3 ms·
>EDIT: not sure why this is downvoted.. Antarctica is basically inaccessible for the winter half of the year - sending a plane is possible (for some parts of t
by waste_monk 6y ago
>EDIT: not sure why this is downvoted..
Antarctica is basically inaccessible for the winter half of the year - sending a plane is possible (for some parts of the winter), but it's so fantastically dangerous that you risk losing the plane and killing an entire flight crew, so you only do it if there's absolutely no other choice. Saying "under allow no conditions where a person cannot choose to leave" is rather naive. If someone is disturbed to the point they pose a threat to life safety (including damage to the station that might affect habitability) then you're better off locking them up until the summer when they can be collected safely - it's inhumane, but at least you won't risk getting other people killed trying to accommodate them.
Similarly, you can't just say they should build bigger stations - crew morale and comfort are important factors, but at the end of the day practicality and survivability is king. You can't just order some building supplies and throw a house up in a couple of months - building supplies and tools have to be offloaded at the coast by ship and carried overland to the building site, buildings have to have appropriate HVAC for heating and conditioning the large spaces that require more power and thus more generation capacity, which means having to store more supplies, so you need to build more storage structures... saying "just build bigger" shows a profound lack of respect for the realities of working in one of the harshest and most unforgiving environments on the planet.
- Chris2048 6y agoJust getting to this, I didn't downvote, but I still disagree with these points. > Saying "under allow no conditions where a person cannot choose to leave" is rather naïve I didn't mean literally cannot leave, I mean choose to leave, i.e when safe to do so, rather than being forced to stay by naval order or contract. Though admittedly it's hard to find if that is the case in some of the historical examples. > shows a profound lack of respect for the realities of working in one of the harshest and most unforgiving environments on the planet Why? If you commit human beings to an environment you either allow the conditions that will keep them sane, or you call the whole thing off. As soon as you decide the difficulty is surmountable, you lose this excuse, because not doing it is also an option. Would you build a station without a toilet or food? Then why not extra space? Skipping both will save money/effort, yet "there's more to living than just surviving" - both are requirements. If providing extra space is too hard, then the whole thing is too hard. The previous point only compounds this: "you're better off locking them up until the summer when they can be collected safely" - If you can't control how long they'll be there, ensure the environment is one they can remain emotionally stable in, or don't send them there at all.