DRAFT

MEETING MINUTES


The UNOLS DEep Submergence Science Committee Meeting
June 10-11, 2008

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, MA

 

A copy of these minutes are also available as a pdf at <200806desmi.pdf>.

 

Executive Summary:

 

The Deep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) met on June 10-11, 2008 at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).  The meeting began with a joint session of the DESSC and the Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle Committee (RHOC) to discuss and formulate a recommendation regarding the future direction of the Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle (RHOV) project.  WHOI representatives provided a status report on the RHOV design effort, budget summaries, and options for moving forward. 

 

The regular DESSC meeting followed the joint session and included agency reports from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Navy, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Representatives of the National Deep Submergence Facility (NDSF) provided reports on:

·         Vehicle operation summaries

·         NDSF data management and archives

·         Ship maintenance updates and vehicle improvements

·         Navigation and imaging upgrades

·         Deep submergence scheduling in 2009 and beyond

 

Summaries of the NDSF user debrief interviews were reported.  WHOI provided a summary of proposed corrective actions to the issues raised by the users.

 

The DESSC discussed strategic planning for the future and agency representatives commented on funding projections and initiatives within their respective agencies.  New science directions that could potentially utilize deep submergence vehicles in Polar research were discussed.

 

Recommendations:

·         DESSC recommends to NSF that WHOI pursue the 6500m RHOV acquisition option. The DESSC recommendation for a 6500m, environmentally friendly HOV reaffirms DESSC and RHOC’s early recommendations.

·         DESSC recommends that NSF adopt a uniform policy for requesting and funding the use of the National Deep Submergence Facility assets within their agency.

 

Action Items:

 

DESSC Action Items from their June 2008 Meeting:

1) RHOV Letter – Deb Kelley and Cindy Van Dover will prepare a joint DESSC/RHOC letter to NSF recommending that WHOI pursue the 6500m RHOV acquisition option. The DESSC recommendation for a 6500m, environmentally friendly sub reaffirms DESSC and RHOC’s early recommendations. [Note – after the meeting it was decided that RHOC and DESSC should each send a letter to NSF.]

 

2) 2008 fall/winter DESSC Meeting Agendas and Forums –The 2008 winter meeting will be held at AGU.

·         Finalize the draft DESSC agenda that was presented during the meeting. Select a topic for the afternoon session. Emphasis should be on engaging students and new users.

·         Send the agenda to agency representatives for comment.

·         Develop guidelines for PI Reports. Reports can include show-n-tells and short (1-minute) videos.

·         Look into the cost and feasibility of having a mixer at a future meeting.

·         Explore potential options/venues for a traveling “NDSF road show” that would attract students.

·         The DESSC community meeting will alternate between AGU and The Ocean Sciences Meeting.

 

3) DESSC Letter to NSF Regarding Uniform Funding – Deb will draft a letter to NSF requesting that they adopt a uniform policy for requesting and funding the use of the National Deep Submergence Facility assets within their agency.

 

4) Sentry Transition into the NDSF – At the May 2006 DESSC meeting, DESSC endorsed WHOI’s proposal for incorporation of ABE into the NDSF and the replacement of ABE with Sentry when Sentry becomes fully operational. The criteria for Incorporating new Assets into the National Deep Submergence Facility <http://www.unols.org/committees/dessc/CRITERIADOCUMENT_062206.PDF>, states that the operator should be prepared to provide DESSC with information on: “Is the asset proven to be robust and beyond a developmental stage? Documentation of successful missions/deployments should be included with records of reliability, durations of deployments, and life expectancy.” Upon receipt if this information from WHOI, DESSC can consider the replacement of ABE with Sentry.

 

5) DESSC Membership and Nominations: Hedy Edmond’s second term will end in September 2008. A call for nominations will be announced seeking candidates with a background in chemical oceanography and experience with use of deep submergence vehicles. The deadline for nominations will be September 15th.

 

6) NDSF Vehicle Debrief Interviews – Appoint a DESSC member to replace Hedy as the debrief leader for ABE/Sentry.


Continuing Action Items:

 

7) Pilot Retention and Career Advancement –DESSC recommends that WHOI prepare a document that articulates the institution’s strategies for pilot retention as well as procedures for implementing exit interviews for those pilots who resign. DESSC recommends that WHOI management promote learning opportunities and career advancement opportunities for pilots.

 

8) Mode of Operation for Jason Watches – DESSC recommends that WHOI explore options for staggering the start and end times for Jason watches with the goal of achieving better continuity through a dive cycle.

 

9). Science Outfitting Survey for the Replacement HOV – At the appropriate time, develop a community on-line survey and circulate it to the community.

 

10. Science Training Opportunities for Pilots - DESSC will formulate suggestions on workshop/training science sessions for pilots. The session(s) should demonstrate how the data from the vehicles are used for different research disciplines. We will make an outline for different disciplines (e.g. geology, biology, chemistry) on what elements of these programs would be beneficial to the pilots and work towards putting these documents together.

 

11. R2K Lectureship program – DESSC recommends that the R2K Lectureship program include an Alvin or ROV pilot as a distinguished lecturer. (Kelley)

 

Appendices:

 

I Agenda (html)
II Attendance Sheet
III Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle Project Update (2.1 MB)
IV Replacement HOV Oversite Committee Recommendations
V UNOLS Report
VI NDSF Operations Summary
VII NDSF Data Management Report
VIII Pilot Status and Personnel
IX Alvin debrief Summary
X Jason Debrief Summary
XI WHOI's Response to Jason Debrief
XII ABE Debrief Summary
XIII WHOI's Response to ABE Debrief
XIV NDSF Scheduling: 2009 and Beyond
XV Alvin Upgrades
XVI Jason Upgrades and Control Vans
XVII Sentry Seatrials
XVIII HD Upgrade Project
XIX Navigations Upgrades
XX NDSF User Profile
XXI Technology Advancement Workshop summary (3.6 MB)

 

Meeting Summary Report:

 

Day One:  Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - Carriage House

 

DESSC Joint Session with the Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle Committee

 

Introductory Remarks, Meeting Logistics, and Introductions - Deb Kelley and Cindy Van Dover opened the joint meeting of the Deep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) and the Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle Oversight Committee (RHOC).  Participant introduced themselves.  The meeting agenda and participant list are included as Appendix I and Appendix II.

 

Deb Kelley said that she wants the DESSC to have the opportunity to hear all details of the RHOV project and discuss as needed.  Cindy said that she would like to have a joint recommendation from RHOC and DESSC at the outcome of this meeting.

 

Anthony Tarantino presented the RHOV project status.  His slides are included as Appendix III.  Anthony reviewed the status of the sphere and highlights from the forging process.  Ladish successfully formed both hemisphere disks.  Stadco is preparing to build welding/machining fixture.  The sphere completion is scheduled for mid-July 2010.  The first two risks with the sphere (130” disk forming and hemisphere forming) have been retired.  Two risks remain; electron beam welding and post weld stress relief.  A video of sphere forging process was presented.

 

Anthony reported that the RHOV design scope was scaled back to include only systems that overlapped with the Alvin upgrade concept development.  WHOI has visited key vendors for penetrators, foam, and batteries.  All of the vendors are local to Woods Hole.  Risk assessments on these components have begun. 

           

Teledyne D.G. O’Brien is a penetrator vendor.  The RHOV double bulkhead penetrator design is similar to Alvin.  The fiber and copper penetrator development is considered low risk.  Teledyne has no ABS experience but has several MIL-STD-24217 compliant designs.

 

WHOI visited Trelleborg Emerson and Cummings, Inc., a foam vendor located in Mansfield, MA.  An 18 month lead time is needed for the foam fabrication.

 

WHOI visited Lithion Inc. (Yardney Technical Products Inc.) in Pawcatuck, CT.  Yardney believes they can meet the Pressure Balanced Oil Filled (PBOF) battery specification based on their past experience which includes providing the batteries for th Mars Lander.  They developed the Sea Cliff Silver Zinc PBOF battery.  They haven’t built a lithium battery and they don’t have experience with ABS.  They are working to get experience with them.

 

WHOI is recommending that testing and qualification procedure development begin immediately to reduce risk.  All three of the vendors agree that this should begin immediately.

 

Anthony provided additional information on battery technology.  John Inman, NSWC Subject Matter Expert (SME), believes that a safe Pressure Balanced Oil Filled Lithium chemistry battery can and will be developed using current technology.  Inman is considered an expert on lithium batteries and is willing to work with WHOI.  NSWC is willing to collaborate with WHOI and the cell manufacturer in the development of purchase and test specifications. 

 

NSWC has solicited a quotation for design feasibility and prototype demonstration of PBOF Li cells.  The quotation covers:

·         Cell Gassing Volumetric Analysis

·         Compensation Method development

·         Five prototype cells for testing          

·         Test Plan development

·         WHOI assisted cell testing

The estimate for the NSWC study is ~$300K.  Bob Detrick submitted a proposal to fund this study to Bob Houtman (ONR) the first week of June 2008.  Applications of the study extend beyond HOVs.  WHOI will assist in this effort.

 

WHOI evaluated the Shinkai battery for use in the RHOV.  JAMSTEC switched the Shinkai 6500 battery from Silver Zinc (AgZn) to a GS Yuasa-developed Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LiCoO2) battery in 2004 because of performance, cost, and maintenance issues.  The Shinkai 6500 battery does not meet RHOV requirements for voltage, charge/discharge cycles, and energy.   Yuasa was solicited for the RHOV battery quote, but their quote was the highest.  Lessons learned on the design and implementation for the Shinkai 6500 can be used to improve performance on the RHOV. 

 

A study was conducted on the 1 atmosphere battery housings and it concluded that the option is viable for a 4500 meter vehicle, but may present weight problems if designed for the 6500 meter depth.

 

The critical system designs that are applicable to both the RHOV and upgraded Alvin vehicle were reviewed.  These included the telemetry system, power switching, computer architecture, video system, and high voltage selection.  Focus is on safety, reliability and maintainability.

 

A hydrodynamic analysis of the RHOV is required to determine buoyancy, thrust and horsepower requirements.  LM completed work on a High Fidelity RHOV model and determined the static drag coefficients for 3 axes.  The results are included on Appendix III, slide 20.

 

WHOI and LM were asked to develop a concept for an Alvin Upgrade that would use the titanium personnel sphere now in production.  The goals were to:

·         Satisfy as many target RHOV design goals as possible

·         Keep RHOV improvements

·         Leverage RHOV design efforts

·         Reduce project costs

·         Allow for a phased upgrade to the full 6500m vehicle over time

 

The RHOV Project Design Goals from the National Research Council (NRC) were for a vehicle that could offer:

·         Increased bottom time

·         Increased battery capacity

·         Improved fields of view

·         Improved interior ergonomics

·         Improved interior electronics

·         Automatic position keeping

·         Reduced seabed disturbance

·         Increased science payload

·         Increased operating depth

 

The RHOV goals that could be accomplished with an Alvin Upgrade include:

·         Increased on-bottom time

·         Increased battery capacity

·         Larger personnel sphere; more interior space and improved ergonomics

·         Improved field of view for pilots and observers

·         Improved interior electronics

·         Automated position keeping

·         Sampling basket load limits significantly increased

·         Improved lighting and video systems

·         Increased  hydraulic plant capacity (improved manipulator performance)

·         Increased thruster horsepower (better maneuverability)

·         Improved mid-water research capability

 

The RHOV goals that would not be accomplished and an Alvin Upgrade are:

·         Increased operating depth to 6500m

·         Reduced seabed disturbance (will continue to rely on drop weights for ascent/decent)

·         Multi-purpose, large capacity seawater ballast system (for trim, variable ballast, ascent/descent)

·         Elimination of mercury trim system

 

Some enhancements that are not feasible with an upgraded 4500m Alvin and could be implemented later when funds are available.  This includes upgrading to an operating depth rating of 6500m, enhancements with a 3-D HiDef imaging system, and microfiber cabling for high bandwidth and two-way communications to the surface.

 

Anthony reviewed the project evolution steps for the upgraded Alvin.  The steps include concept development, general arrangement, weight and trim analysis, hydrodynamic analysis, and structural analysis.  The slides include sketches of an upgraded Alvin with the new titanium sphere installed.  The sketches are color coded; where the green is the RHOV components, yellow represents new components, and the existing Alvin parts are shown in gray. 

 

A new lift point was needed and is on the sphere. Various lift points are being evaluated and a fatigue analysis is being performed.  On the starboard side there is a new variable ballast (VB) sphere.  The foam will have to be relocated forward to offset the new sphere weight.

 

The Alvin recyclables that could be used on the upgraded Alvin include the following:

·         Frame (Partial)

·         Foam (50%)

·         Thrusters

·         VB pump, valves, and hydraulics

·         High Pressure Air system

·         Hydraulic Power Unit

·         Motor Controller Cans (2)

·         Aft Skins

·         Aft Main Ballast Tank

 

The overall size of the upgraded Alvin vehicle is very close to the existing Alvin and it will still fit in R/V Atlantis’ hanger.

 

There will be some new risks associated with the ungraded Alvin project.  These include:

·         Obtaining NSF Approval to re-scope the project (from RHOV to Upgrade Alvin)

·         ABS Certification Issues (transitioning Alvin’s certification from NAVSEA to ABS) for the frame and pressure vessels.

·         Schedule Delays – Delays could ultimately impact Alvin’s overhaul requirements/schedule.

·         Management/Engineering Resources – this would apply if WHOI is made the prime for the Upgraded Alvin project.

 

By transitioning to an Upgraded Alvin, some risks would be avoided.  These include the risks associated with using higher density foam, the variable ballast system, and the Atlantis A-Frame capacity issues.

 

Discussion followed:

·         Barrie Walden remarked that optimally, new components for the upgraded Alvin would be rated for 6500m.

·         Hedy Edmond asked if it would be difficult to incrementally upgrade Alvin to 6500m.  Barrie replied that it would be non-trivial.  Some of the Alvin 4500 components that would have to be replaced include the foam, high pressure Air, and motor controllers.  The components and systems that wouldn’t change are the VB, mercury trim, hydraulics, thrusters, and frame.

 

Bob Detrick reviewed the financial status for the RHOV Project.  The recent RHOV cost estimate from LM was high.  The estimated cost of the RHOV exceeds the available budget by about $27M.  The shortfall includes WHOI’s pledged contribution and RHOC’s recommended contingency funds.  Cost increases have been due to a number of factors.  The largest increase is due to the LM fixed fee estimate.  There have been cost increases to the SwRI contract as a result of delays and increased WHOI oversight that resulted in more meetings. 

 

The project schedule has slipped by about eight months.  The sphere delivery is expected in mid 2010 instead of 2009.  The slip is due to Ladish’s cautious approach.  However, as the timeline stretches, the cost goes up. 

 

As a result of the high cost estimate for the RHOV, WHOI was asked evaluate the costs for upgrading Alvin.  A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate was developed for the Alvin upgrade project.  The ROM estimate assumes that the current contract with LM would be terminated.  A commercial entity would provide engineering, construction, integration and testing, and project management to the Alvin upgrade.  The WHOI effort will remain consistent with their effort in the RHOV project.

 

The assumptions made in developing the ROM include that the material costs will remain fixed, the sphere will be available on the current schedule, and pressure compensated Lithium batteries with 240 volt electrical system will be used.  It is assumed that ABS will accept a large percentage of the current Alvin frame and equipment with little additional engineering and testing.  A detailed budget estimate with concept design will be required at a later date if the decision is made to upgrade Alvin.

 

Bill Chadwick asked if the Li batteries would be rated for the 6500m depth.  Anthony Tarantino – Unless there is a glitch, the batteries would be rated for 6500m.  If there are problems, the plan would be to use a 4500m depth rating.

 

The Upgraded Alvin ROM estimated project costs are $15M to $20M less than RHOV project cost, but the ROM cost still exceeds the current project budget.  If the Alvin upgrade option is pursued, WHOI would be the prime contractor.  The ROM estimate is based on an external prime.  The cost of upgrading Alvin to 6500m at a later date has not been estimated. 

 

WHOI has spent or committed $15M to date on the RHOV project.  Available funds are not sufficient to complete the project.  Susan Avery has expressed her strong support for the project.  The WHOI Trustees met a few weeks ago and also expressed their support.

 

Bob Detrick was asked what could be done with the remaining project funds.  Bob replied that funds could be used to complete the RHOV detail design.  However, the Navy may not want to certify Alvin beyond 2010 and we would have a design that is unaffordable. 

 

Dolly expressed concern that the Alvin upgrade option is enough of a change from the original RHOV proposal that the option would have to be approved by NSF before proceeding.  This could be a lengthy process.

 

Wrap-up of the Joint DESSC/RHOC Session – Cindy Van Dover summarize recommendations from the RHOC regarding the material that was presented by WHOI.  Cindy’s slides are included as Appendix IV. 

 

RHOC is recommending the following path forward:

  1. Discuss WHOI options with DESSC
  2. Draft a joint RHOC and DESSC recommendation
  3. Approve and submit the draft RHOC/UNOLS recommendation to NSF before 23 June (before the WHOI Director meets with NSF leadership)

 

Cindy provided a brief recap of developments since February 2008.  The Upgraded Alvin can be viewed as intermediate phase toward 6500m capability (but at greater cost than if we were to go forward with 6500m now). The Upgraded Alvin includes most of the exciting engineering aspects of the 6500 RHOV (except depth).  However, it assumes many of the risks of the 6500 RHOV (batteries, sphere, and foam).  There is a possibility of additional unknown risks associated with ABS certification.  The 4500 RHOV is not as environmentally friendly (mercury trim and drop weights) as originally proposed.  It is not an existing NSF project; and will need an external review.   There are uncertain costs associated with re-scoping and re-proposing the 4500 RHOV.  There is an uncertain cost of delay in terms of human resources and loss of expertise.  The interest of LM in the project will likely decrease, as well as potentially that of the WHOI Director and Trustees.

 

Dolly reemphasized that the Upgraded Alvin presents a major change in the RHOV project scope that could result in a significant delay.  Bob Detrick added that it would require a new budget and proposal.  WHOI would be the prime contractor and they would have to award subcontracts.  He estimates at least a year delay.

 

The 6500 RHOV cost model has been modified (cost plus and fixed price), leading to higher cost, and lower financial risk, but no change in scope.

 

The WHOI Director and Trustees are in favor of retaining a HOV capability.  They have expressed interest in raising and/or loaning funds to cover the budget shortfall, provided NSF contributes additional funds and WHOI receives something in return.  There is a potential for a very public fund-raising campaign.  There is a perception that the “RHOV” would be more attractive and easier to promote in fundraising efforts; hence, the ‘4500-m RHOV’ label.  WHOI has arranged appointments to discuss project strategy with the NSF leadership.   Ownership of the vehicle should stay with NSF.

 

Cindy introduced some questions for RHOC and DESSC to consider, given the already substantial investment in the RHOV:

·         Should the United States retain an HOV capability?  NRC report says YES; if now NO, what has changed?

·         What other considerations besides science are important to consider in making a recommendation to NSF about support for an RHOV?  

·         How important are depth and environmental considerations for a RHOV?

·         Can a 4500m RHOV be proposed and approved in a reasonable amount of time? How rapidly does the cost differential diminish between 6500m RHOV “now”, 4500m RHOV “as soon as possible”?

 

Cindy reviewed the four options that are before DESSC and the RHOC for consideration.  The options include:

1.      6500 meter RHOV

2.      4500 meter RHOV

3.      Retain Alvin

4.      Eliminate the HOV capability.

 

The pros and cons of each of these options are summarized in slide 6 of Appendix IV.