Why did the Antarctic drilling project fail?

 
Borehole

A few members of the team that attempted to search for life in Antarctica's Lake Ellsworth are already beginning a long, sad and disappointed journey home.

The rest will be gone, along with all the equipment, the stores and a union jack, in a few weeks' time, leaving no trace of this daring mission to reach beneath the ice.

The most exciting science often carries the greatest risk and, despite three years of planning, this is a gamble that has not paid off.

The talk from the team is brave, of course - of lessons learned, of valuable experience, of regrouping to try again.

But the voice of the chief scientist, Prof Martin Siegert, conveys the painful combination of exhaustion and failure that marks all projects that go wrong.

And it carries memories of another brave British attempt to search for life, on another planet almost 10 years ago.

The aim in Antarctica was to use a hot-water drill to reach down through the two miles of the ice sheet to open a borehole to the waters of Lake Ellsworth below.

The plan had estimated that five days of drilling would do the job and would then allow for 24 hours before the hole re-froze to lower devices into the water and sediment.

In theory, by now, the team should have been hauling to the surface precious containers holding samples from a lost and hidden world isolated for up to half a million years.

Instead the hot water drill did not manage to reach into the depths as required.

Start Quote

The most exciting science often carries the greatest risk and, despite three years of planning, this is a gamble that has not paid off”

End Quote

The drilling plan called for the creation of a large cavity in the ice to act as a reservoir and as a means of regulating the pressure from the lake below.

The cavity was formed - so far, so good - but when the main borehole was drilled, just 1.5m from the hole leading to the cavity, it could not make a connection down below.

The team assumed that the borehole would descend vertically but maybe it veered off slightly which meant that an accurate aim - and connection - was not possible.

And without being able to hook up the main borehole to the cavity, countless gallons of hot water were wasted in the attempt and the limited fuel stores rapidly depleted.

On Christmas Eve, a fateful decision approached. This £8m project had coped with equipment breakdowns and last-minute hurdles, ferocious weather and utter remoteness.

At one stage, an electronic component the size of a thumbnail - essential to the running of the main boiler - had to be flown out all the way from Britain.

But in the end it was the drilling that proved the project's undoing: it simply could not continue because fuel was running low.

By the evening, gathered in the main tent, the team had to face an awful moment: there was no option but to pull the plug.

Martin Siegert Martin Siegert, chief scientist on the drilling project

The chief scientist, and main driver behind the project, Prof Martin Siegert, prepared a few words for on-site cameraman Pete Bucktrout. It was '"Game over".

Last summer, when I first met Prof Siegert, I was too polite to remind him of what had happened to another British science project, the Beagle 2 mission to Mars, the spacecraft named after the ship that had carried Charles Darwin.

That clever piece of engineering was a tiny lander that was carried to the Red Planet in 2003 on board the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter.

Back then many of us gathered with Beagle's mastermind, Prof Colin Pillinger, to wait to hear the first signal that the spacecraft had touched down safely. The signal never came; Beagle went missing, presumed dead.

So it was to my surprise that Prof Siegert himself brought up the parallel, comparing that audacious attempt to search for life on Mars with his own bid to seek it in the unlit depths beneath the Antarctic ice sheet.

At the time, in that summer conversation, neither of us realised an eerie coincidence. Beagle crashed on Christmas Day 2003; the Lake Ellsworth mission was abandoned on Christmas Eve 2012.

Over a crackly satellite phone connection today, Prof Siegert managed a laugh at the timing.

But there is a difference between the two projects. Funding was never found to launch another Beagle to Mars while it is likely that another attempt will be made on Lake Ellsworth.

The team will work on a revised plan next year. Another go may be tried in four or five years' time.

For the moment, though, the fundamental question that drove both missions remains unanswered: what is the limit to where life is possible?

 
David Shukman Article written by David Shukman David Shukman Science editor

Five steps to landing on a comet

How do you land on a comet? That's problem facing the people running Esa's Rosetta mission after the successful rendezvous with Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 95.

    Simple - component failure (twice) meant that the system had to run for longer than planned therefore had insufficient fuel to complete the drilling.
    Bearing in mind that this is being done in extreme conditions its only to be expected there will be some issues

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 94.

    It strikes me that the scientists were perhaps not willing to delegate sufficiently to engineers on this project.

    I do hope vanity as to "ownership" was not the root of the problem.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 93.

    These ignorant comments objecting to this research remind me of the populist mockery that geneticists were subjected to in the Stalinist Soviet Union ("fly-lovers and people-haters") by hacks who couldn't conceive of a practical use for their fruit-fly lab experiments. They could not of course imagine how important genetics would be to modern agriculture and medicine.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 92.

    "The team assumed that the borehole would descend vertically "

    ===

    There we have it.

    We cannot assume anything. I'd have hoped scientists would have realised that too.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 91.

    70.empiredown - your show incredible ingnorance of how mankind has developed and how discoveries are made. Many seemingly academic endeavours have produced unexpected and incredibly useful results; many which seemingly had practical applications have yeilded nought. It is not always possible to know where something leads. Sometimes you just don't know till you get there!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 90.

    84.Math Man - "......they use a conventional drill, stop short of penetration before reverting to the 'hot water drill' to finish off the job......."


    Said the Bishop to the actress? Or was it the other way round...??!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 89.

    We don't know why things went wrong, no formal review has been carried out. What's being discussed is only speculation and assumption but as usual 'armchair experts' feel able to rush in and criticise.

    Maybe errors were made. Maybe more testing/preperation was needed. Maybe something unexpected occured, we don't know yet.
    Maybe we should only judge when we find out what actually happened!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 88.

    We are still on a learning curve about how diverse and hardy life can be. We haven't even explored all of the sea yet. These problems are only to be expected. As someone once said,'it's not the falling down, it's what you do once you've picked yourself up'...It's still a good idea...and good practice for other 'off world' endeavours....unlucky guys/gals, better luck next time..

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 87.

    Not sure what all the concern about water pressure is since all things being equal the water wouldn't even reach the surface cause liquid water is heavier then ice. The water may only come withing a few hundred feet of the surface. That being said, fissures and cracks in the ice over the years have probably allowed pressure release and gaseous exchange with the surface anyway.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 86.

    Tsk, quitters!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 85.

    Maybe it would make sense to melt out a large enough cavity in the ice to set up operations and living quarters within the ice. This would give protection from the elements and year round access. Easy access to the outside would be needed in case of flooding though.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 84.

    If they or others do get the chance to have another go at reaching this body of water could I suggest they use a conventional drill, stop short of penetration before reverting to the hot water drill to finish off the job. It should be possible to prevent contamination by careful design by engineers.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 83.

    Investigating Antartic is like investigating the moon. Can you know in advance effects, consequences of drilling, bombing?
    Humankind is such a gambling species - Let's do it & see what happens!
    Antarctica’s Ice Shelf Shrinking, Shrinking! One of Antarctica’s ice shelves has shrunk by 85% past 17 years (Envisat Satellite). Maybe in 4-5 yrs, researchers will have more preliminary knowledge.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 82.

    I am not surprised by this failure. The heat energy needed to cut through 2 miles of pressurized ice, lift out the melt water against tube resistance, and make up for huge thermal losses must me pretty enormous and require a lot of water at very high temperature and pressure. 13000 gallons of feed-water reserve doesn't sound remotely enough to to supply the small power station boiler required!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 81.

    I don’t know the team on this project but I do know that large science experiments and instruments are successful if the scientists define the objectives and then hand the implementation over to a team of engineers to decide the best way to achieve those objectives. As for results even the LHC had its teething problems before it found the non-Higgs Boson, which is great science.

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 80.

    62.SomeBlokeFromCambridge - ".....you'll need to check the blogs to see why misleading"


    Ah yes, that'd be the blogs paid for by the by the fossil fuel lobby......

    ....the blogs with no evidence, just dodgy opinions & fatuous, irrelevant arguments........

    ....do you believe everything you read in blogs, or just the stuff that suits your preformed opinions...???

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 79.

    It is a shame, but that's the nature of cutting-edge science.

    No experiment 'fails' - you just don't get the results that you were expecting. Good to hear that a revised plan will be laid out and another attempt made in the future.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 78.

    I did wonder, when watching this on the news, how you could get a long coiled cold plastic pipe to go in a straight line?

    Any takers.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 77.

    75.stephen richards



    Erm, the BBC is funded by the license fee, not tax payer's money - even those on incomes below tax levels who don't recieve any benefits pay the license fee.

    The only global warming scam is the lies spread by the multi trillion $ fossil fuel lobby obfuscating over the issue to ensure their profit flow continues unabated......at the expense of our children.....

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 76.

    70.empiredown - ".......It is stupid to spend money on this kind of thing when our economy is on its knees"


    The economy is only on its knees because of reckless, self defeating austerity - we need MORE projects like this......you've been sold a pup by the Coalition who lied to get power:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

 

Page 1 of 5

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.