digitl

We have travelled twice, once northbound and once southbound, and we saw the lights from the ship on several nights on both occasions without the need to extend our stay.

In terms of which direction to choose, we found the northbound offered the best mix of ports where we wanted to spend most time ashore.

... and the dates are when the moon won't wipe out the lights...

Just a comment. Check for the moon - full moon might ruin the chances for a good view of Northern Lights.

As above.

I think you will find it is the sensor response that enhances the colours rather than the lens.

No one that I know who has worked 10 to 20 seasons has ever seen auroras on the Peninsular side.

Something I have been trying to get across for some time now. But to no avail...

Aurora australis can be seen year around. Depends on two things: darkness and sunspot activity. The moon's phase is a major determinant. This year we will be in Antarctica while the moon is waining from full to 3rd quarter - so unlikely we will see any "southern lights."

Their strength is linked to the sunspot cycle, not their visibility. That depends on how dark the sky is. In the austral summer, when we visit Antarctica, the sky is not dark enough to see the aurora.

 

They can be seen all year around. Period. Try Tasmania next time - the "lights" are famously visible all year. The duration of visibility all very much depends on the time of year. Visiting at or below 66 degrees and 33 minutes South in mid-February, the middle of the period when the Earth's tilt "moves" between Summer and Winter solstice, provides about 5 hours of total darkness on 21 February, a date included on both the 2017 and 2018 Hurtigruten excursions south of the Antarctic Circle.

The Tasmania link: https://www.australiantraveller.com/tas/seeing-the-southern-lights-the-where-the-when-the-what/

 

The "aurora-service" link depicts the aurora as closer to Tasmania at this moment, as well, and not visible from Antarctic Peninsula. Intensity of the solar wind is very low at the moment.

 

We will be there in mid-February and hope to get a look. Have sailed (US Navy) in Arctic waters and fully understand the dusk/total darkness issue.

 

The US Naval Observatory provides a link for both the duration of daylight and darkness based on latitude and longitude and generates an annual by-day table using your specific Lat/Long: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/Dur_OneYear.php

(Note: my emboldings)

No-one visiting the peninsula during the season should imagine they will see aurora.

Sigh.

Also, I'm not sure that 50 days is an adequate sample for such an uncommon phenomenon. :) I've lived in Oslo for over 3500 days, and I've never seen the aurora here. It's been naked-eye visible dozens of times. I even know someone who has seen it here in August.

The 50+ days across the season offer a pretty good sample.

It's disappointing that you haven't seen the aurora from Oslo. Keep looking! We have seen it from here in the UK at 53N on more than one occasion. And quite strong lights too.

The aurora circle is extremely offset from the geographic pole. Traveling on the Australian side, you wouldn't even need especially high auroral activity to be able to see it far enough north that you still have reasonable darkness hours during the Antarctic cruise season.

 

On the Argentinian side, it's definitely unlikely, but if the activity is extremely high, it's still possible. It certainly got dark at night along the peninsula on my November sailing, and it's well within viewing range with a particularly high index.

The forecast image at https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/...y/auroral-oval shows how far away the aurora doughnut is from the peninsula and the areas in which expedition ships sail.

The charts and animation at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-a...sunlight-hours demonstrate that it does not get dark at Casey (66S) until March. Prior to that the darkest it gets is twilight. We have never experienced real darkness on any of our trips throughout the season unless there has been heavy cloud cover.

No-one I have spoken to on any of our trips has seen even the slightest suggestion of an aurora.

Yes, accuracy is important. You need to insure your posts are accurate.

True: *ensure*.

Navigation crew informed they have seen auroras during the expedition season.

That is not my experience on over 50 days in Antarctica, on trips spread throughout the season, and not what Captains and First Officers have told me. Note the plurals and the status.

I have confidence in them and in my observations.

One of those posters CC warns us about...

No, just someone who believes accuracy is important. Auroras are not visible in Antarctica during the expedition ship season and anyone reading Cruise Critic should not be assured otherwise.

Pity about the cloud cover. I will leave it there.

You have images of the aurora?

Glad you enjoyed Fram and that you experienced/noticed the changes further south and appreciated first hand the difference between a drive-by and an expedition trip.

Now you're entitled to a 5% return booking discount you'll have to take the Falklands, South Georgia, Antarctica trip!

The best views are undoubtedly outside, on the bow, on level 6 below the bridge, and on the promenade deck, but it's mostly standing, which gets tiring after a while. So I'd suggest a balcony if you can, and an inside if not, but don't bother with an oceanview.

We have cruised with HAL quite a few times now, and have sailed on Hurtigruten's expedition ship, Fram, in the Arctic and Antarctic five times. Experience tells me that the best option for the Antarctic is an oceanview. As you say, the best views are out on deck, somewhere we have spent almost all of our time (it can be tiring, but how else are you to lose the calories you're taking in in the dining room each meal!?). The best views are not from the cabin: that's for sleeping, bathing and dressing!

A balcony is of limited use in cold polar seas. It offers a view, but it's still a relatively restricted view and you can almost guarantee that anything of interest that pops up is going to be on the other side of the ship.

An inside cabin offers no clue as to what might be going on outside: icebergs, landscape, weather, huge waves?

An oceanview is a good compromise: you get plenty of clues on where you are and what's happening. More than once, I have got ready for sleep, glanced outside of the porthole, seen a beautiful sky, or incredible light on the ice, and got dressed to go out on deck.

My opinion, no more, no less.

Like SarniaLo, we have been below the Circle on Fram and, like SarniaLo, we thought the ice and the light were somehow different. Add in visits to some really interesting conserved bases like Stonnington and Horseshoe, then south of the circle is AmazingAntarctica+.

That said, I would still recommend Antarctica, South Georgia and the Falklands as the itinerary to go for for a first or only trip.

ANY trip should not be about bragging rights, and unfortunately I think for some passengers this trip may well have been done partly to complete the run of the continents and the subsequent chance to make that known.

Bragging rights? Like when you are standing in the Charles Darwin Centre in the Galapagos Islands at the end of a week long trip and looking at wall-to-wall giant tortoises with several others from the ship who haven't listened to a word the naturalists have said all week and are calling the tortoises turtles! They had no interest in where they were other than the opportunities offered to discuss how they were 'Elite on Celebrity' and how their friends 'would never be able to take a trip like this'. Ugh!

No offense to anyone on the boards, but cruise critic is not exactly a place that appears to have a surfeit of overly-humble people who are hesitant to start telling you about how many cruises they've been on and where they've been. Rather, quite the opposite seems the case.

Which is why I have signatures turned off!

If you had sailed around Manhattan, would you say that you had visited New York? I think not.

An Antarctic drive-by is just the same: close, but not a 'visit'. Sorry. On our first Antarctic trip the weather meant we were not able to make any mainland landings, *only* islands, some of them ridiculously close to the mainland. This was closer than a drive-by, but not good enough. So we went back.

You'll have to go back on an expedition ship and actually land!

Prices are still relatively high, but they are a little lower than on the coastal trips.

The expedition experience is small (<100 passenger) ships generally w/o stabilizers. Limited on board amenities. More time on land than with the Fram.

 

I do agree that a Point Wild landing was really cool but I was referring to the ship experience.

 

DON

You're describing a 'roughing-it-on-a-small-ship' experience rather than an 'expedition' experience. I can assure you, after all the days we have spent on Fram, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, including beyond both the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle, Fram provides an excellent 'expedition' experience.

Fram was built for polar expedition trips and is very different from Nordkapp.

As for time on landings, we have never felt rushed or short changed. We have had plenty of time and have generally done two landings each day. When not on a landing we have had lots to see, watch and do on deck.

+1 on any of the Hurtigruten ships in Antarctica if you want to keep your costs down a bit but do not want the expedition experience.

I don't understand this. You certainly do get the 'expedition experience' on Fram. We landed, for example, on Point Wild on our trip last December. Not many get to do that!

We have used debit cards and credit cards in ATMs in Santiago, Buenos Aires, the airport (EZE) and Ushuaia without any issues and have been able to withdraw up to our daily limit each time.

No experience with your companies but a warning for Taxi Ezeiza.

We have used them for each of our EZE - hotel transfers on all four of our visits to Buenos Aires but, on our most recent visit, the 'special' price for the return hotel - EZE transfer was not honoured despite me having it in writing from Taxi Ezeiza when we had arrived three weeks earlier.

Disappointing, but they would not move.

As PP has said, you have no control over the composition of the Expedition Team.

We have flown out to join a ship with Expedition Team members on our flight, and we have flown out from the ship with different Expedition Team members. The Team is whatever it is, but it will be quality: you don't get paid to be on a team unless you are going to make a valued contribution: there is no room for a passenger (pun not intended!).

We remove the 'auto-tip'.

Tips are for service above and beyond, not for performing duties for which someone is being paid. If basic pay is insufficient then the brochure price should be increased and the employee paid a proper salary.

So-called 'tipping' has got out of hand and allows employers to pay below a reasonable rate on the premise that 'tips' will make up the difference.

A number on our recent trip on Fram were talking about booking it but it is of little or no interest to us.

We have travelled on a whole variety of ships including huge, luxury cruise ships and to describe Fram as a cruise ship is to misrepresent her and mislead. she is an expedition ship towards the more 'comfortable' end of the range. Anyone boarding her and expecting a 'cruise ship' experience is going to be very disappointed and upset.

The cruise ship tag implies, for example, shows on a stage, large comfortable cabins, waiter service at meals and multiple lounges. The only shows on Fram are the (excellent) one evening crew show in the bar and the 24/7 show outside.

As for my reference to Point Wild, you know perfectly well that I was not suggesting that Fram could control the weather. My point was that Fram was able to provide the same kind of experience as National Geographic and Lindblad: same ice, same wildlife, same surprise landings, but at a cost that provides a significant contribution towards later trips.

I wouldn't describe Fram as 'something close to a traditional cruise but with shore landings' or feeling 'pretty much like a small cruise ship'. She may not be spartan, but there's very little that's 'cruise-like' about her. And it's certainly possible to 'bundle up and go out on deck to enjoy the view': it's what I do.

It's true that 'NatGeo/Lindblad is often considered the crème de la crème of Antarctic expedition cruises, and as such, it's often among the most expensive' but the savings we have made on our Fram cruises have made a significant contribution to further cruises without diluting the expedition experience too much: on our most recent trip we landed on Point Wild. That doesn't happen very often on any of the ships!

We are currently in Buenos Aires on our return from 'another' Antarctic trip on Hurtigruten's Fram.

PP's reference to menus and then eating at McDonalds isn't quite right. On a drive by you would see the menu but you wouldn't eat anywhere!

National Geographic are not the only company down there (we saw them, and others, from time-to-time). All pretty much see the same penguins and the same landscapes. You need to do some research to check out the differences and see what suits you in terms of cos, time, landings and comfort. It's all very much a series of compromises.

Good luck!