AID-A270 431

Delivery of Fuel and Construction

Materials to South Pole Station

Stephen L. DenHartog and George L. Blaisdell July 993

DTIC

ELECT

•1 S ~AUOCT 12 U93 53

!biq cloum~nt has been app;0Y6

e:e1aso ind Sate its

4 ~~ ~ 4u~iz is unlimite.4

93 10 8 102

93-23897
Plans ore undeway to rebuild South Pole Station, ideally with minimal impact

on the current science and operational program. The new station will require the

delivery of massive amounts of construction materials to this remote site. The

existing means of delivering material and fuel to the South Pole include the use

of specialized and rare LC- 130 Hercules aircraft that can operate on wheels or

skis, and some materials are also air-dropped from C- 141 aircraft. Neither of

these delivery systems is expected to be capable, within a reasonable time

period, of supporting both current operations and the transport needs for

construction of a new station. Several options for moving construction materials

and fuel to South Pole Station are analyzed. All of our options assume that goods

will be transported to the Antarctic continent by ship. The options include a)

construction of a snow runway at the South Pole capable of supporting wheeled

aircraft, b) development of an inland blue-Ice runway capable of supporting

heavy wheeled aircraft, located as close as possible to the South Pole, with oversnow vehicle haulage from the runway to the Pole (two potential sites are

considered), c) over-snow vehicle haulage from McMurdo across the Ross Ice

Shelf, up the Skelton or another glacier, and over the polar plateau to the Pole,

and d) vehicle haulage from some coastal station (located at about 6- S

latitude) with an easier access route onto the polar plateau. Pros and cons of

these options are discussed and issues associated with each are identified. The

feasibility and risk associated with each option are covered as well. Estimates

of costs for many of the factors involved with each option allow financial

comparison of each delivery scheme. Ultimately, the results of this study are

probably best used as a starting point for any serious planning and budgeting

for the development of a new South Pole Station.

For conversion of SI metric units to IJ.S./Britlsh customary units of measurement

consult ASTM Standard E380-89a, Standord Proct/ce for Use of the Internotionol

System of Units, published by the American Society for Testing and Materials.

1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.

This report is printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% recycled

material.
Special Report 93-19 -

US Army Corps

of Engineers

Cold Regions Research &

Engineering Laboratory

Delivery of Fuel and Construction

Materials to South Pole Station

Stephen L. DenHartog and George L. Blaisdell July 1993

Accesion For

NWI S CRA&I

DTIC TAB U..a'inou.'zed

JiLstifica..on ...... ..................

ik, ... ... . . ....... ... . J

bi~t.ibutit, -f

AveilibilitY Codes

Dist SpWC10

'A'I

Prepared for

DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
PREFACE

This report was prepared by Stephen L. DenHartog, Civil Engineer, Ice Engineering Research Branch, and George L. Blaisdell, Research Civil Engineer, Experimental Engineering

Division, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). The project

was funded by the National Science Foundation Division of Polar Programs under contract

no. OPP-91-40015.

The authors wish to thank Nicholas Collins, Wayne Tobiasson, and Paul Sellmann of CRREL

for technically reviewing the report.

The contents of this report are not to be used fo± advertising or promotional purposes. Citation of brand names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such

commercial products.

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Preface .................................................................................................................................. ii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Baseline inform ation .......................................................................................................... 1

O verland transport ....................................................................................................... 1

A ir delivery to inland transfer point ............................................................................ 4

Traverse tim e ................................................................................................................. 4

A ircraft and blue-ice runw ay details ............................................................................ 4

Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 5

Param eters and assum ptions used ................................................................................... 6

Feasibility ............................................................................................................................ 7

D irect air .......................................................................................................................... 7

Inland blue-ice locations ................................................................................................ 7

O ver-snow traverse ........................................................................................................ 9

Risk ....................................................................................................................................... 11

D irect air .......................................................................................................................... 11

Inland blue-ice locations ................................................................................................ 11

O ver-snow traverse ....................................................................................................... . 12

Environm ental im pact ...................................................................................................... 12

H ardw are and cost analysis .............................................................................................. 12

D iscussion ............................................................................................................................ 15

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 16

Literature cited ..................................................................................................................... 16

A ppendix A : D erivation of values in Table 3 .................................................................... 19

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Australian super low ground pressure D7 Caterpillar traverse tractor ................. 2

2. U.S. antarctic-equipped Caterpillar Challenger tractor .......................................... 2

3. A alener 20-ton sled ..................................................................................................... 3

4. U.S. Caterpillar/Fruehauf 25-ton tracked trailer with retractable

roller deck ........................................................................................................ 3

5. U .S. A ir Force "K " loader ........................................................................................... 5

6. M ap of A ntarctica locating key sites ........................................................................ . 8

7. One of the original low ground pressure 1D8 Caterpillar tractors used

for traverse ........................................................................................................ 9

8. Tucker Sno-Cat in crevasse on Skelton Glacier in 1957 ........................................... 10

9. Com parison of delivery schem es .............................................................................. 15

TABLES

Table

1. A dditional required infrastructure ........................................................................... 6

2. Parameters used for comparison of option costs ..................................................... 13

3. Cost comparison of various delivery options .......................................................... 14

iii
Delivery of Fuel and Construction Materials

to South Pole Station

STEPHEN L DENHARTOG AND GEORGE L. BLAISDELL

INTRODUCTION We also discuss the feasibility of each of these

options, none has yet been proven.

The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is A certain degree of risk is associated with each of

planning to rebuild portions of the existing South the considered delivery options. Any comparison of

Pole Station and add satellite facilities there as part these options must give serious attention to real or

of its science program expansion. Except for deliv- perceived danger to personnel and equipment. In

ery of some construction equipment by parachute addition, environmental impact must be considered.

from C-141 aircraft, all resupply to the South Pole Cursory examination of risk and environmental imsince the early 1960s (including cargo, food, fuel, and pact are included in this study.

passengers) has been performed by LC-130 aircraft.

These specialized, ski-equipped aircraft can deliver

about 22,000 lb to the South Pole with each trip. BASELINE INFORMATION

Round-trip flight time from McMurdo is nearly 6

hours. As the load requirements grow and the Na- This study includes three areas of consideration:

tional Science Foundation fleet of six LC-130 aircraft feasibility, cost, and risk. Our comments regarding

ages, another means of resupply will be necessary. feasibility are based primarily on current operational

This could include greater use of the four LC-130s capability and historical experience. To perform cost

owned and operated by the New York Air National calculations and complete fair comparisons of the

Guard. various delivery options, agreement on a number of

Based upon a number of assumptions, we have factors was required. In most cases it was easy to

analyzed several delivery system options. These op- derive or obtain these factors, but in some cases it

tions were originally proposed at a workshop dedi- was necessary to make assumptions or to choose

cated to a systems approach for planning a new values arbitrarily. Risk assessment was performed

South Pole station (Capital Systems Group 1992). For qualitatively based on our concept of each delivery

each option, we have attempted to figure the actual scenario.

cost to the USAP as it exists today (i.e., we charged

only for new personnel, facilities, equipment, and Overland transport

services that are not present now). The options we Since few long traverses have been done in recent

consider include years in Antarctica, modem heavy-haul traverse vea) producing a snow pavement at the South hicles have not developed over the recent past (RePole sufficient to allow operation of wheeled fer to the section on Feasibility for a discussion of hisaircraft, torical traverses.) The Australians have produced a

b) flying cargo on wheeled aircraft to an inland super-modified Caterpillar LGP (low ground presblue-ice site (specifically Mt Howe or Mill sure) D7 (Fig. 1) specifically for traversing, and reGlacier) and surface hauling from there, and ports are that it works quite well This tractor is still

c) direct over-snow delivery from McMurdo quite slow, with a top speed of about 6 mph. A simivia the Skelton Glacier or some other coastal lar concept for a super LGP D7 has been developed

station (picked arbitrarily to be located at by Caterpillar and the Naval Civil Engineering Labo670S). ratory (Barthelemy 1988).
SI

Figure 1. Australian super iow ground pressure (LGP) D7 Caterpillar traverse tractor.

Figure 2. U.S. antarctic-equipped Caterpillar Challenger tractor.

The U.S. Antarctic Program has performed over- a special traverse version of the Challenger. This tracsnow tests (Blaisdell and Liston 1990) with the Cat- tor would have an extended track length to increase

erpillar Challenger tractor (Fig. 2) and now has two towing ability and provide a more comfortable ride.

such tractors in the McMurdo area. The Australians It would also have an extended cab to allow one or

(Sheers 1992), the South Africans (deWet 1992), and two passengers to ride along.

the French (Laffonte and Gordon 1991,1992) are also Since no firm data are yet available for the longusing Challenger tractors in Antarctica. These trac- track Challenger, we assumed for this study that the

tors are mostly stock and show great promise for long standard turbocharged Challenger tractor would be

traverses because of their high speed (18 mph) and used for all traversing. A travel speed of 8 mph was

relatively comfortable ride due to a suspended rub- estimated as comfortable and sustainable under most

ber track system. The 38,000-lb Challenger (4.9 psi snow conditions (based on our experience with the

ground pressure) does not have as high a drawbar tractor) with a drawbar pull of 11,000 lb at this speed.

pull as a D7, but a force of 16,000 lb can be generated Both sleds (Fig. 3) and tracked trailers (Fig. 4) were

on snow at low speeds and up to 3000 lb at full speed. considered as possible towed units to move cargo.

We have been working with Caterpillar to develop Modem sleds have a weight of about 16,000 lb empty,

2
Figure 3. Aalener 20-ton sled.

Figure 4. U.S. Caterpillar/Fruehauf 25-ton tracked trailer With retractable roller deck.

a deck size of 9 x 21 ft, a load capacity of 40,000 lb, often do not freeze in place when parked. In addiand a sliding resistance coefficient of between 0.08 tion, they are much easier to start in motion because

and 0.15, depending on surface type (soft or wind- of the "walking" action of the track that lifts the track

blown snow, ice). Tracked trailers were estimated to up off the surface.

weigh 18,000 lb empty, have a deck size of 9 x 50 ft, For this study, we assumed that most of the

a load capacity of 50,000 lb, and a rolling resistance traverse will be on the polar plateau where much of

coefficient of between 0.08 and 0.13, depending on the snow surface is windblown and firm. Our brief

surface conditions (Blaisdell 1992). experience with the tracked trailer in Antarctica inA significant difference between sleds and tracked dicates that, compared to a sled, a lower towing retrailers is the force required for start-up. Skis on sleds sistance coefficient was present for snow with denfreeze to the surface when parked for more than a sities less than 0.35 g/cm3. On firm snow (density

few minutes, and often a large force or an impact load between 0.4 and 0.55 g/cm3), the towing resistance

is required to shear the interface bond and start the coefficient for sleds and trailers was about equal. On

sled in motion. Even when not frozen to the surface, ice or very compact snow surfaces (virtually no ski

a tractor must overcome the static friction coefficient sinkage), the sled showed a slightly lower towing

(often significantly higher than the sliding friction resistance coefficient. Without more information, we

coefficient) to start a sled moving. Thus, it is com- felt that it was fairest to apply the same towing coefmon to have slack built in to the tow cables or tow ficient for sleds and tracked trailers. A value of 0.09

bars on sleds to allow the tractor to impart an im- was assumed.

pact to the sled and start each sled moving indepen- Each empty sled requires a drawing force of 1440

dently (similar to a locomotive starting a train of rail lb. One fully loaded sled would take 5040 lb to move;

cars in motion). Tracked trailers, on the other hand, two loaded sleds (with a total payload of 80,000 lb)

3
require 10,080 lb of drawbar force. Considering the tractor is not ideally matched either. Each tractor11,000-lb pull available from the tractor at speed, an trailer would be required to carry its own fuel, some

additional payload of 10,200 lb could be towed. How- re, -air parts, and a wannigan. These items could be

ever, this would require an additional towed unit, used to "round out" the load, but it would probably

which, even empty, would probably use up this trac- be at the expense of pallet positions.

tive reserve. A possible means to better utilize the full potenAn empty trailer requires 1620 lb to pull on typi- tial of the over-snow transport system would be to

cal polar plateau snow. One fully loaded trailer deliver fuel to the South Pole Station in conjunction

(50,000-lb payload, 6.8 psi ground pressure) would with movement of construction materials. All fuel

use up 6120 lb of available drawbar force and a sec- for the station is now delivered by aircraft. This is a

ond trailer could carry a payload of 36,200 lb before tremendously expensive and inefficient method of

the tractor's drawbar capacity is exceeded, yielding delivery. The tractor-trailer is ideally suited for dea gross payload of 86,200 lb. Thus, each tractor could livering fuel. By mounting tanks that do not intertow two trailers and move about 86,000 lb of cargo fere with the deck on the sleds or trailers, fuel could

with the trailers operating at 86% of their rated load. be used to "top off" each trailer or sled load.

In the case of sleds, a gross payload of 80,000 lb could

be moved on two sleds (the sleds operating at their Traverse time

load limit). We calculated a 20-hr travel day for the overland

transport from the inland stations. This is only an

Air delivery to inland transfer point estimate of an average expected traverse. Most of the

For the delivery scenarios that involve aircraft and terrain covered is level and, after the first few trips,

tractor-trailer trains, we assumed that cargo would the route would be familiar to operators. In addition,

remain on aircraft pallets when transferred from the the longest trip from an inland station is only about

airplane to the towed units. To do otherwise would five days, so it seems plausible that this schedule

add a tremendous amount of labor at the transfer could be maintained.

point. Aircraft pallets, we understand, are approxi- The 2376-mile round-trip from McMurdo, or

mately 9 x 7.3 ft and have a load limit of about 4500 3036-mile round-trip from a coastal station, is quite

lb. Thus, each tracked trailer would have seven pal- a different matter. We figured this on a 12-hr travel/

let positions. Loaded with seven aircraft pallets, a 12-hr rest and maintenance schedule. The crew

total of 31,500 lb per trailer results. This represents would probably operate more hours per day than

only a 63% utilization of the trailer's capacity. With this; however, for segments of the trip an 8 mph ava 49,500-lb gross weight for each of two trailers, only erage speed is not sustainable (e.g., up the Skelton

8900 lb of the tractor's 11,000-lb drawbar capacity is Glacier). For estimation purposes, we assumed an 8-

used to deliver 14 pallets. Unfortunately, addition of mph speed for 12 hours per day. This results in a 26-

a third trailer by itself (empty) would use up nearly day round-trip from McMurdo or 33-day round-trip

all of this tractive reserve. Thus, the 2100 lb of extra from a coastal station. Thus, three round-trips per

tractive force might best be used to sustain a higher year are possible from McMurdo or two complete

ground speed. circuits from a coastal station.

Each sled would have space for three pallets,

yielding a total load of 13,500 lb. This is well below Aircraft and blue-ice runway details

the load limit (34% utilization of rated payload). A The LC-130 aircraft, currently used for most USAP

total of four sleds could be towed, each with three needs, were not considered for use in this study. This

4500-lb pallets. This would require 10,620 lb of the is principally because these aircraft are in short suptractor's towing force; the remaining 380 lb of avail- ply, have a lower maximum payload than a standard

able drawbar force could probably only be efficiently C-130 (due to the addition of skis), and are fully utiused to attain a slightly higher speed. Thus, with four lized supporting the science and everyday logistics

sleds, a maximum of 12 pallets could be delivered needs of the Antarctic Program. In addition, all of

by each tractor. In this scenario, most of the tractor's the scenarios that are considered here involve aircraft

drawbar capacity is used up in towing the sleds landing on surfaces that will support wheels, so conthemselves rather than the payload. ventional aircraft can be used.

In short, when confining all of the payload to air- The primary cargo aircraft in the U.S. military syscraft pallets, the full capacity of neither trailers nor tem are the C-130 and the C-141. The C-130 is attracsleds is utilized. And, because we are restricted to tive because of its ability to operate on relatively

multiples of sleds or trailers, the tractive force of the rough terrain and its moderate tire pressure (95 psi).

4
However, it is propeller-dri'en (slow) and has a b) what time and sequence of events will maximaximum payload of only about 30,000 lb or six pal- mize strengthening of the snow,

lets. The C-141 has a payload of more than 60,000 lb c) how long it will take for the processed snow

with 13 pallet positions and, being jet propelled, trav- to reach the required strength,

els much faster than the C-130. Unfortunately, the d) how much areal vaiability in processed snow

C-141 is designed to operate only on nearly ideal run- strength is to be expected,

ways (very low wing tips, very high tire pressures, e) how much annual maintenance would be revery little under-belly clearance). quired once a strong snow pavement is proStructurally, an inland blue-ice runway in Ant- duced, and

arctica could most likely support any type of aircraft f) how much deterioration in the runway will be

operations. The ice on a given site may need some caused by the operation of wheeled aircraft.

smoothing to remove bumps and swales, and the

runway must be sited to avoid any crevasses in the Infrastructure

area. The ice itself at such a site would have adequate Most of the infrastructure required at South Pole

strength and a surface friction coefficient high Station and at McMurdo for any of the proposed

enough for safe operation of aircraft. However, con- delivery options already exists. Some augmenting of

sidering the combination of factors present at an in- equipment and structures may be necessary. Deland blue-ice site (e.g., surface roughness and fric- pending on the site chosen for the take-off point for

tion coefficient, runway length requirements, winds, a coastal station-to-South Pole traverse, considerable

air temperature, geographic obstacles), only aircraft infrastructure may be required. Housing, maintedesigned for rough field, tactical operations should nance, storage, and cargo handling facilities will be

be considered for use. required, as well as a ship off-loading capability.

A compacted snow runway at the South Pole is At any inland site, a camp to house six or possicurrently used by ski-equipped LC-130s. Strength bly more people will be necessary. For fire safety, at

measurements on this runway indicate that it could least two heated buildings should be present on-site.

support tire pressures of about 35 psi. At some loca- The existing 8 x 20-ft six-bunk hut at Mill Glacier is

tions at the South Pole strength measurements have confining, but it would be comfortable quarters for

shown that snow can be made to support loads in four with space for two temporary guests. Two buildthe range of the C-130 tires. These have been rela- ings of that size and configuration for bunking and

tively small areas compared to a full runway and taxi a third for office/aircrew/radio, etc. would be adand parking area. Further study is required to deter- equate. In addition, an inland site would need at least

mine minimal facilities for maintenance and winter stora) what equipment is best suited for processing age of equipment.

a large area, All buildings that would be placed on snow or

ice surfaces should have

allowances for problems

S_ related to ablation and

snow drifting. They

could either be placed on

columns or skids.

Equipment for loading and unloading cargo

will be required at

McMurdo, the South

Pole, and at any inland

transfer points or coastal

station depending on the

delivery option chosen.

SFor this study, we assumed that a "K" loader

type vehicle (Fig. 5)

would have to be purchased for the South Pole

Figure 5. U.S. Air Force "K" loader, if the direct air option is

5
Table 1. Additional required infrastructure.

Delivery option Structures Equipment

Direct air Equipment shelter at "K"-type loader (S250K)*

South Pole Station ($75K) Tractors (2) (M350K)

Processor ($250K)

Tracked loader (.200K)

Rollers (2) ($160K)

Via Mt. Howe Berthing ($125K) "K"-type loader (S250K)*

Equipment garage ($75K) Wheeled loaders (2) ($300K)

Material storage racks (S50K) Utility truck ($25K)

Fuel storage (W50K)

Via Mill Glacier Berthing ($100K) "K"-type loader ($250K)*

Equipment garage ($75K) Wheeled loaders (2) ($300K)

Material storage racks (SSOK) Utility truck (525K)

Fuel storage (550K)

Overland from Equipment shelter at Tracked loaders

McMurdo South Pole Station ($75K) (2, South Pole), ($400K)

Wheeled loaders

(2, McMurdo), (M300K)

Overland from New construction or Tracked loaders

coastal station upgrade of existing (2, South Pole), ($400K)

structures at coastal Wheeled loaders

station (5500K) (4, coastal), ($600K)

"Could be actual "K" loader or other piece of equipment capable of receiving aircraft load.

chosen and for an inland site if an aircraft-to-trac- 0 For aircraft options, all loads are confined to

tor-trailer transfer would occur. An actual "K" loader USAF pallets (9 x 7.3 ft).

is probably not appropriate for inland stations or the * Average load per pallet is 4500 lb.

South Pole due to the adverse affect of cold tempera- - Delivery spread over four or eight seasons

tures on the vehicle's hydraulics. A tracked trailer (two options).

could be configured to work in a similar fashion,

however, for directly unloading an entire aircraft 2- Geography

load. Several extra loaders would have to be added * Mt Howe is at 87W20'S, 176 surface miles from

at South Pole Station and for an inland site or coastal the South Pole.

station. - Mill Glacier is at 85005'S, 330 surface miles

Table 1 lists the additional infrastructure we en- from the South Pole.

vision will be required under each delivery option. * McMurdo to Mt. Howe is 630 nm (air).

* McMurdo to Mill Glacier is 440 run (air).

* McMurdo is at 77052'S, 728 run by air from

PARAMETERS AND the South Pole (1188 miles via Skelton GlaASSUMPTIONS USED cier over-snow).

* Coastal station (670S) to South Pole is 1518

The following listing summarizes the baseline in- miles over-snow.

formation used for our analysis. We included delivery of all station fuel as part of our calculations. 3. Aircraft

* LC-130s not considered due to their limited

1. Task number and reduced payload.

* 8,000,000 lb of material are neý. ed to rebuild * C-141s not considered due to poor rough-runSouth Pole Station (construction material way potential.

only). * C-130 costs $2789 per hour (includes crew,

* Delivery of 200,000 gal (1,374,000 lb) of fuel maintenance, and fuel).

used at the station each season.

6
"* C-130 payload is 30,000 lb (pallets and deliv- FEASIBILITY

erable fuel).

"• C-130 average speed = 250 kt; up to 12 hr/ Direct air

day flying. We have already alluded to the fact that produc-

"* Two round-trips per C-130 per day to any ing a compacted snow runway at the South Pole,

site. while of great interest, is by no means a given. Many

"* Wheeled flight season (WFS) is 1 Nov to 10 earlier studies have had as their goal the production

Dec = 40 days (32 flyable). of a strong snow runway for wheels at the South Pole

"* 1.5 hours expected for load/unload opera- (Barthelemy 1975, Barber et al. 1989, Lee et al. 1989,

tions for each flight. Abele 1990).

Strength tests at random locations on the existing

4. Surface transport skiway at the South Pole indicate that, at its weakest

"* For short trips, a modem tractor-trailer can spots, tire pressures of no more than 35 psi can be

travel at 8 mph for 20 hr/day, yielding an ef- supported now. Results from strength measurements

fective rate of 6.67 mph. on the snow mine road, and on a compacted snow

"* For long trips from the coast, 12 hr travel fol- pad prepared for a new building, indicate that

lowed by 12 hr rest/ maintenance would be strengths capable of supporting tires operating at 70

the norm, giving an effective rate of travel of to 80 psi are possible. Discussions with Navy aircraft

4 mph. managers indicate that C-130 manuals allow tire

"* Each tractor-trailer round-trip time includes pressures of 70 psi for operation on "unimproved

a total of 24 hr for load/unload operations. sites." Under normal circumstances, concerns with

"* A standard Antarctic Challenger tractor has low tire pressures center around heat build-up and

a drawbar pull of about 11,000 lb at 8 mph; it potential failure of the tire-rim bead seal. Operating

can tow up to 122,000 lb gross load on tracked in Antarctica, on snow and ice runways, heat buildtrailers or modem sleds on firm snow. up is not a problem. With a tire pressure of 70 psi it

"* Each tracked trailer is capable of carrying is hoped that there would be no problems with the

seven USAF pallets. bead seal.

"* Modem sleds are each capable of carrying The high strength snow data at South Pole are for

three USAF pallets. small areas. The runway, taxiway, and load/unload

"* Challenger cost is about $200,000 (fitted for area represent about 4,000,000 ft2 of surface. Whether

traverse), the procedures and equipment used to generate the

"* Tracked trailer cost is about $100,000. current strong snow surfaces can be used efficiently

"* Modem sled cost is about $60,000. to process the huge volume of snow required to make

"* Challenger fuel consumption is 1.3 nm/gal, a snow pavement (minimum 18-in. thickness), or if

based on the French tests in Adelie Land other techniques can be developed to address this

(Laffonte and Gordon 1991, 1992). construction problem, is yet to be shown. Thus, we

"• Tractor season from inland sites is 15 Nov to feel that it is unwise to proceed with plans for direct

30 Jan (approximately 60 days, allowing for air delivery using wheeled aircraft with tire pressures

several days off). greater than 35 psi until a large-scale feasibility study

"* Tractor season from McMurdo or a coastal demonstrates that snow at the South Pole can be prostation is 1 Nov to 30 Jan (approximately 80 cessed to support wheeled aircraft.

days, allowing for several days off). It would seem that not encugh is known at this

"* Backup tractors and trailers will be required time to rate the feasibility of this option. Thus, we

to assure that traverse schedules can be kept. would currently describe the feasibility of this op-

"* For the short trips (via Mt. Howe or Mill Gla- tion as "unknown."

cier), extra tractors and tracked trailers are

budgeted, yielding a 50% reserve. Inland blue-ice locations

"* For the long traverse option, one extra trac- Studies of inland blue-ice sites, with the aim of

tor and two extra trailers are budgeted for using them as advance staging areas for South Poleeach five tractors needed. bound material, have been conducted by Mellor and

Swithinbank (1989) and Swithinbank (1989). The

5. Fuel emphasis of their work was on locating sites that

* JP8 = 6.87 lb/gal at $0.70/gal. were close to the South Pole and had clear, smooth

natural ice surfaces of a size suitable for a large-air7
0ji

cn0

... .....

141

... 8. .. *
craft runway. The two sites we consider in this pa- Proving the feasibility of using an inland blue-ice

per, Mt. Howe and Mill Glacier (Fig. 6), are attrac- transfer point will require establishing that a reasontive because of (a) their relative proximity to the able operating window exists with regard to wind

South Pole compared with other such sites, and (b) conditions and that there is a driveable route between

their position roughly along a line connecting the site and the South Pole. In addition, the feasibilMcMurdo to the South Pole. Both sites have large ity of operating a remote materials handling site

expanses of blue ice that would require little or no (buildings, equipment) should be given some attenpreparation for landing of large, wheeled aircraft. In tion.

fact, LC-130s landed on wheels at Mill Glacier in 1989. The feasibility of flying to a deep inland blue-ice

While the work to date on inland blue-ice sites is site and hauling cargo over-snow from there to the

mostly encouraging, location and surface conditions South Pole seems "technically straightforward" to us,

a&e only two of the factors important to determining based on what is known at this time.

feasibility for use in deliverirg large quantities of materials to the South Pole. Two other factors-weather Over-snow traverse

conditions at the site and the over-snow route to the Much of this paper hinges on surface transport

South Pole-must be studied as well. Limited data across the Antarctic snowfields. Although there has

are available for weather (in particular wind speed been little of this recently, it was done extensively in

and direction) at either of the sites we have chosen the past. Old Byrd Station was built during the Into consider. What little experience is available sug- ternational Geophysical Year (IGY) entirely with

gests that wind speed is often high at both sites. Dur- goods delivered by tracto,-trailers using Caterpillar

ing visits to Mill Glacier, the winds have most often LGP D8s (Fig. 7). Two of the original Byrd machines

been aligned roughly with the long axis of the pro- were driven across the snow to the South Pole statruding mountains and the surveyed runway, mak- tion in the early 1960s. A large tractor-triler also

ing aircraft approach and take off straightforward. went from Little America V station to McMurdo in

A site visit to Mt. Howe during December 1991 docu- 1958-59 when that station closed. Some of these tracmented winds aligned more perpendicular to the tors are still in use in Antarctica today.

mountains and the most probable runway direction

(DenHartog, 1993). Conversely, in January 1992, per- McMurdo to the South Pole

sonnel installing an automatic weather station (AWS) Over-snow travel from the Ross Ice Shelf up onto

at Mt. Howe reported the calmest day they had ever the polar plateau has favored use of the Skelton Glaexperienced on the polar plateau (C. Steams, personal cier. The route up this glacier has been traveled many

communication). times by scientific parties (usually with light veSeveral Twin Otter airplane trips to Mt. Howe hicles), starting with Sir Edmund Hillary using

have flown low over the route that would be tray- Ferguson farm tractors in 1957-58. Later, two pareled by tractor-trailers to deliver

goods to the South Pole. Based only

on observation, reports are that the

route offers no great difficulties except for a 2- or 3-mile crevassed section near Mt. Howe (W. Tobiasson,

personal communication). Analysis

of video tape records of this area and

multiple viewings from the air indicate that a safe route around this

field is probable. The remainder of

the route appears to have a surface

of primarily firm snow with modest-sized sastrugi.

Recently, Reinhold Messner .. '

skied the South Pole to Mill Glacier

route and reported no problems

with snow surface or crevasses Figure 7. One of the original low ground pressure (LGP) D8 Caterpillar trac-

(Messner 1991). tors used for traverses.

9
Figure 8. Tucker Sno-Cat (with device for crevasse detection mounted on front) in crevasse oil Skelton Glacier in

1957.

ties went up the Skelton using Tucker Sno-Cat 743N ered very seriously. Before the first traverse tractor

machines in 1958-59 and 1959--60. During the 1960- is purchased, it would be prudent to scout, map, and

61 season, this route was used again with Tucker 843s mark this route. This is a formidable and dangerous

(Mellor 1963). Hillary had flagged a circuitous route task and will take considerable time. Since the terthrough the crevasses near Twin Rocks and Stepaside rain is dynamic, a safe route will not remain so forSpur. Later traverses followed his flags very closely, ever. The route will require at least annual checking

and yet several times they fell into small holes (Fig. to ensure it is still safe.

8) and came close to some very large cracks. We classify the feasibility of this option as "unIn recent years, traverses from McMurdo have likely," considering the rate of success in crevasse

primarily gone to Black Island (25 miles) and to detection using current practice. We feel that one canMarble Point (about 60 miles). Repeated travel on not give serious consideration to traverses from

these routes has brought confidence and an under- McMurdo to the South Pole without having a proven,

standing of the surface and its vagaries. Occasion- reliable method of crevasse detection. The detection

ally, vehicles still fall into meltpools or have to sig- device should be able to be used with any vehicle

nificantly alter their route to avoid pressure ridges and allow real-time feedback when operated at a reaor other potentially disastrous obstacles. sonable speed. It must be able to operate in such a

A recent attempt to travel "cross country" on the fashion that it allows ample time for a vehicle to stop

Ross Ice Shelf southeast of McMurdo ended with a when a void or gap is detected. We envision that a

vehicle down in a crevasse within 40 miles of launch. permanently assigned scout vehicle (perhaps more

The tractor-trailers always followed routes that had than one) would travel the traverse route or at least

been scouted in some manner by personnel trained its most critical segments. The route would probably

to identify dangerous terrain. We bring this matter need to be marked with radar reflecting flags and be

up not to suggest incompetence in any way, but to mapped using a Global Position System (GPS). Tracemphasize the supreme ability of the Antarctic to tors would be equipped with on-board radar and

disguise its treacherous nature, even from experts GPS systems to allow precise navigation even when

and experienced veterans. We feel that a traverse visibility is marginal, although travel during poor

route from McMurdo across the Ross Ice Shelf, up visibility is ill-advised whenever the surface is rough.

the Skelton (or some other) glacier, and across the Tests in the 1992-93 season with a ground-based

polar plateau to transport huge quantities of mate- impulse radar may provide the level of confidence

rial with many tractors and people must be consid- in crevasse detection necessary to upgrade the feasi10
bility of McMurdo to South Pole traverses. However, considered with respect to the delivery options disa means of efficiently applying this technology to the cussed here.

long traverse route would still be required. We start with the presumption that ships would

continue to deliver material and fuel to the continent

Coastal station to the South Pole and that the risks involved in this aspect of the opThe inland Russian station Vostok is supplied by eration are already well known.

tractor-trailers from the coastal station Mimy (Fig.

6). This train starts out in November with the goal of Direct air

reaching Vostok by Christmas. The route is well Flights to the South Pole take place on a regular

marked and has been used for many years. We are basis from late November until late February each

unaware of any problems (e.g., crevasses, steep season. Around 150-170 flights are completed durslopes) with the route. The tractors used are very ing this period. Aside from an increased number of

large, old, and slow, and it is known that breakdowns flights, little difference would be expected in this

are commonplace. operation if wheeled airplanes were included with

If a coastal launch point for a South Pole traverse the ski-wheel planes used at this time. Increased air

is desired, use of the established route from Mimy traffic at McMurdo and the South Pole would certo Vostok could be considered. This route covers tainly increase the odds of a mishap and might reroughly half of the distance to the South Pole and quire improved tracking and flight control facilities.

indudes what is probably the most challenging por- The risk to aircraft and flight-related persons would

tion. Having a well established route for half the jour- seem to be slightly increased with this option, but

ney and a "city" at the half-way point in the long we consider the overall risk to be "low."

traverse are very attractive features. However, we can

find no information on the terrain between Vostok Inland blue-ice locations

and the South Pole. Based on its location on the con- As noted for the direct air option, increased air

tinent, this route is probably easily passable with a traffic will somewhat increase the risk of accidents.

modem tractor-trailer and contains few, if any, cre- Air operations at inland blue-ice sites would involve

vasses or other obstacles, landings and take-offs with few or no navigational

It is doubtful that the current infrastructure at aids. These sites also have nearby mountains and

Mimy could support a ship-offload/tractor-trailer- generally strong winds. The winds at such sites have

onload operation of the size envisioned here. It would not been studied, so little understanding of them curbe necessary to study Mirny station and discuss with rently exists.

its operators what would be required to support this Personnel living and working at an inland bluedelivery scheme and how this could be accom- ice site would be very isolated and thus their lives

plished. Members of the Russian Arctic and Antarc- would be dependent on the facilities available at the

tic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg have site. The reliability of the infrastructure (including

proposed the Progress station (Fig. 6) as a possible equipment) would be a great concern.

starting point. They claim this site has good port po- Tractor-trailers operating between a blue-ice site

tential as well as a gentle rise up onto the plateau and the South Pole would travel over relatively bewith few crevasses. Study of these stations, includ- nign terrain (by Antarctic standards), although teming specific negotiations with the Russians, will be peratures and winds could often be extreme. Travrequired, along with reconnaissance of the traverse eling in groups would seem prudent. It would be

route as a next step in considering this delivery op- expected that storms would be infrequent on the

tion. polar plateau during the austral summer, and conWe classify the feasibility of this option as "pos- tinuous daylight would also limit the danger. Howsible." ever, on-board navigation systems (as described

above for the long traverses) and communications

equipment would be essential. One-way trips beRISK tween stations would take no more than 5 days, thus

limiting exposure of tractor-trailer drivers. In addiNo serious consideration of any delivery option tion, they would always be within easy reach by air,

for South Pole Station can exclude a rigorous analy- or even over-snow, for rescue from either the South

sis of the risk involved. Such an analysis is beyond Pole or the blue-ice station.

the scope of this paper, but we would be remiss not At least at the outset, we rate the risk involved

to at least review the obvious factors that must be with this delivery option to be "moderate."

11
Over-snow traverse ously introduce pollutants to the continent. IntelliThe obvious concern with this option is the very gent preparation of equipment prior to fielding and

long (26 to 33 days) one-way driving time from adoption and enforcement of procedures to minimize

McMurdo or the coast to the South Pole. During this negative effects of the operation of these vehicles in

period, operators and on-board mechanics will have Antarctica is recommended.

for protection only their tractors and whatever A rigorous analysis to identify the expected level

wannigan they tow. Perhaps one-third of their trip of environmental impact should be planned and iniwill be near mountains or the coast, thus increasing tiated once a delivery option is identified as likely to

the odds of being caught in storms. In addition, some proceed to development. Such an assessment was

of the terrain covered is known to be treacherous begun in 1991 for inland blue-ice sites.

(crevasse-filled, steep slopes).

Tractor-trailer personnel will be very dependent

on the reliability and accuracy of navigation and corn- HARDWARE AND COST ANALYSIS

munication systems. During portions of their journey, personnel may be inaccessible to aircraft for Clearly many issues are associated with analyzrescue (on a glacier) or outside of radio contact of ing the various delivery options identified here. ManMcMurdo or the South Pole. For nearly all of their agers of the Antarctic Program and those assigned

journey, they will be outside reasonable rescue dis- to participate in decision-making for the new Sudi

tance by surface vehicles. Traveling in groups would Pole Station will have to define their needs, identify

maximize safety. resource constraints, and then assess delivery options

The long exposure of personnel to the vagaries of in light of the entire program. We are not currently

weather with little protection, the long and danger- in a position to make a recommendation to the U.S.

ous nature of large segments of the terrain being tra- Antarctic Program, but we can offer comments and

versed, the total reliance on mobile mechanical sys- analysis on the logistical and "mechanical" aspects

tems, and the long distance from safe havens make of these delivery options.

this option dangerous by almost any standard. Al- Based on the assumptions made for the tracked

though it appears that using the route to and through trailers and sleds, we favor trailers for either the

Vostok would provide slightly less risk than a new traverse (86,200- vs. 80,000-lb payload) or the air-toroute from McMurdo with no settlements en route traverse (14 vs. 12 pallet positions) option. Tracked

to the South Pole, we consider this option to have a trailers display a narrower range of towing resistance

"high" risk factor. with varying terrain (compared with sleds), and they

are more controllable during towing on slopes with

very low friction coefficients. These features of

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT tracked trailers make it possible to sustain a more

uniform traverse speed over the entire route. Tracked

A separate but related issue is the environmental trailers are somewhat more complex than sleds, howeffect e, :h of these options may have on the Antarc- ever, and maintenance issues and initial cost may

tic continent. A thorough environmental assessment need to be considered as well. Our analysis and calwill be necessary for any option that proves to be culations assume the use of tracked trailers.

feasible and is attractive from a cost and operations Table 2 lists our estimates of the hardware, fuel,

standpoint. At this stage of the analysis, however, a hours, and other factors needed for each option to

cursory examination of the delivery scenarios con- move cargo to the South Pole over a four- or eightsidered here does not indicate that any major envi- season period. Table 3 converts the information in

ronmental impact would be expected. In the case of Table 2 into costs. (A brief explanation of how the

the direct air and overland traverse options, cessa- values in Table 3 were derived is given in Appendix

tion of operation for even one year would allow na- A.) Since many of the values used to develop these

ture to reclaim any alterations in the terrain caused tables are subject to change, they were produced on

by construction and use. The impact of a small facil- a spread sheet for ease of recalculation. The results

ity at an inland blue-ice site would be slightly greater. of calculation for numbers of planes and tractors

Assurance of continued integrity of a blue-ice site, needed each season was often fractional. Taking into

however, requires that intense c!eanliness be prac- account the inevitable downtime with either planes

ticed. In essence, preservation of the facility requires or tractors, and allowing for reserve equipment so

minimizing impact to the site. that operations can continue while routine mainteOperation of aircraft and/or tractors will obvi- nance is being performed, we have listed the num12
00~e C4 .'

00 N N

00

~LO ~ U)-If CQ 

to **4 -V w ' U N c

m iN Le. O 0-WO 

0.0

000

-- N

RE. rl. 5:

413
C4-

'4.4

T .

co

0'0 ' 0'- i -u

Lf~ L Q

0. UX 

(aL

X- ci'C10 ~ Q

4'J uin

~1
ber of vehicles that should be available for each op- The delivery scenarios that we evaluated range

tion. While fractional numbers are unrealistic in the from 1.03 to 2.73 times the cost of the scheme where

case of tractors, a requirement for one and one-half materials are delivered via Mill Glacier over a fourplanes could mean that one plane is dedicated to year period. Reviewing the cost ratios, it is interesttransport for the entire season and a second plane is ing to note that a four-year delivery schedule is

only required for half of the season. In terms of air- cheaper than an eight-year scenario when aircraft are

craft placement cost, however, calculations were involved. This is the result of the cost of placement

based on rounding fractional values to the next of aircraft and the fact that the Program is only

higher whole number. charged for actual flight hours, allowing them to take

advantage of fractional numbers of required airplanes. In general, it should be more economical to

DISCUSSION spread the delivery period over eight years when

only tractor-trailers are involved. This is due to the

Table 2 indicates, as one might intuitively guess, lower number of tractors required when spreading

that delivery via direct air with wheeled aircraft is out the delivery period and the fact that a tractorthe simplest way to deliver cargo to the South Pole. trailer system represents a sunk cost. However, the

However, we don't know at this time if this option additional cost of operators and, in the case of using

is possible. A snow runway compacted sufficiently a coastal station, the doubled cost of ship delivery

to carry wheeled C-130s has never been constructed for the eight-year scenario, overshadow the gains

with very cold snow as is present at the South Pole. made by reducing the number of tractor-trailers reUntil recently most people thought that it would be quired. It could be possible to operate the ship only

impossible to do so. A successful feasibility demon- every other year to a coastal station if the station

stration will be required before getting very serious could stockpile materials over winter. This would

about this option. significantly reduce the cost of this option.

Based on our estimates of cost (Table 3), the most It should be kept in mind that an extra four years

economical means of delivering supplies to the South of fuel for South Pole Station are included m all of

Pole over a four-year period is via the Mill Glacier the eight-year delivery schemes, making direct comblue-ice runway. The lowest cost eight-year option parison of the four-year and eight-year options not

involves traversing either from McMurdo or via Mt. entirely fair.

Howe. However, considering the fact that many of These comparisons were made with aircraft supthe values used to derive this comparison are esti- port provided by C-130s only. If larger or more ecomates, it is probably most beneficial to compare the nomical aircraft could be used at either the blue-ice

options by a cost ratio. This is included in Table 3 sites or the South Pole, it would be necessary to reusing the Mill Glacier four-year option as a baseline; compute estimated costs for each delivery option.

all options have a cost ratio that is some multiple of Another economic factor that is not considered

this lowest cost option. Comparison of the cost of in Table 3 is the residual value of purchased hardeach option is shown graphically in Figure 9. ware. The tractors, trailers, and infrastructure (includ30,000 -- j• 4-yr • 8-yr

" 20,000

0

Z 10,000 F- 0 F 7//' 

///

//-

Delivery Direct Via Via Tractor Tractor

Method: Air Mt. Howe Mill Glacier McMurdo-SP 67S-SP

Feasibility: Unknown Straight- Straight- Unlikely Possible

forward forward

Risk: Low Moderate Moderate High High Figure 9. Comparison of deliveni schemes.

15
ing runways) at inland or coastal sites may in many study to be valuable as a starting point for planning

cases have continued value after the new South Pole and establishing a strategy for certain issues associStation is completed. For instance, it may be desir- ated with the new South Pole Station. Factors such

able to continue to deliver all of South Pole Station's as maximum desired piece size could easily drive the

fuel via the selected delivery option. Further, with design of a delivery mode, if that were deemed to be

minimal modification, the tractor-trailer units may top priority or could be shown to significantly affect

be suitable for science traverses in Antarctica. other important aspects of construction. Cooperative

agreements with other countries or internal agencies

(such as NASA) or a need to complete delivery of

CONCLUSIONS construction materials within a given time period

could also dictate what delivery system must be

Our analysis includes risk, feasibility, and esti- used. Thus, we feel that this work is best viewed as

mated cost for each of five possible options. A deci- a framework for in-depth analysis and decision-maksion on which delivery scheme is "best" based on ing about materials delivery to the South Pole. As

any one of these issues alone would be very mislead- such, it should be incorporated as part of the broader

ing. Unfortunately, gaps in our knowledge exist in study to design and construct the new South Pole

many areas of this topic. It appears to us that not Station.

enough is yet known to provide a clear indication of

which delivery scheme is most favorable.

Clearly, a delivery scheme must prove to be fea- LITERATURE CITED

sible. Taking this as a first step, it would seem that

either using an inland blue-ice and overland traverse Abele, G. (1990) Snow roads and runways. USA

scheme or traversing from a coastal station are the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,

most likely options to consider at this time. Addi- CRREL Monograph 90-3.

tional studies (including field work) are necessary to Barber, M.J., S.M. Lee and R.L. Brown (1989) Binddetermine if overland traverse from McMurdo or ers for snow roads and runways in Antarctica. Jourdirect w j. eled iandings at the South Pole are eligible nal of Cold Regions Engineering, 3(2): 84-86.

for consideration. Barthelemy, J.L. (1988) Low-ground-pressure tracUp to a point, we consider cost to be the next sort- tors for Antarctica, Technical Memorandum M-61-

ing factor. Since our cost calculations require the as- 88-02, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Pt.

sumption of many values, we would caution against Hueneme, California.

using them for anything more than gross relative es- Barthelemy, J.L (1975) Snow road construction-A

timates of cost at this time. Based on the two schemes summary of techniques from past to present. NCEL

considered viable with current knowledge, our cost Technical Report R831.

estimates clearly favor (by a factor of two) using an Blaisdell, G.L (1992) Report of initial service of Chalinland blue-ice site over traversing from a coastal sta- lenger tractor and tracked trailer at McMurdo station. The cost differential between the Mt. Howe and tion, Antarctica. USA Cold Regions Research and EnMill Glacier options is insignificant within the scale gineering Laboratory, Technical Note (unpublished).

of this study and should not be considered real with- Blaisdell, G.L. and R.A. Liston (1989) Evaluation of

out further refinement. the Caterpillar Challenger tractor for use in AntarcThe risk factor also favors inland blue-ice station tica. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering

use over overland traverse as well. We see no differ- Laboratory, Technical Note (unpublished).

ence in the risk associated with either Mt. Howe or Capital Systems Group (1992) South Pole systems

Mill Glacier. management seminar; sunmary proceedings. St. Michaels,

There is not a large difference between the cost of Maryland, March 31-April 2. Rockville, Maryland.

delivery over four or eight years when one consid- DenHartog, S.L. (1993) Field observations at Mt.

ers that twice as much fuel is delivered under the Howe, 1991. USA Cold Regions Research and Engieight-year option. Thus, we suggest that other fac- neering Laboratory, Special Report 93-1.

tors be used to determine which time period is fa- deWet, P. (1992) Letter report on South African Chalvored (e.g., construction schedule, availability of air- lenger tractor experience in Antarctica, June.

craft, personnel required). Laffonte, P. and P. Gordon (1991-1992) Letter report

Many factors could easily change drastically the on French Challenger tractor experience in Antarcconclusions we have outlined here. We consider this tica. April (1991), April, May, August (1992).

16
Lee, S.M., W.M. Haas, R.L Brown and A.F. Wuori Mellor, M. and C. Swithinbank (1989) Airfield on

(1989) Improving snow roads and airstrips in Ant- Antarctic glacier ice. USA Cold Regions Research and

arctica. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineer- Engineering Laboratory, CRREL Report 89-21.

ing Laboratory, Special Revort 89-22. Messner, R. (1991) Antarctica, both heaven and hell.

U.S. Antarctic Program (i990) Field Planning Guide, The Mountaineers, Seattle: 3

81 p.

U.S. Antarctic Program. Denver, Colorado: Antarctic Sheers, R. (1992) Caterpillar Challenger 65B,

Support Associates. Mawson field trials, summer 1992. Australian AntMellor, M. (1963) Oversnow transport. USA Cold arctic Division Internal Report, 21 p.

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Swithinbank, C. (1989) Ice runways near the South

Monograph flM-A4. Pole. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory, Special Report 89-19.

17
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF VALUES IN TABLE 3.

Direct air and establish overland traverse to South Pole

1. Research/feasibility demo: Estimated cost to de- Station.

velop technology and demonstrate feasibility; 2- Infrastructure.

includes cost to build one runway and purchase a. Initial cost: Estimate for buildings needed at

of a processor (blower or power harrow and a Mt. Howe.

prime mover) for $250K. b. Maintenance:. Annual heating and maintenance

2. Infrastructure. costs for buildings at Mt. Howe estimated

a. Initial cost: Building to house "K"-type loader at $15K.

and other cargo-handling equipment. (Cost c. Delivery. Estimate eight C-130 flights to deliver

to build first runway is included in item 1.) buildings.

b. Maintenance: Maintenance of cargo-handling- 3. Mobile equipment.

equipment building is considered negligible- a. Initial cost: Four tractors and 8 tracked trailers

(Runway maintenance is included in item (4-yr option) or 3 tractors and 6 tracked trail3.) ers (8-yr option) at $400K/system, 2 wheeled

c. Delivery: Estimate six C-130 flights to deliver loaders at $150K each, 1 "K"-type loader at

building materials for equipment shelter to $250K, and 1 utility vehicle at $250K.

South Pole Station. b. Delivery: Estimate 20 C-130 flights to deliver

3. Mobile equipment. equipment.

a. Initial cost: One "K"-type loader at $250K, two c. Maintenance: Estimate each tractor-trailer sysrollers at $80K each, one tracked loader at tem costs $5K/yr to maintain and all other

$200K, and two tractors at $175K each. (In vehicles cost a total of $8K/yr.

addition to the processor included in item d. Fuel: Total fuel usage for tractors x $0.70/gal

1.) + estimated fuel used by load/unload opb. Delivery: Estimate eight C-130 flights to deliver erations ($4K).

equipment to South Pole Station. e. Operators: 16tal number of operating hours x

c. Maintenance: Estimated at $20K/season for all two operators/tractor x $15/hr.

mobile equipment. 4. Personnel.

d. Fuel: Annual work estimated to be four 6-day a. Salary: Assume 4-person teams at South Pole,

weeks with two 10-hr shifts and 2 vehicles, Mt. Howe, and McMurdo operating for 40

which equals 960 hr of operation. Estimate days/season, 10 hr/day x $15/hr.

fuel usage at 5 gal/hr and $0.70/gal. b. Placement: The only extra cost is one C-130

e. Operators: Assume labor rate of $15/hr for 960 flight to Mt. Howe each operating season.

hr each season. c. Subsistence: The only extra cost is for a 4-mem4. Personnel. ber party at Mt. Howe for 40 days/season;

a. Salary: Estimate 4-person crew at both assume $30/day for subsistence.

McMurdo and South Pole working 40-day 5. Flights.

wheeled season for 10 hr/day at $15/hr. a. Placement: Placement needed for two airplanes

b. Placement: No extra cost. for each option; estimated 50-hr placement

c. Subsistence:. Extra cost is considered negligible. flight each season.

5. Flights. b. Operation: Total flight time x hourly cost for

a. Placement: Placement paid for two C-130 air- plane of $2789.

craft for both the 4-yr and 8-yr options. 6. Sea delivery: No extra cost for supplies arriving

Placement is calculated as 50 hr of flight on annual McMurdo resupply ship.

time/plane/season.

b. Operation: Total flight hours x hourly flight cost Via Mill Glacier

of $2789. 1. Research/feasibility demo: Estimated cost to ready

6. Sea delivery: Assume no extra cost to program for site for regular air traffic and develop overland

delivery by annual McMurdo resupply vessel, traverse route to South Pole Station.

2. Infrastructure

Via Mt. Howe a. Initial cost: Estimate for buildings needed at

1. Research/feasibility demo: Estimated cost to analyze Mill Glacier, taking into account that one

and mark site, demonstrate feasibility of flights, building already exists at the site.

19
b. Maintenance-. Annual heating and maintertance c. Delivery: Estimate six C-130 flights to deliver

cost for buildings at Mill Glacier estimated building materials for runway facilities.

at $15K. 3. Mobile equipment.

c. Delivery: Estimate seven C-130 flights to de- a. Initial cost: Sixteen tractors and 32 tracked trailliver buildings. ers (4-yr option) or 12 tractors and 24 tracked

3. Mobile equipment. trailers (8-yr option) at $400K/system, 4

a. Initial cost: Six tractors and 12 tracked trailers loaders (2 at $150K each and 2 at $200K

(4-yr option) or 5 tractors and 10 tracked each). (In addition to the 2 tractor-trailer

trailers (8-yr option) at $400K/system, 2 systems included in item 1.)

wheeled loaders at $150K each, one "K"- b. Delivery: Ship delivery to McMurdo is covered

type loader at $250K, and I utility vehicle at in item 6.

$25K. c. Maintenance- Estimate $5K/yr for each tractorb. Delivery: Estimate 20 C-130 flights to deliver trailer system, and a total of $15K/yr for all

equipment. other vehicles.

c. Maintenance: Estimate each tractor-trailer sys- d. Fuel: Total fuel usage for tractors x $0.70/gal

tern costs $5K/yr to maintain and all other + estimated fuel used by load/unload opvehicles cost a total of $8K/yr. erations ($2K).

d. Fuel: Total fuel usage for tractors x $0.70/gal e. Operators: Total number of operating hours x

+ estimated fuel used by load/unload op- 2 operators/tractor + 1 mechanic for each 4

erations ($4K). tractors x $15/hr.

e. Operators: Total number of operating hours x 4. Personnel.

2 operators/tractor x $15/hr. a. Salary: Assume 4-person teams at South Pole

4. Personnel. and McMurdo operating for 60 days/seaa. Salary: Assume 4-person teams at South Pole, son, 10 hr/day at $15/hr.

Mill Glacier, and McMurdo operating for 40 b. Placement: No extra cost.

days/season, 10 hr/day at $15/hr. c. Subsistence: No extra cost.

b. Placement: Only extra cost is one C-130 flight 5. Flights. None.

to Mill Glacier for each operating season. 6. Sea delivery: No extra cost for supplies arriving

c. Subsistence: Only extra cost is for 4-member on annual McMurdo resupply ship.

party at Mill Glacier for 40 days/season; assume $30/day for subsistence. Over-snow from coastal station

5. Flights. 1. Research/feasibility demo: Estimated to be slightly

a. Placement: Placement charged for 2 planes for more than development of the McMurdo-South

4-yr option and one plane for 8-yr option; Pole overland option. Development cost includes

estimated 50-hr placement flight each sea- the purchase of 2 tractor-trailer systems at $400K

son. each and 2 wheeled loaders at $150K each.

b. Operation: Total flight time x hourly cost for 2. Infrastructure.

plane of $2789. a. Initial cost: New construction or upgrade of

6. Sea delivery: No extra cost for supplies ar.riving existing facilities (estimated) at a coastal loon annual McMurdo resupply ship. cation.

b. Maintenance: Maintenance of facilities estiOver-snow from McMurdo mated at $25K/yr.

1. Research/feasibility demo: Estimated cost to map, c. Delivery: Assume sea delivery of materials to

mark, and pioneer traverse route to demonstrate coastal station (see item 6).

feasibility. Includes the purchase of 2 tractor- 3. Mobile equipment.

trailer systems. a. Initial cost: Twenty-eight tractors and 56

2. Infrastructure. tracked trailers (4-yr option) or 18 tractors

a. Initial cost: Building to house "K"-type loader and 36 tracked trailers (8-yr option) at

and other cargo-handling equipment at $400K/system, 2 wheeled loaders at $150K

South Pole. each, and 2 tracked loaders at $200K each.

b. Maintenance: Estimate $5K/season to maintain (In addition to the 2 tractor-trailer systems

cargo-handling-equipment building. and 2 loaders included in item 1.)

20
b. Deliery: Ship delivery to coastal station (see 4. Personnel.

item 6). a. Salary: Assume 4-person teams at coastal stac. Maintenance. Estimate each tractor-trailer sys- tion and McMurdo operating for 60 days/

tern costs $5K/yr to maintain and all other season, 10 hr/day at $15/hr.

vehicles cost a total of $25K/yr. b. Placement: Estimated.

d. Fuel: Total fuel usage for tractors x $0.70/gal c. Subsistence- At the coastal station assume 4

+ estimated fuel used by load/unload op- persons for 60 days at $30/day.

erations ($3K). 5. Flights: None.

e. Operators: Total number of operating hours x 6. Sea delivery. Assume annual vessel cost is

2 operators/tractor + 1 mechanic for each 4 $30,000/day and a 45-day round-trip from Pt.

tractors x $15/hr. Hueneme to the coastal station.

21
Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden Fr ttvs colledon of intomnljion is esfimated to average 1 hour per rel•ponse, inckjiong thM time tfo review& ingInstrucons, searching exsting data sources. gathein and

mainaining te "a neteded, and completung and reviewnng the collection of infomabon. Send comments regardng this burden estimate or any other aspect of this colection of inlomiation,

incdhdng suggestion tor reduang thi butdon, to Washvngion Headquatlers Services, DirWetrae tor Information Operations and Repors. 1215 Jetlerson Davis Highway, Sude 1204, Arington,

VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Menagement and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington. DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) REPORT F2 DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

July 1993

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Delivery of Fuel and Construction Materials to South Pole Station

Contract OPP-91-40015

6. AUTHORS

Stephen L. DenHartog and George L. Blaisdell

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

72 Lyme Road Special Report 93-19

Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Division of Polar Programs

National Science Foundation

1800 G. Street

Washington, D.C. 20550

11, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia 22161

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Plans are underway to rebuild South Pole Station, ideally with minimal impact on the current science and operational program. The new station will require the delivery of massive amounts of construction materials to this remote

site. The existing means of delivering material and fuel to the South Pole include the use of specialized and rare LC130 Hercules aircraft that can operate on wheels or skis, and some materials are also air-dropped from C-141 aircraft.

Neither of these delivery systems is expected to be capable, within a reasonable time period, of supporting both

current operations and the transport needs for construction of a new station. Several options for moving construction

materials and fuel to South Pole Station are analyzed. All of our options assume that goods will be transported to the

Antarctic continent by ship. The options include a) construction of a snow runway at the South Pole capable of supporting wheeled aircraft, b) development of an inland blue-ice runway capable of supporting heavy wheeled aircraft, located as close as possible to the South Pole, with over-snow vehicle haulage from the runway to the Pole (two

potential sites are considered), c) over-snow vehicle haulage from McMurdo across the Ross Ice Shelf, up the Skelton

or another glacier, and over the polar plateau to the Pole, and d) vehidcle haulage from some coastal station (located at

about 67°S latitude) with an easier access route onto the polar plateau. Pros and cons of these options are discussed

and issues associated with each are identified. The feasibility and risk associated with each option are covered as

well. Estimates of costs for many of the factors involved with each option allow financial comparison of each delivery

scheme. Ultimately, the results of this study are probably best tiscpd as a starting point for any serious planning and

budgeting for the development of a new South Pole Station.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER20 PAGES

Antarctica Logistics Snow runways 16. PRICE CODE

Ice runways Mobility Traverses

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI S!d. Z39- 18

298-102