Jessica Watson

[paradix]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

The part where she was handing the flag to Neil Armstrong. The shadows just don't look right.........

You're probably right to be sceptical about the Australian media. If you recombine and follow the link below, you'll find clear evidence that Jesse Martin faked his own solo voyage.

(warning - although it aired on late night tv in Australia, the content is not suitable for a younger or delicate audience)

ht
tp://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=pjntiSOo7ks

[Golden Wattle]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey
The part where she was handing the flag to Neil Armstrong. The shadows just don't look right.........

David_Old_Jersey.......Stop it, it's Like shooting fish in a barrel.
LMAO..

[Hirophant]

Originally Posted by Golden Wattle

it's Like shooting fish in a barrel.

That's something Jessica should have tried — I believe she only caught one fish on the whole voyage! Maybe if she'd taken along one of those New Zealand AK47's that people have been talking about she could have got herself some fish suppers.

[bengtinge]

Originally Posted by Hirophant

Actually Kay Cottee's course was slightly longer than Jessica's when measured in great circle arcs, about 400nm or so, since she crossed the Equator in the Atlantic (St Peter & Paul rocks), which involves heading pretty much straight north from Cape Horn then south to Cape of Good Hope, whereas Jessica took a diagonal route across the Pacific, NE to Xmas Island then SE to Cape Horn, cutting the corners off as it were.

Jessica's original plan would have been slightly longer than Cottee's though since it was going to be the same route as Cottee's except starting from Brisbane instead of Sydney, which would add a few hundred nms to the initial New Zealand leg (Cottee went round the bottom of New Zealand).

I don't really like the WSSRC rules for world circumnavigation route. As I interpreted them (they are hard to understand), they say basically: Define a route from a starting port back to the same port, shortest possible (orthodromic) track, that goes outside land and north of lat 63S. One single waypoint is allowed in order to lengthen the route.

The effect (I made calculations on this) is that the single waypoint should be near the antipode of the starting port, otherwise it will not be long enough.

If Jessica had rounded an island in western Kiribati and a waypoint on the equator in the Atlantic, she would have passed two antipodal points, but it would still not be enough since only one waypoint was counted.

At least two waypoints should be allowed even if that would not have saved Jessicas actual route.

[Hirophant]

One waypoint is enough, it's just a question of making it far enough north of the equator. In the case of Jesse Martin, he chose the Azores which is about 38°N. Kay Cottee however chose one only just north of the equator, as did Jessica. Jessica's original route was Brisbane - SW Cape NZ - (60°S line) - Cape Horn - St.Peter&Paul - Aghulas - Tasmania - Brisbane, which would have been shorter than a WSSRC circuit but longer than Cottee's which started and ended at Sydney. The advantage of having a waypoint in the Atlantic is that the ocean is narrower making a sharper dog leg and hence longer detour for the amount of longtitude crossed. In the Pacific it's much more difficult to add the extra miles, though not impossible: Jessica could have chosen the Isle of Guadalupe off Mexico as a rounding point for instance, which would have made her route essentially the same as Abby's, which was a full 21600nm.

Having said that, I think Francis Chicester was right, you should to two antipodeal points, then you don't have to bother counting the miles at all since the voyage is automatically long enough. The WSSRC were stupid to take such a simple idea and turn it into convoluted rules in which people end up doing weird routes to make up the miles.

[GordMay]

WSSRC
RTW - Round the World, eastbound and westbound 21600NM. 2 separate records.
To sail around the World, a vessel must start from and return to the same point, must cross all meridians of longitude and must cross the Equator. It may cross some but not all meridians more than once (i.e. two roundings of Antarctica do not count). The shortest orthodromic track of the vessel must be at least 21,600 nautical miles in length calculated based on a 'perfect sphere'. In calculating this distance, it is to be assumed that the vessel will sail around Antarctica in latitude 63 degrees south.
A vessel starting from any point where the direct orthodromic distance is too short shall pass one single island or other fixed point on a required side so as to lengthen his orthodromic track to the minimum distance.
No starting point will be permitted more south than 45 ° south.
1 degree of longitude at 63 degrees south will be taken as 27.24NM

Apparently, Jessica claims to have sailed 22,336 nautical miles.
➥ http://www.jessicawatson.com.au/_web...%80%99S_VOYAGE

[Jim Cate]

G'Day All,

I find all this pedantic harping about "rules" established by a self-apointed authority to be pretty silly. JW has accomplished an interesting and difficult voyage, one that most of the armchair "experts" posting here would never even attempt, and to worry about how many waypoints she rounded, etc, is a waste of time for us all.

In any normal consideration she has circumnavigated, and at an age where most youngsters are worrying about zits and the senior prom. While I definitely do not support the idea of age-driven "records", to denigrate her accomplishment does the sailing community no good.

Do you think that old Josh S would have worried about the WSSRC's definition of a circumnavigation?

Cheers,

Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II northbound on the Qld coast

[reiner]

I was starting to get worried here. I couldn't agree more with Jim and I'm sure the majority here feels the same way.
I'm reading her book right now and she impresses me even more.
What a hero she is.

[Get-a-Life]

I could not agree more, a unique teenager by any measure.

Her only big mistake is that she is not American, then this constant harping would have been avoided.

The thread here is longer than her voyage?

Ken

[bengtinge]

To be American wouldn't help since Abby has not been treated nice. Especially on some other sailing forum.

I have the question, about one issue with the WSSRC rules I have so far overlooked, saying "shall pass one single island or other fixed point".

What does that mean? Shall the waypoint be an island or a bouy marked on maps? I recommended Abby to pass the antipode of Marina del Rey to avoid this discussion, a not so big detour. But that antipode is not an island, it is empty ocean. The nearest possible islands to round would have been Reunion or Mauritius, a big detour.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by bengtinge

To be American wouldn't help since Abby has not been treated nice. Especially on some other sailing forum.

I have the question, about one issue with the WSSRC rules I have so far overlooked, saying "shall pass one single island or other fixed point".

What does that mean? Shall the waypoint be an island or a bouy marked on maps? I recommended Abby to pass the antipode of Marina del Rey to avoid this discussion, a not so big detour. But that antipode is not an island, it is empty ocean. The nearest possible islands to round would have been Reunion or Mauritius, a big detour.

Not if she goes North of Australia. She's already stopped in Cabo and Capetown, so nonstop beneath the Capes is out.
Going through the antipodes of MDR gives her a genuine circumnavigation.
Going across the Indian in the mid latitudes means she doesn't get dismasted in the South Indian Ocean in June.
Going North of Australia means she doesn't die in the Winter Death Ground south of Australia in July

[Coot's Away]

National Geographic has Jessica Watson as one of the 10 nominees for their Adventurer of the Year award. As it's up for public vote - one a day allowed - up to 15 Jan 2011, I imagine not being American might well be a hindrance for this one. Still it's great exposure for sailing yet again. And, if you do feel like voting for Jessica, the link is here:
Jessica Watson, Adventurers of the Year -- National Geographic

[hummingway]

would be David de Rothschild and the Plastiki. Yes, those Rothschilds.

David de Rothschild, Adventurers of the Year -- National Geographic

[Coot's Away]

Originally Posted by hummingway

would be David de Rothschild and the Plastiki. Yes, those Rothschilds.

Yes - but he's 30 with presumably a swag of resources behind him, and she was a 16 year old with nothing, who pursued her dream and hunted down sponsorship to achieve it. He also had a crew - "de Rothschild and his crew—including skippers Jo Royle and Dave Thomson, and Heyerdahl’s grandson, Olav" - Jess was on her own all the way ............


If you are going to vote for Jessica Watson as the National Geographic Adventurer of the Year you have to do it from this page not from the page with Jessica's details. A successful vote gives you a red vote box with a tick. You can vote once in a 24 hour period. A vote every day till 15 January.

[ozskipper]

I am a proud Aussie and watched her trip intently the whole time. I have watched the DVD and have seen her success and all the accolades- i have even heard her talk in the flesh. Well done to her. BUT! I still don't think she should have done it. The risk vs reward is too great.

Where does it stop. With a two year old?

Cheers
Oz