Abstract 

Polar regions face rapid transformations due to climate change, especially warming in the Arctic. This necessitates ongoing environmental monitoring and new measurement techniques across land, sea, and air. An 11-day multidisciplinary expedition in March 2025 addressed this, collecting cosmic radiation data, researching satellite communication and positioning, and experimenting with optical/SWIR lighting positioning. Two outreach projects, "Arctic’s Special Discoverers" and NASA GLOBE Clouds, were also conducted. Data acquisition and surveillance are crucial for understanding these changes and their global implications, and results from this expedition will be circulated to scale up future polar field research to improve quality and quantity of data.

Experiments

Our initial plan included four scientific and technological experiments and two educational activities. However, to ensure their successful execution within the challenging Arctic Edge environment, significant adaptations were necessary. These adaptations addressed logistical demands of sled hauling and traversing for approximately eight hours each day in persistent sub-zero temperatures. This required modifications to experimental protocols, equipment, and data collection methodologies to account for the physical strain, limited accessibility and time, and harsh climatic conditions inherent to the Arctic setting and not all our modifications were successful, as further explained in this report. 

NorthStarlink

The objective of “NorthStarlink” (The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA, David Marsh) was to gather radiofrequency signals from Low-Earth Orbiting (LEO) satellites (like SpaceX's Starlink constellation) and use them for navigation calculations. The gathered data would then be compared to GPS ground truth readings from various GPS devices, as part of a larger research effort led by The Ohio State University Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. During the expedition, eleven data collections were conducted - either stationary or mobile. 

This research is critical for developing new, alternative forms of navigation which can provide advantages over GPS, and other Global Navigation Satellite Systems, in the polar regions where limited satellite visibility, extreme weather, ionospheric interference, and even geopolitical turmoil can disrupt everyday navigation. Further analysis and results will be published in future publications (see NorthStarlink system images below).

JAMarctic

The objective of the “JAMarctic Exploration” experiment, by Rhea Space Activity (RSA, Washington DC, USA, Nina Marić), was to develop cutting-edge ground-based optical navigation technologies for explorers without GPS in all remote environments. RSA tested a new Jervis Autonomous Module (JAM) system, an innovative optical navigation technology that serves as a reliable alternative to traditional GPS. JAM uses advanced optical sensors to track guide stars and surface features, enabling precise estimation of a spacecraft's position and velocity, even in challenging conditions. During the expedition the team captured images of the sky in various conditions to evaluate JAM's performance. Using multiple camera systems, including those sensitive to visible light and short-wave infrared (SWIR), the data captured will refine RSA’s JAM algorithm. The Arctic region provided an excellent opportunity to test RSA’s AutoNav-powered, celestial-based, GPS-independent navigation system. The primary objective was to collect real-world imagery to assess the reliability of RSA’s system in environments where GPS is either unavailable or degraded. RSA also aimed to evaluate Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) cameras to enhance the reliability of their navigation solution against spoofing, jamming, degradation, and adverse weather, thus ensuring continuous spatial awareness (see images below). This was a commercial endeavor and the expected results are new prototypes and products, to be deployed in polar regions in the coming years.

Image 3. “JAMarctic Exploration”@horizonsofchange.org Arctic Edge expedition. Left: RSA PI Nina Marić testing system in Longyearbyen town, Svalbard, before leaving for the field. Right: Pelican case is open with a few components seen: Power source, and vacant places for warm thermal bottles to keep batteries warm during operation. Total weight approx. 20 kg. Photo credit: RSA / Nina Marić. 

GRASP

The Ground-based Cosmic Radiation in the Arctic and the South Pole (GRASP, Dr. Yuval Reuveni, Ariel University, Israel, Prof. Yoav Yair, The Reichman University, Israel, Prof. Karen Aplin, Bristol University, UK) experiment was to advance the understanding of cosmic radiation by leveraging the unique environmental conditions surrounding the Arctic and the South Pole region. Cosmic rays, an incessant flux of high-energy particles originating from deep space, play a key role in atmospheric ionization and may influence cloud formation and climate processes. Unlike balloon- or space-based instruments, ground-based detectors capture secondary particles produced in atmospheric air-showers as primary cosmic rays interact with atmospheric nuclei. GRASP employed two lightweight, portable miniaturized ionizing radiation detectors equipped with 0.8 cm³ CsI(Tl) scintillator crystals coupled to PiN photodiodes, housed in a low-power, cost-effective design. This system will allow the measurement of both background cosmic radiation and transient space weather events, such as Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) and solar flares, anticipated during the declining phase of Solar Cycle 25. By collecting data at locations along the route not previously included in cosmic ray monitoring networks, GRASP would provide valuable contributions to the existing cosmic radiation database

Image 4. GRASP experiment main equipment (laptop was GETAC, not shown here). Left - bluetooth signals from sensors recorded with android OS mobile phone, middle - transparents sensor display, and right - black housing for another sensor, with the toggle switch. Total weight approx. 30 g.
Photo credit: horizonsofchange.org / Gal Yoffe, Dr. Reut Sorek Abramovich

SVERDRUP

The 4th planned experiment “Sverdrup - combining the history and future of Arctic exploration using space-based navigation” (David Marsh, PI). It was to coincide with the private space mission “Fram2”, operated by SpaceX, and funded by entrepreneur Chun Wang (and included TEC FI2018 Eric Philips). This experiment paid homage to Fram missions of the past (a polar exploration ship between 1893 and 1912), and specifically the mission led by Otto Sverdrup, by using radio equipment onboard Fram2 to broadcast a signal on amateur radio frequencies that can be used for determining the position of the spacecraft and support terrestrial navigation. These signals would have been collected from radio equipment on Axel Heiberg Island in Canada (one of the islands discovered by Sverdrup nearly 150 years ago); and during the expedition to Svalbard. Unfortunately, the Fram2 space mission eventually launched after the Arctic Edge expedition finished, and hence this experiment was not carried out.

Education

NASA GLOBE Observer

During the Horizons of Change expedition to Svalbard in March 2025, our team partnered with the Polar Collective, David Marsh and the GLOBE Observer program, a NASA-coordinated citizen science initiative, to help close a critical data gap in Arctic weather research.

The project’s goal was simple, yet powerful: Record ground-level observations of cloud conditions to match with satellite imagery from the Terra and NOAA-20 satellites. While satellites provide broad views of the Earth’s atmosphere, they often struggle to “see” clouds accurately in remote regions like the Arctic, especially when snow cover and cloud layers look similar from space. That’s where we came in.

Using the GLOBE Observer app and supported by Starlink satellite internet, we documented sky conditions by photographing the horizon and zenith and recording variables such as cloud type, coverage, opacity, sunlight, and surface conditions. These observations were carefully timed to coincide with known satellite overpasses, allowing researchers to directly compare our ground truth data with satellite readings.

Across ten observation events over five days, we documented an evolving Arctic sky - from deep twilight and starlit visibility, to clear skies with cirrus streaks, and dynamic days of layered clouds and solar halos. One particularly memorable morning revealed distinct lenticular formations, while another showcased low-level stratiform clouds over glistening snow cover, giving us clues about atmospheric stability and moisture layers.

Skiing expedition data contributes to space-based Earth observation science and engages the team with open science tools. This initiative shows how anyone can advance environmental science in areas satellites can't fully understand. Findings will be in an upcoming article by PI David Marsh on space observation and polar research.

Arctic’s Special Discoverers

Expedition leader Gal Yoffe designed a creative kindergarten project to immerse children on the autistic spectrum in the world of Arctic exploration. The children began by creating cardboard representations of themselves, which then become central figures in a dynamic story - their collective 'search for Elsa' from 'Frozen'. These personal 'puppets' then traveled with Mr. Yoffe to the Arctic, where they were placed and photographed in the stunning, snowy landscapes. This process provided a rich foundation for storytelling, enabling kindergarten staff and parents to share an inspiring narrative of adventure with the children, starring their own images. Beyond the imaginative play, the project fostered environmental awareness and significantly enhanced the children's feelings of self-efficacy, all while offering the expedition leader a meaningful and uplifting break from the rigorous demands of the Arctic.

We are happy to report also that all cardboard images and materials used in the Arctic for this project were carefully collected and brought back by the Expedition Leader, ensuring no waste was left behind in the pristine environment and allowing the children to have their creations returned to the kindergarten (see image below).

Expedition Details

Location 

Data for this study was meticulously collected within Sassen-Bünsow Land National Park, located on Spitsbergen, the main island of Svalbard. The central coordinates of the study area are 78°06'31.7"N 17°02'51.4"E (see map 1 below). Data acquisition involved multiple traverses and temporary campsites, allowing for observations during both day and night when feasible and safe. Specific data collection details, such as sampling locations, observation durations, and recording times, varied based on environmental conditions and research objectives. The study encompassed a total distance of approximately 70 km, with a 400 m elevation gain, a maximum walking speed of 2.2 km/h, and a highest elevation of 583 m above sea level.

Data Collection Methods and Analysis

Data was compiled from a diverse array of sources (see below), with a multi-faceted approach to ensure environmental and logistical documentation throughout the expedition.

Spatial Positioning Data

The geographical trajectory of the expedition was tracked using a combination of Garmin GPS based technologies. Specifically, two Garmin Fenix multisport GPS watches were deployed, each configured to log positional data on an hourly basis. Complementing this, a Garmin InReach satellite communicator, equipped with GPS capabilities, provided more frequent location updates at 15-minute intervals. The utilization of three independent devices aimed to enhance the robustness and accuracy of the route data, providing a detailed record of the team's movements across the terrain.

Elevation 

To ascertain the vertical profile of the traversed route, the recorded GPS data was integrated with a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) provided by the Norwegian Polar Institute. These elevation models are primarily generated through stereo analysis of contemporary aerial photography, ensuring a high degree of accuracy. In instances where recent aerial imagery was unavailable, supplementary data sources, including older elevation contour lines, hydrographic features (lakes), and coastal delineations, were incorporated to provide complete coverage. The spatial resolution of these elevation models varies between 5 and 50 meters, reflecting the granularity of the underlying data acquisition methods. The Norwegian Polar Institute estimated the standard deviation of elevation data derived from stereo models to be approximately 2 to 5 meters, with potentially higher uncertainty in complex glaciated regions. Older data, relying on less precise methods, carries a larger standard deviation of around 25 meters (The Norwegian Polar Institute, 2014).

Monitoring Local Conditions

On-site environmental parameters were continuously monitored with SensorPush HTP.xw device for key meteorological variables including ambient temperature (°C), relative humidity, and barometric pressure. 

Regional Meteorological Information

Comprehensive meteorological datasets were acquired from three Climate-ecological Observatory for Arctic Tundra (COAT) meteorological stations. Nedre Sassendalen, Janssonhaugen, and Reindalspasset – maintain continuous records of wind speed and direction, air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and atmospheric pressure. These datasets were provided by the Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (MET Norway, 2025), offering an understanding of the prevailing regional weather patterns throughout the expedition period.

Data Integration and Processing

A temporal framework of the expedition's daily activities was documented through the efforts of two team members, Mardi Philips and Dr. Eleonore Casandra Poli. Each member maintained a personal diary, recording the precise timing and duration of significant events, including research activities, travel segments, and camp establishment. These qualitative activity logs provided complementary context for the environmental and spatial data collected. Additionally, each PI documented their experiment run time and we collected that data at the end of the expedition. Datasets acquired from various sources were systematically integrated into one unified chronological database. This was accomplished through the development and execution of a custom Python script utilizing the Jupiter QT Console environment (version 5.5.1). The resulting database, structured in Comma Separated Values (CSV) format file, facilitated comprehensive analysis and correlation of spatial, environmental, and activity-related information. For purposes of mitigating the inherent uncertainties in field-based data acquisition, the recorded duration, start and finish times of all documented activities were cross-referenced with the individual diaries maintained by Mardi Philips and Dr. Poli. This approach minimized potential inaccuracies and ensured the temporal consistency of the integrated data.

Results 

Geographical & Atmospheric Features

Valleys & Plains

Sassendalen: This prominent valley, situated in the central part of Svalbard to the east of Longyearbyen, serves as a well-trodden route for numerous expeditions. Its relatively accessible terrain and significant length make it an ideal corridor for traversing the interior of Svalbard. The valley floor often exhibits braided river systems during warmer months and a relatively leveled layer of snow during colder months, providing stunning panoramic views of the surrounding peaks. Its historical significance also adds to its allure, with remnants of early trapping and mining activities occasionally visible.

Vendomdalen: A more diminutive valley in comparison to Sassendalen, Vendomdalen offers a pathway leading towards extensive glacier-covered regions of Svalbard. Its narrower confines and steeper inclines often present a more challenging environment for travel. The approach to the glaciers through Vendomdalen frequently involves navigating moraine fields and frozen meltwater streams, demanding careful route planning and execution.

Reindalen: As one of Svalbard's largest valleys, Reindalen extends from the island's interior westward, showcasing a diverse range of geological features. Its vast expanse supports varied ecosystems, including grazing areas for reindeer (from which the valley derives its name). The valley floor is characterized by a wide, often braided riverbed, flanked by imposing mountain ranges. Evidence of significant glacial activity, such as U-shaped valleys and hanging valleys, is readily apparent throughout Reindalen.

Oppdalen: Connecting to the expansive Reindalen, Oppdalen presents a notable contrast with its reputation for rugged and often challenging terrain. Characterized by steep slopes, rocky outcrops, and narrow sections, presents challenging access and traversal due to uneven and exposed terrain, requiring caution. Its junction with Reindalen marks a significant geographical transition in Svalbard.

Gangdalen: This valley serves as a connector, providing a route towards the major valley of Adventdalen. While perhaps less prominent than its larger neighbors, Gangdalen plays a crucial role in the regional geography, facilitating movement between different parts of Svalbard. Its specific characteristics, such as gradient and vegetation, sometimes even growing out of the snow, likely vary along its length, offering a transitional environment between adjacent valleys.

Adventdalen: A significant valley due to its proximity to Longyearbyen, the administrative and logistical hub of Svalbard, Adventdalen is frequently utilized for logistical access to the interior. Its relatively wide and gently sloping floor makes it suitable for various forms of transportation, including snowmobiles and tracked vehicles during winter. The presence of infrastructure related to mining and research activities further underscores its importance. The Advent River meanders through the valley, eventually flowing into Adventfjorden. 

Glaciers & Ice Features

Jinnbreen: Jinnbreen glacier, situated at an estimated 320 meters above sea level and containing a significant ice mass, presents a challenging ascent. Navigating its terrain necessitates specialized skills and equipment to traverse crevasses, seracs, and potentially steep icy slopes. The glacier's elevated position provides expansive and dramatic views of the surrounding Arctic landscape.

Innerbreen: This glacier was encountered during the descent into Oppdalen, indicating its geographical relationship to this rugged valley. The act of descending onto or alongside Innerbreen suggests a dynamic landscape where glacial ice interacts directly with the valley terrain. The conditions of Innerbreen, such as its surface morphology (presence of meltwater, crevasses, or snow cover), would significantly impact the ease and safety of travel.

Water Features & Other Ice Formations 

Eskerfossen: This frozen waterfall, visited early in the expedition, derives its name from the geological formations known as eskers. Eskers are long, winding ridges of stratified sand and gravel deposited by glacial meltwater streams flowing within or beneath glaciers. The presence of Eskerfossen indicates past or present glacial meltwater activity and highlights the intricate relationship between ice and water in shaping the Arctic landscape.

Riverbeds in Reindalen & Oppdalen: The presence of riverbeds within these valleys serves as a clear indication of past glacial meltwater flow. The fact that some of these riverbeds were icy or snow-covered further emphasizes the persistent cold conditions and the lingering influence of ice within the landscape. These riverbeds present varied terrain, ranging from smooth ice to rough gravel and boulders, impacting travel across the valley floors.

Other Terrain Features 

Moraines: The frequent mention of moraine fields, particularly during the ascent of Jinnbreen, underscores the significant role of glacial erosion and deposition in shaping the terrain. Moraines are accumulations of unsorted glacial debris, including rocks, pebbles, sand, and silt, that are transported and deposited by glaciers. Different types of moraines (e.g., lateral, medial, terminal) can provide valuable insights into the past extent and movement of glaciers. Navigating moraine fields often involves traversing uneven and unstable ground.

Canyons: The formation of canyons near Eskerfossen and in the Reindalen riverbed highlights the powerful erosive effects of water. Canyons are characterized as deep, narrow valleys with steep sides, primarily carved by the flow of water through bedrock and the abrasive action of glaciers moving downhill. Their existence points to substantial geological activity, creating both notable visual elements and potential barriers in the landscape.

Mountain Passes: The climbing of mountain passes transitioning between valleys and glacier routes highlights the rugged and interconnected nature of Svalbard. Traversing these passes involved steep inclines, challenging terrain, and potentially exposed conditions, requiring careful navigation and physical exertion.

Sastrugi: Wind profoundly shapes the Arctic snowpack, forming wind-carved features like sastrugi, notably in Oppdalen and Reindalen. Sastrugi, irregular ridges and grooves resulting from wind erosion and deposition, reached approximately 40 cm in height. These uneven surfaces create unpredictable travel conditions for foot, ski, and snowmobile. Navigating through extensive sastrugi demands careful balance and awareness of changing snow conditions. The lack of shadows due to obscured sunlight during much of the expedition severely hampered the ability to anticipate sastrugi formations, often revealing their presence only when skis dug in and inclines were felt. Traversing sastrugi was physically taxing, requiring repeated muscle effort for ascents and descents while maintaining a level sled.

Atmospheric Features 

Aurora Lights: The observation of the aurora borealis, displaying green and purple hues during evening hours (approximately 9:30 PM to 11:00 PM) and occasionally in the early morning (around 2:30 AM to 4:00 AM), provided a captivating visual spectacle. The reported faintness suggests that the auroral activity might have been at the edge of visibility or partially obscured by cloud cover. 

Image 14. Green and purple of aurora lights. Photo credit: Gal Yoffe

Wind: The experience of high wind conditions reaching close to 100 km/h, accompanied by whiteout on two separate days, highlighted the potential for severe weather in the Arctic. Whiteout occurs when blowing snow and overcast skies combine to obscure visibility, making navigation extremely difficult and dangerous. Winds of this magnitude also created significant wind chill, posing a risk of frostbite and hypothermia.

Temperature: The recorded temperature range during the expedition, from a low of -35.6℃ to a high of -5℃, with two nights experiencing particularly frigid conditions between -33℃ and -35.6℃, emphasized the extreme cold of the Arctic environment. These low temperatures necessitated specialized clothing and equipment to prevent cold-related injuries and maintain operational capability. The wide temperature range also suggested variability in weather conditions throughout the duration of the expedition.

Clouds: Svalbard's variable cloud cover ranged from complete overcast to clear blue skies, changing daily and hourly. Low stratus clouds often obscured visibility, with whiteout conditions occurring twice. Clear periods featured cirrus and altostratus clouds, including a sun halo, and were crucial for science observations and team morale. Eight cloud observation sessions documented stable morning stratiform clouds giving way to broken or thinning clouds in the afternoon, correlating with wind and radiation changes. 

Transportation 

The expedition utilized several transportation methods: A Bandvagn for accessing the field site, skiing with individual sleds (carrying approximately 10-60 kg, see images below) during fieldwork, snowmobiles for extraction only, walking with no ski and buses for transportation within town.

Image 16. Different transportation modes. Photo credit: Left: Michel Esteves, Right: Dan Or-Hof.

Daily routine

At the heart of the expedition plan was a strict but simple rule: Divide each 24-hour day into equal thirds - eight hours for skiing, eight for sleep, and eight for everything else. That final third was tasked with doing all the invisible work that sustains polar travel - setting up and breaking down camp, melting snow, drying gear, repairing equipment, documenting findings, and carrying out scientific work.

The established principle dictated a strict trade-off - increased travel time would reduce time allocated to chores or science, but won’t impact sleep. Similarly, equipment issues or extended data collection would shorten skiing time. The underlying logic prioritized progress but recognized rest and recovery as fundamental. However, the expedition's execution deviated from this structure as detailed in table 1, see below.

Daily life was defined by physically and technically demanding tasks. Sled hauling became second nature, requiring coordinated strength and endurance to transport vital equipment across the ice. Establishing camp in the frigid or blizzard conditions was a precise and calculated effort, where efficiency and skill determined the fragile sanctuary of each night’s rest. Even the most routine actions-securing gear, operating scientific instruments, or maintaining supplies-were complicated by the cold, where frozen batteries and fingers, and brittle plastics threatened progress at every turn.  

Table 1. Duration estimation of various activities during expedition days. 

Expedition Log

March 16 - Departure and First Steps in Sassendalen

After nearly 36 hours of intense logistical preparation in Longyearbyen-marked by equipment checks, food rations, gear briefings, and scientific planning at the Ice-Trek warehouse-the team set out into a biting −35.6°C morning. At 11:00 AM, the team of 12 boarded a belt wagon for a bumpy two-hour journey eastward through snow-covered valleys to the mouth of Sassendalen.

Upon arrival, sleds were unloaded and prepared for travel. After a quick lunch, the team embarked on a short ski tour to Eskerfossen, a frozen waterfall hidden within a nearby canyon. This exercise helped adjust bindings and layering strategies and provided the first opportunity to develop a team rhythm. Later, the team clipped into hauling harnesses, embarking on their initial short trek up Sassendalen with sleds laden with up to 50 kg of gear and supplies. Two ski sessions were completed before establishing the first camp.

During the first camp setup, one of the stoves was spilled, and fuel ignited uncontrollably. An immediate response using a fire blanket and quick action by the expedition leadership prevented what could have been a disaster. Later that same evening, a couple of team members began showing signs of hypothermia. The team acted quickly, moving them into a tent and into sleeping bags. Stoves were turned on, and boiling water was poured into Nalgene bottles and placed against the affected members’ thighs and armpits to help warm their core temperatures.

The evening closed with snow melting for water, freeze-dried meals, and rotating 51-minute polar bear watch shifts. For those on duty that night, a green aurora shimmered faintly over the icy valley.

March 17 - Cold Bites and Steady Progress

The first full day on skis began under a clear, cloudless sky and severe cold, with temperatures hovering near −35°C at dawn. The brittle, squeaky snow reflected a glare that strained the eyes. Despite excellent visibility and low wind, progress was slow, hampered by the need to manage extremity warmth and avoid moisture accumulation (sweat). The team moved steadily, completing several short ski sessions interspersed with 5-10 minute rest stops. Morale management became a key challenge as the physical demands of the day weighed on the team. By late afternoon, the team pitched camp in an open valley, reinforcing some tents with snow walls. Nightfall brought another display of shimmering auroras, a silent reward for endurance.

March 18 - A Turning Point

Under clear, sunny skies, the team dismantled camp and resumed the trek. Despite the uplifting presence of sunlight, temperatures still hovered around −30°C. Mid-morning brought a critical decision: With the original route proving too slow due to challenging conditions and physical fatigue, a team meeting was held. The decision was made to commit to a more ambitious route over a mountain pass into Reindalen, setting a new course.

The team pressed into Vendomdalen, its steep, ice-draped walls rising on either side. Atmospheric phenomena painted the sky with sun dogs-bright arcs of light flanking the sun (also known as parhelia or mock suns). By midday, temperatures briefly climbed to −22°C, offering a fleeting reprieve. Moisture management and foot care were prioritized during the evening debrief, as frostbite and sweat management remained ongoing challenges.

March 19 - Climbing Jinnbreen

Perfect alpine conditions-clear skies and no wind-greeted the team as they prepared to ascend Jinnbreen glacier. They wove through moraine debris before tackling the incline with a switchback approach. Heavy pulks dragged behind each participant slowed progress, but the crisp air and views invigorated spirits. Some skiers removed hats and unzipped jackets as they climbed.

A suitable camp spot proved elusive on the uneven glacier, forcing the team to manually level ground with shovels and skis. That evening, the amphitheater of ridges surrounding camp glowed orange under the setting sun. Later that night, stunning auroras painted the sky with vivid pinks and greens, illuminating the icebound expanse.

March 20 - Winds Rise

Morning warmth gave way to turbulence. Temperatures hovered around −19°C, but rising winds soon engulfed the camp. Gusts tore through mid-pack down, sending sled covers and gear scattering. The team ascended to the top of the pass amid side-winds. Midway, a member retrieved a runaway mitten, lightening the mood. Lunch was a hurried affair on a windswept ridge.

The descent into Oppdalen was marked by inconsistent snow: icy slopes interspersed with powder. Multiple members slipped or were dragged by their sleds, resulting in comical but tiring tumbles. Tents were pitched hastily under persistent winds, with additional snow barriers constructed for protection.

March 21 - Snow Sculptures and Sastrugi

The morning revealed a transformed landscape-soft dunes, sastrugi, and wind-carved ridges. Skis crunched across the intricate textures as dry snow drifted like sand. Navigating through Reindalen, the team confronted large sastrugi and patches of bare blue ice. Progress slowed, but the valley’s vastness and beauty compensated. The team stopped earlier than planned to recuperate and watched the sunset paint the horizon orange, a vivid reminder of nature’s artistry.

March 22 - Storms 

Overnight winds intensified, rattling tents and collapsing a few. During the night, most of the team were up repeatedly to bring back collapsed tents. Several bear fence tripwires were also triggered by blowing snow, adding to the tension of an already dramatic night. Despite the morning’s challenges, the team pushed forward, aided by a tailwind. Visibility dropped below 50 meters at times. Five sled-skiing sessions were completed through driving snow and fog. An early stop was made to set camp as a blizzard developed. Emergency measures were enacted, including reinforcing tents and building additional snow walls.

March 23 - Crisis Management and High Winds

The storm persisted into the morning, with more polar bear fence tripwires triggered. Watch shifts worked tirelessly to dig out and reinforce tents. As conditions improved, the team broke camp and moved to a small canyon. At the planned pickup point, news arrived that the belt wagon transport was canceled due to avalanche risk. A new plan was made to push on to a mountain hut approximately 5 km away. Spirits were strained but determined. During the day, a team member attempted to capture the dramatic scene with a drone but was thwarted by high winds, resulting in a crash; the drone was retrieved successfully.

March 24 - Extraction and Reflection

The final day unfolded as a logistical ballet. The team reached the hut mid-morning and settled in to wait outside. After hours of anticipation, three snowmobiles arrived, piloted by local experts. Extraction was executed in two waves, with participants riding in sleds behind the machines. The return to Longyearbyen came late at night, gear was unpacked and stowed. The team celebrated with pizza and fresh water before collapsing into beds for the first time in over a week. The journey had tested limits, demanded constant adaptation, and forged bonds that only such an environment can forge.

Performance Analysis

The expedition data reveals not a simple trade-off, but rather a progressive adaptation between travel, acclimation, and scientific activity. In the early days (March 16–21), science activity was consistently low-rarely exceeding one hour per day-despite relatively consistent traverse durations. For instance, on March 16, when the team covered just 2.8 km, recorded science time was still under one hour. While this might seem to contradict the assumption that less movement enables greater scientific focus, the short travel that day resulted from a late start and the fact that it was the first time on skis in polar conditions for some team members—factors that significantly limited both travel and science capacity. 

A shift occurred in the final three days (March 22–24), when scientific productivity increased markedly-reaching a peak of ~3.7 hours on March 22-even as the team maintained comparable or greater travel durations. This pattern indicates that the team became more effective at integrating science into daily routines, possibly due to acclimation to the extreme conditions, growing operational efficiency, better internal coordination, and familiarity with protocols. Rather than a direct inverse relationship between travel and science time, the data suggests an increasing capacity to manage both as the expedition progressed (see Graph 1). Rising daylight hours may have also contributed to improved performance by extending working windows and enhancing physical and cognitive stamina.

Several factors likely shaped these evolving patterns. First, time-management and team learning played a central role: Early inefficiencies in instrument setup, sample handling, or role coordination may have reduced science activity despite available time. Second, terrain difficulty—such as the climb to a 585 m pass on Day 5 - exerted additional physical strain, reducing the team’s capacity for scientific tasks. Once that high point was crossed, the team moved into more navigable terrain, coinciding with improved scientific output. Environmental conditions also shifted - while March 20–21 were impacted by storms and windchill, March 22 offered more stable conditions that enabled both movement and measurement. Lastly, the cumulative effect of increasing daylight exposure (from ~11.2 to 13.8 hours) likely supported morale, reduced fatigue, and allowed for longer activity cycles. This is supported by research showing that increased daylight in cold environments enhances psychological resilience and metabolic energy (Burns et al., 2021). Together, these insights emphasize not just the challenges of balancing science and travel in Arctic conditions, but the team’s growing ability to adapt, integrate, and optimize effort across a multidimensional expedition agenda.

Environmental factors - extreme cold, wind, and visibility - had pronounced effects on both performance and science output. In the initial days, temperatures at camp dropped below -30°C overnight (as low as -35.6°C recorded on March 17). Such deep cold significantly increases the difficulty of sled hauling and skiing: Normally a thin film of moisture aids sled runners, but below about -25°C that lubrication vanishes and snow grips the sled like sandpaper, making progress “much harder and slower”. The team’s slow start (only ~2-3 km on Day 1) and frequent pauses for warming were consistent with this challenge. 

Moreover, operating in severe cold drains energy; a fatigued or calorie-depleted person is less able to tolerate cold stress (Young & Castellani 2007; Young et al. 1998). It is likely that the frigid start not only physically impeded travel but also forced the team to spend extra time on survival tasks (staying warm, melting snow for water), reducing time for science observations in those days.

Weather emerged as a pivotal variable during the mid-phase of the expedition, particularly between March 19–23. A strong low-pressure system began moving in around March 19–20, as barometer readings dropped to approximately 961 mb—a very deep low—accompanied by reports of overcast skies and possible snowfall. Local wind data showed gusts reaching 13–15 m/s (47 - 54 km/h) in nearby valleys.

Despite these conditions, the team pushed an impressive 11.4 km on March 20. This progress was made possible in part due to a tactical decision informed by meteorological and topographical analysis: The team advanced beyond a high pass into a more sheltered sector, where wind exposure was reduced. While a whiteout occurred earlier that morning, the improved conditions allowed the team to maintain movement rather than being confined to stationary science tasks.

In contrast, on March 22, the team entered a wide, exposed valley and encountered stronger winds that significantly limited mobility. This day marked a spike in scientific activity, but this was less a direct result of wind alone and more due to three converging factors:

1. 1. Inability to relocate due to topography and weather.

   2. Accumulated experience with experimental protocols.

   3. A shortened window to traverse that day.

By this stage of the expedition, the team had developed increased efficiency and routine in executing science. The high output was not driven by weather alone, but by cumulative adaptation and operational learning.

Following the storm’s peak, March 22 closed with skies clearing, a rise in solar radiation, and a marked improvement in morale. Field notes describe a bright afternoon with “high angle sunlight” and excellent visibility. On March 23, the team made the most of these improved conditions, covering ~12.5 km, their longest daily distance, and achieving one of the highest science-hour totals. This suggests a rebound effect often observed in historical expeditions—following punishing conditions, morale and productivity surge with the return of sunlight and visibility (e.g., Scott & Huxley, 1913).

However, March 23 itself brought another whiteout, as recorded in a NASA GLOBE report: “Whiteout… very poor visibility… blowing snow,” with the ground obscured by drift. Despite this, the team still managed 8.3 km of travel and about 3 hours of science, primarily conducted while stationary in shelter in the morning while mitigating the effects of the storm during the night. Tasks included weather measurements, essentially turning the storm into a subject of study. However, finer tasks like detailed observations or instrument setup were nearly impossible in such conditions due to the lack of visual cues and the intensity of the blowing snow.

These events collectively illustrate that while extreme weather often reduced travel efficiency, it did not uniformly lead to higher scientific output. The popular notion that storms “force science” by immobilizing the team is only partially supported. In reality, the expedition’s adaptive strategies, morale, and accumulated operational efficiency played a more decisive role.

In contrast to the assumption that clear weather directly drives productivity, the expedition data show that effective science in polar environments is less about waiting for ideal conditions and more about the team’s ability to operate consistently across a range of scenarios.

Fatigue, Sleep Deprivation, and Team Morale

Transitioning from environmental impacts to human factors, sleep and fatigue were persistent challenges throughout the expedition, yet their influence on scientific output proved to be more nuanced than expected. While the team aimed for 7–8 hours of rest per night, actual sleep averaged closer to 6–6.5 hours early in the journey and declined to around 4–5 hours by March 23–24. Surprisingly, this period of reduced sleep coincided with the highest levels of scientific activity. On March 22 and 23 in particular, science task durations peaked despite fatigue, suggesting that operational learning, improved efficiency, and the team’s adaptation to conditions played a larger role in sustaining performance than sleep alone.

This observation somewhat contrasts common reports in polar research literature, which often links reduced sleep with diminished cognitive and physical capacity (Pedlar et al., 2007). While cumulative fatigue likely affected reaction time and decision-making-evident in minor mishaps such as misplacing gear or taking longer to break camp - it did not correspond to a clear drop in science productivity. Instead, the data suggests the team’s ability to internalize routines, prioritize effectively, and push through discomfort in the final stages of the journey. Scientific output on the final day (March 24) did decline, but this may have had more to do with time constraints and energy conservation during extraction operations than with sleep alone.

Ultimately, while fatigue did shape overall expedition dynamics-as evident in morale, coordination, and safety - it was not a sole limiting factor for research output. The data emphasize that adaptability, clear routines, and focused effort can sustain performance even under physically taxing and sleep-deprived conditions.

Several overlooked variables tied to fatigue also played a role. One is the impact of nighttime science on the crew’s rest. The team conducted important night observations - for instance, staying up late on March 17 under clear skies to record star visibility and potentially aurora activity, and waking at 02:54 AM on March 19 for a dark-sky observation. These exciting but sleep-curtailing efforts were scientifically valuable (night sky data during an Arctic winter transition), yet undoubtedly made the next day’s travel more tiring. Secondly, the psychological stress of the journey also taxed the team’s energy. Group journal entries (qualitative reports from the participants) hint at rising tension on difficult days - e.g. frustration when tent walls rimed with frost in the storm. Such incidents, while minor, can escalate under exhaustion. Team members had to consciously support each other to prevent stress from undermining cooperation. It’s well documented that fatigue reduces cold tolerance and makes irritability harder to control (Young & Castellani 2007; Young et al. 1998) meaning tired explorers likely felt the cold and each others’ missteps more acutely.

Despite these challenges, the team morale remained resilient overall - a critical factor in success. The team maintained cohesion through routine and communication - every evening, no matter how arduous the day, the group spent “evening routine” time in pairs (logged ~4 hours most nights) doing camp chores, a hot meal, and strategy discussion for the next day. This ritual provided psychological safety and camaraderie. When conditions were harsh, the team pulled together - for example, during the March 23 whiteout, the diary notes describe members skiing in tighter formation and singing loudly to stay upbeat. Such shared hardship can strengthen bonds; surviving a blizzard or a 12-hour workday often instills pride and collective accomplishment. As soon as the winds calmed after the storm, observers noted the “human element is full of gaiety” (Scott, 1913) - A burst of positive morale that carried them into the final push. In essence, the expedition’s social dynamic followed a classic pattern: Stressors caused moments of friction and low mood, but each hurdle overcome (reaching a milestone, finding a good campsite, seeing the sun after days of gloom) gave a boost to cohesion and confidence. By the end of the journey, the team’s exhaustion was tempered by the shared knowledge that the team had met their goals through collaboration.

Health challenges 

What is known as the usual paradigm of an expedition daily routine pattern did not hold well in Svalbard. The polar bear watch, demanded by regulatory authorities, had decreased average sleeping time from 8 to 4-5 hours per person. Food intake was aimed at 3500 kcal per day (Min.), but it varied a lot between individuals, and most reported minor weight loss (~1.5-3 kg, 3-6 lb). No exact monitoring was done for group participants' calories, water, food intake or sleep patterns. One participant was ill at the beginning of the expedition and reported: “I had issues dragging the sled, nausea, fever and hallucinations that I was standing still…”, this condition passed after 48 hours. Others reported serious coldness, numbness/tingling in fingers (hand & feet), loss of appetite, cold edema (face, feet, hands), and minor cognitive issues such as confusion, forgetfulness, fogginess. Fatigue was also discussed, with one participant unable to sleep for 3 nights in a row. Polar thighs, a rash-like injury characteristic of extended time in polar environments, was reported in one participant. 

Operational Challenges 

Power management issues

Requirement for thermal insulation of batteries and computers: To mitigate the adverse effects of the low temperatures on electronic equipment, it became essential to implement thermal insulation measures for both batteries and computers. Specialized insulated pouches, wraps and improvised solutions were employed to maintain a more stable and functional operating temperature for these critical devices. This added a layer of complexity to equipment preparation and deployment, requiring extra time and attention to ensure proper insulation without hindering access or functionality. 

Reduced equipment battery longevity: The extremely low ambient temperatures had a profound negative effect on the performance and lifespan of the batteries powering various pieces of equipment crucial to the mission. Chemical reactions within battery cells slow down significantly in cold environments, leading to a substantial decrease in energy output and a much shorter operational duration per charge. This necessitated more frequent battery changes, increased the logistical burden of carrying spare power sources, and heightened the risk of critical equipment failure at inopportune moments. Devices such as communication radios, scientific instruments, and lighting systems were particularly susceptible to this issue.

Logistical complexities of transporting a large-scale power generation unit: The transportation of a substantial power generation unit, identified as a Jackery 2000 Pro (2160Wh Capacity with 3x120V/2200W AC Outlets, Solar Mobile Lithium Battery Pack), presented significant logistical complexities. Due to aviation regulations in effect at the time of the expedition, air transport was prohibited. This necessitated reliance solely on sea transport, which inherently involves longer transit times, increased vulnerability to weather delays, and potentially more complex handling procedures. The constraint in transportation options had cascading effects on the expedition's timeline, logistical planning, and the availability of reliable high-capacity power at the initial stages of deployment.

Equipment failure

Malfunction of a macbook computer at low temperatures: A specific instance of equipment failure involved the malfunction of a MacBook computer directly attributed to very low temperatures. This highlights the susceptibility of even commercially robust electronic devices to extreme environmental conditions. The failure of a critical computing resource could have significant implications for data processing, analysis, communication, and overall mission control. This incident underscored the importance of thorough equipment testing under anticipated operational conditions and the availability of backup systems.

Precision errors in global positioning system devices: While GPS technology is generally reliable, GPS works less reliably in polar regions because the signal quality is affected by ionospheric disturbances such as auroras and solar storms. Additionally, higher geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) and environmental factors like signal reflection off ice can degrade performance. GPS satellites orbit at angles that don’t provide strong coverage near the poles, resulting in fewer visible satellites and reduced accuracy.

Potential interference from topographical features: The complex and varied topographical features of the operational environment presented a potential source of interference with data transmission and reception. Mountainous terrain, deep valleys, and dense geological formations could obstruct or distort radio signals, satellite communications, and even the performance of certain scientific instruments relying on electromagnetic waves. Assessing and mitigating these potential interference sources required careful site selection for communication nodes and scientific deployments, as well as the utilization of appropriate communication protocols and equipment designed to minimize signal degradation.

Human vs. equipment vs. adverse weather

Impaired keyboard operation: The necessity of wearing thick, insulated gloves for protection against frigid temperatures severely hampered the dexterity and tactile feedback required for efficient keyboard operation. This resulted in slower data entry, increased error rates, and considerable frustration among team members reliant on computer interfaces for critical tasks such as navigation, communication, and data recording. The reduced tactile sensitivity made it difficult to accurately locate and press individual keys, leading to delays and potential inaccuracies in essential operational procedures.

Extended preparation periods and scheduling disruptions: Unfavorable and adverse weather conditions frequently led to significant extensions in preparation periods required for various tasks and activities. Setting up equipment, deploying sensors, or even preparing for movement across challenging terrain took considerably longer under harsh weather. Furthermore, adverse weather patterns often caused direct disruptions to the planned schedule, forcing delays in planned operations, alterations to routes, and postponements of certain objectives. The unpredictability of the weather demanded a high degree of flexibility and adaptability from the team, requiring them to constantly reassess plans and adjust their approach based on the evolving conditions.

A Mobile platform: The true complexity came from the science itself. Our research plan spanned several disciplines and required frequent stops, equipment setups, and movement. Unlike basecamp expeditions, a mobile science platform compounds several challenges. Each measurement demands time, each sensor demands power, and each variable introduces risk, especially in an environment that punishes inefficiency.

Key Factors Affecting Performance and Output

1. Adaptive performance in adverse conditions: Scientific output increased over time not because conditions became easier, but due to the team’s growing proficiency in managing equipment, routines, and time. This progressive adaptation enabled high performance even under challenging weather, with some of the most productive science days occurring during periods of limited mobility and harsh environmental conditions.

2. No simple trade-off between travel and science: Contrary to common assumptions, less movement did not inherently lead to more science. Instead, days with moderate travel and accumulated learning yielded peak productivity.

3. Weather was not the decisive factor: While storms and extreme cold affected mobility, scientific performance was more strongly correlated with team adaptation, deliberate decision-making, and internal routines than with external conditions alone.

4. Delayed-onset performance: Peak science activity occurred in the final days of the expedition—despite rising fatigue—due to growing operational efficiency and embedded routines.

5. Simple scientific payload: All our experiments included relatively few items and simple protocols (with a few steps) to operate, simple safety instructions and 2 experiments were handled by PI’s which were well versed and trained in their operation.

6. Tactical decisions overcome environmental barriers: Effective use of terrain and microclimate analysis (e.g. seeking shelter from wind) enabled continued progress even in storms, reducing science opportunity loss.

7. Nighttime science trade-offs: Valuable night observations were achieved at the cost of reduced sleep and higher next-day fatigue, requiring careful trade-offs in mission planning.

8. Positive feedback between morale and output: Team morale, boosted by shared routines and celebrations, had a tangible impact on science execution. Psychological resilience proved critical to sustaining performance.

9. Cohesion-driven operational resilience: The team’s ability to perform under stress was amplified by strong interpersonal dynamics and effective mitigation strategies. Evening rituals, collective pride, and psychological safety fostered resilience, while deliberate scheduling, strategic use of environmental transitions, and anticipation of logistical needs ensured continuity. Together, these social and operational factors transformed stressors into sources of motivation and sustained performance in extreme conditions.

Mitigation Strategies for Key Challenges

1. Scheduling & time allocation: The balance between travel and science activities was crucial. Days with a balanced schedule (moderate travel with some flexible time) yielded the best science output, whereas over-ambitious travel days left little bandwidth for research.

2. Environmental transitions: Increasing daylight improved visibility, mood, and energy, enhancing performance. Descending to lower elevations reduced physical strain and raised temperatures, boosting efficiency. The team maximized sun exposure, scheduled tasks during peak daylight, and planned routes considering elevation for better rest. Future expeditions could use solar forecasts and terrain modeling preferring sunlight exposure to improve resilience and performance.

3. Team dynamics under stress: Finally, the qualitative side - team morale and cohesion - played an underpinning role. High spirits and mutual support on good days enabled the group to accomplish more (e.g. conducting measurements even after long ski hours). Conversely, stress spikes during challenges had to be managed to prevent collapse in teamwork. The crew’s practice of debriefing each night and celebrating small victories (like a successful river crossing or an aurora sighting) helped maintain a stable group spirit. This aligns with broader expedition experience that strong team cohesion can buffer stress and improve overall performance . By recognizing early signs of strain (irritability, minor conflicts) and addressing them, the team avoided escalation of issues. The result was a remarkably effective expedition; despite harsh Arctic conditions and intense physical demands, the team achieved good science output and traversed a substantial distance, all while keeping morale “expedition-strong.”

Overall, this analysis highlights that multivariate factors - from hours of daylight, to weather extremes, to human physiology and psychology - all interlink to shape expedition outcomes. Successful science exploration in such environments demands not only technical skill but also adaptive scheduling, environmental savvy, and resilient team dynamics. The Svalbard expedition exemplifies this balance: When any one element (time, weather, or morale) faltered, the others had to compensate. Understanding these performance patterns provides valuable lessons for future expeditions, emphasizing the need to plan for flexibility, anticipate natural challenges, and foster a supportive team culture in order to maximize scientific return in the field .

Future Work and Recommendations

The expedition’s achievements will be shared with the broader community through research papers, conference presentations, and a documentary film. Both Mr. Yoffe and Dr. Sorek Abramovich gave talks to the general public, university students, and children about this expedition and the future of Earth. We will continue to promote sustainability in our respective communities and worldwide. Our efforts aim to promote sustainable practices in extreme environments, contribute to a deeper understanding of the Arctic, and inform future research and exploration. The documentary will further highlight the critical importance of sustainable and resilient practices in polar regions, aiming to inspire others to adopt similar approaches. The insights generated by this mission will potentially inform future research and policy decisions on topics spanning climate change adaptation, extreme-environment logistics, space exploration analogs, and telecommunications in remote areas.

This expedition also served as a first step in a planned series of expeditions to the Arctic, South Pole, and other remote regions characterized by extreme environmental conditions. The overarching goal is to establish a robust platform for researchers, educators, communicators, and R&D teams, enabling them to access these challenging environments with significantly reduced investment of resources. By refining our methods and operational frameworks through each successive mission, we aim to improve performance, enhance safety, and accommodate a broader array of scientific and educational content in the future.

Summary

The Svalbard expedition marked not only a journey through some of the harshest conditions on Earth but also a journey of adaptation, resilience, and discovery. Over 11 days, our team traversed frozen valleys, ascended steep glaciers, and faced storms, subzero temperatures and constant logistical challenges. We learned, through experience and determination, the critical balance between scientific ambition and operational feasibility in extreme environments.

The Arctic Edge expedition, carrying TEC flag #146, was part of the HorizonsofChange.org program and aimed to thoroughly document and observe the rapid changes in the Arctic caused by global warming. It included three experiments and two educational projects. This multidisciplinary effort integrated scientific research, technological innovation, and educational engagement to enhance understanding of the global implications and foster future scientific and technological progress towards a sustainable future. 

What began as a carefully plotted route soon became a dynamic and evolving endeavor, shaped by the elements, terrain, and the sheer unpredictability of nature. The lessons learned about time management, human resilience, technological adaptability, and the profound interplay between science and the environment-are not confined to this single expedition. They resonate with the broader challenges we face in polar research, space exploration, and remote-field operations globally.

As we reflect on the miles traversed, the challenges overcome, and the knowledge gained, we are reminded that exploration is not just about reaching a destination, but about understanding and adapting to the journey itself. It is about the human spirit’s ability to persist, collaborate, and learn in the face of adversity.

Acknowledgements

The Explorers Club has graciously provided us with flag #146 to carry and honor past scientific explorers and we were very proud to have continued this tradition (see image below) and return the flag safely to HQ (ECAD April 2025). Rolex - A long time supporter of exploration on Earth and beyond, has graciously given us the Rolex Explorer to enjoy its timeless time keeping capabilities. Thank you! (see image below).

This report was based on data gathered from different sources and individuals. Without their help this report would not be as rich and informative as it is. We would like to thank Mardi Philips for exceptional guidance and Dr. Eleonore Poli for sharing their blog entries, stories, and photos. We would like to thank Nina Maric for sharing her photos and valuable input as well. We would like to thank David Marsh for his support, ideas, and app and sensor data. We would like to thank Florian Voggeneder for his photographs, friendship and GPS Garmin sensor data. We would also like to thank Steven Giordano for his professional guidance and sensor data. We would like to thank Franco Campos-lopez for his friendship, photos and support. We would like to thank Getac for providing the hardened laptop and supporting Dan Or Hof, and would like to thank The Baffin company for amazing polar equipment and their support.

Image 18. Gal Yoffe, expedition leader with the ROLEX “Explorer-1” watch. Photo credit: Franco Campos-Lopez / horizonsofchange.org

Bibliography

1. Brode-Roger D. 2023. The Svalbard treaty and identity of place: Impacts and implications for Longyearbyen, Svalbard. Polar Record. 59:

2. Burns AC, Saxena R, Vetter C, Phillips AJK, Lane JM, Cain SW. 2021. Time spent in outdoor light is associated with mood, sleep, and circadian rhythm-related outcomes: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study in over 400,000 UK Biobank participants. J. Affect. Disord. 295:347–52

3. Førland EJ, Benestad R, Hanssen-Bauer I, Haugen JE, Skaugen TE. 2011. Temperature and precipitation development at Svalbard 1900–2100. Advances in Meteorology. 2011:1–14

4. Hanssen-Bauer I, Førland EJ, Hisdal H. 2019. Climate in Svalbard 2100. A knowledge base for …

5. Harland WB, Anderson LM, Manasrah D, Butterfield NJ. 1997. The Geology of Svalbard. academia.edu

6. Hisdal V. 1998. Svalbard: Nature and History. brage.npolar.no

7. Linty N, Minetto A, Dovis F, Spogli L. 2018. Effects of phase scintillation on the GNSS positioning error during the September 2017 storm at svalbard. Space Weather. 16(9):1317–29

8. Liu N. 2021. China and one hundred years of the svalbard treaty: Past, present and future. Marine Policy. 124:104354

9. Li T, Hofer S, Moholdt G, Igneczi A, Heidler K, et al. 2025. Pervasive glacier retreats across Svalbard from 1985 to 2023. Nat. Commun. 16(1):705

10. Reid T, Walter T, Blanch J, Enge P. 2016. GNSS integrity in the arctic. J Inst Navig. 63(4):469–92

11. Scott RF, Huxley L. 1913. Scott’s Last Expedition /. London : Smith, Elder,

12. Winther SN, Gudmestad OT. 2023. Impact of and solutions to effects of climate changes for Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1294(1):012036

13. Yıldız Technical University, Department of Geomatics Engineering, Pirti A, Ali Yücel M, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Department of Geomatics Engineering. 2023. GPS signal jamming effect in Svalbard Island and its elimination by using GLONASS, Galileo and Beidou satellites. ISTCGCAP. 98,2023(98):5–14

14. Young AJ, Castellani JW, O’Brien C, Shippee RL, Tikuisis P, et al. 1998. Exertional fatigue, sleep loss, and negative energy balance increase susceptibility to hypothermia. J. Appl. Physiol. 85(4):1210–17

15. Young AJ, Castellani JW. 2007. Exertional fatigue and cold exposure: mechanisms of hiker’s hypothermia. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 32(4):793–98

16. Norwegian Polar Institute (2014). Terrengmodell Svalbard (S0 Terrengmodell) [Dataset]. Norwegian Polar Institute. https://doi.org/10.21334/NPOLAR.2014.DCE53A47

17. The Norwegian Meteorological institute (MET Norway). (2025, May). Observations and weather statistics. From Norsk Klima Service Senter: https://seklima.met.no accessed May 2025.