It is expensive and it doesn't need to be there, but the reason its at the south pole is that the US has money for SOMETHING at the south pole. They want to maintain a presence at the south pole for international relations reasons. To be consistent with insternational treaties they need to do science there.
replySo, the US/NSF is like "we have a bunch of money to do science, but it has to be at the south pole". People like Halzen who had a crazy idea go to NSF and say how can I get a bunch of money to do this. NSF says, we don't have that kind of money in our physics budget, but if you were to do it at the southpole we could fund it.
That's such interesting context. Thank you!
replyI disagree: anywhere in the ocean is easier logistics than crawler trains over land: ship it there and chuck it overboard. They do that to install oil rigs all the time (but that's more like float it there and sink it). Eg: https://www.wired.com/2014/07/dockwise-vanguard-shipping
replyYeah, but now imagine the cost of putting large active electronics 4,000 meters down on the sea floor and keeping it running, and getting the data back off it... The cost of running the drill rig seen in the photos of the icecube detector would be a fraction of that.
replyThat’s also a thing, e.g. in the Mediterranean.
replywhy would "ship it there and chuck overboard" be easier than "crawler train it there and chuck overboard"?
replyBecause shipping is easier than trucking at subzero temperatures on roads constantly being covered in snow.
replyAlso, we've been shipping by water much longer than we've been trucking things on wheels, because the tech is easier: get on floaty wood and paddle.
For sure, there are more difficult places, but I don’t think there is any conceivable place where the supply chain runs through the South Pole on its way. I hope not.
reply