MORe AND BeTTeR SCieNCe iN ANTARCTiCA

232 Pages·2012·9.28 MB·English

MMoorree aanndd BBeetttteerr SScciieennccee iinn
aa nn ttaa rr cc tt ii cc aa
tthhrroouugghh iinnccrreeaaSSeedd
LLooggiiSSttiiccaaLL eeffffeeccttiivveenneeSSSS
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 [email protected] (phone: [phone]). 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 N T A R C T i C A
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 accomplish-
ments 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.
CONTeNTS
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
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
In 1996–1997, an independent panel estab- Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica
lished by the Director of the National Science and the Southern Ocean, published in 2011,
Foundation, at the suggestion of the President’s identified several trends that are emerging in
National Science and Technology Council, con- Antarctic science. Among them is an increas-
ducted an examination into the United States’ ing emphasis on integrated networks of sensors
activities in Antarctica. Its report noted the widely distributed across Antarctica making
strategic importance of the nation’s presence in year-around measurements.
that region and the significance of the scientific
research being performed there. It also noted The White House Office of Science and
that the aging station located at the South Pole Technology Policy and the National Science
had become a safety hazard to those deployed Foundation initiated the second phase of
there and recommended that it be replaced. the review, the results of which are reported
In response, the National Science Foundation herein. The purposes of this follow-on Blue
requested funding for that purpose. Congress Ribbon Panel (hereafter called “the Panel”) on
appropriated the necessary funding, and a Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are to iden-
new and much more effective facility was con- tify demands placed on the logistical enterprise
structed to replace the then-existing structure. if it is to support future scientific effort in the
Antarctic region, to discern any mismatches
More recently, in 2010/11, in consulta- with currently projected capabilities, and to
tion with the White House Office of Science propose appropriate opportunities and correc-
and Technology Policy, the National Science tive actions. The present report addresses these
Foundation tasked the National Research issues, including the identification of steps
Council of the National Academies of Science that could substantially increase the amount
to conduct the first phase of a review of the and value of science pursued in the Antarctic
U.S. Antarctic Program: an assessment of sci- region through greater overall effectiveness of
entific research planned to be conducted in the logistics system.
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean during
the next few decades. The resulting report,
PReFACe 1
ACkNOWLeDgeMeNTS
The Panel was greatly assisted in its deliberations Special thanks are also in order for the Office of
by presentations from, or conversations with, Polar Programs’ administrative staff that worked
the following individuals from the National to make our meetings possible and paved the
Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs: way for successful site visits to Antarctica and
other U.S. Antarctic Program operating loca-
• Ms. Gwendolyn Adams, Safety Manager tions: Ms.  Karen Sloane and Ms. Nadene
• Mr. George Blaisdell, Operations Manager Kennedy. Ms. Winifred Reuning is recognized
• Dr. Scott Borg, Antarctic Sciences for ensuring that the information used by the
Division Director Panel for orientation to the program and in its
• Mr. Arthur J. Brown, Specialized deliberations was readily accessible on the Web.
Support Manager
• Ms. Jessie Crain, Research Support Manager Dr. Scot Arnold, assisted by Ms. Ji Byun, of
• Dr. Karl A. Erb, Director (retired) the Institute for Defense Analyses Science &
• Dr. Kelly K. Falkner, Director (acting) Technology Policy Institute provided expert
• Mr. Guy Guthridge, Information financial analysis.
Specialist (retired)
• Mr. Jim Karcher, Safety Officer The Panel is also most appreciative of the
• Ms. Susanne M. LaFratta, Senior Advisor contribution by Ms. Laura Ahlberg who
for Policy, Analysis and Operations; shared her expertise in the editorial sphere.
Co-Executive Director for the Blue Ms.  Zina Deretsky, an accomplished artist,
Ribbon Panel prepared the report’s cover. The Panel thanks
• Mr. Tim McGovern, Marine Dr. Ellen Kappel and Ms. Johanna Adams
Projects Manager of Geosciences Professional Services for the
• Dr. Polly Penhale, Medical Officer (acting) expert editing and layout of this report under
and Environmental Officer extreme time pressure.
• Mr. Mike Scheuermann, Aviation
Projects Manager In addition, the Panel is grateful for the time and
• Mr. Paul Sheppard, Systems Manager information provided by our hosts and the com-
• Mr. Pat Smith, Information Technology & munities at McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer
Communications Manager Stations and on board the Research Vessel
• Mr. Brian Stone, Antarctic Infrastructure & Icebreaker Nathaniel B. Palmer and Antarctic
Logistics Division Director Research and Supply Vessel Laurence M. Gould.
• Dr. James Swift, Antarctic Research and U.S. Antarctic Program personnel at Lockheed
Logistics Integration Program Manager; Martin’s headquarters in Colorado and at
Co-Executive Director for the Blue the cargo facility in Port Hueneme, as well as
Ribbon Panel
2 MORe AND BeTTeR SCieNCe iN ANTARCTiCA THROUgH iNCReASeD LOgiSTiCAL eFFeCTiveNeSS
members of the 109th Airlift Wing in New York Last—but by no means least—we thank the
all spent time with members of the Panel, pro- members of the National Research Council
viding valuable information and insight. In addi- Committee on Future Science Opportunities in
tion to visiting Scott Base in Antarctica, while Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Without the
in Christchurch, New  Zealand, discussions work done by this committee, our panel would
with the New Zealand Antarctic Programme not have had a basis upon which to conduct the
were extremely valuable, as was time spent review that is the subject of this report.
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 dis-
cussions with officials of the Chilean station on
King George Island.
Many federal agency officials were also gen-
erous 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
ACkNOWLeDgeMeNTS 3
exeCUTive SUMMARy
iNTRODUCTiON
Conducting world-class science is a center- pronounced effects in the polar regions, mak-
piece of U.S. activities in the Antarctic and the ing those environments important bellwethers
Southern Ocean, but the substantive research for these global issues.
itself is only the visible part of the iceberg. The
logistics effort supporting that science is the Results of past research in discovery and global
vast base of the iceberg—representing, in terms change have been significant. Such research dis-
of person-days in Antarctica, nine times the covered the ozone hole and its cause, leading
number devoted to research activity (Figure 1). to a ban on the manufacture and use of chloro-
Interestingly, the 1:9 ratio of science to support fluorocarbons as refrigerants. It also deter-
is almost exactly the same as that of an iceberg’s mined that the Antarctic Peninsula has been
weight above and below the water. Substantial the fastest-warming region on Earth over the
opportunities exist to devote a greater share of past half-century, with temperatures rising an
scarce resources to science by reducing the cost astonishing 5°F (2.8°C). Antarctica captures
of logistics efforts. Addressing these opportuni- 61 percent of Earth’s fresh water as ice. If the
ties is essential to prevent expenditure for sup- West Antarctic Ice Sheet disintegrated, sea level
port from consuming funding that is currently is projected to rise by approximately 10 feet
dedicated to science projects. (3.3 meters). If the Antarctic ice sheets melted
in their entirety, sea level would rise some
In 2011, the National Research Council pub- 200 feet (66 meters), threatening the one-fourth
lished the report Future Science Opportunities of Earth’s population that lives along coasts at
in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. The an elevation less than 200 feet.
report focused on discovery-driven research
and global change research. “Discovery” Current scientific efforts in Antarctica include
addresses fundamental questions such as the the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, one of the
nature of dark energy and dark matter that largest single research activities underway.
make up 96 percent of our universe—yet A cubic-kilometer array of 5160 optical sen-
neither has yet been observed. “Global Change sors has been emplaced deep in the 9000-foot
Research” includes the study of trends in and (2745-meter) thick ice sheet near the South
the causes and impacts of climate change, such Pole to form the world’s largest detector of
as sea level rise and changes in major ocean neutrinos—chargeless, nearly massless par-
currents. Changes are occurring with the most ticles that rarely interact with other matter. A
4 MORe AND BeTTeR SCieNCe iN ANTARCTiCA THROUgH iNCReASeD LOgiSTiCAL eFFeCTiveNeSS