Tony8489

I was on the Paul Gauguin for the 2010 eclipse and signed up for 2019 on the first day it was available back in March. The Paul Gauguin also sailed to the 2005, 2009 and 2012 eclipses.

It's a great ship and it takes the mission of evading clouds for the eclipse very seriously. With that track record it's not surprising that it sells quickly and you won't see any discount pricing.

It makes no sense to be on a cruise for this eclipse. Since the OP is from Oregon, he/she should stay close to home. Central/eastern Oregon has the best odds for clear weather on the entire path. The Williamette Valley is not bad, and only the coast should be avoided.

Jay Anderson's website is the go-to source for eclipse weather prospects: http://eclipsophile.com/total-solar-eclipses/total-solar-eclipse-2017-august-21/

Hopkinsville is where the eclipse occurs exactly at midday. The shadow moves fast, crossing the entire US in an hour and a half, arriving on the Oregon Coast at 10:17AM PDT and departing from Charleston, South Carolina at 2:47PM EDT. Eclipse path overlaid on Google Map here: http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html

Zoom in, click on any point on the map see exact eclipse circumstances. And make the effort to get within the 60-mile wide path of totality. Almost seeing a total solar eclipse is like almost winning the lottery. Just ask the unfortunate people on the Pacific Jewel in 2012.

The Appalachians and South Carolina should be avoided. In the middle of the US be prepared to take advantage of Interstate highways along the path to evade clouds/poor weather forecasts, notably I-70 in Missouri and I-24 from Carbondale, IL to Nashville.

You mentioned (as did a friend who was on board) that the Astronomer did say in his talk the day before the eclipse, that 99% was a good as a total eclipse. I feel he would only have said this if he believed it.

It is easy for a casual observer to assume that a 99% eclipse is 99% of the experience and I probably felt that way myself well into the 1990's. When I was scheduled to be on a family vacation in Europe in the summer of 1999, I was vaguely of the total eclipse on August 11 and did some casual web browsing in the fall of 1998. Within minutes of browsing I had found numerous websites explaining (and documenting with pictures) the unique features of totality. In response I adjusted our trip itinerary to drive 400 miles from Prague (where we were on August 10) to Lake Balaton in Hungary to get into the totality path.

14 years later it is truly incredible that a supposed astronomy advisor hired to advise the cruise failed to conduct the minimal amount of research needed to do his job properly. Again I wasn't there, but if these facts are correct, embarrassment and humiliation are entirely appropriate. This guy was at least probably given the cruise for free if not actually paid for the job he didn't do.

Re the annular eclipse - I don't know if you have seen one. I have, and was rather disappointed. You probably know it is a "do-nut" shape and it wouldn't be much more exciting than the 99% eclipse. An annular eclipse also doesn't have all the other fantastic elements of a total eclipse that keep eclipse chasers travelling the world to be within the moon's shadow.

An annular eclipse is almost entirely the same a deep partial eclipse obscuring 80-99% of the sun. In terms of effect the only difference is that sun's bright photosphere is a ring instead of a crescent anywhere from a few seconds up to a max of 11 minutes. It can be worth a drive from where you live (as I did to Lake Powell last May from Los Angeles) but not flying halfway around the world unless you have a lot of other reasons for the trip.

There is NOTHING guaranteed when at sea!!! And none of us know, understand or even appreciate what the Captain of a ship is contending with when he makes HIS decision on any matter. Hence, it seems to me that a ship is not an ideal platform to view an eclipse - IF you wish to have "guarantees" of sight.

There have been commercial eclipse cruises since 1972. Some have been clouded out and a few of those had uncooperative captains who chose not to evade clouds like the Oosterdam. But the Pacific Jewel is the only example I know of failing to be positioned within the totality zone. Unless you have stringent photography demands for a stable platform, a cruise can be the preferred way to see an eclipse because of the ability to monitor weather and evade clouds, particularly when convenient land options are limited or have dicey weather prospects. The Celebrity Millennium, which was between ports in Fiji and New Zealand, altered its course based upon the previous day's weather forecast.

However, if it also conveniently coincides with the port visits of a normal cruise, I will regard it as a marketing opportunity on the part of the cruiseline - and it may or may not happen. What WILL happen is that the ship will undertake the regular cruise and carry out the regular port visits as planned - if possible. In other words, the so-called and advertised "special purpose" is really only a sideshow and cannot be guaranteed.

As many of you know port calls are not guaranteed either. The fine print in cruise contracts gives passengers very few rights. However, it is easier to get a ship into a geographic area at sea ~80 miles wide and hundreds of miles long than into a specific port that might have local weather issues. Most regular cruisers know by word of mouth if not personal experience many examples of cancelled port calls but I'm fairly sure this case with an eclipse is a first.

The Millennium was on a normal repositioning itinerary. So at face value Celebrity's marketing may not have looked any different than Holland America's or P&O's. Only with some research could one determine that some of the Millennium's cabins were being sold through specialty astronomy tour companies. These companies presumably received assurances in advance that the cruise line and captain were committed to the eclipse.

The Pacific Jewel passengers should make as loud a stink as possible in any possible media. P&O deserves to take a hit in bad publicity and reduced demand for future cruises if they don't compensate the Pacific Jewel passengers.

After the event, one of our associates asked the astronomer if he had ever seen a total solar eclipse and he confirmed that this was his first.

Actually his count remains zero for reasons several of us have explained.

I'm not going to name him and I don't intend to say anything about him other than the facts.

If you are confident you have your facts right, I see no reason NOT to name the person most responsible for this debacle.

On the Pacific Dawn, I estimate that maybe one-quarter of the passengers went on the cruise to see the eclipse, a half found out about the eclipse after they booked, and the remaining quarter only found out after they boarded. Whether or not they booked the cruise because of the eclipse, everyone was "blown away".

Fair enough. If not promoted as an "eclipse cruise" I would agree the Pacific Dawn was managed acceptably. Feedback is often useful on these forums to get to the truth and provide useful info for future trips. I had more precise information about the Oosterdam than the Pacific Dawn in my original post.

For those booking "eclipse cruises" in the future, we should learn from the contrasting experiences in 2012 among the cruise ship operators in terms of who took the eclipse seriously and who didn't. Ask questions before you sign up for an eclipse tour. Does a cruise ship have an astronomy/weather consultant with a good reputation and preferably prior eclipse experience? Is the ship captain committed to working cooperatively with him/her? If an astronomy specialist tour operator is marketing the cruise (like Travelquest did for both Paul Gauguin and Celebrity Millennium), they will have generally done the due diligence to determine that seeing the eclipse is a top priority.

From Solar Eclipse Mailing List:

From: michael.wehner@ngc.com

To: SEML@yahoogroups.com

Sent: 11/20/2012 11:37:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Subj: [sEML] Partial Total Eclipse on Holland America Oosterdam

 

A number of eclipse chasers were on the Holland America Oosterdam halfway between Australia and New Caledonia. Eclipse duration should have been 2.5 minutes, but...

 

As 1st contact approached we sailed SE from a clear area directly into a cloud bank. We saw 1st contact, and then intermittent views of the sun through the clouds. The ship slowed to 5.1 mph (~4 knots), even though we could see clear skies perhaps 2 miles (3 km) ahead. As totality approached we could see a sunny patch of water immediately ahead, and we slowly entered this patch literally with a minute to spare. I saw shadow bands on the white ship superstructure, then totality through hazy clouds - for about 1 minute. Then, still at 5.1 mph, we sailed through the patch and back under a heavy cloud. Ten minutes later we were in beautiful sunshine!

 

It is clear that Holland America really did not give a damn about the eclipse chasers onboard. We heard that the ship navigated to a preset waypoint, and made no effort to avoid clouds. The cruise director actually had the audacity to congratulate themselves for the eclipse.

 

We had 3 "experts" on the ship as Holland America lecturers, but they apparently had no influence on the ships course (if they even tried). Previously, we had been assured that the ship would maneuver as required, would place the port side towards the sun, etc. None of that happened.

 

Only by pure chance did we see any totality at all. The cruise was nice, but it was almost a total failure as an eclipse cruise. I'll chalk this as a success given the 1 minute of totality, but it could have been so much better.

 

Michael Wehner

DWSS Space Vehicle SE Lead

 

 

 

 

The Pacific Dawn may not have been docked, but it was not in a position to be mobile had circumstances called for that. A ship should be scheduled to be at sea, with at least a few hours leeway to take its best shot at clear skies. Feedback is the point of forums like these so no offense taken at all and I appreciate the correction on Pacific Dawn, though the fundamentals of my criticism remain. My comments on the Oosterdam were based upon the detailed trip report above, which was supported by a couple of other posters on SEML.

P&O is obviously not a cruise line that should be trusted for an eclipse cruise. One ship was locked into a near fixed location and the other was dispatched on such a tight schedule that it missed the total eclipse completely.

The Captain told us that "on the advice of his expert" a 99% partial eclipse was sufficient

is an astounding statement of ignorance.

We were all puzzled because other P&O publications quoted the top speed as 22.5 knots and (up until then) P&O had not identified any 'safey issues' as being the reason for us missing out on totality and/or the reason for the ship's moderate speed..... We trundled along at between 16.8 to 18.8 knots for the remainder of the trip

The likely reason is that it burns more fuel to travel at a faster speed, as with cars or planes. IMHO the Captain and/or cruise line was being cheap and not willing to spend the extra fuel $ to reach

To me the Antarctic cruise is not that attractive unless you get to land; lots of sea days in rough water without that much of a payoff.

The expedition cruises took a hit from the economic crisis. ~30,000 passenger landings at the peak, now down to ~20,000.

The specialty ski mountaineering cruise I took in 2011:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=31757800#post31757800

That cruise will be offered in 2013, 2014 and 2015 but the price has increased $2,000 per person. I don't know if other Antarctic expedition trips have seen recent price increases.

2012 was my 7th total eclipse since 1999. I was on a charter flight to the opposite side of the Cape York peninsula from Cairns to get away from the cloudy weather on the coastal plain. The weather was generally clear west of the mountains and so forecast a day ahead, so many people drove over the mountains and were successful.

With regard to cruises I was on chartered eclipse cruises in 2009 (Costa Classica) and 2010 (Paul Gauguin). Both had astronomy and weather advisors and the captain was fully committed to last minute maneuvers to escape clouds if necessary. The Paul Gauguin has had to do this for all 4 total eclipses it has chased (2005, 2009, 2010 and 2012). A key reason to see an eclipse on a cruise vs. on land is that the ship can use short term weather forecasts as well as last minute moves to increase the odds of clear skies.

There were a lot of cruises for the 2012 total eclipse. Paul Gauguin and Celebrity Millennium had weather/astronomy advisors and were 100% successful. The same was true for a couple of boutique cruises on MV Orion I and II, and it sounds like the Coral Princess was similar.

Dawn Princess was offshore near Cairns and successful, but I don't know whether the ship had to evade clouds or chose a fixed position that was lucky.

There were 2 examples of cruise ships that ignored their potential mobility advantages and viewed from a fixed location. The Pacific Dawn was docked at Port Douglas. They got lucky with a hole in the clouds at that particular location but deserve no credit for that. It's a ship and with that weather it should have gone offshore to search for clearer skies. Roughly half of the people on the coastal plain from Cairns to Port Douglas lost all or some of the eclipse to clouds.

Holland America Oosterdam was worse. It was at sea and maintained a prearranged course sailing at 5 knots into clouds when clear skies were visible perhaps 3 miles away. They saw a hazy first minute of totality and were completely clouded out of the second minute.

The booby prize of course goes to the Pacific Jewel. It was marketed as an eclipse cruise and failing to make it into the totality zone in this age of GPS etc. is completely inexcusable. Weather (the cruise line is blaming prevailing winds and currents, not a storm) is no excuse. The ship should have left Sydney with enough of a safety margin of time to ensure reaching the eclipse path a few hours early.

With regard to the difference between seeing a partial eclipse (even 99%) vs. total here's the scientific explanation from Jay Pasachoff:

Since the sun is about 400,000 times brighter than the full moon (about 14 magnitudes), a 99% eclipse (so termed) is about 4,000 times too bright compared with totality, which is about the brightness of the full moon. So a "99% eclipse" is really only 100/400,000 = 1/4,000 = 1/40% of totality = 0.025%.

 

So if someone claims 99% coverage, we can translate to less then a tenth of a percent of the way to totality. 99.9% coverage is two tenths of a percent of the way to totality.

NASA eclipse expert Fred Espenak puts it in simpler terms:

Almost seeing a total eclipse is like almost winning the lottery.

The Pacific Jewel passengers deserve a full refund.