The idea is quite simple. Drill ice by melting it around pre fabricated structures. Given that ice moves slowly, it would cause stress on the structure, so it would be nice to build them around mountains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantarctic_Mountains

Why bother?  What makes Antarctica an attractive colony location?  I would think there are far less remote, more hospitable parts of the world that could be made habitable with cheap energy (e.g., large parts of the US Southwest, large parts of Africa and Asia).

Digging downwards is interesting because there are kilometers of space to make a 3D planned city. A lot of people in little surface with a lot of available volume for people to live. A city of 10 million people could potentially occupy a surface of a 10 thousand people town, with sparse habitation. A rhomboid of 2kmX500mx4km would give everyone mansion sized houses.

But why dig down at Antarctica?  Why not use cheap energy to dig down in, say, Manhattan, or LA, or London, or Beijing?

Because it is easier to dig means of melting ice than a mix of several different kinds of rocks that above 1000C. You can dig and install at the same time.

International treaties.

Earthquakes induced by climate change.

Your artful ant farm of a city won’t be quite so artful between quakes, ice shift and ice loss.

For ice shift, this is why I thought in positioning it close to the transantarctic moutains. But it is too far away of the cost so I don’t think climate change will be a problem.

MTd2 - 04 August 2011 02:51 PM

For ice shift, this is why I thought in positioning it close to the transantarctic moutains. But it is too far away of the cost so I don’t think climate change will be a problem.

Earthquakes would probably tend to think in different terms

Even shifts at the coastal edge will have repercussions throughout the continent and, more importantly,  ice sheet losses will not be limited to the coasts. The coasts are just where it has started.

As science-fictional as it sounds we’re now facing those kinds of planetary changes when you speak in the time scale of building cities in the ice.

There may well be good reasons to colonize Antarctica. Think of the vast mineral wealth which surely exists on that largely unexplored Continent. Unexplored at least from a geological standpoint.

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

JimmyT - 05 August 2011 01:55 AM

There may well be good reasons to colonize Antarctica. Think of the vast mineral wealth which surely exists on that largely unexplored Continent. Unexplored at least from a geological standpoint.

Yes, and that’s why various treaties have placed Antarctica off-limits… too keep ourselves from destroying the continent, and ourselves, warring over those resources.

Breakable - 05 August 2011 12:01 PM

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

... as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough

... and besides, with fusion we can get whatever resources we need economically from current U.S. holdings.

There’s a lot of stuff in the continental U.S. that could be obtained here instead of imported if cheap, problem-free power was available.

And that applies to other nations and the resources in locations they already have access to as well.

zapkitty - 05 August 2011 12:28 PM

Breakable - 05 August 2011 12:01 PM

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

... as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough

it’s not about whether we are able.

Antarctica is off limits by international treaty.
Fusion will not change that, and i dont want to change that.

I’d rather be mining minerals on asteroids

vansig - 05 August 2011 12:37 PM

zapkitty - 05 August 2011 12:28 PM

Breakable - 05 August 2011 12:01 PM

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

... as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough

it’s not about whether we are able.

Antarctica is off limits by international treaty.
Fusion will not change that, and i dont want to change that.

I’d rather be mining minerals on asteroids

The only reason all nations have supported this agreement is because it is a practical impossibility at this point.  Nations one and all will quickly abandon this treaty under one pretense or another if it becomes viable.

JimmyT - 06 August 2011 03:53 AM

The only reason all nations have supported this agreement is because it is a practical impossibility at this point.  Nations one and all will quickly abandon this treaty under one pretense or another if it becomes viable.

... but if the paradigm shift that enables this is the advent of aneutronic fusion then the reason for colonizing in the first place, the resources, becomes a non-issue in turn.