posted 01-16-2012 08:01 PM            

There are many parallels between the Antarctic explorers of the early 20th century and the lunar explorers of six decades later. A cluster of missions, each building on the last towards the final goal; national rivalries; tragic deaths; at least one heart-warming survival story - and the sobering fact that after the goal was achieved, no-one returned for many decades.

posted 01-17-2012 02:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
- and the sobering fact that after the goal was achieved, no-one returned for many decades.

---

posted 01-17-2012 08:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Not quite true... Richard Byrd was there in 1928... So hardly decades before anyone returned.

---

posted 01-17-2012 09:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
On this day (Jan. 17), one hundred years ago, Captain Robert Falcon Scott reached the South Pole

---

posted 01-17-2012 10:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...and the sobering fact that after the goal was achieved, no-one returned for many decades.

---

Today, a brief 100 years later, anyone can buy a ticket to visit the South Pole.

posted 01-18-2012 09:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
Pioneering spirit - yes; heroism on an altogether different level.

---

posted 01-18-2012 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
You certainly can't compare the risk, hardship and support levels that Scott/Amundsen/Shackleton endured with those of the astronauts. Pioneering spirit - yes; heroism on an altogether different level.

---

I suspect that if one of the Antarctic leaders had let it be known before departure that there was probably a one-in-three chance of death, he would today be labelled reckless or mad.

The problem, of course, lies not in the sober calculations of risk made by great explorers of the past (and I include the Apollo crews). It lies in our 21st century attitude towards risk. I'm afraid our species has become flabby, decadent, complacent and risk-averse.

I'm not sure we have the right stuff to ensure the survival of the species. We need more Scotts, more Shackletons, more Amundsens, more Anders. And the will to let them do what they do so well, even if it's risky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
I've always found it interesting that all those years later, another explorer named Scott piloted a ship named Falcon to a landing on the moon.

---

posted 01-19-2012 02:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I don't believe there is any record of similar pre-mission musings by Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen - or Columbus or Cook for that matter.

---

posted 01-19-2012 10:10 AM               

Maybe another two decades or so will reveal more expeditions to the moon, but I have never been entirely comfortable with directly comparing ocean going expeditions to space ones, beyond the basic metaphor as Carl Sagan used it (his "cosmic ocean" metaphor). While both have barriers to overcome, so much more is potentially riding on the line with a space venture than a sea going one. If you get stranded on an icepack, at least you have air to breathe and if you can build a fire, melting snow for drinking is a possibility (and if you catch a sea lion or some penguins, or fish, there is the possibility of food). And if somebody like Shackleton can get back to some semblence of civilization, rescue is possible. In space, beyond LEO we don't even have that. There are no space stations at lagrange points, no stored fuel supplies... no real ability to extract oxygen from moon rocks, nothing. So, if you get stranded in a useless orbit with no fuel or on the moon, you are pretty much screwed six ways from Sunday. You have NO WAY of getting back.

posted 01-19-2012 08:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Scott must be one of the very few explorers to be accorded 'hero' status despite the opinion of some that he was both foolhardy and incompetent.

---

I recommend the modern accounts by writers such as David Crane ("Scott of the Antarctic"); Ranulph Fiennes ("Captain Scott") and Dr. Susan Solomon ("The Coldest March"). Fiennes has man-hauled across Antarctica and can therefore write from personal (and expert) experience. Solomon is an American scientist who works in Antarctica.

posted 01-20-2012 03:29 AM               

A couple of examples: Teddy Evans, Scott's second in command, wrote to Oates' mother on his return, "One cannot state facts plainly when they reflect on the organisation." He wrote also, "Thank God I was not included in the Polar party... It seems to me extraordinary that they stuck to their records and specimens, we dumped ours at the first big check. I must say I considered the safety of my party before the value of the records... apparently Scott did not."

There are other examples from the accounts of members of the Terra Nova expedition which question Scott's leadership, Meares and Atkinson to name but two.

However, at the end of the day one's opinion of Scott has to be personal and the weight one places on the elements of the evidence.

posted 01-20-2012 08:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
There are no space stations at lagrange points, no stored fuel supplies... no real ability to extract oxygen from moon rocks, nothing. So, if you get stranded in a useless orbit with no fuel or on the moon, you are pretty much screwed six ways from Sunday. You have NO WAY of getting back.

---

And little or no physical exertion required to get to the moon! Scott and his men had to carry a substantial amount of their provisions, were exposed every day to the extremes and were definitely not "motorised". As he unfortunately proved, he was "screwed six ways from Sunday" when it came to gettign back and even these days it's not guaranteed.

I think that in our separate ways we have proven that space and historical or even current antarctic exploration are not comparable. Maybe "trailblazers" is a better description for both, rather than the over-used and subjective "heroes"?

posted 01-20-2012 10:59 AM               

Scott's expedition to the pole reminds me a bit of Everest expeditions that go on to this day. Many go up and come back, but sometimes you get people who work too hard to make it to the summit without fully comprehending they are only half way there and the climb down ends up killing them. Granted in Scott's case, nobody had done it before and been successful (well, almost nobody as Amundsen got there a few days earlier).

The debate about whether an individual is right or wrong in his leadership is going to continue as long as two people are around to debate it. Ultimately, the final answer will never be known since the individuals involved are long dead. We can make best guesses based on researched knowledge of the events, interviews and first hand study, but that is all.

posted 01-21-2012 10:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I, for one, am prepared to follow the advice of a respected historian who said that one should always go to the contemporary record to determine the truth. These paint a different picture than that painted by the authors quoted above, their polar experience notwithstanding.

---

I agree that the contemporary record is important, but it does NOT provide a complete understanding of events. Only the passage of time and new information can do that. As Susan Solomon points out in "The Coldest March", Scott's party was overwhelmed by exceptionally cold weather: far colder than could have been predicted or planned for. Solomon has demonstrated from a century of records that these exceptionally cold temperatures only occur one year in fifteen. Unlike Amundsen, Scott had already been to Antarctica (and had experienced a very cold winter in 1903) but no amount of planning could have prepared Scott and his men for the conditions which caused their deaths.

As he lay close to death in his tent in late March, 1912, Scott acknowledged that polar exploration was a perilous business:

We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last.

posted 01-22-2012 03:27 PM               

On edit: if we're being really pedantic, Amundsen was not the first to reach the Pole but Olaf Bjaaland followed by Sverre Hassel then a dog.

posted 03-29-2012 05:33 PM            

A century later, James Cameron has shown that there is still room for explorers, but the death of Scott always resonated with me in a way which I find hard to put into words. Perhaps it was the power of his final words echoing across the miles and the decades:

Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale... We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far. It seems a pity, but I do not think I can write more.

Last entry.

For God's sake look after our people.