Colonization of the North Pole.

Post Reply New Topic

Would it be possible to colonize the North Pole? What about the Moon? Antarctica? The oceans? The interior of the Earth? The sky (with floating cities)?

It would be possible but they question would be why? I dont think there are qignificant amounts of resources on the NOrth Pole and its not very nice to live there id imagine. In a few decades I think there will be commercial flights to the moon, once that happens colonization will follow....but again, theres no reason to while space exists in habitable parts of Earth. Even if we found some resource on the moon it would only be mining operations not colonies, at least for a while until space travel becomes more widespread.

Antarctica seems the most likely place. If the ice melts there will be plenty of land to drill for oil and natural gas. Also, the North Pole already has a Russian flag at the bottom of the ocean in an attempt to claim the likely spoils. There probably wont be a colony there, but an oil rig most likely.

Maybe the Moon will eventually have a small colony. To reach other planets, ships will have to stop on the Moon to get rocket fuel made out of the water on its surface. They will need people to work in the rocket fuel facility.

Going off on a tangent... Aspies would make the perfect astronauts for long space flights. All that technical info, and the ability to go a long time without human interaction is the right combination. There would be no need to hibernate and entrust your life to one of those HAL computers.

the north pole would be an unikely place to colonise as there are no real viable resources (well... maybe ice cubes ) as of yet... the ice may however contain deuterium and tritium; water isotopes that can be used in fusion power. Same goes for antarctica, but since the oceans already contain lots of fusion fuel it would probably be a waste.

the moon is another good source for materials needed for fusion power. Again, it may start off as a simple mining operation that can help create a proper colony for tourism and living.

Colonizing the oceans may be a tough one, but nontheless a viable option. The oceans could not only create a vast demand for tourism, but also help in advancing the technologies needed for interplanetary colonization like the biosphere 2 project did years ago. Much good stuff can already be gained from filtering through sea water and a good deal of the sea creatures including fish etc. can be used for creating medicines for various ailments.

by the way, I read a long time ago an article where some scientist proposed, that by the 31st century, the entire planet will be covered in one large city (like Coruscant from star wars) considering that our population continues to increase at is does now.

I would like to colonize the North Pole so I can get as for away from the south as possible. Living on the mood would be nice to but I would rather live on planet Vulcan if I had that option

Luna would be a good start on space mining (until we can get started on exploiting asteroids); it would also make a great place to retire to in one's senior years, as slipping and falling in 1/6 g would be far less dangerous than in full Earth gravity.

Seafloor habitats, like polar habitats, would be mostly a fad, I think, for those who want to make a point about overcrowding but don't want to leave Earth. (It would actually be easier to build an O'Neill cylinder in the L4 or L5 point of the Earth-Moon system than to build a suboceanic habitat below a few hundred feet, due to water pressure.) Sea-surface habitats are possible, but unless one can find a way to control weather without disrupting the entire planet's climates, storms would be extraordinarily dangerous to them.

One could also build arcologies in the desert regions, I suppose - should one find a solution to the problem of water supply for an entire city in a desert...

The oceans are certainly a possibility, however the pressure deferential in space is far less than under water. In space you could survive for 90 seconds if you evacuated the 3psi O2 out of your lungs. Underwater, if a hull breach occurred and the habitat were at 1 atm, 15psi, your crushing death would be almost sudden. In space, a hull breach need not mean the loss of a ship or crew, although getting to anyone within those 90 seconds would be nearly impossible.

For the colonization of space to occur, proper economic infrastructure needs to be developed in low Earth orbit. There needs to be centrifugal greenhouse stations, battery charging solar array stations, cargo warehousing stations, ship construction stations, and transport hubs. After that, perhaps the colonization of the moon would be more able to take place, allowing for the mining of raw materials for habitat, station, and ship construction. The moon requires 1/25th the fuel to reach escape velocity as compared to the Earth, so mining materials from the moon would not be as costly to ship upwards as those mined from the Earth. Following this, interplanetary space stations between Earth and Mars orbit could be built to house cargo bays, greenhouses, and similar infrastructure as that in Earth orbit. After that, the terraformation and subsequent colonization of Mars would be more able to occur than at present.

No. Assuming you mean "sustainably colonise" as opposed to "maintain a supported outpost" then it isn't possible given current technology.

Nope, same as.

Nope, same.

Nope, same.

Depends what you mean by "interior." If you mean "build downwards from the surface instead of building upwards", then yes. If you mean "build a sustainable city somewhere way beneath the surface", then probably not. If you mean "literally colonise the proper interior of the Earth" then no, it being molten rock at stupid pressure. (Though oddly enough, if you've not worked it out before, there's no (net) gravity in the literal centre of the Earth - net gravity falls off (approximately) linearly to zero from the surface of the Earth (or any other spherical body of roughly even composition) as you move inwards. Doesn't help with the pressure or heat though.)

Nope, same as earlier.

A sustainable colony needs to be able to renew all its resources unsupported, and that just isn't possible for most of those resources. You can plonk a base out in the Antarctic, but you can't plonk all the industries needed to make another one, and supply it, there. It could potentially be done with ludicrous investment of resources to prepare the way, but the technology isn't there at present.

The North Pole does not sound like a very good place to live.

Colonizing the interior of the Earth wouldn't be a good idea because it would require massive excavation below the surface and spreading the material onto the surface. This would change Earth's moment of inertia, and the law of conservation of angular momentum would lengthen its period of rotation.

I once read a projection that if global warming continues and goes past the tipping point, the poles may become the only habitable (temperate) regions on the planet; in which case there would be world wars with everyone fighting to live there.

^ …in which case we might reconsider excavation. Only this time it would be a huge whole appropriately off the Earth's axis with the result that little by little Earth's axial tilt would diminish from 23° to 0°. Thus the habitable area would increase. – Bad news would be that the axial tilt wouldn't stay constant ever again.