A pdf copy of these minutes can be downloaded from the web by clicking: 200106cncmi.pdf


UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday-Friday, June 21 & 22, 2001
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Moss Landing, California

Meeting Minutes

Appendices

                                                                                                        I.            Meeting Agenda
                                                                                                     II.            Attendance List
                                                                                                   III.            Ocean Exploration Viewgraphs
                                                                                                  IV.            Letter of Intent Graphs
                                                                                                     V.            Sample ISM Procedures
                                                                                                  VI.            Ship Construction Reports
                                                                                                VII.            DESSC Terms of Reference

 Call the Meeting - Bob Knox, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM on Thursday, June 21, 2001. Meeting participants introduced themselves. Bob explained that this meeting would provide the Council with an opportunity for open discussion on important issues facing the fleet. The meeting is to provide a forum to begin development of UNOLS goals and priorities for the upcoming year. The items of the agenda (Appendix I) were addressed in the order as presented in these minutes. The meeting attendance list is included as Appendix II.

Kenneth Coale, Acting Director of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) welcomed UNOLS to Moss Landing. He said that MLML is very pleased to have two facilities: R/V POINT SUR and their new building. MLML’s mission is to put their faculty, staff and students at forefront of research. To do this means providing facilities that are capable of supporting their science needs. MLML, like UNOLS, strives to provide access to the facilities needed. Ken stated that MLML is very pleased to be able to host the UNOLS Council.

Facilities beyond Ships and the National Deep Submergence Facility, the UNOLS Role - Bob Knox opened the discussion on facilities. It was suggested by John Delaney at the February 2001 Council meeting that UNOLS consider its role with regard to developing, coordinating the use of, and providing oversight for facilities such as observatory systems (such as NEPTUNE). Should UNOLS have a role in coordinating the scheduling and access to such facilities? How will observatories impact utilization and scheduling of traditional research vessel and submersible facilities? What is the role of UNOLS and FIC with regard to new technology development for observatories and other emerging oceanographic facilities? Should new relationships be built between UNOLS and agencies such as NASA that are interested in developing tools for exploration and research? What are the implications of the Ocean Exploration Initiative?

Bob introduced Marcia McNutt, Director of Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Marcia was invited to the Council meeting to report on the Ocean Exploration Initiative and to discuss how programs such as these might impact ship demand. Marcia served as the Chair of the Ocean Exploration (OcEx) Panel. Her viewgraphs are included as Appendix III. Former President Clinton convened the panel during his last six months in office. The panel met in August and by October they had developed their recommendations. The report can be downloaded from the web at: http://oceanpanel.nos.noaa.gov/. The Ocean Exploration initiative was conceived as today’s Lewis and Clark Expedition. The panel included representatives from industry, agencies, and academia. Over the years, it has been difficult for scientists to get funding for exploration projects. As a result, they return to the traditional geographic research areas year after year. Through the OcEx program, scientists would be given an opportunity to reach out to some of the more remote locations.

The OcEx Panel recommended that the initiative be supported by multiple agencies (it is now being led by NOAA). In order to have a strong education element, the program needs involvement by agencies more in tune with education, as well as engineering and technology. The program should be coordinated through a NOPP-type mechanism. The funding requirements are likely to be high compared to some of the more traditional oceanographic programs. The panel also recommended that a variety of different assets (UNOLS ships, Navy/NOAA ships, private contract ships, etc.) be used as platforms in the OcEx program.

A key recommendation of the panel was that OcEx include a "Signature Mission." The mission envisioned would be a pole-to-pole circumnavigation of the globe, with concentration in U.S. waters. Since the project would be U.S. funded, our country should benefit by the discoveries. A flagship for the signature mission is proposed. Public outreach would be facilitated by a flagship. Reconnaissance studies would be conducted in advance of flagship, e.g. mapping operations. Observatories would be established in the wake of the flagship operations (4-D exploration).

A major feature of the flagship is that it would be equipped for public outreach. It would likely include deep submergence assets (ROV’s and possibly an HOV). The flagship could be UNOLS operated (converted existing or new asset) or a private leased vessel using an ODP-type structure. The reconnaissance work would set the stage for where the flagship goes. Much of the flagship work would be visual in nature; designed for public appeal. Public outreach would be a major factor in the operational planning.

Marcia continued by discussing ocean observatories. The community is considering three general categories of observatories:

It is estimated that the moored observatories will require approximately two weeks each of UNOLS ship time for servicing. This will have a huge impact on demand for UNOLS ship time. It is likely that ROVs will be needed on at least some of the service vessels. Additional submergence assets will likely be required to meet this need. Marcia showed a sketch of the MBARI Ocean Observing Systems (MOOS) mooring system. The system is being designed for servicing by AUVs.

Lastly, Marcia addressed NEPTUNE and MBARI related activities. MBARI is partnering with the NEPTUNE project. They are focusing currently on the Monterey proof-of-concept (MARS). The first two nodes of the NEPTUNE observatory will be installed in Monterey Bay. MBARI will operate the Monterey test nodes, establish the ROV protocols for installing and servicing instruments, integrate AUVs in the cabled observatory infrastructure, and initiate an education program in conjunction with the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The Packard Foundation will provide initial funding for the test bed. Marcia indicated that it is important to get other ROVs involved in the observatory operations, such as, Jason, ROPOS, etc. In other activities, MBARI would like to make ROV VENTANA available to non-MBARI investigators. This could be arranged via NURP. Marcia concluded by stating that plans call for NEPTUNE to be on line by 2004.

The floor was open for questions:

Question: What is the future of OcEx now that a new administration is in office.

Answer: The National Academy of Sciences has been tasked to form a committee to pick up where the OcEx panel left off. There should be significant overlap between the committee’s activities and those of the panel.

Question: Does NOAA have an Ocean Exploratory Office that is pursuing related initiatives?

Answer: There is some fear that NOAA is doing what they originally planned to do, regardless of the Panel’s recommendations. Fortunately NOAA has a science advisory group and they are keeping track of the agency's activities. The advisory group is very supportive of the committee report. President Bush’s transition team would like to keep OcEx within NOAA. They see it as a way to give NOAA a useful mission.

Question: What is the time frame for OcEx?

Answer: ten years.

Question: Would it be possible to do Arctic research under the OcEx initiative by 2002?

Answer: It is certainly possible and this is an important geographic research area of the Ocean Exploration effort.

Question: Was exploration of the lake and rivers considered as part of OcEx?

Answer: The Great Lakes were considered but not much else. However, it is important to consider the impacts of land use on the ocean.

Accept minutes of February 2001 - Corrections to the minutes were identified. The corrections will be made and the revised minutes will be circulated for approval.

Facilities beyond Ships and the National Deep Submergence Facility, the UNOLS Role – The discussion was continued with a report from Larry Atkinson on the recent ocean observatories meeting. The meeting was held to begin coordination of the various observatories that have been established, as well as those proposed and under development. The committee is having a challenging time determining priorities and vision. The needs of ocean observatories often differ in scope and have specific regional requirements. Larry reported that facility support needs will continue to get a lot of attention. Marcia commented that there would likely be a committee appointed by NSF to develop a vision for observatories. Larry plans to attend the Observatories Committee meetings and can provide a liaison to FIC.

Bob Knox asked if there was something more that FIC should be doing in regard to this effort. There was a discussion on the UNOLS role in observatory planning and support. Dale Chayes questioned whether UNOLS is a "talking" group or an "action" group. It was agreed that UNOLS does a bit of both. As an example, the Ship Scheduling Committee and the Research Vessel Operator Committee are action groups that make products.

How should UNOLS change its role to meet the needs of observatories? UNOLS has an important role in scheduling ships and this could perhaps be expanded to also schedule observatory operations. What role does UNOLS want to play in maintaining observatories and scheduling new initiatives for the observatories? UNOLS can play a proactive role. What are the actually maintenance requirements for maintaining observatories? Various groups are establishing observatories. We may need to develop a new UNOLS structure that relies more on information being provided by other groups.

However, it was pointed out that observatories are a reality and FIC needs to start developing science mission requirements for the facilities needed to meet the observatory support requirements. This process needs to start now. These observatories are being developed and we will need to respond to them. Observatories will likely increase the need for facilities to support event response activities. With the increase in observatories, events will be more easily identified.

It was suggested that at the appropriate time UNOLS prepare a policy paper on observatory support. Tim Cowles suggested that we keep the dialog flowing with the ocean observatory representatives. Activities can still be informal at this stage.

Coffee Break

Facilities Discussion Continued – To wrap-up the discussion, Bob Knox suggested that UNOLS take a mid-way stance. Observatory efforts are still developing. UNOLS should keep abreast of observatory development and continue to address fleet issues. The observatory efforts are very important and there are focused groups that are addressing these issues. We will keep abreast of emerging efforts in terms of facilities and future efforts.
 
 

It was suggested that UNOLS have a liaison on the observatories steering committee. We have good links now, but a more formal relationship could be beneficial. As an action item, Bob Knox will write a letter to Ken Johnson to request the addition of a formal UNOLS liaison on the observatories committee.

Long Range Planning for the UNOLS Fleet – Bob Knox reviewed the status of the FOFC draft Long Range Fleet Plan. A UNOLS response to the draft plan was sent to Margaret Leinen, FOFC Chair. Margaret sent a letter thanking UNOLS for the response. The FOFC working group is drafting a revised plan. It is unclear at this time what the plan will include. The agencies have indicated that they will try to incorporate UNOLS’ suggestion to make the plan more upbeat. Additionally, the revised plan would likely present a range from a fiscally conservative plan to a plan that can meet more of the future research needs identified by the community. Bob suggested that the Council write to FOFC and offer UNOLS assistance in preparing the revised fleet plan.

Funding to support fleet renewal efforts is very unclear. If funds do not become available soon, fleet renewal efforts may encounter a large funding backlog problem and the need for a fiscally impossible crash program of ship construction.. FOFC is wrestling with the question of best approaches within the government for getting the funds for renewal.

NSF has not been involved in ship building efforts in recent years. Within NSF, there are 20-30 Major Research Equipment (MRE) proposals that are all competing for the same pot of money. Individual ships that are needed by UNOLS are relatively small-scale efforts compared to the other MRE proposals. Within NSF Ocean Sciences there are three MREs, the ODP ship, observatories, and UNOLS ships. Ship construction is rated third in this group. Another problem is that a committee to develop a ship MRE has not been identified. Ship construction projects fall between MREs and Major Research Instrument MRI) proposals in terms of scope and cost. There may be an effort within NSF to find a new area between MREs and MRIs for supporting ship construction.

The question was asked whether the Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) should submit proposals for conceptual design development. Tim Cowles reported that a URI/OSU proposal for conceptual design of an Oceans Class vessel was viewed unfavorably by NSF six months ago. It is unclear whether this would have been viewed more favorably if it had been submitted by FIC. The question was asked whether FIC should develop Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) for the new Ocean class of vessels that is advocated in the fleet plan. Should conceptual designs be done by FIC or by individual institutions?

Action - Bob Knox will write to Margaret Leinen. The letter will indicate that FIC is ready to initiate development of SMRs for the new vessels (Oceans Class) being identified in the plan. The letter will additionally request guidance on how to proceed with the conceptual design process. Should institutions propose for this type of work or should it be carried out by FIC?

The discussion continued with questions on how NSF would manage a new ship building process. NSF has no in-house shipbuilding organization analogous to NAVSEA for Navy construction. The OCEANUS class construction was a good model, but that was many years ago.

Bob Knox recommended that, a group of scientists, NSF representatives, naval architects and shipyard personnel be assembled to cooperatively discuss the construction process. How can the ship building process be streamlined and optimized? The group would be asked to specifically address shipbuilding management.

To summarize, Bob Knox will prepare a letter to Margaret Leinen that will indicate:

Curt Collins suggested that the UNOLS Council write an article for EOS or a soapbox. Bob Knox indicated that Jack Bash is writing a Soapbox article for the next issue of Sea Technology. The article will focus on the need to begin the renewal process immediately. The timing for a UNOLS article was discussed. The article should raise the awareness of the community and excite them about the urgent need for renewal with a fleet that can meet projected future research directions. It was suggested that the initial paragraphs of the UNOLS response to the FOFC plan would be a good start to the article. Bob asked for volunteers to help draft the article. Mike Prince volunteered to prepare a first draft.

Quality of Service Initiative (QSI): UNOLS will need to consider how to proceed with the QSI initiative. Bob Knox began the discussion and reported that the proposal submitted by Drs. Grabowski and Roberts to the NSF Innovation and Organizational Change Program to conduct research on improving quality and reliability in the UNOLS system will not be funded in its current version. Whether or not the researchers will resubmit remains to be seen. The proposal was peer reviewed and their summary statement was that it was a good consultant process for UNOLS, but not a strong research project. The proposal did not clearly define the methodology.

UNOLS should still address QSI as recommended by the Academic Fleet Review (AFR). Various efforts are underway. Linda Goad, who recently began working at NSF, is taking Six Sigma training. Dolly Dieter and Sandy Shor have been funding fleet improvements and training efforts. One way to address QSI is through user feedback. UNOLS should strive for increased feedback as well as improved constructive criticism from the users.

Mike pointed out that there is one measurement of fleet performance that is currently in place. Annually, Annette DeSilva prepares an NSF report as required by the Government Performance Reporting Act (GPRA). The GPRA measures the NSF ship days lost to non-natural factors during the fiscal year. Only NSF ship time is considered.

Ways to improve feedback were discussed. Should the assessment process be revised? We need to develop a methodology so that we can assess our assessment process. Are the right questions being asked on the assessment form?

Mike introduced Laura Dippold of the UNOLS Office. Laura has been compiling the data from the cruise assessment reports. The reports are submitted electronically and in hardcopy. Some PIs provide their input directly to the operator. Laura is entering the information from the forms into a database. Distribution of cruise assessments is to the UNOLS office and the operator. Additionally, some PIs send them to the agencies.

Mike reviewed the cruise assessment statistics for 1999 and 2000. There are two issues with the assessment reports:

  1. Increasing the number of forms submitted, and
  2. Improving the quality of data submitted.

It was recognized that PIs don’t always send in the form because they feel that the forms are not used or that they feel that the process is working. We need to make it clear that the forms are used to improve the fleet. Mike presented some of the comments from the cruise reports. The crew is generally given high praise.

A question was asked regarding the status of the ship inspection program. Mike reported that NSF went out to bid for the program and proposals have been submitted. NSF contracting is processing the proposals.

Mike reviewed the current on-line cruise assessment form. There is concern about requiring that the form be submitted electronically. This would mean that the PI would most likely leave the ship before submitting form. Submittal rate would likely go down. It was recommended that we try to improve/redesign the assessment form and questions. This may require that we hire professionals. A subcommittee was identified to oversee this effort. The subcommittee includes Mike Prince, Wilf Gardner, Tom Shipley, and Steve Rabalais. The agencies will be notified that the assessment form is being revised. The assessment form for the captain and marine technicians will also be examined. The subcommittee will consider whether or not all PIs should be able to submit the form, or just the chief scientists. The NAVO and NOAA assessment forms will be reviewed.

It was suggested that an annual report be made that summarizes some of the problems that were identified in the post cruise assessments. The fleet improvements that were made based on the post cruise assessments should also be identified.

In a related topic, Dale reported that RVTEC has started to draft common standards for levels of technical support that should be provided during a cruise.

Nominating Committee: The first terms of Tom Lee and Charlie Flagg are expiring in 2001. The Nominating committee is Denis Wiesenburg (Chair), Dennis Hansell, and Curt Collins. Denis reviewed the status of nominations. The committee will work to maintain a balance of regions and disciplines. They would like to make sure that the New England area is represented.

Committee Activities: Committee Chairs were invited to discuss issues or planned activities that have not already been covered.

NASA Workshop on Life in the Extreme’s –Mike Prince and Dan Fornari will be among the presenters at this workshop on July 24 & 25 at NASA/AMES in Mountain View, CA. The workshop is designed to present the types of research that can be accomplished right here on earth in the area of Life in Extreme Environments. Mike will present information on the UNOLS fleet and other Ocean Research Vessels, such as HEALY, and how to utilize those assets. Dan will present information on the Deep Submergence Facility Assets and the technology available on those submersibles. The agenda and workshop information is available on the web at: <http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/extremes/>.

Setting goals and priorities for the coming year, plans for the annual meeting: In preparation for the annual meeting, it was agreed that we should review major UNOLS accomplishments and activities of the past year and set goals and priorities for the coming year. In addition we need to finalize a choice for the Keynote Speaker, review and make recommendations regarding applications for UNOLS membership, finalize charter changes and review the status of nominations for Council positions.

The Council identified the following accomplishments and activities:

The Goals and Priorities identified for the upcoming year include:

More specific goals for these items were discussed:
 
 

Fleet Renewal Process

Monitor and stay engaged with the development of "Ocean Observatories"

Quality of Service

ISM implementation

Arctic Icebreaker Operations

Development of new facilities

Winch and Wire Follow on: Mike Prince reported that Jack Bash would be publishing a revised Winch and Wire Handbook in the next month or two. A working group of Tom Althouse, Theo Moniz, Rich Findley and Marc Willis is in the process of developing procedures and justification of safe working loads on standard UNOLS wires and cables.

Jon Alberts, Steve Rabalais, Mike Prince, Tom Althouse and Dale Chayes comprise a working group to develop "Science Mission Requirements" for the oceanographic wires, cables and ropes of the future. This will start by obtaining solid science community input on requirements for weight, payload, size, speed, power, data and type of operation. Working with engineers and wire manufacturers these requirements will be developed into specifications for new wires where necessary. Existing cables may well handle some requirements and wires and this will be documented as justification for maintaining existing wires in the inventory.

Annual Meeting Keynote Speaker – Several suggestions involving agency leaders and the new Oceans Commission were voiced. Specific steps to invite and confirm the speaker will be pursued during the summer.

UNOLS Membership – San Francisco State University has not yet applied for applied for UNOLS membership. They may still do so in the near future.

The Caribbean Marine Research Center (CMRC) membership application was discussed. There was concern from some of the Council that the CMRC is a facility not an academic program. There was discussion on whether or not they meet UNOLS membership qualifications. Additional information about CRMC will be made available and the topic will be revisited later in the meeting.

CHARTER Revision – The Council reviewed the Charter revision. A correction is needed regarding the number of members on the Council. Addition of an Immediate Past-Chair to the Council would increase the membership from 15 to 16 members. It was decided that at the 2002 election the Chair and Chair-Elect would be elected by procedures in effect prior to that time, but in each case for a single term of two years. A clarification regarding term lengths (two years each for Immediate Past Chair, Chair, and Chair-Elect) will be added. The Council endorsed the Charter revisions as amended and moved to present them to the membership for vote at the Annual meeting.

Mission Statement - Mike Prince suggested that the Council begin to consider the adoption of a UNOLS mission statement. The first paragraphs of the charter are basically our current mission statement. Is this what we would like to use? The Council will consider this further.
 
 

Other Issues:

Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) – Paul Taylor (NAVO) and Gordon Wilkes were present at the meeting. Paul reported that they have enjoyed the NAVO partnership with UNOLS. They have learned a lot through attendance at RVTEC meetings and by having their personnel work on UNOLS vessels. NAVO has plenty of fieldwork planned for UNOLS vessels provided the funding is available. Their ship time requests for 2002 have been submitted.

ISM Status of Compliance - Bob Knox made a brief presentation on the status of ISM procedure development at Scripps. He provided examples of their procedures for general shipboard scientific operations as well as Over-the-Side Operations. These are included as Appendix V. The procedures are quite simple. The over-the-side operations procedure is two pages long and seven steps. The procedure for shipboard scientific operations is one page. If these are accepted, the community will be reassured to know that the procedures need not be too inflexible toward the changing circumstances of scientific operations at sea

Adjourn day one – 5:00 pm

Friday, June 22, 2001

DESCEND Follow-on Activities – Annette DeSilva reported on follow-on activities for DESCEND. The Executive Summary of the original DESCEND workshop has been published as an 8-page brochure. The brochure has been distributed to various mailing lists including: UNOLS lists, the NURP West Coast and Mid Atlantic lists, RIDGE, Margins, and congressional lists. Thousands of the brochures have been sent, but the agencies feel that we still need to do a better job of getting the word out about the DESCEND findings. In response, DESSC members are drafting EOS and Journal articles.

An evening Submergence Technology session was held at the Oceanology conference on April 4th. Annette DeSilva, Jim Bellingham and Dan Schwartz coordinated the session. The meeting consisted of an introduction and free flowing exchange on submergence facility needs and issues. Submergence technology needs and problems were identified. These are listed in the meeting report posted on the UNOLS website at http://www.unols.org/meetings/2001/200104dcd/200104dcdmi.htm. Access and funding of assets were also discussed at the meeting. This continues to be concern in the community.

At the DESSC meeting plans for a summer 2001 follow-on technology workshop were presented. The DESSC and agencies both felt that additional time for planning and advertising was needed. A steering committee needs to be formed to define the goals of the workshop. The committee should include scientists as well as engineers and technology experts. Additionally it was felt that there are quite a few similar efforts/workshops being held or planned. We need to keep abreast of these other technology workshops as they apply to submergence technology needs. DESSC plans to form a steering committee in the near future to plan for a follow-on workshop.

Tim Cowles raised the issue that DESSC needs to keep abreast of coastal submergence initiatives and their facility needs. Will the role of DESSC change to address the needs of this community? The shallow water community is growing exponentially. Observatory development in coastal zones will increase interest in these areas. Although there is no formal action for DESSC at this time, the Council requested they keep abreast of the coastal community submergence needs.

WINCH & WIRE Follow-on Activities – As Mike Prince reported earlier, there are plans to develop "Science Mission Requirements" for oceanographic wires, cables and ropes. They plan to establish science needs for the next generation cable. A steering committee will be formed to lead this effort. Safe working loads for wires are being investigated. The NERC in the UK has been sharing their information on wires including their Lloyds of London insurance policy. There was a general Council discussion on the working loads, ISM, and insurance. It was pointed out that changes to the wire design could significantly impact many systems; winches, frames, deck support, etc.

Mike encouraged the Council to recommend people for the wire steering committee. Specifically they are looking for individuals who push the limits on wires. Recommendations should be sent to the UNOLS Office.

Long Coring – Mike Prince reported that a workshop was held at NSF on June 5th with coring experts from WHOI, OSU, TAMU, SIO and UNH, as well as operations personnel from WHOI, SIO and UW and NSF program managers. The findings from the workshop indicate that a long coring capability on Class I ships in the UNOLS fleet is feasible and desirable. Engineering analysis of core pull out forces has been conducted along with an examination of ship stability and structural strength issues. Long coring was nominally defined as a 50-meter core with approximately 40 meters of sediments at 5.25" or 6.75" diameter. The pull out is estimated to be on the order of 45,000 to 55,000 lbs. at the seabed. Synthetic fiber cables with breaking strengths of around 200,000 lbs. will be considered. The next step would be to complete detailed engineering and design work to develop this capability. Funding for this design and engineering effort will most likely be supported by NSF. The exact configuration and design of this long coring system is yet to be determined. There will probably be a need to have this capability in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Oceans.

CORE/UNOLS - Bob Knox reported that Admiral Lautenbacher (CORE) provided testimony to Congress which Congress, which included words in support of NAVO’s use of UNOLS ships. Tim Cowles commented on CORE’s April meeting. Budgeting for fleet renewal was discussed at considerable length during the CORE meeting. They decided that they need to wait for the final approved FOFC long-range fleet plan before taking action. Until there is a specific plan in place, they cannot go forward to Congress with recommendations. CORE needs to be able to point to the plan and say that these are the ships that are needed and where.

Review Charter Changes - Mike will circulate by e-mail the minor changes to the charter revision that were discussed earlier in the meeting.

Seismic Capabilities in the UNOLS Fleet - Tom Shipley recapped the Seismic Workshop recommendations. There is an emphasis on the need for increased access to seismic data and old data sets. There has been a fair amount of activity since the workshop. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) has submitted a proposal for ship/seismic upgrades and has been funded. A MG&G data management workshop was held in April. There is an effort to make seismic data available shortly after a cruise is completed. They would like this to be a routine effort. Seismic improvements have emphasized the addition of new systems and have not focused on improved quality. This is still an issue. Tom reported that generally things have been positive. He thinks that in the coming years there will be improvements to the facility and to data access.
 
 

NASA Technology workshop – Mike reported on the NASA’s workshop, Life in the Extreme’s earlier in the meeting.

New Ship Construction and planning – Mike Prince summarized the status of new construction projects. Written status reports are included in Appendix VI. Reports are provided for Savannah, the WHOI swath and Asterias replacement, AGOR 26, the Alaska vessel, and the CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement.

New Deep Submergence Vehicles & ALVIN Overhaul – Annette DeSilva reported on improvements to the National Deep Submergence Facility vehicles. ALVIN received an overhaul and all of the ROV and tethered vehicles are being upgraded.

The DSL120A vehicle field trials are planned to begin today (June 22nd). The system will be evaluated at night during ALVIN off hours. Some of the items that will be evaluated include tow dynamics, control and telemetry, the fiber optic north seeking gyro and attitude reference, the bottom lock Doppler sonar, the HMRG sonar system and the bathymetry data products.

The Jason II upgrade is making progress. WHOI held science design review meetings over the past year. The new power system design for the vehicle is well underway. The vehicle will use a 0.68-inch cable. WHOI spent a lot of time modeling the Jason II design. Once the system is operational, the model can be used as a cruise-planning tool. The vehicle has some unique capabilities mostly in manipulation and sampling capabilities. The subsea control components for Jason II are complete and are presently being evaluated on the DSL120A vehicle. WHOI is conducting high voltage testing of the main umbilical. The main penetrators are on order for all the vehicles. Evaluation of the neutral tether is underway on the DSL120A vehicle. The initial round of the thruster tests is complete. Various options for Jason II field trials are being considered. The weight of Jason II will be about 6100 lbs and the size is approximately the same as TIBURON. The Jason vehicle will not be kept on-line after Jason II is operational. Jason uses 10-year old telemetry and it would not be feasible to maintain it much longer. The straw man test schedule for Jason II starts nominally around March 15, 2002 and runs for about 2 and 1/2 months before it would be ready for science operations. This puts the first science operations around June 2002 for Jason II.

ALVIN’s dive certification process is currently underway. When the ALVIN goes into a major overhaul it loses certification and needs to be recertified before the end of the overhaul. ALVIN tethered and harbor dives were conducted on 18 and 19 June respectively. Dive testing will continue up to the depth rating of 4500m. The ship and ALVIN are on schedule to resume science operations 26 June. During ALVIN’s overhaul many science improvements were made including new cameras/imaging systems, monitors and computers, a new laser gyro, and replacement of the data logger. Improvements were made to panel lighting and illumination. The science rack was re-organized. Legroom was increased. A Kraft manipulator replaces the Schilling manipulator.

While ALVIN was in overhaul ATLANTIS spent time in drydockdry-dock to meet USCG/ABS haul out requirements. Since Atlantis was delivered in March 1997 the ship has spent 1009 days at sea. ALVIN has made 557 dives during this time with a success rate of 96%. Improvements were made to ATLANTIS while ALVIN was in overhaul. These included bow thruster sound deadening in the three forward staterooms, improved HVAC on the 01 deck, limited drainage improvements and revised remote control of port ROV traction winch.

Advanced Tethered Vehicle (ATV) - Annette reported that the Navy transferred ATV to SIO and the University of Hawaii. There will be a MOU between the Navy, SIO, and SOEST for operation of the vehicle.

Human Occupied Submersible with a 6000+ meter dive capability - A WHOI proposal has been submitted to the funding agencies for conceptual design of a new human occupied submersible with a 6000+ meter dive capability. The proposal is currently out for review.

The project is being organized into two phases. Phase I work includes: community input, certification, view port location and sizing, submarine systems specifications, formal assessment of an available 6000 meter hull and engineering support. The proposal is for funds to support this phase. Phase II will include system design, construction, and trials. The entire process if funded is estimated to take about 4 years. The tangible products of Phase I would be SMRs fully integrated into a conceptual design, the feasibility of specifications would be explored, the cost estimate would be updated, and a Request for Proposals for design and construction would be ready.

The WHOI proposal indicates that a new submersible will offer:

Operational improvements include:

Community support for a new deep diving submersible is needed. The need for a new deeper diving submersible must be justified. Some scientific justification was provided by the DESSC Sea Cliff Study and by the DESCEND Workshop. A letter from DESSC was sent to NSF supporting the WHOI proposal. Input from some members of the community was included in the letter.

DESSC Terms of Reference – The DESSC have proposed revisions to their Terms of Reference to better reflect their role. The revised Terms are included as Appendix VII. The Council endorsed the revision with correction of one typo.

CMRC Membership Application (revisited) – A letter from John Marr (CMRC) to Bob Knox requesting UNOLS membership was reviewed. Larry Atkinson pointed out that many researchers in the community are now using the CMRC facility. After a brief discussion the Council recommended that the CMRC membership application be presented for vote at the Annual Meeting.

Shipboard Vans – Steve Rabalais reported that Matt Hawkins has finalized the standard van design and that the USCG has approved it.

Other Business:

Curt Collins reported that there is an effort by DOE for work that could require a significant amount of UNOLS ship time. Stay tuned.

Dale Chayes reported that he attended an ONR/NSF supported workshop on Marine Geology and Geophysics Data Management a couple weeks ago. As a result of this workshop, RVTEC may take on an effort to set standards for metadata.
 
 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am