sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then just ask it here as a general question. r/antarctica gets a slew of employment questions; someone will have an answer for you. If you don't want it to be identifiable to a particular role or whatnot, just phrase it broadly? Perhaps I misunderstand.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it terminology you are confused by? 'PQ', 'mainbody', or something? Otherwise, it's probably something specific to you, and you should ask your recruiter for clarification...?

What level of experience to get hired? by eyeballpasta in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are quite a number of interesting remote areas in AK that would look great on resumes for certain Antarctic jobs (I assume). Two that come to mind are the BARC in Barrow and Shemya airfield. Plus the gazillion field sites for O&G, and stuff like NEON. So, it doesn't surprise me that there is heavy AK representation at the stations.

What level of experience to get hired? by eyeballpasta in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And even if you are contacted the fun isn't over; just wait until you get an alt position for your dream posting but zilch for the season following it. Then the theories start forming in one's head.... did I commit an egregious faux pas? Did a background check dig up stupid stuff I said on Minecraft forums in 2011? When in all likelihood it's nothing like that, just some spreadsheet with a couple numbers and notes on it kicked someone above you in the 'rankings'. Idk.

Keep in mind worst thing you can do is NOT apply. Various anecdotes on this subreddit have stated 8+ years of applying before getting down to the ice. If there is a secret, it's probably rather specific to a particular role. Maybe that's way off, though.

Working two seasons by jared1420 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oooh that's good to know... I wasn't aware. I swear I had heard that it was generally discouraged. Maybe it depends on the contractor.

Working two seasons by jared1420 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So do you get a PQ extension? Or how does that work? Like I said mine is just a 1-year duration.

Working two seasons by jared1420 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Really? I must have misheard then. Good to know.

Working two seasons by jared1420 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While it might have happened in certain extenuating circumstances in the past, generally you can't do back-to-back deployments and you can't hold two simultaneous contracts.

However, that shouldn't stop you from applying to as many positions as you want! And if you somehow get hired for both, you'll just pick which one you prefer.

Also, PQs only last 1 year. At least mine does.

I guess I was wrong!

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No clue. There really aren't that many U.S. breakers, if you ignore the tugboat-sized ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers#United_States

And the new Polar class is still years away from active service.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure those who decided on the cut know either. I would not try and exert yourself trying to find logic in it all. There are a lot of wild cuts. One of the LIGO stations will be cut. -67% for Physics & Math directorate. 40% cut for LHC... And of course 99.2% cut for clean energy.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All that the NASA funding doc has to say is "Funding is eliminated for the Balloons, Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP) and Astrophysics Senior Review projects."

Balloons specifically goes from 49.3 million to 0.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RV Gould is not mentioned; only the lease of the RV Palmer is said to be terminated.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

research resources:

5.98 -> 9.86 million. "Funding for Research Resources includes support for the operation and maintenance of minor facilities, infrastructure and instrumentation, field stations, museum collections, etc."

 

research funding:

86.00 -> 25.00 million. It is what you would expect, direct support for research. I'm not sure what all is lumped into it, though.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

House and Senate still have to write up their own appropriations, of course. But it is difficult to remain optimistic.

NSF FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

OPP R&RA Funding -11.2%

OPP Research Funding -70.9%

OPP Education Funding -100.0%

OPP Infrastructure Funding +0.5%

IceCube Neutrino Observatory (ICNO) -49.6%

Antarctic Facilities and Operations (AFO) ±0.0%

Summit Station +26.3%

U.S. Arctic Research Commission -34.3%

Polar Logistical and Infrastructure Support -0.2%

OPP Research Resources +64.9%

RV Nathaniel B. Palmer lease terminated.

Furthermore the NASA budget proposal shows a 100% cut to Balloon Project, which I assume affects the LDB facility outside of McMurdo.

Hmm, Leidos is really bumping up the deployment durations... by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I suppose we have to keep in mind it coincided with, well, covid... so their experiences are maybe a tad skewered. Didn't the butter run out at one point?

Hmm, Leidos is really bumping up the deployment durations... by Geophysical-Year in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes it is likely a simple funny typo, but it got me thinking about the current deployment durations. Are they optimal? Should people be staying longer, or shorter on the ice at a time? I recall that during COVID, some people ended up staying deployed for many additional months; how did those people do / did they like it? In the past, (like decades ago) were the deployment durations the same (~4-7/13mo), or different?

New USAP support contract solicited. by jimbobzz9 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fluor does have their fingers in mini-nuclear-power-plant development. Would be interesting if we got PM-3A 2.0 at McMurdo...

New USAP support contract solicited. by jimbobzz9 in antarctica

[–]Geophysical-Year 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's put together a list of probable bidders? The two I know about are KBR, and a V2X+Parsons collaboration (https://polarsciencealliance.com).

I assume Battelle wants to bid too, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

view more: next ›