate a range of resupply 

and research vessels, improve small boat access, 

and introduce RIBs into the Palmer Station 

boating fleet. 

Action 4.4-16. In consultation with the NSF 

Division of Ocean Sciences, and other marine 

research agencies as appropriate, assign a 

regional or coastal class research vessel to Palmer 

Station during the Austral summer.

Action 4.4-17. Commence discussions with 

counterparts in Chile and the U.K. regarding 

collaborative logistics and ocean-based research 

operations in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 

including personnel transfer to U.S. research 

sites in the peninsula via King George Island or 

Rothera Station.

Supply Chain

Action 4.5-1. Develop and implement a vehicle modernization plan, possibly in conjunction 

with a major vehicle manufacturer.

Action 4.5-2. Expand the vehicle maintenance 

facility at McMurdo, adding four bays and replacing the existing bay doors with insulated models.

Action 4.5-3. Provide a single consolidated 

facilities maintenance building to house carpentry, electrical, plumbing, pipefitting, and metal 

work at McMurdo Station.

ACTION 4.5-4. Work with Christchurch 

International Airport and Lyttelton Port of 

Christchurch to assure that USAP needs are considered in the master plans now being produced 

by New Zealand.

Action 4.5-5. Consolidate warehousing 

and storage at McMurdo Station into a single 

inside facility, totaling an estimated 300,000-

400,000 square feet, and minimize outside storage; in the interim, correct deficiencies in flooring so that they no longer represent safety risks 

to personnel needing to work in the warehouses.

Action 4.5-6. Reevaluate on-site transportation and personnel “touches” to streamline product flow, especially at McMurdo Station.

ACTION 4.5-7. Consolidate hazardous materials at Palmer Station into a building that is 

properly constructed and located away from 

the station.
Appendix VII: Recommendations and Implementing Actions 213

Action 4.5-8. Replace the government-owned 

MAPCON materials management system with a 

modern, commercially available, inventory management system.

Action 4.5-9. Develop a multifactor life-cycle 

planning and implementation process to better organize, implement, and prioritize supply 

chain projects.

Energy and Utilities

Action 4.6-1. Develop a priority list for improving the insulation of buildings and implement 

an appropriate plan that includes the previously 

identified seven buildings with the poorest energy 

efficiency that are expected to remain in use.

Action 4.6-2. Together with the New Zealand 

Antarctic Programme, develop a plan to expand 

the highly successful Ross Island wind turbine 

project to achieve the maximum practicable wind 

energy penetration for the unified McMurdoScott Base power grid.

Action 4.6-3. Together with DOE, determine 

the feasibility and cost of converting the waste 

wood, paper, and cardboard into building heat 

and electricity at McMurdo Station and substantially reduce the amounts that must be transported off-continent. 

Action 4.6-4. Develop a plan to maximize 

solar generation of heat and electricity at all sites, 

including both fixed-base and field locations.

Action 4.6-5. Together with New Zealand, reexamine geothermal opportunities for producing 

heat and electricity at McMurdo Station.

Action 4.6-6. Introduce the solar garage concept at South Pole Station and other locations 

where similar operating and environmental conditions prevail.

Communications and

information Technology

Action 4.7-1. Augment the NSF Program 

Office for C&IT to accommodate its growing 

responsibilities. 

Action 4.7-2. Develop and implement a new 

architecture for C&IT that is consistent with 

future program needs, including the provision of 

increased bandwidth.

Action 4.7-3. Complete the ongoing assessment of alternatives for future South Pole bulk 

date transfer service and baseline an approach 

that does not depend on the TDRS system or 

GOES satellites. Consider both satellite and terrestrial capabilities, including a “New Start” (new 

satellite program) option that would provide high 

reliability and long-term capability.

Action 4.7-4. Identify those science projects 

that can benefit from real-time experimental data 

delivery to the United States and other off-ice sites 

and establish new Service Level Agreements that 

reduce the demand for scientists to be on-site in 

Antarctica.

Action 4.7-5. Assess the risk posture of the 

Black Island facility and develop and implement a 

plan to modernize it over the next five years. 
214 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Action 4.7-6. Identify all legacy elements of 

the C&IT program that represent serious risk to 

the mission and develop and implement a plan to 

mitigate those risks. 

Human Care

Action 4.8-1. As part of the master plan for 

Palmer Station, consider health and usability 

issues, including upgrading or replacing housing 

and baths as needed.

Action 4.8-2. Consider a dedicated dorm 

for those with similar work schedules, such as 

those working at night at McMurdo Station and 

researchers, aided by commercially available software to more efficiently and effectively manage 

housing and minimize the number of residents 

per room. 

Action 4.8-3. While the Panel commends the 

ongoing efforts to provide freshly prepared foods 

at the stations and on ships, the USAP is encouraged to emphasize the provision of a variety of 

fresh vegetables and fruits to those deployed and 

the hiring of highly competent, motivated galley 

staff.

Action 4.8-4. Investigate means to reduce the 

time, personnel and energy required for food 

preparation at remote field camps, such as by utilizing modern prepared foods requiring reduced 

energy in their preparation, similar to those used 

in military operations.

Action 4.8-5. Upgrade or build a centralized 

recreation building at McMurdo, or make recreation a principal function of a centralized multipurpose facility.

Action 4.8-6. Investigate and establish practices that would improve communications 

between the various colocated deployed teams 

at all Antarctic sites—including NSF personnel, 

contractor support staff, military personnel, and 

scientists—and thus promote increased overall 

awareness and appreciation of ongoing activities, 

interests, and priorities.

Action 4.8-7. Promulgate a uniform set of 

safety policies and procedures for USAP operations and research that promote a culture 

of workplace safety throughout the program. 

Greatly increase usage of signage and other forms 

of communication in promoting safety.

Action 4.8-8. Provide training to all participants in the use of fundamental operational 

risk management tools that can be continuously 

employed to identify and avoid high-risk safety 

situations. 

Action 4.8-9. State in a written procedure that 

the authority and responsibility of the ASC is to 

enforce safe practices among its employees, scientists, and subcontractors.

Action 4.8-10. Provide statistics concerning 

safety mishaps and other key measures of station 

performance to the participant population in a 

readily available form.

Action 4.8-11. Investigate the feasibility of 

storing McMurdo fire protection water in a gravity tank to improve reliability of the supply and 

the quantity of water available. 
Appendix VII: Recommendations and Implementing Actions 215

Action 4.8-12. Address safety concerns at 

Palmer Station regarding fire protection associated with personnel berthing in direct proximity to 

kitchen, power plant, and industrial workspaces.

Action 4.8-13. Undertake a comprehensive evaluation of safety hazards and repeat 

periodically. 

Action 4.8-14. Upgrade medical facilities and 

equipment at USAP Antarctic continental and 

marine locations on a routine basis, with current 

priority to McMurdo Station, and introduce an 

electronic medical records management system.

Action 4.8-15. Revise the criteria for physical 

qualification examinations to better and more 

individually match qualification to task, location, and risk.

Action 4.8-16. Continue to provide basic 

clothing for safety and health reasons (rather 

than leaving to individual option).

Action 4.8-17. Provide modern replacements 

for obsolete or inappropriate field gear as the latter ends its useful life.

Action 4.8-18. Provide greater clarity and 

consistency in guidance concerning gear approved 

for use in the field and when flying.

Environmental Stewardship

Action 4.9-1. Expedite removal or conversion 

into energy of the significant volume of waste 

remaining at South Pole Station.

Action 4.9-2. Install a modern wastewater 

treatment facility at Palmer Station and review 

the priority now assigned to providing such facilities for South Pole Station.

Action 4.9-3. Increase emphasis on water conservation, especially at McMurdo Station, and 

improve understanding of water costs among all 

deployed participants.

Action 4.9-4. Utilize frequently updated scientific data concerning climate change to better 

understand and plan for its impacts on operation 

of the USAP, its budget and its obligations under 

the Antarctic Treaty.

International Considerations

Action 4.10-1. Periodically review the activities of other national Antarctic programs to identify opportunities for collaborative research, logistics, energy provision, technology, infrastructure, 

education and other areas that would eliminate 

duplication of effort, standardize equipment, and 

reduce costs to the international community.

Action 4.10-2. Periodically review the current and projected shared-service “balance sheet” 

to assure equity of international cooperative 

activities.

Action 4.10-3. Initiate an effort to better 

“standardize” equipment and through COMNAP 

to reduce costs and eliminate unnecessary 

redundancy.
216 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Action 4.10-4. Engage with Italy, New 

Zealand, and South Korea to identify opportunities for collaborative science and logistics 

arrangements that would appropriately benefit 

all three programs due to the proximity of their 

stations in the Ross Sea region.

Governance of U.S. Program

Action 4.11-1. Review PM 6646 and 

PDD/NSC-26 to update these governing policy documents, as necessary, to ensure full 

implementation of their requirements under 

today’s environment.
Appendix VIII: Bibliography 217

policy analyses

Appendix VIII. 

Bibliography

U.S. policy

d) Secretariat describes consultative and acceding parties, meetings, recommendations, and agreements 

adopted under the Antarctic Treaty system. http://

www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm.

U.S. Antarctic Policy and Program. National Security 

Decision Memorandum 71, 10 July 1970. 

Planning and Conduct of the United States Program in 

Antarctica. Office of Management and Budget Circular 

A-51 (revised), 4 August 1971.

U.S. Policy for Antarctica. National Security Decision 

Memorandum 318, 25 February 1976.

U.S. Antarctic Policy and Programs. White House 

Memorandum 6646, 5 February 1982.

U.S. policy on private expeditions to Antarctica. http://nsf.

gov/od/opp/antarct/ngo_policy.jsp.

United States Policy in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. 

Presidential Decision Directive NSC-26, 9 June 1994.

The United States in Antarctica, U.S. Antarctic Program 

External Panel, vi + 94 pp., 1997. http://www.nsf.gov/

pubs/1997/antpanel/front.htm.

Eagle Over the Ice: The U.S. in the Antarctic, by Christopher 

C. Joyner and Ethel R. Theis, University Press of New 

England, xvi + 303 pp., 1997.

Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance 

of International Spaces, Paul Arthur Berkman et al., eds. 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, 

D.C., xii + 337 pp., 2011.

Antarctica and International Law—A Collection of Interstate and National Documents, Volume III, by W.H. Bush, 

Oceana Publications, Inc., 1988 (551 p.). Part XVIII, 

United States of America, pages 417–537.

Planning and Conduct of the United States Program 

for Antarctica. Bureau of the Budget Circular A-51, 

3 August 1960.

Antarctic Treaty, signed by 12 nations at Washington, 

D.C., on 1 December 1959, ratified by the U.S. Senate 

10 August 1960, entered into force 23 June 1961. http://

www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf.

a) Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals

(CCAS), signed in London on 1 June 1972, entered 

into force in 1978. http://www.ats.aq/documents/

recatt/Att076_e.pdf.

b) Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine 

Living Resources (CCAMLR), signed in Canberra on 

20 May in 1980, entered into force in 1982. http://

www.ats.aq/documents/ats/ccamlr_e.pdf.

c) Protocol on Environmental Protection to the 

Antarctic Treaty, signed in Madrid on 4 October 

1991, entered into force in 1998. http://www.

antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geopolitical/

treaty/update_1991.php.

Development of United States Antarctic Policy, by B.M. Plott, 

unpublished Ph.D. thesis presented to the Fletcher 

School of Law and Diplomacy on 31 March 1969. 325 pp.

Antarctic Treaty System—An Assessment: Proceedings of 

a Workshop Held at Beardmore South Field Camp, 

Antarctica, 7–13 January 1985, Polar Research Board, 

National Research Council, xvi + 435 pp, 1985. 

Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic, Polar Research 

Board, National Research Council, 107 pp. 1993. 

United States Antarctic Program, Committee on 

Fundamental Science, National Science & Technology 

Council, 93 pp., 1996. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/

nstc96rp/start.htm.
218 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

infrastructure and logistics

Analysis of the Use of Wind Energy to Supplement the Power 

Needs at McMurdo Station and Amundsen-Scott South 

Pole Station, Antarctica, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, Report No. TP-500-37504, 44 pp., 2005. 

http://nrelpubs.nrel.gov/Webtop/ws/nich/www/public/

Record?rpp=25&upp=0&m=2&w=NATIVE%28%27

TITLE_V+ph+words+%27%27McMurdo+Station%27

%27+and+AUTHOR+ph+words+%27%27Robichaud

%27%27%27%29&order=native%28%27pubyear%2

FDescend%27%29.

Antarctic Infrastructure & Logistics Active MOAs and 

Interagency Support Agreements, by NSF Office of Polar 

Programs, 3 pp., 4 May 2009. 

Antarctic Support Contract Reading Room and Video, 

http://www.nsf.gov/about/contracting/rfqs/support_

ant/reading_room/reading.jsp. 

Arctic Research Support and Logistics: Strategies and 

Recommendations for System-scale Studies in a Changing 

Environment, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, xii + 

81  p., 2003. http://www.arcus.org/logistics/03_report.

html.

Charter for an Ice Capable Antarctic Research & Supply 

Vessel, Raytheon Polar Services Co. https://www.fbo.

gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e77fe06289

d051a66a526cb2cf504d77&tab=core&_cview=0 United 

States Antarctic Program—Study Report for Office of 

Management and Budget. National Science Foundation.

152 pp., 1 May 1972. 

Future of the Next Generation Satellite Fleet and the 

McMurdo Ground Station, Antarctic Meteorological 

Research Center, Space Science and Engineering Center, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, 34 pp., 31 May 2004. 

http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/meetings/MGS/MGS-finalreport.doc.

Housing and Warehouse Facilities at McMurdo Station 

Antarctica, National Science Foundation, 11 pp., 

November 2003. 

Implementing Science in the Polar Regions. Advisory 

Committee, Division of Polar Programs, NSF, 45 pp + 

appendices, 1992. 

Logistics Recommendations for an Improved U.S. Arctic 

Research Capability, U.S. Arctic Research Commission. 

viii + 88 pp., 1997. http://www.arcus.org/Logistics/97_

report.html.

McMurdo Facilities Energy Study, RSA Engineering, Inc. 

48 pp., 24 April 2008. http://www.nsf.gov/about/contracting/rfqs/support_ant/docs/femc_docs/mcmurdo_

energy_study.pdf.

McMurdo Station Long-Range Development Plan, by DMJM 

Design. Numerous pages. June 2003. 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System, NOAA Satellite Information Service. http://

www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/npoess.html.

National Science Foundation (NSF) United States Antarctica 

Program (USAP) Science Workshop, 27 February 2012. 

Aerospace Report No. TOR-2012(2228)-1, 46 pp. http://

www.usap.gov/conferencesCommitteesAndWorkshops/

contentHandler.cfm?id=2684.

New Generation Polar Research Vessel [web] Forum. http://

www.usap.gov/usapgov/vesselScienceAndOperations/

PRVSection.cfm.

Optimization of South Pole Operations, Raytheon Polar 

Services, 218 pp., August 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/

about/contracting/rfqs/support_ant/docs/south_pole_

rpt.pdf.

Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of 

U.S. Needs, Committee on the Assessment of U.S. Coast 

Guard Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs. National 

Academies Press, xii + 122 pp., 2007. 

Polar Science and Advanced Networking. Workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation OPP/CISE, 

April 24–26, 2003, edited by Robert Loewenstein, 

University of Chicago, and George Markowsky, 

University of Maine. 60 pp, 2003. http://www.polar.

umcs.maine.edu/OPP-CISE-Workshop-Final.pdf.

Report of the Subcommittee on U.S. Antarctic Program 

Resupply. Office of Polar Programs Advisory Committee, 

85 pp., 2005. http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/opp_advisory/

final_report/oac_resupply_report_081205.pdf.

Safety in Antarctica: Report of the U.S. Antarctic Program 

Safety Review Panel. National Science Foundation, NSF 

88–78, 155 pp., 1988.

Science at Sea: Meeting Future Oceanographic Goals with 

a Robust Academic Research Fleet, National Research 

Council, 107 pp., 2009. 

South Pole Broadband Preliminary Feasibility Study, WFN 

Strategies, 72 pp. + appendices, 18 April 2008. 

South Pole Connectivity RFI Evaluation and Recommendation, 

Raytheon Technical Services Company, Addendum 1. 8 

pp., 26 June 2003. 

Status of Wind-Diesel Applications in Arctic Climates. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report No. 

NREL/CP-500-42401, 17 pp., December 2007. http://

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42401.pdf

U.S. South Pole Station, NSF, 2009. http://nsf.gov/news/

special_reports/livingsouthpole/intro.jsp.
Appendix VIII: Bibliography 219

research goals and accomplishments

A Long-Range Science Plan for the Division of Polar 

Programs. National Science Foundation (NSF 90-48). 

45 pp., 1990. 

Americans in Antarctica 1775-1948, by Kenneth J. Bertrand. 

Special Publication No. 39, American Geographical 

Society, xvi + 554 pp., 1971. 

An Evaluation of Antarctic Marine Ecosystem Research, NAS 

Joint PRB/Ocean Sciences Board ad hoc Committee to 

Evaluate Antarctic Marine Ecosystem Research, 99 pp., 

1981. 

Antarctic Bibliography, American Geological Institute, 

searchable references to the world’s 91,100 items 

of Antarctic research literature published since the 

International Geophysical Year. http://www.coldregions.

org/.

Antarctic Research: Elements of a Coordinated Program. 

National Academy of Sciences. iv + 22 pp., 1949. 

Antarctic Solid-Earth Sciences Research: A guide for the Next 

Decade and Beyond, Ad Hoc Committee on Antarctic 

Geosciences, Polar Research Board, National Research 

Council, National Academy Press, 40 pp., 1986. 

A Research Program for Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise 

from Land-Ice Loss, Robert A. Bindschadler et al., 37 pp., 

January 2011. 

Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, 

Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee, 

National Research Council, National Academy Press, 

xxiv + 246 pp., 2001. 

A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008, U.S. 

National Committee for the International Polar Year 

2007-2008, Polar Research Board, National Academies 

Press, xiv + 96 pp., 2004. 

Directorate for Geosciences Long Range Plan FY 1994-98. 

National Science Foundation (NSF 92-97). 64 p. 1992. 

Directorate for Geosciences and Office of Polar Programs Long 

Range Plan, FY 1995-1999. National Science Foundation 

(NSF 94–49). 62 pp., 1994. 

Enhancing NASA’s Contribution to Polar Science: A Review 

of Polar Geophysical Data Sets, Committee to review 

NASA’s polar geophysical data sets, Polar Research 

Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

Press, 124 pp., 2001. 

Final Report—U.S. National Committee for the 

International Polar Year 2007–2008, Polar Research 

Board, National Academy of Sciences, 99 pp., April 2010.

Guidelines for U.S. Antarctic Program planning, 1973-1983. 

NAS Committee on Polar Research, Five disciplinebased booklets, 26 to 56 pages each, 1974. 

Intellectual structure of Antarctic science: A 25-years 

analysis, by Prabir G. Dastidar and S. Ramachandran, 

in Scientometrics, 77(3):389–414, 2008. Science in 

Antarctica. Part 1. The Life Sciences in Antarctica. NAS 

Committee on Polar Research. xiii+162 pp., 1961. 

Montréal Protocol 1987–1997: Global Benefits and Costs 

of the Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer, Environment Canada (Inv. No. EPSM361), 80 pp., 1997. 

Polar Research: A Survey. NAS Committee on Polar 

Research, 204 pp., 1970. 

Polar Programs Supported by the National Science 

Foundation from 1949 through 1974 and Future Plans. 

NSF, 31 pp., 1973. 

Polar Science special section, Science vol. 315, p. 1503–1504, 

1508–1510, 1513–1540, 16 March 2007. 

Polar Research: A Strategy. Polar Research Board, National 

Research Council. 1981–1985. Ten separate reports on 

Antarctic marine ecosystem, upper atmosphere and 

near-Earth space, biomedicine, snow and ice, permafrost, climate change, solid-Earth geosciences, oceanography, ice coring, and data analysis and education in 

biomedical research.

Recommendations for a U.S. Ice Coring Program, ad hoc 

Panel on Polar Ice Coring, Polar Research Board, 

National Research Council, 57 pp., 1986. 

Research Emphases for the U.S. Antarctic Program, Polar 

Research Board, National Research Council, 52 pp., 

1983. 

Role of the National Science Foundation in Polar Regions. 

Committee on the NSF Role in Polar Regions, National 

Science Board (NSB 87-128). 57 pp., 1987. 

Science in Antarctica. Part 2. The Physical Sciences in 

Antarctica, NAS Committee on Polar Research, xiii+131 

pp., 1961. 

Stratospheric Ozone Assessment, Appendix G, The Benefits 

and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010, EPA Report 

to Congress, EPA-410-R-99-001, November 1999. http://

www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/ch_apg.pdf.

Structure and development of polar research (1981–2007): 

a publication-based approach, by Dag W. Aksnes and 

Dag O. Hessen, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research

41(2):155–163, May 2009. 

The National Academies Involvement in Antarctic Science, 

Office of Polar Programs, NSF, 4 pp., July 2010. 
220 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges: International Polar 

Year 2007–2008. I. Krupnik et al., editors, 700 pp., 

February 2011. U.S. Research in Antarctica in 2000 A.D. 

and Beyond—A Preliminary Assessment. Polar Research 

Board, National Research Council. 35 pp., 1986. 

U.S. Antarctic Research Program Science Assessment 1976-77, 

Division of Polar Programs, NSF, 250 pp., 1977. Science 

Planning Summary, United States Antarctic Program, 

2011–2012, 225 pp., Raytheon Polar Services Company.

U.S. Polar Snow and Ice Studies, Henri Bader, Presented at a 

Special Meeting of the U.S. National Committee for the 

IGY, 27–29 June 1957. National Academy of Sciences, 5 

pages text, 4 photographs, 3 tables, 1957. 

future directions for Antarctic science

Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment. Scientific 

Committee on Antarctic Research. 155 pp., 2009. http://

www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/acce.html

Antarctic Incoherent Scatter Radar Facility: Transformational 

Solar-Terrestrial Research in the High South. Antarctic 

ISR Workshop, 8–9 August 2008. 39 pp., 2008. http://

www.nsf.gov/od/opp/opp_advisory/workshop_rpts/

final_aisr_rpt.pdf

A Research Program for Projecting Sea Level Rise from 

Land Ice Loss, R.A. Bindschadler, P.U. Clark, and D.M. 

Holland, eds., 38 pp., 2011. http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/

usap_special_review/science_review/science_docs/nsf_

sea-level_rpt.pdf

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M.  Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. 

Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 996 pp., 

2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_

report_the_physical_science_basis.htm Empowering 

the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: National 

Science Foundation Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-

2016. NSF 11–047, 20 pp. http://www.nsf.gov/news/

strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf

Exploration of Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments: 

Environmental and Scientific Stewardship, Committee 

on Principles of Environmental Stewardship for the 

Exploration and Study of Subglacial Environments, 

Polar Research Board, National Research Council, 

National Academy Press, 152 pp., 2007. 

Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomic Era, Committee 

on Frontiers in Polar Biology, Polar Research Board, 

National Research Council, National Academy Press, 

166 pp., 2003. International Study of Arctic Change 

Science Plan, ISAC International Program Office, 

Stockholm. 58 pp., 2010. http://www.arcticchange.org/

isac2009/images/stories/files/ISAC_Science_Plan_11-

15zip.pdf

New Frontiers and Future Directions in Antarctic Research, 

by Professor Mahlon C. Kennicutt II (Professor, 

Department of Oceanography, Texas A & M University; 

President, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research), 

Antarctic Treaty Summit, Plenary 4, 1 December 2009. 

http://www.atsummit50.aq/

Some Reasons to Perform Scientific Research in the Antarctic, 

NSF, 2009. 

Workshop on Seasonal to Multi-Decadal Predictability of 

Polar Climate, Bergen, Norway, 25–29 October 2010. 

Workshops relevant to NSF support of polar research. NSF, 

2012.
Appendix VIII: Bibliography 221

works cited in the report

Committee on the Assessment of U.S. Coast Guard Polar 

Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs, National Research 

Council. 2007. Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: 

An Assessment of U.S. Needs, National Academies Press, 

Washington, D.C., 134 pp. 

Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica 

and the Southern Ocean, National Research Council. 

2011. Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the 

Southern Ocean. National Academies Press, Washington, 

D.C., 195 pp.

Congressional Research Service Report. Coast Guard 

Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background, Issues, 

and Options for Congress. February 26, 2008, by 

Ronald O’Rourke, Report # RL34391. Updated report, 

November 3, 2011, available at http://www.uscg.mil/

history/docs/CRS_RL34391.pdf.

Gordon, A.L. 1999. The Southern Ocean. Current 15(3):4–6

Ice Drilling Program Offices’ parallel Long Range Science 

Plan and Long Range Drilling Technology Plan, available at http://www.icedrill.org/about/resources.

shtml#scienceplan.

Kaiser, J. 2003. Warmer ocean could threaten Antarctic 

ice shelves. Science 302: 759, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/

science.302.5646.759a.

NSF Office of Polar Programs Advisory Committee. 2005. 

Report of the Subcommittee on U.S. Antarctic Program 

Resupply. August 2005. Available at http://www.nsf.

gov/od/opp/opp_advisory/final_report/oac_resupply_

report_081205.pdf.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, 

I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. 

Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, 

V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, 

and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric 

history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice 

core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429–436, http://dx.doi.

org/10.1038/20859.

Rintoul, S.R., K. Speer, M. Sparrow, M. Meredith, E. 

Hofmann, E. Fahrbach, C. Summerhayes, A. Worby, 

M. England, R. Bellerby, S. Speich, D. Costa, J. Hall, 

M. Hildell, G. Hosie, K. Stanfield, Y. Fukamachi, T. de 

Bruin, A. Naveira Garabato, K. Alverson, V. Ryabinin, 

H.C. Shin, and S. Gladyshev. 2010. Southern Ocean 

Observing System (SOOS): Rationale and Strategy 

for Sustained Observations of the Southern Ocean. 

In Proceedings of OceanObs’09: Sustained Ocean 

Observations and Information for Society (Vol. 2), Venice, 

Italy, 21–25 September 2009, J. Hall, D.E. Harrison, and 

D. Stammer, eds, ESA Publication WPP-306, http://

dx.doi.org/10.5270/OceanObs09.cwp.74.

Sirocko, F. 2003. What drove past teleconnections? 

Science 301:1336–1337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/

science.1088626.

SCAR Southern Ocean Observing System plan, available at 

http://www.scar.org/soos/.

Scientific Opportunities for a Long-Range Aircraft for 

Research in Antarctica (LARA). 2005. Report of a workshop held 27–29 September 2004, available at http://

bprc.osu.edu/PolarMet/lara/lara_report.pdf.

Shepherd, A., D. Wingham, T. Payne, and P. Skvarca. 

2003. Larsen Ice Shelf has progressively thinned. 

Science 302:856–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/

science.1089768.

Solomon, S., and M.R. Schoeberl 1988. Overview of the polar 

ozone issue. Geophysical Research Letters 15(8):845-846, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/GL015i008p00845.
222 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

Appendix IX. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AABW Antarctic Bottom Water

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

ADVENT Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology

AGO Automatic Geophysical Observatories

ANDRILL Antarctic Geological Drilling

ANG Air National Guard

ARSV Antarctic Research and Supply Vessel

ASC Antarctic Support Contractor (Lockheed Martin)

ATS Antarctic Treaty System

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

AWS Automatic Weather Station

BITF Black Island Telecommunications Facility

C&IT Communications and Information Technology

CAML Census of Antarctic Marine Life

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

COMNAP Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DSCS Defense Satellite Communications System

ECO Edison-Chouest Offshore

ECW Extreme Cold Weather

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

Gould Laurence M. Gould

GPS Global Positioning System

HF High Frequency

IGY International Geophysical Year
Appendix IX: Abbreviations and acronyms 223

IPY International Polar Year

ITASE International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition

JPSS Joint Polar Satellite System

LARISSA Larsen Ice Shelf System, Antarctica

MSC Military Sealift Command

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council

NREL National Renewable Energy Lab

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Heatlh Administration

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

Palmer Nathaniel B. Palmer

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

PDM Programmed Depot Maintenance

PM Presidential Memorandum

POLENET Polar Earth Observing Network

PQ Physically Qualified

PRV Polar Research Vessel

RFI Request for Information

RIB Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boat

RVIB Icebreaking Research Vessel

SABIR Special Airborne Mission Installation and Response System

SAR Search and Rescue

SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

SMS Safety Management System

SOOS Southern Ocean Observing System
224 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

STEM Science Technology Engineering and Math

TDRS Tracking and Data Relay Satellite

UNOLS University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System

USAP U.S. Antarctic Program

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USCGC U.S. Coast Guard Cutter

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WAIS West Antarctic Ice Sheet

WDW Warm Deep Water

WINFLY Winter Fly-In
Preface 225
226 More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness

This study was conducted at the request of the White House Office 

of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp

Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP) in 1976 with a broad mandate to advise the President and 

others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of 

science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP is 

also authorized to lead interagency efforts to develop and implement 

sound science and technology policies and budgets, and to work with 

the private sector, state and local governments, the science and higher 

education communities, and other nations toward this end.

National Science Foundation

www.nsf.gov

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency 

created by Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; 

to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the 

national defense...” NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally 

supported basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities.

The U.S.Antarctic Program

www.nsf.gov/od/opp/ant/memo_6646.jsp

The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) is the nation’s program for 

maintaining an active and influential presence in Antarctica through the 

conduct of scientific research consistent with the principles enunciated 

in the Antarctic Treaty. In accordance with Presidential Memorandum 

6646 (February 5, 1982), NSF is responsible for managing and budgeting 

for the USAP as a single package.