DOCSLIB.ORG

Oceanography and Sedimentation Beneath The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oceanography and Sedimentation Beneath The ISSN 0375 8192 ANTARCTIC RESEARCH CENTRE Antarctic Data Series No 25 OCEANOGRAPHY AND SEDIMENTATION BENEATH THE MCMURDO ICE SHELF IN WINDLESS BIGHT, ANTARCTICA 2005 (Revised August 2007) P.J. Barrett1, L. Carter1, D. Damiani2, G.B. Dunbar1, E. Dunker3, G. Giorgetti2, M.A. Harper1, R.M. McKay1, F. Niessen3, U. Nixdorf3, A.R. Pyne1, C. Riesselmann4, N. Robinson5, C. Hollis6 and P. Strong6 1 Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, NZ. 2 Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Siena, 8 via Laterina, Siena 52100, Italy. 3 Alfred Wegener Institut fur Polar- und Meerforschung, Columbusstrasse, Bremerhaven, Germany. 4 Department of Geological & Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 90425, USA. 5 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 14-901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, NZ. 6 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, PO Box 30-368, Lower Hutt, NZ. in association with the Antarctic Data Series No. 25 A Publication of the Antarctic Research Centre: Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand This publication is available in pdf format at our http site. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/ Cover image: Field Camp at Windless Bight with Mt Erebus on the right. Contents Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i Figures ........................................................................................................................................................iii Tables..........................................................................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................2 1.1 References ......................................................................................................................................5 2 HOT WATER DRILLING .................................................................................................................6 2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................6 2.2 Site 1................................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Site 2................................................................................................................................................8 2.4 Site 3 - Sea ice mooring ................................................................................................................8 2.5 Ice shelf observations ...................................................................................................................9 2.6 References ......................................................................................................................................9 3 WATER COLUMN DATA ..............................................................................................................11 3.1 Physical oceanography from CTD data...................................................................................11 3.1.1 Site 1 data acquisition .........................................................................................................12 3.1.2 Site 2 data acquisition .........................................................................................................15 3.1.3 Site 1 results..........................................................................................................................16 3.1.3.1 Water mass structure ...................................................................................................16 3.1.3.2 Water mass variability.................................................................................................17 3.1.4 Site 2 results..........................................................................................................................17 3.1.4.1 Water mass structure ...................................................................................................17 3.1.4.2 Water mass variability.................................................................................................17 3.1.5 Comparison with J9 near the head of the Ross Ice Shelf................................................18 3.1.6 References.............................................................................................................................19 3.2 Current velocity patterns from ADCP data ............................................................................20 3.2.1 Sea ice site .............................................................................................................................20 3.2.2 Site 1 results..........................................................................................................................22 3.2.3 Site 2 results..........................................................................................................................24 3.2.4 Discussion and implications of the ADCP data ..............................................................25 3.3 Water chemistry and suspended sediment data ....................................................................27 4 SEA FLOOR DATA ..........................................................................................................................29 4.1 Sea floor sediment features from seismic data .......................................................................29 4.1.1 References.............................................................................................................................31 4.2 Sediment description..................................................................................................................32 4.2.1 Site 1 description..................................................................................................................32 4.2.2 Site 2 description..................................................................................................................35 4.3 On-site petrography ...................................................................................................................36 4.3.1 Site 1 Core 1..........................................................................................................................36 4.3.2 Site 1 Core 4..........................................................................................................................37 4.3.3 Site 2 Core 4..........................................................................................................................39 4.3.4 Clasts from Sites 1 and 2.....................................................................................................41 4.4 Sediment organic geochemistry................................................................................................44 4.4.1 References.............................................................................................................................46 4.5 Sediment ages..............................................................................................................................47 4.5.1 References.............................................................................................................................48 4.6 Sediment texture .........................................................................................................................50 4.6.1 References.............................................................................................................................53 i 4.7 Diatoms ........................................................................................................................................54 4.7.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................55 4.7.2 Results ...................................................................................................................................55 4.7.2.1 Unit A (Site 1, 0-5 cm; Site 2, 0-58 cm).......................................................................55 4.7.2.2 Unit B (Site 1, 4-36 cm; Site 2, 58-61 cm)....................................................................55 4.7.2.3 Unit C (Site 1, 36-61cm) ...............................................................................................55 4.7.3 Discussion.............................................................................................................................56 4.7.3.1 Diatom Unit A (Site 1, 0-5 cm; Site 2, 0-58 cm).........................................................56 4.7.3.2 Diatom Unit B. (Site 1, 5-36 cm; Site 2, 58-61 cm) ....................................................58 4.7.3.3 Diatom Unit C. (Site 1, 36-61 cm) ...............................................................................58 4.7.4 Comparison of Sites 1 and 2...............................................................................................59 4.7.5 Diatoms in water column compared with core tops. .....................................................59
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Office of Polar Programs
    DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DRAFT (15 January 2004) FINAL (30 August 2004) National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA FINAL COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) Process .......................................................1-1 1.3 Document Organization .............................................................................................................1-2 2.0 BACKGROUND OF SURFACE TRAVERSES IN ANTARCTICA..................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Re-supply Traverses...................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Scientific Traverses and Surface-Based Surveys .......................................................................2-5 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CEE) for ANDRILL Mcmurdo Sound Portfolio Madrid, 9/20 De Junio 2003
    XXVI ATCM Working Paper WP-002-NZ Agenda Item: IV CEP 4a NEW ZEALAND Original: English DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CEE) FOR ANDRILL McMurdo Sound Portfolio Madrid, 9/20 de junio 2003 ANDRILL - The McMurdo Sound Portfolio An international research effort with the participation of Germany, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CEE) FOR ANDRILL McMurdo Sound Portfolio Antarctica New Zealand Private Bag 4745, Christchurch Administration Building International Antarctic Centre 38 Orchard Road, Christchurch January 22, 2003 2 CONTENTS 1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY.....................................................................................11 2. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................13 2.1 What is ANDRILL?...............................................................................................13 2.2 The CEE process.................................................................................................15 2.2.1 What is a CEE and why is it needed?....................................................15 2.2.2 Process for preparing the Draft CEE .....................................................15 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITES ..............................................................17 2.1 Purpose and Need...............................................................................................17 3.1.1 Scientific justification..............................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Advance Exchange of Operational Information, 2005-2006
    Advance Exchange of Operational Information on Antarctic Activities for the 2005–2006 season United States Antarctic Program Office of Polar Programs National Science Foundation Advance Exchange of Operational Information on Antarctic Activities for 2005/2006 Season Country: UNITED STATES Date Submitted: October 2005 SECTION 1 SHIP OPERATIONS Commercial charter KRASIN Nov. 21, 2005 Depart Vladivostok, Russia Dec. 12-14, 2005 Port Call Lyttleton N.Z. Dec. 17 Arrive 60S Break channel and escort TERN and Tanker Feb. 5, 2006 Depart 60S in route to Vladivostok U.S. Coast Guard Breaker POLAR STAR The POLAR STAR will be in back-up support for icebreaking services if needed. M/V AMERICAN TERN Jan. 15-17, 2006 Port Call Lyttleton, NZ Jan. 24, 2006 Arrive Ice edge, McMurdo Sound Jan 25-Feb 1, 2006 At ice pier, McMurdo Sound Feb 2, 2006 Depart McMurdo Feb 13-15, 2006 Port Call Lyttleton, NZ T-5 Tanker, (One of five possible vessels. Specific name of vessel to be determined) Jan. 14, 2006 Arrive Ice Edge, McMurdo Sound Jan. 15-19, 2006 At Ice Pier, McMurdo. Re-fuel Station Jan. 19, 2006 Depart McMurdo R/V LAURENCE M. GOULD For detailed and updated schedule, log on to: http://www.polar.org/science/marine/sched_history/lmg/lmgsched.pdf R/V NATHANIEL B. PALMER For detailed and updated schedule, log on to: http://www.polar.org/science/marine/sched_history/nbp/nbpsched.pdf SECTION 2 AIR OPERATIONS Information on planned air operations (see attached sheets) SECTION 3 STATIONS a) New stations or refuges not previously notified: NONE b) Stations closed or refuges abandoned and not previously notified: NONE SECTION 4 LOGISTICS ACTIVITIES AFFECTING OTHER NATIONS a) McMurdo airstrip will be used by Italian and New Zealand C-130s and Italian Twin Otters b) McMurdo Heliport will be used by New Zealand and Italian helicopters c) Extensive air, sea and land logistic cooperative support with New Zealand d) Twin Otters to pass through Rothera (UK) upon arrival and departure from Antarctica e) Italian Twin Otter will likely pass through South Pole and McMurdo.
    [Show full text]
  • Continental Field Manual 3 Field Planning Checklist: All Field Teams Day 1: Arrive at Mcmurdo Station O Arrival Brief; Receive Room Keys and Station Information
    PROGRAM INFO USAP Operational Risk Management Consequences Probability none (0) Trivial (1) Minor (2) Major (4) Death (8) Certain (16) 0 16 32 64 128 Probable (8) 0 8 16 32 64 Even Chance (4) 0 4 8 16 32 Possible (2) 0 2 4 8 16 Unlikely (1) 0 1 2 4 8 No Chance 0% 0 0 0 0 0 None No degree of possible harm Incident may take place but injury or illness is not likely or it Trivial will be extremely minor Mild cuts and scrapes, mild contusion, minor burns, minor Minor sprain/strain, etc. Amputation, shock, broken bones, torn ligaments/tendons, Major severe burns, head trauma, etc. Injuries result in death or could result in death if not treated Death in a reasonable time. USAP 6-Step Risk Assessment USAP 6-Step Risk Assessment 1) Goals Define work activities and outcomes. 2) Hazards Identify subjective and objective hazards. Mitigate RISK exposure. Can the probability and 3) Safety Measures consequences be decreased enough to proceed? Develop a plan, establish roles, and use clear 4) Plan communication, be prepared with a backup plan. 5) Execute Reassess throughout activity. 6) Debrief What could be improved for the next time? USAP Continental Field Manual 3 Field Planning Checklist: All Field Teams Day 1: Arrive at McMurdo Station o Arrival brief; receive room keys and station information. PROGRAM INFO o Meet point of contact (POC). o Find dorm room and settle in. o Retrieve bags from Building 140. o Check in with Crary Lab staff between 10 am and 5 pm for building keys and lab or office space (if not provided by POC).
    [Show full text]
  • Immediate Scientific Report of the Ross Sea Iceberg Project 1987-88
    SCIENCE AND RESEARCH INTERNAL REPORT 9 IMMEDIATE SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF THE ROSS SEA ICEBERG PROJECT 1987-88 by J.R. Keys and A.D.W. Fowler* This is an unpublished report and must not be cited or reproduced in whole or part without permission from the Director, Science and Research. It should be cited as Science and Research Internal Report No.9 (unpublished). Science and Research Directorate, Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 10 420 Wellington, New Zealand April 1988 *Division of Information Technology, DSIR, Lower Hutt. 1 Frontispiece. NOAA 9 infrared satellite image of the 160 km long mega-giant iceberg B-9 on 9 November, four weeks after separating from the eastern front of Ross Ice Shelf. The image was digitized by US Navy scientists at McMurdo Station, paid for by the US National Science Foundation and supplied by the Antarctic Research Center at Scripps Institute. Several other bergs up to 20 km long that calved at the same time can be seen between B-9 and the ice shelf. These bergs have since drifted as far west as Ross Island (approx 600 km) whereas B-9 has moved only 215 km by 13 April, generally in a west-north-west direction. 2 CONTENTS Frontispiece 1 Contents page 2 SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 PROPOSED PROGRAMME 5 ITINERARY 6 SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS RNZAF C-130 iceberg monitoring flight 6 SPOT satellite image and concurrent aerial Photography 8 Ground-based fieldwork 9 B-9 iceberg 11 CONCLUSION 13 FUTURE RESEARCH 13 PUBLICATIONS 14 Acknowledgenents 14 References 14 FIGURES 15 TABLES 20 3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Living and Working at USAP Facilities
    Chapter 6: Living and Working at USAP Facilities CHAPTER 6: Living and Working at USAP Facilities McMurdo Station is the largest station in Antarctica and the southermost point to which a ship can sail. This photo faces south, with sea ice in front of the station, Observation Hill to the left (with White Island behind it), Minna Bluff and Black Island in the distance to the right, and the McMurdo Ice Shelf in between. Photo by Elaine Hood. USAP participants are required to put safety and environmental protection first while living and working in Antarctica. Extra individual responsibility for personal behavior is also expected. This chapter contains general information that applies to all Antarctic locations, as well as information specific to each station and research vessel. WORK REQUIREMENT At Antarctic stations and field camps, the work week is 54 hours (nine hours per day, Monday through Saturday). Aboard the research vessels, the work week is 84 hours (12 hours per day, Monday through Sunday). At times, everyone may be expected to work more hours, assist others in the performance of their duties, and/or assume community-related job responsibilities, such as washing dishes or cleaning the bathrooms. Due to the challenges of working in Antarctica, no guarantee can be made regarding the duties, location, or duration of work. The objective is to support science, maintain the station, and ensure the well-being of all station personnel. SAFETY The USAP is committed to safe work practices and safe work environments. There is no operation, activity, or research worth the loss of life or limb, no matter how important the future discovery may be, and all proactive safety measures shall be taken to ensure the protection of participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Flnitflrclid
    flNiTflRClID A NEWS BULLETIN published quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC) A New Zealand geochemist, Dr W. F. Giggenbach, descends into the inner crater of Mt Erebus on December 23 last year in an unsuccessful attempt to take gas samples. Behind him in the lava lake of the volcano where the temperature is 1000deg Celsius. On his rucksack he carries titanium gas sampling rods. Photo by Colin Monteath VOl. 8, NO. 1 1 . Wellington, New Zealand, as a magazine. o6pt61*11061% I 979I ' . SOUTH SANDWICH Is SOUTH GEORGIA f S O U T H O R K N E Y I s x \ *#****t ■ /o Orcadas arg \ - aanae s» Novolazarevskaya ussr XJ FALKLAND Is /*Signyl.uK ,,'\ V\60-W / -'' \ Syowa japan SOUTH AMERICA /'' /^ y Borga 7 s a "Molodezhnaya A SOUTH , .a /WEDDELL T\USSR SHETLAND DRONNING MAUD LAND ENOERBY \] / Halley Bay^ ununn n mMUU / I s 'SEA uk'v? COATS Ld LAND JJ Druzhnaya ^General Belgrano arg ANTARCTIC %V USSR *» -» /\ ^ Mawson MAC ROBERTSON LANO\ '■ aust /PENINSULA,' "*■ (see map below) /Sohral arg _ ■ = Davis aust /_Siple — USA Amundsen-Scott / queen MARY LAND gMirny [ELLSWORTH u s a / ; t h u s s i " LANO K / ° V o s t o k u s s r / k . MARIE BYRD > LAND WILKES LAND Scott kOSS|nzk SEA I ,*$V /VICTORIA TERRE ' •|Py»/ LAND AOEilE ,y Leningradskaya X' USSR,''' \ 1 3 -------"';BALLENYIs ANTARCTIC PENINSULA ^ v . : 1 Teniente Matienzo arg 2 Esperanza arc 3 Almirante Brown arg 4 Petrel arg 5 Decepcion arg 6 Vicecomodoro Marambio arg ' ANTARCTICA 7 Arturo Prat chile 8 Bernardo O'Higgins chile 1000 Miles 9 Presidents Frei chile * ? 500 1000 Kilometres 10 Stonington I.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Information
    PROGRAM INFO Program Information National Science Foundation Introduction The purpose of the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) Field Manual is to provide an overview of USAP field logistics, operations, and safety. It contains information relevant to field deployments and living and working in an Antarctic field camp and is intended to en- hance your success in the field. It is your responsibility to be familiar with the skills and techniques covered in this manual. This is intended to be a reference manual and it should be taken into the field with you. Valuable knowledge is provided. Safety, environ- mental stewardship, and your health are of paramount importance. Continued vigilance and action in these areas are essential to main- tain a safe and productive environment for work in Antarctica. The harsh conditions encountered in the field setting, coupled with relatively short deployments and important scientific objectives, re- quire effective leadership and constant risk management from all team members. Reducing the risk of injury and illness depends on a combination of systematic risk assessment, hazard elimination or control, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, and safe work practices. This manual is designed to be used in conjunction with the USAP Field Practices Manual located on www.usap.gov. The Field Prac- tices Manual provides pre-deployment, planning information that is useful during the Support Information Packet (SIP) process. Use of these manuals and adherence to the guidelines set forth will en- hance both your safety and productivity while working in Antarctica. We wish you a very safe and productive field season. Kelly Falkner – Director, Division of Polar Programs Scott Borg – Section Head, Antarctic Infrastructure and Logistics Eric Saltzman – Section Head, Antarctic Sciences USAP Continental Field Manual 1 First Aid Emergency Response Checklist o Survey the scene.
    [Show full text]
  • AMPS Operational Utility
    AMPS Operational Utility Arthur M. Cayette, Chester V. Clogston and James E. Frodge SPAWAR Systems Center, Charleston, SC 1. Introduction and maintain an arid environment. Inflections from Since the inception of the Antarctic Mesoscale this region will typically provide dry katabatic winds Prediction System (AMPS) a unique combination and produce fair weather at McMurdo. of research and numerical modeling development The Ross Sea provides a huge moisture has provided a robust experimental model for the source with a warm surface creating instability. Antarctic. This model has been evaluated in the Moisture can be derived from this region even operational field at McMurdo Station. Operational during the dark of winter with sublimation driven by forecasters have viewed the output twice daily, relatively thin and warm sea ice, polynas, and finding great value in the strengths identifying leads. A major change in McMurdo area weather weaknesses in various situations. Although it is can be noticed when the Ross Sea opens and the an experimental model, the fine resolution and availability of moisture maximizes. Other changes increased prognosis reliability has made this the in the local weather can occur, produced by the model of choice for the U.S. Antarctic Program location of open water in relation to McMurdo. weather operations personnel. When strong southerly winds are driven through Weaknesses have been discovered in the the McMurdo Sound, a reciprocating northerly flow placement of moisture, and temperatures within will typically produce snow and reduced cloud the inversion layer. Strengths have been found in bases driven by the newly opened water. Strong wind patterns, coastal thickness values, elevated winds to the east of Ross Island force ice packs inversions, and projections of low level moisture into the McMurdo Sound and decrease instability when initial validation correlates.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASPA) No
    Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASPA) No. 137 NORTHWEST WHITE ISLAND, McMURDO SOUND (167° 20' E, 78° 00' S) 1 Description of values to be protected An area of 150 km2 of coastal shelf ice on the northwest side of White Island was originally designated by Recommendation XIII-8 (1985, SSSI No. 18) after a proposal by the United States of America on the grounds that this locality contains an unusual breeding population of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) which is the most southerly known, and which has been physically isolated from other populations by advance of the McMurdo Ice Shelf and Ross Ice Shelf. The original boundaries have been adjusted in the current plan in light of recent data recording the spatial distribution of the seals on the ice shelves. In the south, the boundary of the Area has been shifted north and east to exclude the region north of White Strait where no observations of the seals have been recorded. In the north, the Area has been extended to encompass an additional part of the Ross Ice Shelf in order to ensure inclusion of more of the region within which the seals may be found. The Area is now approximately 130 km2. The colony appears unable to relocate to another area because of its distance from the open ocean of McMurdo Sound, and as such is highly vulnerable to any human impacts that might occur in the vicinity. Year-round studies have detected no evidence of immigration or emigration of seals from the population, which appears to have grown to around 25 to 30 animals from a population of around 11 in the 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrill Mcmurdo Ice Shelf Project
    ANDRILL MCMURDO ICE SHELF PROJECT SCIENTIFIC PROSPECTUS image courtesy Josh Landis and the National Science Foundation ANDRILL CONTRIBUTION 4 ANDRILL ISBN: 0-9723550-1-4 Additional copies of this report and other information regarding ANDRILL are available from: ANDRILL Science Management Office 126 Bessey Hall University of Nebraska – Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0341 Phone: 1 + (402) 472-6723 Fax: 1 + (402) 472-6724 Please visit our website at http://andrill.org ANDRILL McMurdo Ice Shelf Project Scientific Prospectus TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. SUMMARY 1 2. THE ANDRILL PROGRAM: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 2 2.1 The McMurdo Sound Portfolio of Stratigraphic Drilling Objectives 3 3. McMURDO ICE SHELF PROJECT 4 3.1 Introduction 4 3.2 Regional Tectonic and Stratigraphic Setting 6 3.3 Site Survey and a Stratigraphic Interpretation of Target Interval 7 3.3.1 Seismic Stratigraphy 7 3.3.2 Seismic Stratigraphic Interpretation and Age Relationships: A Prognosis for ANDRILL Drilling 8 3.3.3 Faulting and Deformation 9 3.3.4 Bathymetry 9 3.3.5 Oceanography 10 3.3.6 Seafloor and Shallow Sub-seafloor Stratigraphy 10 3.4 Towards a Glacial-Interglacial Depositional Model 11 3.5 Chronostratigraphy 12 4. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES 12 4.1 Overview 12 4.2 Key Climatic Questions to be Addressed 13 5. THE SCIENCE TEAM 14 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 15 7. REFERENCES 15 Co-Chief Scientists - - Tim Naish1,2 and Ross Powell3 1Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences P. O. Box 303068, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. 2Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington P. O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] phone: 64-4-570-4767 3Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences 312 Davis Hall, Normal Rd, Northern Illinois University De Kalb, IL 60115-2854, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003-2004 Science Planning Summary
    2003-2004 USAP Field Season Table of Contents Project Indexes Project Websites Station Schedules Technical Events Environmental and Health & Safety Initiatives 2003-2004 USAP Field Season Table of Contents Project Indexes Project Websites Station Schedules Technical Events Environmental and Health & Safety Initiatives 2003-2004 USAP Field Season Project Indexes Project websites List of projects by principal investigator List of projects by USAP program List of projects by institution List of projects by station List of projects by event number digits List of deploying team members Teachers Experiencing Antarctica Scouting In Antarctica Technical Events Media Visitors 2003-2004 USAP Field Season USAP Station Schedules Click on the station name below to retrieve a list of projects supported by that station. Austral Summer Season Austral Estimated Population Openings Winter Season Station Operational Science Opening Summer Winter 20 August 01 September 890 (weekly 23 February 187 McMurdo 2003 2003 average) 2004 (winter total) (WinFly*) (mainbody) 2,900 (total) 232 (weekly South 24 October 30 October 15 February 72 average) Pole 2003 2003 2004 (winter total) 650 (total) 27- 34-44 (weekly 17 October 40 Palmer September- 8 April 2004 average) 2003 (winter total) 2003 75 (total) Year-round operations RV/IB NBP RV LMG Research 39 science & 32 science & staff Vessels Vessel schedules on the Internet: staff 25 crew http://www.polar.org/science/marine. 25 crew Field Camps Air Support * A limited number of science projects deploy at WinFly. 2003-2004 USAP Field Season Technical Events Every field season, the USAP sponsors a variety of technical events that are not scientific research projects but support one or more science projects.
    [Show full text]