While the images from Antarctica can be spectacular, evocative etc. so can pictures from any of a number of local sites near to you, when properly photographed in good light. I think Antarctica has already been excessively covered by photographers and there is nothing new that is being produced. It's just repetitions of the same theme. Pretty, yes, but just more of the same. I wonder if the environmental
impact of touristy trips to faraway regions can somehow be justified by the value of the photography itself, or is it a case of "I want to do that too" and not caring about the impact. To me, I try to do my photography within a small radius of my home, and if I travel abroad for work, I'll combine the trip that is necessary for my work by adding a photography part of my own to it and returning a bit later. I do occasionally travel abroad just for myself but more and more I've come to conclude that the best work is usually done close to home, where you know the places and are familiar with the light and best time to photograph things. By traveling for photos, one usually ends up doing an inferior replica of work that has already been done many times.
My question is, why do you want to go to Antarctica (or the orbit, if you have the money for that), as opposed to a nice landscape near your home at a much lower cost?