1986 UNOLS Winter Council Meeting Summary Report

1986 UNOLS Winter Council Meeting Summary Report
UNIVERSITY - NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 6, 7, 1986
University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
Advisory Council members together with representatives from the
National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research met at
The
the University of Texas Institute of Geophysics, Austin, Texas.
meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m., February 6 by Council
The meeting followed the agenda (Appendix I)
Chairman Charles Miller.
except as noted.
Attendees
Advisory Council
Charles B. Miller, Chairman
Harris B. Stewart, Vice Chairman
Robertson P. Dinsmore
. Thomas C. Malone
40pohn Martin
'Arthur Maxwell
Christopher N.K. Mooers
Robert W. Corell, ex-officio
Ferris Webster, ex- officio
UNOLS OFFICE
W Liam D. Barbee
Observers
Don Heinrichs, NSF
Keith Kaulum, ONR
Art Maxwell welcomed the Council to the University of Texas Institute
for Geophysics and Austin. He gave a brief status report on UTIG,
including recent research and faculty additions, recent declining
trends in funding (due largely to decreases in funds from industry) and
the decision to lay up the FRED H. MOORE.
Associate Director John G. Sclater briefly discussed some recent
research activities.
The minutes of the October 21, 1985 Advisory Council meeting were
accepted.
ADVISORY COUNCIL STANDING ROLES
Ship Scheduling Process. Robertson Dinsmore, Harris Stewart, Jr., and
John Martin reported on the October, 1985 scheduling meetings and
response to Ship Scheduling Group recommendations.
At the October meetings, NSF program managers announced ship operations
funding decisions that affected scheduling:
CAYUSE not funded for operation in 1986.
CAPE FLORIDA transferred to West Coast for operation by MLML
in CENCAL early in 1986.
OSPREY not funded for operation in 1986.
These decisions together with science funding decisions allowed
schedule consolidation and other cost saving measures:
Cost reductions due to reduction in days operated:
ISELIN
SPROUL
WASHINGTON
CAPE HENLOPEN
CONRAD
ENDEAVOR
GYRE
Cost reductions due to partial or full-year lay-up:
CAYUSE (full-year)
KNORR (partial)
OSPREY (full-year)
WECOMA (full-year)
All of these recommendations had been acted on.
Although these various steps had brought costs for 1986 fleet operation
to within reach of available funding, there still remained a problem.
Both agency officials and UNOLS members closely involved with ship
scheduling stated the need for earlier identification of ships for layup and a more effective consolidation of schedules on the ships
operating. The very late schedule resolution in 1985 (for 1986
2
schedules) did not allow adequate planning time for the ships laid up.
Further, many large and intermediate ships will not have full schedules
in 1986.
After discussion, the Advisory Council agreed (and NSF and ONR
officials concurred) that UNOLS should reach a preliminary
identification of ship lay ups at the May-June UNOLS and Ship
Ship scheduling meetings in March, 1986 should
Scheduling meetings.
concentrate on identification of the science projects to be supported
and on the scale and location of ship requirements to support funded
NSF will emphasize the need to submit science proposals to
science.
(See recent announcements in
meet February 1 and June 1 target dates.
UNOLS NEWS, etc.)
After hearing reports from NSF and ONR together with further informal
discussion, it was determined that the Chairman, Advisory Council,
would notify UNOLS membership of the issue and need to reach firm
schedule (and lay-up) recommendations by June.
The Chairman's letter to UNOLS membership:
o Ship operations for 1987 will be at about the
same level as in 1986.
o Two to four full-year lay-ups may be necessary
and there may be additional part-year lay-ups.
o
NSF will identify specific ships for lay-up
in June, 1986; if UNOLS recommendations are to
be considered they must be made by June.
o Individual investigators are urged to submit
proposals preferably to meet the February 1
target date, certainly to meet the June 1 date.
o Individual institutions and UNOLS must accelerate
their scheduling process, to achieve by June an
effective UNOLS fleet schedule.
The Chairman's letter (dated February 10, 1986) is Appendix II.
Expeditionary Planning
There had been no activity since October
meetings. No report was made.
ALVIN Review Committee. Robert Corell reported that overhaul of ALVIN
should be completed in time for ATLANTIS II/ALVIN to take up scientific
work in mid-April, 1986. The overhaul includes modifications designed
to improve capability and reliability, and to extend the interval
between major overhauls.
The overhaul (to be reported on in UNOLS
NEWS, Vol. 3, No. 1, and in Summary Reports of ALVIN Review Committee
Workshops and Meetings, winter, 1985-86) will include a new propulsion
system, more power, more payload, a better logging system and greater
reliability.
3
Additional bunks for scientific personnel are being added on the
ATLANTIS II, providing some relief for that problem.
Appendix III, Exploring Our Ocean Frontier is a brief history of
ALVIN'S first 21 years, prepared by the Submersible Program, W.H.O.I.
In 1986, ALVIN/ATLANTIS II are scheduled for a series of geological and
engineering investigations on the mid-Atlantic Ridge and in the
Northwest Atlantic; geological, biological and geochemical
investigations at the West Florida Escarpment cold seep sites,
investigations in the Panama Basin and finally, the beginning of a
series of biological studies off California.
At meetings in December, 1985 and January, 1986, the ARC recommended
the addition of NSF/NOAA sponsored work on the mid-Atlantic Ridge and
of microbiology and biology at the West Florida site.
For 1987, schedules will be recommended at the ARC meeting in May,
1986. Work is pending off California, vicinity of Hawaii and seamounts
in the mid-Pacific, in the Mariana region of the western Pacific,
Gorda-Juan de Fuca and off the Oregon coast, and on the EPR.
ALVIN continues to be a valuable facility for ocean science
investigations. Operators at W.H.O.I. do an excellent job, both in the
engineering and maintenance of a technologically advanced facility and
in operational support to investigators.
The ARC held workshops for advanced planning in December, 1985 and
January, 1986. Notices of Intent were received for work in:
North Atlantic (especially mid-Atlantic Ridge, West Florida),
South Atlantic,
Northeast Pacific (Gorda-Juan de Fuca, etc.), and
East Equatorial Pacific (EPR, S. American continental shelf,
Galapagos and Guaymas).
The ARC also provided planning assistance for the Navy's SEA CLIFF
program of support for academic scientists. A major science program is
The Navy intends to have a dedicated support
anticipated for 1988.
ship.
The ALVIN Review Committee has coordinated for the three funding
Dirk
agencies (NOAA, NSF and ONR) a study of the ALVIN program.
Frankenberg, University of North Carolina, chairs an Oversight
Committee to:
o assess ALVIN planning and operations,
o recommend facility needs, and
o assess ARC and other planning functions.
The Committee's report will be available early in 1986.
Since the TITANIC was found in 1985, the potential for using ALVIN for
The Navy
further investigations there has become an intense issue.
4
will sponsor ALVIN-supported engineering development there in 1986.
There has also been interest expressed for independent sponsorship of
ALVIN investigations at the TITANIC site.
The ALVIN Review Committee
has prepared a Position Statement on Potential Use of the
ALVIN/ATLANTIS II for Operations at the TITANIC site. The statement
reviews the context for ALVIN utilization, recites the chronology of
events related to potential use at the TITANIC site, and outlines the
ARC position on use of ALVIN.
Advisory Council dissatisfaction with current
Cruise Assessments.
procedures for Cruise Assessments continued. Discussion centered on
the problems encountered when assessments of performance are submitted
through the ship or operating institution (e.g., reluctance to submit
critical reports, bias toward innocuous assessments, ship's force
It was noted, however, that this system has the
resentment).
advantages of quick communication with marine operations, and provides
a more effective system for producing returns.
The Advisory Council decided that they would not change current
procedures for Cruise Assessments, wherein chief scientists usually
fill out the forms and return them to the UNOLS Office through the
operating institution.
However, a statement will be added to Cruise
Assessment Forms informing Chief Scientists that they may also
communicate directly with the Advisory Council if shipboard conditions
warrant.
Vessel Inspections - Robertson Dinsmore reported on vessel inspection
programs now in force for the UNOLS Fleet. Since the NSF vessel
inspection program has become established, distinct improvements are
seen.
The operating condition of ships in the fleet is improving, in
part, in response to findings on earlier inspections.
Also, as both
the inspection team and operators gain experience with the program,
individual inspections are becoming more effective.
Guidelines for
NSF/MARAD Material Condition Review of Research Vessels are Appendix
I V.
The NSF program has been expanded to include some Associate Member
operators (e.g., SUNCOASTER at Florida Institute for Oceanography,
WEATHERBIRD at Bermuda Biological Station, the PELICAN at LUMCON).
The Navy's INSURV inspection program is being extended to include
scientific equipment and operations.
(This will be accomplished by
means of a subcontract through UNOLS Office.)
General Findings from inspection programs are:
o Cranes are only marginally adequate for their service;
some are not marinized, some A/J frames are too light
for modern operations.
o Many ships require improved echo sounding capacity
(new transducers, recorders, logging, etc.).
o Many ships have operational SAIL systems and the systems
are being used.
5
Inspection teams are beginning to look at shared-use and other
equipment aboard vessels.
The objective is to control inventories to
equipment that is useful, available and well-maintained.
Both NSF and ONR offered to provide the Advisory Council more
systematic information concerning inspections. The Advisory Council
will be provided summary reports of inspections. (These summaries will
be provided for information, not review, purposes.)
Shipboard Scientific Instrumentation - John Martin distributed partial
results of his survey on costs for use and availability to
investigators of selected instrumentation. (Appendix V covers CTD's,
box corers and water sampling bottles.) The survey illustrates a broad
range of charges, differing policies on availability and a complexity
of conditions for use/cost.
Many problems exist concerning scientific equipment, marine technicians
Costs can be significant; for some geophysical
and costs.
investigations, special equipment and technician rates can be more
Individual investigators often can be
than 50% of ship cost rates.
surprised by and must change their plans to accommodate instrument and
technician costs. Software and procedures developed at one institution
are often not available at other institutions.
NSF is re-examining its approach to marine technicians and management
of technician programs, especially concerning interaction with
shipboard scientific equipment. The workshop on technicians and shared
NSF might be
use equipment held in 1985 did not solve all problems.
willing to sponsor further studies or workshops, but only on the basis
of a well-founded proposal providing a solid workshop/study outline.
John Martin will expand his survey of UNOLS institution procedures
include marine technical services.
to
Triennial Review of Fleet (Fleet Management). Charles Miller noted the
changes in individual ship status (e.g., transfer of CAPE FLORIDA, layup or non-operation of CAYUSE, OSPREY, and WECOMA) that are significant
He noted that these changes are parallel to recent
fleet changes.
Advisory Council or Ship Scheduling Group recommendation. He noted
that one fleet question remained: disposition (re-assignment or other)
Earlier recommendations had been that UNOLS
of the CAYUSE.
institutions be informed that they could propose to operate CAYUSE
Don
(perhaps as replacement for a currently-operated vessel).
Heinrichs noted that NSF is presently also considering options to
assign CAYUSE to another Federal agency.
If NSF considers options for CAYUSE not in concert with earlier
Advisory Council recommendations, they will inform UNOLS and the
Council prior to a decision.
Fleet Replacement Committee - Robertson Dinsmore reported on recent FRC
activities, as they approach completion of their report. Submission
of the FRC report would complete the Committee's response to their
UNOLS charge.
6
Fleet Replacement Committee Goals:
o
Recommend the numbers and types of new ships for the
UNOLS fleet, with replacement dates,
o
Prepare a set of science mission requirements for each
of the various classes of ships, and
o
Undertake representative conceptual designs.
The principal findings on which the report is based are:
1. The average age of the UNOLS fleet is 19 years, and by the mid
1990's most of the seven large ships (over 200 ft.) will have
exceeded a planned service life of 30 years.
Many, if not
most existing ships are already mission obsolete or only
marginally capable of meeting the requirements of modern
oceanography.
2. The number of future ships will not differ significantly from
the existing fleet.
3. The mix of ships should be about evenly divided among the size
classes, i.e., large, intermediate and small ships.
4. New ships should have improved seakeeping and station keeping,
upgraded laboratories, better facility for overside handling
and better scientific outfitting.
Consequently, new ships
will be larger than existing ones in the same class.
5. Selected ships should have, in addition to capabilities for
multidisciplinary research, enhanced capability for a
particular discipline, function, or area of operation, e.g.,
marine geology or geophysics, submersible support or polar
research.
6. Up to one-third of the ships, mostly in the largest class are
approaching obsolescence or are already mission obsolete.
Replacement should start soon -- 1987-90.
7. The existing fleet should be completely replaced by 2015.
8. The Committee recommends a fleet of eight large ships (200-300
ft.), six intermediate ships (150-200 ft.), and six small
ships (100-150 ft.).
A more comprehensive report from the Fleet Replacement Committee will
appear in UNOLS NEWS, Vol. 3, No. 1, March, 1986.
The Fleet Replacement Committee held a workshop in January, 1986 for a
community-wide review of its preliminary report. The Summary Report of
the FRC Workshop (Appendix VI) includes drawings of eleven conceptual
designs and design comparisons of high endurance, medium endurance and
SWATH ships among those concepts.
7
The FRC report is expected to be completed by about the end of March.
The Advisory Council endorsed the efforts of the Fleet Replacement
Committee, and considered means whereby UNOLS could foster continued
progress on planning and construction toward UNOLS fleet replacement.
The Advisory Council requests that the Fleet Replacement Committee
recommend a sequence of new steps to promote progress in planning for
fleet replacement.
Those recommendations should address among other
issues:
o
Selection from among conceptual designs of candidates to pursue
further, and
o
Development of
replacements.
a time line
for at least the early ship
The Advisory Council discussed fleet replacement at length.
A fleet
replacement program as developed by the FRC is about a one-half billion
Success in implementing a program of
dollar program over 30 years.
that scale will require broad, effective support from the ocean
community as well as consistent agreed-to approaches from NSF and ONR.
Chairman Dinsmore noted that the FRC will continue planning and will
Chairman Dinsmore will
pursue additional steps in the design spiral.
also consult with the A/C and others in UNOLS on reconstituting or
otherwise continuing the Fleet Replacement Committee.
UNOLS Communications - Ferris Webster reported that John Knauss would
call another meeting of the Committee Chairperson group (e.g., chairs
of UNOLS, NAS Ocean Studies Board, Sea Grant Directors, NASULGC Marine
Ferris will introduce the issues of the one-half
Division, etc.)
billion dollar fleet replacement program and of additional ONR support
for ocean research.
The UNOLS Chairman discussed briefly with the Council potential
speakers for the summer UNOLS Semiannual Meeting.
International Restrictions to Ocean Science Committee - Harris B.
Stewart reported that he had polled IROSC members concerning a
proposal for a Center for International Cooperation in Ocean Sciences.
(A proposal from David Ross had been presented to UNOLS, been the
subject of UNOLS and Advisory Council discussion over the past two
The
years and had been a candidate for such a proposed center.)
consensus from IROSC members was that enthusiasm for such a center had
flagged, that there was not currently a proposal for review and that
the issue of a center should not be pursued by UNOLS.
UNOLS Chairman Ferris Webster had received a tentative proposal to
establish an activity that would assist research vessel operators,
operating institutions and principal investigators with requests for
The
foreign clearances and monitoring foreign clearance problems.
proposal was to conduct the foreign clearance assistance and monitoring
activity as a UNOLS function, operating at and with support from JOI,
Comments on the concept from William Erb, State Department, and
Inc.
Warren Wooster, IROSC, were also noted.
8
The Advisory Council did not endorse the proposal to establish a UNOLS
function to assist with foreign clearance requests to monitor clearance
The sense of the Council was that although there are
problems.
problems with the process for foreign clearances, the Council was not
convinced that the proposed function would be an appropriate solution.
They suggested that before UNOLS action, specific problems should be
Harris Stewart, with
defined through a survey of UNOLS institutions.
IROSC, will undertake such a survey.
Harris Stewart informed the Council that a preliminary program plan has
been prepared by a working group under the Ocean Studies Board for the
Caribbean Marine Science Regional Program fostered by Department of
State (see UNOLS Semiannual Meeting, October 23, 1985). Implementation
of the program would require a research vessel, perhaps from the UNOLS
fleet.
UNOLS Nominations for June, 1986 - Chairman Webster discussed with the
Council the formation of a Nominating Committee.
Nominations are
required for UNOLS Chairman and Vice Chairman, and for three Advisory
Council members.
Acquisition and Management of Advanced Technical Facilities - Charles
Miller noted that the ad hoc Special Facilities Committee, chaired by
Brian Lewis, had met and reported to UNOLS (Appendix VII). The special
committee considered three major facilities issues:
o Multichannel seismic systems,
o Satellite data and instrumentation, and
o Supercomputers.
They considered these facilities that are or may be of importance to
oceanography and coordination or management roles that UNOLS might
play.
Their conclusions:
o
MCS systems are being considered by NORPO under JOI and NSF.
No immediate action is required by UNOLS.
o
Dissemination and use of satellite data is also being
considered under JOI (and by Federal agencies). UNOLS should
not duplicate any of these functions. UNOLS should, however,
be kept actively advised of development.
o The oceanographic community is poorly represented for defining
access, specifying needs and dissemination of
information
regarding supercomputers. UNOLS should address those three
problems through a special committee and a full-time employee
(at NCAR).
9
In response to the Special Committee report, the Advisory Council
recommended
that UNOLS establish an Oceanographic Supercomputing
Committee (OSCC) charged as follows:
o
A thorough REVIEW of supercomputing in oceanography
- Our requirements: hardware, software, data nets
- Status of access: ease of access and actual usage data
- Organizational structure: now (in place) and needed
From the review UNOLS (and NSF) would expect to report about
early 1987.
o
Recommend an operational mode, including formulation of a
specific and continuing role for OSCC. Should there be:
- An office. The present UNOLS Executive Secretary's office
probably cannot add this function as now set up.
- Software exchange policy and exchange system. Present
mode of multiple development of nearly identical programs
is very wasteful.
- Dedicated supercomputers.
o
Establish and oversee operations. The AC tentatively agrees
that OSCC should be analogous to the ALVIN Review Committee
(ARC).
o
Tentative candidates for an OSCC were discussed.
Sponsoring Agency Information to the Advisory Council Don Heinrichs,
Head, OCFS, discussed NSF budgets and budget submissions for 1986 and
1987 together with program and management activities.
Budget estimates for 1986 (in the table below) reflect cuts arising
from Gramm-Rudman reductions.
10
BUDGET ESTIMATES
FY 1986-87
(IN $M)
********************************************************************
1985
Actual
1986
Request
1986*
Estimate
1987**
Request
58.2
34.9
27.6
120.7
59.9
36.8
28.9
125.6
57.4
33.7
27.6
118.7
66.4
37.2
30.1
133.7
OCEAN SCIENCE DIVISION
Ocean Science Research
Oceanographic Facilities
Ocean Drilling
OSF Breakout
Operations
Ship Ops
Other Ops & Misc.
Marine Techs
Subtotal
23.8
2.9
2.4
29.1
Acquisitions and Development
Shipboard Equipment
Instrumentation
Technology Development
Ship & Shore Construc./Conv.
TOTAL
25.6
29.5
2.5
28.1
30.5
7.2
$37.2
1.7
1.8
1.6
.7
5.8
7.3
1.5
1.8
1.8
.5
5.6
$34.9
$36.8
$33.7
*
February 5, 1986 current plan. Includes Gramm-Rudman reductions.
** Administration Budget Request to Congress on February 5, 1986.
*********************************************************************
For 1986 there is a real loss in OCFS of about $1.2M below 1985.
The Ocean Science Division request (a part of the Administration Budget
Request to Congress, February 5, 1986) is about 12 1/2% increase over
1986.
Ocean support and facilities would increase about 13% over 1986
(but only about 6 1/2% over 1985).
The thrust of Ocean Sciences Division planning for 1987 highlights the
Directorate emphasis on global science processes:
WOCE, TOGA, Global
Ocean Flux, Ridge Crest Studies.
Within OCFS, ODP's fiscal level of effort would be maintained (i.e.,
4.2% inflationary increase).
Ship operations support would be
11
maintained. Most of the increase in Acquisition and Development would
be in Technology Development, focused on new technology for global
ocean processes.
It was noted that under P.L. 99-177 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings) the
Congressional budget schedule has changed and several new steps become
possible (See Appendix VIII).
NSF continues to pursue U.S. - U.K. cooperative ship operations.
In
1986 the R/V DARWIN will conduct two legs in support of physical
In 1987 NSF
oceanographic investigations in the western Indian Ocean.
will provide one leg.
The NSF believes that it is extremely important to achieve early
UNOLS
identification of ships that will not operate in 1987.
recommendations are expected at the end of June scheduling meetings.
UNOLS needs to look at the best fleet schedule, not the best individual
ship/institution schedules.
Keith Kaulum reported that ONR is scheduled for a 10% across- the- board
cut in 1986. This translates to a reduction of about $5M for ocean
sciences. Distribution of the reduction had not yet been decided.
Prospects for 1987 are for as much as a 20% reduction below planned
1987 levels.
The new research vessel for academic oceanography (AGOR-23) remains in
the 1987 budget, but at $33M, not at $35M. ONR is working closely with
the Fleet Replacement Committee in an effort to assure that the FRC's
science mission requirements priorities (e.g., seakeeping, etc.)
survive through the NAVSEA ship design process. NAVSEA is working on
about ten point designs (i.e., individual ship-type designs) including
There is a good spirit of cooperation
both SWATH and monohull ships.
among ONR, the FRC and NAVSEA.
One objective of examining point designs is to assure that the design
At the present stage it
selected can be built for the money budgeted.
The
appears that an adequate SWATH ship might not be within budget.
process for competitive selection of a design and preparation of the
Critical decisions
RFP continues on the schedule announced earlier.
are expected from a CNO Executive Board meeting in late March.
ONR will continue to need a liaison group in UNOLS to
functions that are being served by Bob Dinsmore and the FRC.
fill the
Other Business - The Council discussed the overall status of
oceanographic support in Federal agencies (in addition to budget
reports for NSF and ONR already reported.)
NOAA's budget in the Administration's 1987 request to Congress is down
36%, from $1.3 billion to $.84 billion.
NSF overall is up about 8% above the 1986 estimate prior to GrammRudman cuts. NASA'S ocean sciences support also shows an increase.
12
Congressional hearings to review the health of ocean sciences are
An opportunity for a UNOLS witness
likely to be held during 1986.
would be desirable, especially to emphasize the fleet replacement
effort and to support prospective program initiatives in ocean
sciences.
A presentation to the Ocean Principals on the fleet replacement effort
would also be helpful in maintaining visibility for that activity.
13
Appendix I
( UNIVERSITY-NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM D.
Agenda
Advisor C c>1_111 c i 1 M e e t 1_ rx g
Uri i_ v e r- s i t y o f T ex a s
February 6, 7, 1986
8 : 3 0 a_ m _
Ii
is
MIL I
1■11101101
mulls=
7Mlb RP it.",
sItrW,09ge
14
Accept minutes of October 21, 1985 Advisory Council Meeting-These minutes will be available for review.
Advisory Council Standing Roles. Status and Reports
Effective Management of UNOLS fleet.
Scheduling Process-Stewart and Martin. 1986 fleet schedules.
Initiation of 1987 scheduling process. Submission of science
proposals to NSF (those requiring ship time).
Expeditionary Planning-Corell (Little recent action).
ALVIN Review Committee-Corell.
Report on December, January
workshops.
Status of ALVIN program.
Navy submersibles SEA
CLIFF, TURTLE.
User assessment forms-Carl Lorenzen will not be at the meeting.
Vessel inspection process-Dinsmore
Triennial Review-Miller.
1986 fleet status (Transfers, lay
ups, potential reassignments of ships, e.g. CAYUSE.)
Fleet replacement committee-Dinsmore.
Status of FRC efforts
and Fleet Replacement Plan. Report on January 6, 1986
National UNOLS Fleet Replacement Workshop.
Shipboard Scientific instrumentation, technician programs and
user manuals-Martin.
Communication and Liaison
UNOLS News-Malone.
Volume 2, Number 4, was distributed in
January (under a November date line.) Volume 3, Number 1
target date?
UNOLS communications-Miller, Webster. Reports on new issues
that have arisen through contact between A/C, Executive Committee
etc., and Federal agencies.
International Restrictions to Ocean Science Committee-Stewart,
Corell. IROSC review of proposal for a Center for International
Cooperation in Ocean Sciences. IROSC recommendations.
A/C examination of a tentative proposal to establish a UNOLS
function to assist with clearance requests and monitor clearance
problems (from Lee Stevens).
Acquisition and management of advanced technical facilitiesMiller, Mooers.
The UNOLS Special Facilities Committee met
and reported to the Chairman Advisory
Council.
A/C
Consideration on the report and recommendations.
Further
actions?
Forecast of Scientific and government trends, federal agency
contact-Mooers, Maxwell, Webster.
Reports as pertinent.
Advisory Committee to Ocean Sciences Division. R. Corell,
Chairman will report to A/C as appropriate.
15
Sponsoring Agency Information to Advisory Council.
Don Heinrich, Grant Gross and others-NSF
Keith Kaulum-ONR
John Albright-NOAA
Hawley Thomas-MMS
William Erb-DOS
Both Chairman and Vice
Nomination for June 1986-Webster.
Ferris Webster is not
Chairman are up for re-elections.
There is some ambiguity as to
eligible for re-election.
whether or not Bob Corell is eligible to stand again. (He's
finishing second one-year term.) Three A/C member-elections
are due, for positions held by Miller, Dinsmore and Stewart.
The first two are from Member Institutions, Stewart from an
Associate. Chairman Webster will discuss nominations and the
nominating committee with the A/C.
Other business-None that I know of.
Appendix II
UNIVERSITY-NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM
An association of institutions
for the coordination and support
of university oceanographic facilities
10 February 1986
UNOLS Office, WB-15
School of Oceanography
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
(206) 543-2203
Dear Colleagues:
Federal agency reports at the Advisory Council meeting of 6-7
February raised matters of immediate concern to all of you.
It is
certain that budget shortfalls for UNOLS fleet operations in FY '87
will be at least as serious as those of FY '86. There will be 2 to 4
ship lay-ups of full year duration and additional part-year lay-ups.
The most optimistic view is that NSF and all other agencies can support
as much field work in 1987 as in 1986. NSF has taken responsibility for
directing lay-ups and intends to identify specific ships for 1987 layup about June 1986. NSF believes this is necessary to help institutions
and crews plan more adequately for lay-ups and to achieve the greatest
savings.
NSF expects and will consider UNOLS recommendations on lay-ups.
To be useful on the NSF schedule, recommendations must be ready at the
close of the June scheduling meeting.
Thus, the early March and the
June UNOLS scheduling meetings must bring schedules to a stage only
reached previously in October. At both March and June meetings UNOLS
must seek the most effective schedules to support funded science, not
the best ship or institution schedules.
Start planning NOW to bring a
serious work schedule to the March meeting.
Evaluation of project
chances for funding will again, I'm sorry to tell you, come ahead of
final science planning and proposal submission, and many nearly final
designations of ships for lay-up will come before final decisions on
proposals.
To anticipate this acceleration you should advise PI's to:
1) get ship requests submitted immediately;
2) provide preliminary outlines of proposed work using
shiptime in 1987 to program directors by April at the
latest 1preferably this month);
3) discuss with you the chances for success of their
proposals.
It would be good to reiterate to PI's the finality of the 1 June
deadline for NSF proposals requesting shiptime.
Dr. Heinrich, program
director for oceanographic facilities, is adamant that no exceptions
will be allowed.
17
Accelerated ship operations planning and communications with your
These points will be
staff should receive your immediate attention.
reiterated in the invitation to the early March scheduling meeting.
Sincerely,
, Charles B. Mille
Chair, UNOLS Advisory Council
4
18
Appendix III
Exploring Our Ocean Frontier:
rr.c577.7-:
71—"-
4 '••■•,11..4707111. 97,
Deep Submergence Vehicle ALVIN
and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
1964 — 1985
21 years of deep sea discoveries
19
21 YEARS OF EXPLORING THE OCEANS' DEPTHS
ALVIN's 21 years have been exciting
ones -- it has made scientific discoveries
that have astounded the scientific community and aroused the interest of the
public. Changing in appearance over the
years (from a rounded to a more angular
look with a variety of new features -- arms,
cameras, etc.), ALVIN has (in the words of
the Star Trek introduction) "boldly gone
where no man has gone before."
in its explorations, ALVIN has explored the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, part of the
earth's vast underwater mountain range,
glided past other-worldly black smokers at
the East Pacific Rise, and taken samples of
water and strange life forms at the vent
communities at the Galapagos Islands, East
Pacific Rise, Florida escarpment (near
Tampa) and at the newly discovered Juan de
Fuca Ridge vents.
ALVIN's history parallels the space
program. guilt by the U.S. Navy in 1964
and given to tne woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution to operate, ALVIN became oceanography's "spacecraft" into hostile and unexplored environments. In the early years
ALVIN's primary mission was one of pilot
training and search and recovery. Science
played only a modest role. But just as
space flights have become routine with
shuttles ferrying astronauts and scientists
into space, similarly, ALVIN has made ocean
aiving a well-used and valuable research
tool. With 1,663 dives to its- credit,
ALVIN is the workhorse of the scientific
diving fleet.
According to Barrie Walden, WHOI's
manager of submersible engineering and
operations, "ALVIN has an unlimited useful
life since it is constantly undergoing
modifications, allowing it to remain abreast
of technology. Although originally constructed in 1964, there is little of the
submersible which is 21 years old. In
recent years, we have concentrated on data
gathering capabilities by adding and
improving the sensor suites, incorporating
a data logging system and expanding the
imaging capability. This winter, we will
replace the propulsion and hydraulic
systems wnich should increase our reliability and improve our power budget."
The mission that first showed ALV1N's
20
usefulness was the infamous case of the missing hydrogen bomb. Dropped in the Mediterranean off of Spain in a 1966 plane collision, tne bomb defied all methods of detection. ALVIN located tne device and then
relocatea it when it slipped during the
recovery process.
Tne project that put ALVIN on a
valid scientific footing was FAMOUS in 1974.
Tne French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea
Study looked at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge,
collecting first-ever photos and samples of
tnis major spreading center.
Tne following nighlights from ALVIN's
illustrious career have been provided by Ed
gland, research associate in the ALVIN group
and a former pilot with over 200 dives to
nis creait, including the shortest dive on
record (4 minutes with an ALVIN associate)
and until recently the northernmost dive in
tne Gulf of Maine by the Bay of Fundy. (The
recent Juan de Fuca dives were a bit'
further north. )
PRI
Paul Fye, WHOI's fourth director, presided at the
ALVIN commissioning on June 5, 1964. Over 500
people attended the event.
fi
.... 'MA
••••■•
1(
•
A
•
4-1• 1
ta,
Allyn Vine, a W1-101 ocean engineer, was one of ALVIN's
cnief acvocates. Mrs. Allyn Vine christens the sub
namec for ner husbanc.
HIGHLIGHTS OF ALVIN'S 21 YEARS
1964 ALVIN commissioned at Woods Hole on
A series of test dives in
June
Woods Hole Harbor, Buzzards Bay, and
Vineyard Sound go progressively
deeper from 12 to 60 feet.
-4
1
.11wv4"
190) g./V LULU constructed from two Navy
surplus pontoons. LULU, with ALVIN
aboard, towed to Port Canaveral,
Florida, for deep trials (unmanned,
7)u0 ft.; manned, 6000 ft.).
•
19b0 An Air Force B-52 and tanker collided
over Spain, dropping an H-bomb in the
Mediterranean off Cartagena, Spain,
in January. ALVIN was called. In
•
February 1966 ALVIN and her support
vans were loaded into an Air Force
cargo aircraft at Otis and flown to
Rota, Spain. During the next twu
months ALVIN searched the ocean
floor off of Cartagena for the lost
H-bomb, operating from a Navy LSD.
Bomb was located for the first time
on Marcn 15 out subsequently lost
during attempt to attacn lift lines.
Bomb slid down-slope to deeper water;
tfte search continued. Bomb relocated
on April 2 by ALVIN and finally recovered on April 7. ALVIN returned
to Woods Hole in LSD for overhaul.
ALVIN is loaded into an Air Force plane at Otis Air
Force Base (Cape Cod) for shipment to Spain where she
assisted in the search for a missing H-bomb in 1966.
OM
V211
ry-
•
=7
•
Loniumagis.„
.0.....••••■••■11•11.
PI,
•
MMOINAMEMMOMK
In the early days of hL ti
LbLi) operations, ALVIN
lowered with support cables fror a launching cradle.
A._v1N fell into the ocean - hen one ot the cables
tailed Cue To corrosion.
joins naval ships assigned To the search.
21
SE
•
•
PS
OF
X
4
I LINE OF
I AT TACK
/
i
1
I
,,,
OrC:','
st 1
3 A
1
,0
:("1, ,
I
1
\
I
ALVIN survived a swordfish attack during 1967, bringing the fish back up as a trophy; It was served for
dinner that evening., Later research projects tested
1967
Return to Bahamas for Navy dives.
Subsequent transit north for biology/
geology dives on the Blake Plateau
and off of Cape Charles. During dive
1/202 on July 6, ALVIN was attacked by
a swordfish on the bottom at about
2000 ft. The fish became trapped in
ALVIN's skin and was brought back to
the surface intact.
ALVIN completed a long series of
dives south of New England in the
Canyons and along the continental
slope for geology, biology, thermal
studies and sound measurements. On
dive #209, in the Hydrographer
Canyon area, a Navy F6F aircraft was
found, photographed, and surveyed.
It was later identified as being lost
overboard from a carrier during practice runs in 1944 (pilot escaped).
ALVIN lost her mechanical arm on Dive #224 when a
handling line became fouled on the catamaran.
the strength of the plexiglass windows and their
ability to withstand direct swordfish strikes. The
windows survived all tests.
On dive 11224, September 24, the
mechanical arm was lost during a
rough recovery. The arm was subsequently found and recovered on dive
11236 on October 15, reconditioned and
reinstalled.
1968
Series of dives to observe submerged
whales, Navy dives to survey tops of
sea mounts for new range, geology and
biology studies. During launch for
dive //308 on October 16, ALVIN's
cradle support cables failed and
ALVIN slid into the water and sank to
the bottom in 1535 meters of water.
Ed Bland, pilot, received some
bruises and a sprained ankle. Uneaten lunches sank too. Poor weather
conditions and insufficient recovery
equipment prevented recovery during
the rest of the year.
ALVIN sits on the floor of the continental shelf near
Hydrographer Canyon In 1,535 meters of water.
1969 ALVIN remained on the bottom until
Labor Day. The DSV ALUMINAUT (a submersible from the Reynolds Aluminum
Company) and the R/V AIZAR assisted
in the recovery, which required
placement of a toggle-bar into the
hatch (ALUMINAUT had to break the
sail in order to accomplish this).
MIZAR then raised ALVIN to 50 ft.,
where divers then wrapped her with
lines and nets to prevent loss of any
pieces. ALVIN towed to the Vineyard,.
where a crane mounted on a barge
pulled her out of the water. Overall, very little structural damage to
the submersible (except for sail).
Lunch on board, soggy but edible.
Close to freezing temperatures and
lack of decay at depths led to new
areas of biological and chemical
research at the Institution.
In mid-June a permanent bottom station was established on the continental slope south of Martha's Vineyard. The station has been regularly
re-visited at least once each year.
Dr. Ruth Turner was ALVIN's first
female scientist-passenger on dive
11345 to the station on August 13.
Series of dives in the Gulf of Maine
and the Straits of Florida. On dive
1/364 ALVIN was attacked and hit by a
large blue marlin while on the bottoo
off of Grand Bahama Island. The fist
did some damage to the underwater
lights and sail and much damage to
himself.
1972
Series of dives at Martha's Vineyard
station (biology), Hudson Canyon
(geology and biology), Gulf of Maine
(geology), navigational and rock
drill experiments.
197i
During the spring, a new titanium
pressure hull and variable ballast
system were installed. After a
series of test dives, ALVIN was officially certified to 12,000 ft.
1974
Project FAMOUS (French-American
Mid-Ocean Undersea Study) provided
first look at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
along with French submersibles CYANA
and ARCHIMEDE. National Geographic
ran articles on the Project in the
May 1975 issue, one by Bob Ballard
and the other by Jim Heirtzler.
ALVIN's sail had to be broken in order to insert the
toggle bar for lifting. Divers wrapped harnesses
around the sub when It reached 50 feet to prevent any
loss of parts during the tow back to Martha's Vineyard.
1970 ALVIN undergoes overhaul after her
ten-month dunking.
1971
ALVIN's first post — loss dive is #309
on May 17.
23
R/V KNORR, with ALVIN aboard and LULU In tow, departs
for the Azores and Project FAMOUS. There the sub was
transferred to LULU for the trip to the dive site some
200 miles southwest.
197S
Series of dives at Bahamas (biology),
Grand Bahama Island (geology), Blake
Plateau (biology), NOAA radioactive
waste dump survey. Establishment of
a new deep (12,000 ft.) station south
of Cape Cod.
197o
ALV114 certified for 4,000 meters
(13,000 ft.). Navy dives near St.
Croix and Tongue of the Ocean, biology on the shelf, slope, and canyons
south of Cape Cod, recovery of waste
drum from radioactive waste site
(RADWASTE) off of New Jersey.
1977 Transit to Panama and Canal passage
(for the first time) and geology work
in the Galapagos Rift during February
and March. A major discovery was the
abundance of warm water animal life
on and in the immediate proximity of
the warm water vents. Since no light
can penetrate through the deep waters, scientists concluded the animal
ctieuistry is based on chemosynthesis.
black smoker at East Pacific Rise with ALVIN's basket
In foreground. Photo by Dudley Foster.
1978
New titanium frame installed. Continuation of RADWASTE and biology
studies off East Coast. Second trip
to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (plate
tectonic geology on the plate spreading centers.
Return through the Canal for dives in 1979
the Cayman Trough in April (a continuation of geology investigations).
During this series the Nicaraguan
earthquake occured and was plainly
felt by ALVIN while submerged.
Transit to Panama followed by biology
and geology cruises to the Galapagos
in January and February. National
Geographic bought a dive and filmed
the highly acclaimed special "Dive
to the Edge of Creation."
In April and May ALVIN made her
first trip to the East Pacific Rise
at 21 Degrees North. These geology
dives revealed hot water vents or
"black smokers" spewing forth superheated water at 350°C (650°F).
Many of the same animals found at ti
Galapagos vents are found at this
location off of Mexico.
Further dives near San Diego, Tamayo
Fracture Zone, East Pacific Rise, aric.:
Galapagos from June through December.
1960 ALVIN completes 1,000th dive at the
Galapagos Rift in January.
This portrait of ALVIN at the Galapagos Rift was taken
with a remote-controlled 16 mm motion-picture camera.
ALVIN placed the equipment on a stable surface, backed
up, and then made a grand entrance for the camera.
Photo by Emery Kristoff and Alvin Chandler, 0 National
Geographic Society.
24
ALVIN returns to the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge and Kane and Oceanographer
Fracture Zones during June and July
for geology studies. Additional
dives along East Coast, Bahamas,
St. Croix. BBC films special.
mother ship and tender for ALVIN.
These extensive modifications were
conducted during A-II's regular midlife refit. A large A-frame was
added to the stern for ALVIN launch
and recovery.
1984 ALVIN and ATLANTIS II departed Woods
Hole in January for Charleston, S.C.
Final preparations and harbor tests
include first actual ALVIN launch and
recovery using A-frame, followed by
geology cruise to tne Blake Plateau.
Several rough water recoveries were
made at sea, proving the A-frame
system could work under less than
ideal conditions.
2%41\
Walter Cronkite enters ALVIN on Uive 01211 which was
filmed for his Universe television series.
1981
1982
Extensive work in St. Croix area.
Return to Galapagos and East Pacific
Rise. Dives in the Panama Basin.
March geology/biology cruise out of
Tampa on the West Florida Escarpment
in the Gulf of Mexico discovered a
series of bottom cold water vent
communities containing animals very
similar in appearance to those in
the Pacific.
Dives at East Pacific Rise and
Guaymas Basin. Walter Cronkite made
dive #1211 to the hot vents. Dives
at the Panama Basin followed by long
transit to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Returned to Woods Hole in August and
completed local studies for biology,
geology, and corrosion. Dives in the
Florida Straits and the Providence
Channels.
Transit to the Pacific for further
dives in the.Panama Basin and the
East Pacific Rise. In mid-April
ANGUS discovered a new vent field to
the south of the dive area which A-II
and ALVIN visited.
1983 A major ALVIN overhaul took place at
Woods Hole including design of a new
frame to allow for a single-point
lift system. During the same time,
work on R/V ATLANTIS II continued,
preparing her for her new role as
Dives at the Juan de Fuca and Gorda
Ridges off of Oregon/Washington in
July reveal black smokers in this
northern spreading center.
,
•
1.4
- •
-- •
-
•7
7
-
--
-
• -;7+0;1;041)
The launch and recovery system has proved to be gentle
to passengers yet capable of operating In rather rough
sea conditions. Photo by Rod Catanach.
ALVIN surfaces as Support Vessel ATLANTIS 11, with
newly Installed A-frame, approaches for recovery.
25
198.) - Mucn of ALVIN's work during 1985 focused around the vent
communities at the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California,
the East Pacific Rise off of Mexico, and near the Galapagos
Islands. Successful tests were made of new deep ocean
sampling and photography equipment designed to be controlled frum within ALVIN. Since 19b4, the vehicle has
traveled vertically (up and down) a total of 3,535 miles.
The final months of 1985 will be dedicated to maintenance
and upgrade of the vehicle in Woods Hole.
1930
ALVIN DIVE STATISTICS FOR 1985
161
390,746
1,269,925
2,426.99
7,887.72
1,190.51
TOTAL DIVES
Total depth
Average depth per dive
Total time submerged
Average time submerged per dive
for
for
for
for
for
for
7.39 hours
296
Total passengers
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
meters
feet
meters
feet
hours
geology
biology
cnemistry
engineering tests
equipment recovery
photography
88
59
7
5
1
1
ALVIN DIVE STATISTICS FOR 1964 - 1985
1,663
2,871,676 meters
9,332,947 feet
1,726.80 meters
5,612.11 feet
10,097.51 hours
TOTAL DIVES
Total depth
Average depth per dive
Total time submerged
Average time submerged per dive
2,754
Total passengers
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
Dives
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
6.07 hours
geology
biology
test & training
inspection, survey, recovery
VIP & scientist orientation
engineering & equipment tests
chemistry & geochemistry
geophysics & vent dynamics
U.S. Navy tests & survey
miscellaneous oceanography
dump site survey & recovery
public relations purposes
26
564
490
176
120
68
32
75
29
14
73
13
9
Appendix IV
DRAFT1
Guidelines for NSF / MARAD
Material Condition Review
of Research Vessels
These Guidelines have been prepared by the
NSF / MARAD Review Team to inform ship operators
of what to expect during the review and how to
prepare the ship and marine staff for the
Material Condition Review
January 1986
27
NSF/MARAD
MATERIAL CONDITION REVIEW
TYPICAL SCHEDULE
Review Team:
Normally consists of two (2) reviewers for
ships up to 90 ft. in length; three (3)
reviewers for ships over 90 ft. in length,
plus one (1) representative from MARAD and one
(1) representative from NSF.
Day zero:
Review Team arrives motel. Pre-review
materials* at motel registration desk at check
in time.
Day one:
0830 hrs. Review Team arrives ship.
Pre-review orientation meeting w/marine staff
and crew. Dockside review by reviewers with
each reviewer accompanied by knowledgeable
crew member or marine staff person.
Day two:
0830 hrs. Ship departs for sea trials of
ship's maneuvering and science equipment.
1400 hrs. Debriefing session held on board
for marine staff and crew.
1500 hrs. Review Team departs.
Following the Review, a written report will be forwarded through
appropriate channels to the institution. The Report will be accompanied by
a request for a response outlining corrective measures to be carried out by
the institution.
*see Section II B.1.
28
NSF/MARAD MATERIAL CONDITION REVIEW
I.
General
The purpose of the NSF/MARAD Material Condition Review is to assure
that the seaworthiness and safety of research vessels supported by
NSF meet or exceed the standards set forth by the UNOLS Safety
Standards, and applicable requirements of the American Bureau of
Standards and the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition the Review examines
the scientific capabilities of research vessels in accordance with
accepted community standards, and expectations.
Material Condition Reviews are presently conducted on a two year
cycle. The Review examines the ship's hull, tanks, decks,
propulsion machinery, auxillary electrical systems, auxillary
machinery, navigation and communication equipment, habitability,
pollution control, damage control and safety. The Review includes a
dockside and an at-sea component to exercise all ship systems and
scientific capabilities.
At present drills such as fire drills, and man overboard drills, are
not included in the Review. However, crew training procedures are
reviewed.
II.
Preparation
A.
General
All ship machinery and systems should be up and operational.
All Tanks scheduled for inspection (see III B.11.) should be
open and ventilated. It is important that as complete a
complement of scientific instrumentation and shipboard equipment
available to scientists be on board and operational.
The NSF coordinator should be advised beforehand if any
equipment will not be functioning. Any non-functioning ship's
equipment or scientific equipment should be noted on Part 1
Material Condition Review and any changes should be reported to
the Review Team upon arrival at the vessel.
B.
Documents
1. The following information or documents should be distributed
to each member of the Review Team (normally five persons)
upon their arrival at the motel the day before the Review:
a. Part 1 Material Condition Review
b. UNOLS Ship Characteristics Form
c. Copy of Cruise Manual or Chief Scientist Handbook
d. Reports of corrective actions resulting from last
inspection by the Review Team and other
improvements or changes in ship's condition
29
e. List of names and titles of institutional personnel
participating in the Review.
2. The following documents should be available at the initial
meeting (prebrief) of the Review Team and ship/institution
personnel.
a. Stability booklet or information
b. Letter from Coast Guard designating the ship an
"Oceanographic Research Ship"
c. Owners certificate
d. Booklet of General Plans
e. Life raft inspection documents
3. The following documents should be available on board for
use by the science equipment reviewer.
a. Manual of specifications, prints, and operational
instructions for winches and cranes and other
science equipment as available.
b.
Wire history records and shipboard wire logs (see
Handbook of Oceanographic Winch, Wire, and Cable
Technology).
c. Copy of most recent NSF Ship Operations proposal,
Technician proposal, Shipboard Scientific Support
Equipment and Oceanographic Instrumentation
proposals. Planning list of proposed equipment
for next ensuing proposals.
d. Lists of cooperative or shared use equipment and
procedures.
e. Diving Manual
C. Science Equipment and Instrumentation
I. In order to simulate operating research conditions, as
complete a complement of scientific instrumentation and
equipment generally available to scientist should be on
board and operational.
2. For underway tests, the following equipment, if
available, are suggested for use with the:
a) Trawling winch: bottom trawl or dredge
b) Hydrographic winch: bottom grab or sampler
c) CTD winch: CTD or STD with Rosette Sampler or
other hard wire instrument to test continuity of
slip rings and cable and to demonstrate data
collection and on board analyses capabilities.
30
D. Space and Materials
1) Space should be set aside for reviewers to stow gear,
change clothes and wash up.
2) Flashlights, wiping rags, a tape measure, soap and
toweling materials should be available.
III.
Review of Hull and Machinery
A.
B.
General. This phase of the Review will begin with an inspection
of tanks, followed by machinery and other spaces. The
reviewer conducting this facet of the review is
accompanied by a knowledgeable crew member (normally
the chief engineer).
Hull.
In general, the following will be examined as
applicable.
1. Sluice valves, doors in watertight bulkheads,
closing appliances in enclosed superstructure bulkheads
and for air and sounding pipes.
2. All accessible parts of the steering
arrangements, including the steering machinery,
quadrants, tillers, blocks, rods, cables, telemotor or
other control transmission gear and brakes.
3. Coamings and closing arrangements of
ventilators to spaces below the freeboard deck and into
enclosed superstructures, hatchway coamings, hatch
covers, and all their supports.
4. All accessible parts subject to rapid
deterioration.
5. Exposed machinery casings, guard rails and all
means of protection provided for openings and for
access to crew's quarters.
6. Freeing ports in bulwarks.
7. Decks and deck compositions.
8. Engine room bilges.
9. On vessels about twelve (12) years or older,
the plating and framing below a representative number
of portlights will be examined. This may require
suitable inspection openings to be cut in sheathing.
31
10. Any alterations in structural arrangements,
fittings and appliances upon which load lines are
conditional.
11. Fore peak tanks, ballast tanks, voids and
cofferdams will be examined internally every four (4)
years from date of build. On vessels with several
ballast tanks consideration should be given to examine
about half of these spaces every two years. Tanks
should be open and throughly ventilated in advance of
the review. To avoid dupliation of inspection on
classed vessels the internal inspections may be
modified.
C. Machinery, Piping and Electrical
1. Operation of main and auxiliary machinery during sea
trial will be observed. Operation of overspeed trips,
audible and visual alarms for failure of lube oil on
main and auxiliary diesel engines will be demonstrated
either before or after sea trial.
2. Piping systems together with valves and manifolds will
be generally examined for leakage, labeling of valves,
supports etc. Operation of fuel oil valves arranged
for operation outside of the compartment in which the
valve is located will be demonstrated.
3. Wireways will be sighted where visible, switchboard
given a general examination. Generators will be
observed in operation under load either separately or
in parallel.
4. Remote shutdown of fuel oil service and transfer pumps
will be demonstrated.
IV. Review of Superstructure, Deck Machinery, Ship Control, Habitability
and Safety
A. General
The purpose of this facet of the review is to determine the
material condition of the superstructure, deck machinery, ship
control equipment, status of habitability and general compliance
with safety standards. The inspection generally takes two days.
The first day comprises an alongside inspection and the second day
is an underway sea trial designed to operate all shipboard
equipment.
32
B. Dockside Review
I. The reviewer conducting this facet of the review is accompanied
by a knowledgeable crew member (normally the Master or First
Mate). The crew member should have on his person keys to all
locked spaces so that entry can be made on a timely basis.
2. The reviewer normally starts at the bridge level and proceeds
downward and fore and aft covering all decks, spaces and
storerooms. All equipment that can be properly tested in port
will be activated (including safety equipment and alarms). In
preparation for this, power should be available at the
equipment (ship's generators do not have to be on the line,
however). Equipment that can not be properly tested in port
will be tested during the Sea Trial. Logs, navigation
instruments and publications, medical supplies and
documentation should be readily available.
3. Dry store rooms, freezers/refrigerators used for food storage,
galley and the messing area will be inspected in company with
the cook. This will be scheduled so as not to interfere with
food preparation/serving/clean up.
4. Near the end of this phase emergency pumps and fire hoses will
be tested (this is sometimes deferred to the second day).
5. Depending on the size of the ship and other factors, this phase
of the inspection will consume most of the first working day.
B. At Sea Review
I. On the second day a sea trial is undertaken. The purpose of
the trial is to test all ship control equipment. The tests
attempt to determine if the equipment can operate at its
designed limits. While the Review Team does not desire to
cause material casualities, such casualitites are possible. If
ship's personnel do not wish to operate certain equipment to
the designed limits, they should, without hesitation, so state
and the reasons therefore. Of course, safety is always of
paramount importance and an overriding factor.
2. In preparation for the sea trial the following pertains:
a.
Arrangements should be made for radio terminations with a
shoreside or other station. Transmissions will be made
while at sea.
b.
All electronic equipment should be lighted off or on
standby. Electronic navigation equipment should be set up
pierside and track throughout the sea trial.
33
c. The gyro should be operating, repeaters aligned and radar
gyro inputs set up prior to leaving the pier. An attempt
will be made to determine the the gyro error, if'any.
d. Once underway and sea room is gained, a full power run will
be commenced. This will last about 30-40 minutes.
e.
Upon completion of the full power phase, the ship will be
crash stopped, sternway obtained and rudder tested and
timed going astern.
f. All modes of steering, engine control, remote stations,
auto pilot, etc. will be tested. The rudder will be timed
going ahead. Emergency steering, if any, will be tested.
g. The bow thruster will be tested at full power.
h.
Anchors will be dropped on the brake and the windlass
tested. (It is not desired to be in shallow water for
this test.)
i. Other deck machinery, life/work boats may be tested at this
time.
V. Review of Scientific Equipment and Capabilities
A.
General
The purpose of the science phase is to review the material
condition and the operating procedures for the installed scientific
equipment and instruments, and for the shared use equipment
available to support shipboard investigators. The review usually
comprises two days: the first day is dockside for the inspection
of all shipboard instrumentation and associated records including
shore facility, technical services, and storage. The second day is
an underway test cruise for the operation of all shipboard systems.
B. Dockside Review
1. The senior Marine Technician or other person assigned in charge
of shipboard science equipment should be prepared to assist the
science reviewer during dockside inspection.
2. Areas of shipboard examination will include: winches, cranes,
hydro frames, trawl frames, laboratories, science storerooms,
transducer wells, echo sounders, meteorological equipment,
navigation equipment, freezers, boats, and other installed
scientific equipment. The inspection also will include
scientists' staterooms and living quarters, and safety
procedures for science personnel.
34
3. Shared scientific equipment, especially the inventory listed in
the Cruise Manual or other prospective shipboard investigators
listings will be examined for condition and status of
availability.
4. Spare wires and cables and associated records should be
available for inspection.
5. Technical services available at the laboratory for shipboard
applications will be reviewed along with procedures, costs, and
overall capability.
6. Shore facilities, shops, storage, and other support services
will be toured.
7. The institution diving program and especially its interaction
with shipboard procedures will be reviewed.
C. At Sea Review
1. All installed scientific equipment and instruments will be
exercised under simulated operating conditions.
2. Several lowerings of each winch will be accomplished as per
ii c.2. above in as deep water as practicable. Winch brakes,
both auto and manual will be tested under load with simulated
hydraulic and electrical failure.
3. Crane is to be exercised to maximum extension and stewed through
all operating points.
4. Science echo sounders, 12 khz, 3.5 khz, and others are to be
operated throughout test. A sample trace is to be annotated and
delivered to science reviewer.
5. SAIL system (if installed) is to be operated throughout test.
SAIL readout tape is to be delivered to science reviewer.
6. Stationkeeping tests will be made for the purpose of checking
maneuverability and the effectiveness of the bow thruster (if
installed).
7. Ordinarily, towed seismics arrays, cameras, piston coring,
mocness nets, deep tow, and other heavy equipment will not be
tested at sea but will be inspected ashore if such equipment is
included as a part of ships shared use equipment.
5
- .
4-1
U)
113
4-1
C
No charge listed
L.)
.......
•r- cot/ C 1ID 0 0.
in E SU 4.- CU
S.4-> 4-) S.
U) > N 4-
0
1.--1 E
4W
CD
+ CD
•-I
7 S- +- ••••• 0
..- 1- C
ea
a)
V) A
= 4-1
S- V)
C.) a)
".---. U
4-'
••C
-
.,_ IC
Cl) •5._ .,..,
-0 0
4)
men t Descri
No description p rov ided
U
V)
•rr4-1
0
----. (1) 4-)
W g CDI S>
- .0V W CU
S-
Ca. U1
4-,
(0
0_
E
Lc) X 1
3 CD 0 2
CD
•0- >
_C CU ••
N x 12C S._
0
CD
1.0
•r- ..Cl)
4- C " +
0 U C
• 5- > •rs-• 4-) or- S.U -.Y S- Cl
I--)
'-I
•.-. E
CD
-Y CD
CNA0 C
-...._
=
c0
-0
co CD
1--# cp
..- v-1
,-- rID I
I-40
•--. t.0
S- CD
S(0 -0
(0 CO
C
X
CV
(t)
^ 1:). -0
C
O
C .dC v) rE) its
0 CO
C1)
•
U 4-1 C
0 U .2 4-1 0O1 0T3
cf)
4-)
S.CO ),.,
I -0
r- C
..-- 7
S- CD
CO
cO CD
i CD
r-- C')
•r-e I
0
z
CU Sz c..D
CU 0
Z`--
.--
CU = 1 r= •(- c31 c..)
Cr) • ... ••-- I
..-- ----• C _Y •••• (..)
-0
0„,
4-)
in
,.-4-1
0
z
c) ....-" .,D U Cs.'
-- C I.1; -tg rr0
s.- -cs -- cp Cl) ns L)
C
4..) ay.•.- > xi
0 ...- 4->
5- 4-1 •(--•
1..0
5- C (0 5- CU •,-- S.- C:, 1.CD
CO 7
E U 0- 0. 0 .--••-• U
0) 0.) CV (0 (1) (-) (0 ,-1 CV
z -c, ----, en s- ID 4-) 0-1 ......
C
Institution
0)
c..0
N
0
I-
C..../
c.ts
.zt
J
M =
Cl)
_J
Z c_:•
0
I-■
tr)
U)
iti
X
U
F-
•-•
•i:C
O
=
2
Cl) -CI cil 10 CD LO
r-.
I -le ...."--.
7 '-0- CD
S- "; CU *""■
Cv) • "
4-1
S.u) CU
U 4-1
-.Nd (0
ni 3
__I
a)
4-) C
n3 •(CI) %-•
5- (13
CD X
4-, Q. 4-, 0- 4-, .-t
r •••-- ..- D 1-1 C
•r- C-1-1 LO U) C .- Cl.
E L.4-1). S0_
- E
u0
•,4-) = Lf) 0
1
--le CD
C U -CI
..- 1.x
-_....
Cl) a)
S- al -le
CO 44- U ^
I S.- cr) -Ne
r-... U 5.- CI
.1-... 4-1 4-) 0
<
• ..
(NI (-- • rS 0 ----* • •• 4-1
....... 4-.) .- SE
r- 4-)
4-> 1 Cl) • - Cl) .-, (0 0
-. 0 in 4-1 ----.E0- Cr-_CI
fa Cr)
CO ..- M.
E
I • 11.6
•••■■••
cvs■I ----. ■
NO S.- E
O .-4 --)4
U) CO CD Q.) 7
---U
cr)---- CO 4-1 5-CS
F-0../
S- -0
(1) .1=j
C •rC : v.)
., .01
..... c"
(._) 4-)
co 5- 5C=
s_ ...--
F- 0 -0 •,• t., 7 .0
C\1
E
• •••
CA
CO
S40 C
n3 F tCrl
-- CD
F4 ) -0 03
--4-) I
co C., Cl) •Cr • •'. CV ^W C CV
CD cn CV --- .-4 CV CD 0 ----v)
4-1 •--4 --••
LC) 0
-••Cl
0CD 5- 5- •(-- CV
Cl)
_C)
0
4-)
(.--) 0. 0 •r-
"•-■
.1
n
-0 0) (0 (4-) 43 ccl
0_
s_
a)
3
■-.....
-,-.
•-•.
0) .. U 0.
1.-Ce
1/1 c_)
4-,
0
.4- S.- 0.
_NC
U
IV,
S.4..) Cl.)
CU SCD S.- col
CD U)
• tn
CU 4-,
54-, 0
l'' ID 0 al -I- I .• C _0
Ur i- 0 S.- O14-) •,- SCl
0.)
0.) S-- *ct
• r• E U 0) VI 03 C 0-C
u, tA
n3 (4_, .2 . r
o,-E- .„, C
•rC
=
. .
• E ..-
Cl)
(3) 4-)
4-) 4-1
U)
L a) a) sCl) C > CU
IV C •.-
• 7
.--I
VI
LO
........
CU
4-) Y
4" U
>,U
U/ "0
pa >.,
--,
...-.
CV
E=
0)
>,-,
X
0
>1
a)
-0
4-
c) ----
CD CD
4:1- In
404- .6.1-
a.)
n3 Irk
(11 0- cno CD
Z 02) • " S.. 4-4 =
S- .--•-• 0
(-•
>, >,
0
U)
"CD (ES
al 10
4-1 -0 W 4-) C1) >
- col-- 01
---..--..
a) cr ss- 4-)
C.") CV
0.1 Cl) '0 0 MI C
S. Lt S.- -C U
IX:, el
4..4 4.9 La- - U 0_ 0 E
••-
C
0
a)
0
(011 ea
cc
0
-0
(1)
• r• 0 -0
V) 4 3
•
E
S- 0
_c _0 a) Soo (--) 0 rCS 4)
-0 0 E
tr)
S- tZ .4-)
in CD 0 (c) E
•0 0 > 0 c
CO • •
+ O 0
a) 0)
S.- r- a)
0 O o ro
4) 4-) 43 V) C -0
(0 0
>> (1) r S.E cr)
ro ro r0
to SS- S- i 0 a) rt:S
4-) 4U U c.)
0
C.) U U -0 S. ro
Cl 4-)
ro rO rO
nZ)
-0
E
S. co
E
_o 0
la_
CO C I 0
CO E C -0
0 +
rt) c • •-•
+) I CC) U r0 cr)
0 LID
(1) CA I (/) LC) a)
S. 01
OD U
I
O
4/1
V) a) M
a" C C
S
1- a:1
(1)
S- C r0 cf) rt E
ro
OU
en t Des cr
Ls) 0
r- 0
-0
4-,
r
r-
In stitu tion
0
V)
rt:S
a) 4-, C
ro
0 -0 a)
C Scu
0 4-, •rS- (Si -4-) -0 rt:S
CD S- Li -0 4- -0
I Q)
r0 Sr- 0- 7:3
>
E C ---- 0
CU CU 0 c..1 C S-r- fa_
-0
0
I:
-
C) 0 C)
F(.1)
37
-
▪
-
i
a)
U
V) (13
cp
01
4,9.
II
E a) •,-- a)
L
4.) 4-,s_
a) ea ms ro
V)
> N 4-
.--1
LA
L
U
CD
CV
4a4).
a)
4)
0
tt)
CI
CsJ
•"C\..1
•r- S.- C
LL- rC1 Ct. (1:1 ZriL
CY) C3 a)
LI) 0.
>, >1 ›..)
(0 (0 nj
T." -o -a
""--- ----- ----..
1.0 LC) ll:,
,-1 CV v-4
Lf). 4..4 4:04
a)
L
_0
O
• • cn
N
_a _a
0
V)
. a)
C14...).
tn
-,--
= 11
I C)
Z a) • ••• i- ,-, 7
LSO
r-
0
>=
o
E
Sou ta r (remov a b le core boxes, we ights )
No description p rov ided
me n t Desc r
•
›..,
S- -.- ••-- 0
a) =
0
f---..
I
-10 CO
7
S-
4-) C'')
4-) 10 a, 4.) a) >
- 10)-.- 0)
a) 0 L 4- S- 4->
a) (1) ft{ 0 (0 C
a) I
U) CO
0 >,
U
-.....
0
0
4:14 0
4.9-
.--1 (0
S- L ...0 S.- -C a)
Li .--- C) 0_ U E
CV
CU
CD O E a)
4->
0 0 0
01 0
cr)
C)
LC)
V)
==
•=r-
(NJ
a)
E
CV 01 (-)
X X LA
= = CV
C■1 CO X
X X
E
L.)
CV CO LA
•-■
II
I-.
II
II
rt
_J
LU
cn
10
Ql
4->
-0
(1./
4-'
-0
4->
4-)
-C1
0
S._
E
a)
CU
4->
4-
4->
0) •
rCS S- fri
E
r0
4->
N
0
0
0
z
4->
Ocean In strume n ts MKIII
••-
.1-- cael C v—
al
0 0-
samp ling boxes
(1)
V)
$300/station
No cha rge listed
4.)
C
Vt
L
a)
BOX CORE RS:
Institution
(1)
eLS
Str)
Q.) 4->
ccl
rtS 3
o2S
(r)
4-) C
ez3
(1) SS- rd
CJ
(0
O CD
J
(C)
O
U)
1■■•
1-4
a)
C2
38
-
•
(1)
O
e-1
4;se■
>-,
to
-0
..,
ai
Cri
S.-
-I-
tn
U
a)--...
0
S.-
etc
..0
U
=
L)
0
Z
c13
i
ots to to
>
N4-
s- -,- -r- o
.1-
U- MI 0. RS2:142
010 a)
Z Q.) ••• S.- •-•-• =
r
Sr. ...... 0
0
v)
aO
(1) •
b4 M
...0
I 1"...
4) b4
a) 11
• .
0.
..10
a)
4->
=
ext CD
-0 E
0 rcs
-s.... CL
.--1 •r-
CU 0) (15 0 (C) C
S- S.- _C S.- ..0 a)
LI- -•• (..) fa. U E
X
LC) IV
In
4-)
4-) -0 Cl) 4) a) >
•• 0).r- 0)
W 0- S- 4- S- 4-,
>
lc;
Cr)
0
S"0
..-......-...
V) M.
• *O.
*
II
N1
.-4
c.)
•,-•
-C
0 0V) E Cl) •.- CI)
4-) 4-) 1-
4.9
.r-- U1 •
.1-.. MS
(1)
Cl)
S0)
U CD
S*---... r-1
rt,
t.)
ln 11:1
•g(C)
a) 0.)
V)
I-1 ..-44
a)
c
co
'0
6
.
4-)
er)
in
-,--
>1
MI
4-1 I
0) CO
V)
---....
CI
4.9
•:1- =
.--4 CT
-......_ )..,
U) '0
4.4 Cl)
b
0
U")
•
C\J
•
cn
=
U
0
C
w / messengers
Not listed
Not listed
Not listed
No description p rov ided
Size no t des ignated
WATERSAMPL ING - 30-L ITER NISKI NBOTTLES:
ment Descr
Institution
(10); compati b le w / ro settes
0
•r-
Cs./
11-1
4O
4-,
5a)
4-)
C.)
1V) a)
CD 4-,
-le fa
o2S
—1
a)
10
O
QJ S.- >
S.- co _I V)
M CD
ro
CD X
Q) •=C
= CL
39
V)
3 2
Institutions NOT providing equipment information:
The University of Texas (Port Aransas Marine Lab)
University of Miami
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Duke University Marine Lab
The Johns Hopkins University (Chesapeake Bay Institute)
University of Delaware (College of Marine Studies)
Columbia University (Lamont-Doherty)
Appendix VI
R. P. Dinsmore
15 January 1986
SUMMARY REPORT OF FRC WORKSHOP
6-7 January 1986
The purpose of the Workshop was to review the Draft Report
of the UNOLS Fleet Replacement Committee principally dealing
with the needs for new, replacement ships, the numbers and mix
of new ships, and a time schedule for replacement. In addition,
the Workshop had the task of reviewing the Science Mission Requirements for new ships and the several concept designs which
depicted those requirements.
Altogether, fifty persons were present: 30 UNOLS member
delegates and invitees, 9 Navy, 1 NSF, and 10 naval architects.
Preliminary results of the Workshop are outlined below:
1. The numbers of ships needed and time frames are about
right. The Plan, however, should be flexible enough
for continual updating and able to withstand the ravages of severe budget constraints and still continue
as an effective report to deal with ship replacement.
2. SWATH ships received moderate to strong support for an
early acquisition; in part because of what they promise
but also because of the potential impact on subsequent
planning.
3. Large High Endurance Ships received more support than
most anticipated largely due to needs such as WOCE,
TOPEX, and high latitude work.
4. The G & G option was supported but with caution that
the multi-discipline capabiity must be well preserved.
This probably will result in a larger size ship.
5. Each (or most) of the "Classes" should have at least
one ice worthy ship. This then might -- and it should
be examined further -- call for an ice worthy "option"
which could eliminate the Polar Research Vessel from
our plan.
6. The mix of large ships for early planning appeared to
be one SWATH and one High Endurance Ship (probably with
a G & G option) and the remainder of the large ships
probably as Medium Endurance Ships.
7. Seakeeping continued to be the most overriding of
requirements but means must be developed to properly
describe our seakeeping requirements.
8. It should be emphasized that the major needs for replacement ships is in terms of new technology and work
at sea which cannot now be done and most certainly will
not be done in the future without new ships. Mission
obsolescence, not platform obsolescence, is the dominant factor now.
41
10/85
Table 4
Profile of Replacement
UNOLS Fleet
Plan For
Replacement
Fleet
Existing
Fleet
Larne Ships (vier 200 ft)
General Purpose
MG&G Option
Sub. Handling Option
Polar Research Option
5
1
1
0
5
2
1
1*
intesmediate Ships (150-200_1t)
General Purpose
MG&G Ship
6
1
6
0
7
6
. 21
21
cmat1 Ships (1E)-150 ftl
General Purpose
TOTAL
Table 5
Ship Replacement Plan shown by 5-year Increments
1::TEF.:EDIATE
T.:e Fr=e
i'l
0 ft.)
(C ver
2: :- .:73 f:.)
C::.sses I 5 II
1
I
1955-19E9
1 new CF
1 re.., Y:::
rt...Ser-..1.se t--o
1:.::0-19:.1
3
1 now ■...::::,
SMALL
(1C0-149 ft.)
(1 5 O-1 99 ft.)
Class IV
Class II:
---
---
---
I new
2 new
1 new
1 new
2 new
C.:
1 Fz:as R.
1995-1999
11
1 S-t.
1n;
2.:C0-:3C4
II
(1
I re- C?
___
2CCS-:CC9
2C1)-:011
I
:row C?
Total
II
9
3 new
-..
---
2 new
6
42
I
6
1/86
Table 4 (Rev.)
Profile of Replacement
OWLS Fleet
Existing
Fleet
0\5(°
Large, Ships (over 200 ft)
General Purpose
MG&G Option
Sub. Handling Option
High Latitude Option
Plan For
Replacement
Fleet
5
1
1
0
Intermediate Ships (150-200 ft)
General Purpose
High Latitude Option
MO&O Option
4
2
1
1
6
0
1
5
1
0
7
0
5
1
21
20
c ti Ships (100-150 ft)
General Purpose
High Latitude Option
TOTAL
Table 5 (Rev.)
Ship Replacement Plan shown by 5-year Increments
LARGE
T: rte Fr.-e
19SE-.1953
1
INTER:.101ATE
(.2..e..- 2C0 f:.)
( 22)-275 f:.)
C:asses t a 1:
(1E0-199 f:.)
Class
1 ne.... GP
1 re. XCLZ
Toaern::e t'..o
1
r::
SMALL
(12C-149 ft.)
Class EV
---
---
---
1 re...:
1212-1E:::
1 re.. C.
I re... '.'.:"..:
1:::', E-::;:
1 E-t.
2 r.t..
1 r.e.4
1 re... C?
1
ne,
2 new
:::.7-2C:
2'2.C5-20:3
"'
:4
Tctal
li
11
Ili
il
1
i
4
---
5 new
---
2 re w C?
---
2 new
B
I
6
6
43
SCIENTIFIC MISSION REQUIREMENTS
5hig Class
Large Ships: Class I & II (over 200 feet LOA)
•High Endurance General Purpose Research
Vessel - Size Range 250-300 Feet
•M G & G Option for a High Endurance
Research Vessel
•Medium Endurance, General Purpose Research
Vessel - Size Range 200-250 Feet
•M G & G Option for a Medium Endurance
Research Vessel
•Large SWATH Type General Purpose
Research Vessel
•Submersible Handling Option for a
Large General Purpose Research
Vesssel; (To be developed)
•Polar Research Capability for Large
General Purpose Research Vessel;
(To be developed)
Intermediate Size Ships: Class III (150-199 Feet LOA)
•Intermediate Size General Purpose
Research Vessel
Small Size Ships: Class IV (100-149 Feet LOA)
•Small Size SWATH Type General Purpose
Research Vessel
•Small Size Monohull General Purpose
Research Vessel; (To be developed)
44
SUMMARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
Large SWATH Research Vessels
•2500-Ton SWATH Oceanographic Research
Ship; SSS Corp.; February, 1985
•Semi-submerged Oceanographic Research
Ship; Blue Sea McClure; April, 1985
•Large Oceanographic Research Ship;
SWATH AG(X); Naval Sea Systems
Command, Preliminary Design Div.;
August, 1985
High Endurance Research Vessels
•Large Oceanographic Research Ship:
MONOHULL AG(X); Naval Sea Systems
Command, Preliminary Design Div.;
August, 1985
• High Endurance Oceanographic Research
Ship; J.Leiby, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution; December, 1985
• Large Oceanographic Research Vessel;
Rodney E. Lay & Associates; October,
1985
• General Purpose Oceanographic Research
Ship with Enhanced Marine Geology and
Geophysics Capability; John W. Gilbert
Associates; October, 1985
Medium Endurance Research Vessels
• "MG&G Friendly" Oceanographic Research
Ship; Marinette MarineCorp.; May, 1985
• Large Oceanographic Research Ship; M.
Rosenblatt & Son, Inc.; October, 1985
• Medium Endurance General Purpose
Oceanographic Research Ship; Glosten
Associates; November, 1985
45
a)
1-4
• X
U
C.) E'4
al
• 0
U 4J
U)
ma
• 0
I-4 =
GA
141 VI
4J
0 0 ct.
C
—14
aJ
(1.)
•
4.4
C
CLI
L
o-
cu
3 Ei
O o
ta.
N U
=
C..)
C
La..A .-V I •--
VI
0
0
• • • F-
U.: 0
....• —•••
L.)
4..)
•■• I..
= "13
C .....
< 1:3
....•
C-1 a)
C0 •—.
= —0
< r"J
1.1.1 • •—•
LI S—
C)
•.0
.
1.3.1
CL
Y.
I-..
=
F.
<
3
(.11
46
4J .1.) .1 1) ..J 6
■al■ la... I... ...)
w ,..
N. NJ C.' %3
LP)
er ---": 0 (NI -.
•-- C \I
,— •—•
•-- •—•
0..—
0
—
....
S...
Cl 0.)
,... 3
0. 0
0 —I
..1
=',
.—
• — 4..1
..I • r■
•"3 V,
S— 0 • •
CJ I'3 .4.)
0 1. CJ
T./
U
I•J
....
a.)
01
a)
-.4
0
0.1
Cs.1
r•")
= s••••
r0 Si
C.) S....
= 0
.—..
...
VI
..-.
0
4—)
V/ V/ L)
V.)
4-3 4-1 I
0 0
'--
•
4—)
C)
C— •
4—' =
LC) L.C.) U N V)
9--1 ral
M
• • CD e•-ID 0 a)
cer
cr
0 w aJ
4,—)
Oa) • • • •
CJ
CU
VI CU SO CJ
rC3
0
•
•
•
4—) 4—) 4—) -1-3 4-3 0
ta- 4- 4- 4- 4- I--
• —•
C/
C s■—
=O
r0
4—) Q-
S.- S.CU CU
c3 C
CI- 0
CD
--J
r—
•
4)
CT)
C
__J
Itt
47
.a=
4-
r0 rC
CU S.Cr)
•
ceano . raphic
ATH hi
GAL
,
_.----" .„....›,
..--- - -
_..)
.------- . - -------I
---_,_
-4--i
i 1 -----_
--- -‹---„„,
—....._ .. ----,,....s.,
——
LARGE GENERAL PURPOSE RESEARCH SHIP
LOA
LWL
Beam
Draft
333
246
82
23
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Displ.
Speed
Range
Power
5,038 L.Tons
17 knots
12,000 mi.@ 15 kts.
12,000 HP
ibmv■ 0. Tu.
•11••
w•asoMPOTOE
• c
NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND
AG(X) SWATH
...—..... ...•
.... .•...... ..•.
- 53711 -- -,_,
t... 0.
...... . - • .c
, , pi_
49
Jonathan Le iby
Large Research Sh ip
Woods Hole Oceanographic In stitution
0
4
p0
Z
f
ga
s
0
•
4•,•
C VI V) CL. Z
• cu
• 4-) 4-) 0 4-) .4-)
0..) CU 1-• 0 0
• "-C a • (..)
• W CU
—1 Ls- U- X X V) V)
0) CO r- CC)
LC) 0 Lc)
.0 Cs.1 1/4.0 r r Q Cv")
1
C,)
•
0
4
■
11.1.1.1
Z_
Qr
3
•
0
50
0
l0
N
M
LC
▪
C
=
.0
• •CX
1.1.
. 2
= tn
-J
_J
111
cn
CD
;2
•O
-J
4 c:C
.11
•
a
IO
ST A TE ROOM S
THAWROOM
OV
O
P
P
A
0
•
O
<
2
4
MAIN L AB
4
111
am
V1 4
O^
2
O
51
LA RGEGEN ERALPU RPOSEOCEAN OGRAPH ICRESEARCHSH IP
x0
0
•
In
• -0 CU
0_ CU 0-) S.N QJ C CU
c
cn cc o
0
4- 4- LI-.
E '+rlz)
4
CD 3 CD
-J J CO (=I
11
A V IM OV V O0.
S T ATEROOMS
; >
:
;
4
U
:
: 4
c
7
4.
th.
• J
•
CD
CD
• ›-
ST AT EROOM S
PILOTHOUSE
SHIPSSTO RE
20
i t-)
•
•
52
CI)
0 CD
COO 0
-NC CD CD cfl
CD
re)
crO
.—s r-1
CI)
aJ
C
cu
E
aJ
aJ
trt cu s...
cn cu
3 E
L rC o o
cc a_
GC • •
t..L..
O
C) Lc)
re)
00
00
M
r-.
CV
_c
4-)
4-)
cD^. E 4- CI.
C I:1 (0
cl) CI) SJ Ca CI
RESEARCH VESSEL
300.-0" x 54'-0" x 28'-0"
OUTBOARD PROFILE
LARGE GENERAL PURPOSEOCEANOGRAPH ICRESEARCHSHIP
CU
Ea
=
4-)
cm
Y
y
1
1
1
53
Jo hn G ilbert Assoc iates
LARGE GEN ERAL PURPOSE RESEARCH&GEOPHYS ICAL SH IP
1
C•J C\I
r-Ln
corn
•-•
=
0- 1:1
On C.) --J --1 CO
•
1■•1
0
1/1
oes
_Ne
4-1 S..
4-) 0
f >-
LI 3
C a)
a)
O
CC
,--I
0.)
LA
Ul
s
I
Is
II
a)
Q)
>
cl..
=
c.) .c
1.4
C ()
0
0
0 0
01 4-J
(i)
14.4 ca $-+
0 $4 10
Z (1)
Z r0 En
CP - 0
• rsi 43 a
(1)
Q)
GI
E
C.)
-P-I
s.-1 4
r'CJ 04
ai (t
L.
" W
CTI
O
Z
Ili
CU
C.)
O
• I
‹C
0
-J
V1 0 •.4-1 s.- 4)
g/1
C C 4-) CU
CY)
01
o ...)c c.)
c \I
cu 0
I—
4..)
Lo - V1
ci_ 4- 4- -1 •-■ LJ-1
Cr3
1.0
....1 CD 'JD cf)
r''' Cs4
4_)
Lt)
f....
CV
so .-+ co • • a)
c•-) -ta U.1
Cs.1 CU CU
CU •,- 4-)
a0 C
V)
CD
..
E
_o
cu
4-) • • 4-> ,-- tf) S. ,o) E E4-- ca.,- a) 0_
C MS ft1 V) = 3 E
cu a) S. •,- s_ 0 0
__I co c3 ca c...) o_ (...)
54
MAIN DECK
SHELTEROK
E 0- +-)
.•
'cr O ^Lf)
QUARTERS
C)
CU
CU
0.1
In CU SC") CU 0_
INBOARDPROFILE
S.
LAD .sPA c i1
U
U
(-et ("\J
a
0
U
C 3 E
L (1) o o
U a (._)
O
•
•
co 4-) 4-) I--
C \J 4- 4- -I
OPEN DE C K
C N.1
(
- A RR AN G E ME N TS
U
O
C
-4
C = C
.4_.)
Lel at
0 0
C O O U
-).G LI) 0 V)
Q
C.•
w
U
-
tr)
co
0
4-
•
C ONCEPT
2 12'
IWLRESEACN wE SSEL
UNIV ERSITIYOFCALIFORNIA, SA N DIEG O
SCRIPPS1NSTMJTIONOFOCEANOGRAPHY
Cg
0
cr LI) CC)
L--■
- J
ct
-
\
CNJ
••••I
C's4
•
-C
4-)
4-) r—
C") E 4- CL
C ft3 r0 f./1
CU 0) 5- •,- J CO 0 C*5
l
illikinumh.enummuillIMIMIIM111111111111111MF
R/V FRANKLIN (CSIRO, Australia)
Length:
LOA 181 ft.; LBP 159 ft.
Beam:
39 ft.
Draft:
12.5 ft.
Disp.:
Speed:
13 knots
Power:
Single Screw CP: Diesel 2,100 HP
Complement:
13 Crew; 12 Science
56
a.
;r
2 CU
,,-,
c) ,,,
of
,,,
4,.,-
.,:r
O
-J
0
.1.2, 3 :::('5
•s
•s
CL un .--s cn
t2
co
---I
CV
M
CV
_., f.-! :
L
I!
O
1
eV LS)
r-6
CU
CU V) • •
CU CD 4-)
Un
a- .(.0) a)
E
•• •• CI) •• CU ••
..0
4-) • • 4-s r•- Li) S- •-• CU
CT) = 4- (Cs. am- cy a_ cn
c as ro v) = 3 E C
T.) (2, LE)(II
7
2
3 g
POLARSTERN
0.,r
L
L
1
58
..0
4-,
4-.
I-I
0 CD
U CD
CD 0
1.11
X
Cl)
.7
.0
a)
a)
•
CI g 40
V)
Cl) 3
C
CD
—I CO A A C') 0C1 1
-
Comp lement: 41 crew; 40 science; 25 passengers
Tw in screw
kts.max.
15.5
approx. 11,000 tons
ft.
LOA337ft; LBP 335
▪
•-
N
CO CO
CC
4.• a)
0 444 0 41 44 44
144 44 44 44
les I"
al
N
Q. .4 .4 0. 11.
.4 •••••••■
co
w N.
,i, vID
0 ON
ca co
•VD 0 C
N. 0 0
en
.4
%
4) CO
W 0 >
0 • . 0
4-• in i., 0
41 04 CA 0
CO
4) K = in
• el
N
0 04 =
N
un
N
U .-..
CI) 4)
0 ',el
0. P.
U
el .....
Le) 0
..4 "1
.. 4.
a) 04 A
CO 0 CD P4
(1)
14 =
• .4 0 () &I
p. %
=
0 X
0 0 r„A
.4 .4 itl. 11. 11.
MOM
A. a
WOE>.
CIS
"•••••••••••
N el
02CA
c, c
0
0 AO
CO •••••. 0
CD C) C = C
CD CD 0 7 0
r4 rl
nO
=
CD
0 .7' CD CD
05 0
. .
V.
ftWO
W 1•+O
14
00 ..
.-4 . ,0
0 W 0 ..1'
w 5 ..-,
0
■en
4...4
C.., '"' 01
In
--co
0 = C
0 N 0
ie. z.
to
0
M .4
(.1 0 • II CO
mo40
4.1 ea 4-1
•44 144 li4
re CT 0 LI
= 14 CU
C 10 0..
co ice
0 0
0 0
E. }.4 0 0 0
CLIW W
N
N
en
.......
on CD
0.1. .4
C) rl ..1 oD Cm Ch
CD N. un .4
WT
• 0 10
,..0 .4 .. I,.
.. .4 .O
al. •-i.
0 0 0 0 0 4.1
44 44 114 44 4.4 44
1" In
• •
U 01
4.1 0 ..
0 0 .14 CO
0 CI El l>,
tilA t.4
A7
CD nv
0 0
LI ("1 1.1 U 0
4)
0 Ili
4.4 in ao an .-1 •-■
r■ un
N
CO
0 CO a)
u
olcAUW
W
a
CO
1:1
a
co es 0 CO
CO es, 0 0
••••1 ,0 0.. 0
. . .
1" .4 Cr.
1.4 .4
0
a; 0 4.4
44 44 44
N.
-... wc sin
W OD
0 0 04
0 0 en
'0
0
Cr Cr Cr U
c0 IA c0 II
U
rl .7 VD CO
Cr% 0 r. c
m
C
41
O.
CL.
in 4-4 co =
. . .
in ...t
=
en
Vi
CL1
CO 03 CO CO CO
= 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
F F F Fi F
0
ar A.) ..) ..) c r.
‘).. 44 44 44 00
4= in 03 ...1 • •
•
I Xi
..•.
en
is- 40
N Ch
N
r4
..
CO
CP
.4
0 0 • ■ 0
.6.) 44 la P•
0 00.0
04 CM CD
C) CD CD C) CD
('5 1 ...7 CD N
en Do 0 1.... N.
.
O
co .-.
0
m
0 OD
co .. •.4 C)
.4 C•4 .) ID
.-1
A
C13
).)
4.J •••• 4J .1
,0
44 44 44
000
0 •••
• ■C)
.w4
VI
•-c • •• X
.4 1,4
•••• a) 0
N
00
a' cr cr to
COMM
e4
N
0 00 0
co")
000
I" WI N N
. . - C)
N. N. o4 .4
o C CD
CD = o'l
4, 0 .
en e) ..-1
cr,
K
44 44
co coCA4040
c0 AA co
...J 4A W
0 OCOG
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 44 44 44
(.4 (.4 (4 1.4 (.4
N.
N. .4 C4
•
is. r.
4
.4
4
0 C •.1 PN
OA
.4 .4
-4
•
ch 41
0 0% vt N
.4 en N. un .4
en en
00.13053
tc4 ►
=
Z
CICIPGI.-1 ."
00000
11
no %
0
0
-.
) "
c.) 4)
co
r4 4t Os 0
VD r4 N. .14
0
•-•
. 0.0%.
-0 1 .-■
4-1
U
U
UUU
0" 0,' 0 1M
U
40
C ".... =
tO
C
CO c0 CO
C0C
0 0 0 CO
0 0 0 .4
0
=
0
WO.
a
a)
a
0 04
F 0 0
0 1.0
1.0
010
...
0 1" 0
en
C4
..
0
M
el
0
01
0.
=
o)
0 0 4.1
44 44 4-1
14
COMO
.4 kid
un
a) a .1
=
0
u
C.)
0. (7. cr .-)
0 0 CO
c;) .-4
E
C0
10 1.1 10)
U 0 • .4 iN
0060
a a
nn
N. h.
OA
0
41 CS
.6, 1.■ 4-1
144 114 I•4
3
0
.,
LD ii, m
O
W
04
MI
0
VO
to in
•.
0 el
•
co1.0
0 14
co co v
co
0 0
44 44
0 KKK
--. --. ... --. cA c:,
u4
0 • .
en
C4
..
CA
N 43
H
0 4-,
un un
N
Pc
N
..4
".... --...
on
CD
0 un
.4 .4 .
os. ce.4-. id- cn
N el
• ••,
.-. C
W
0 A
...1
0
..4 C•1
114 a•.130
N 0
r-
N -4 un .4
L.)
Ls
.
1 ..I:: CO
cA
..4
0 >
0 0 0
N
NAV SEAAGM
C*.
r•I N
-...•••••
vD .0
e4 en
CD CD
cp. L.2 (.4‘,0
. . .
rn on .4
C)
LL
•.
0
W d) X
,-)
)2) a
)3
14 =
=
a)
a
ea to 0 1
a) a) CI)
an
a a a. in
000
. . .
0 0 0 0
st el 0
1
0
C.4
4,1
CO
a)
fa.
Go
w
,Ac
V
0
01
IrZ)
0
= 4-1
0/ 0
0 10
0 E
4.1 w
0
0 0
•-) 0
..K I.
.-•
..1
•0 I. a)
to o 4-1
N
CI, •-I
.9 Do
co Ca.
.o.1 M
4-1 4.1
4.1
N •
.-, 0 0
CLI 1:4 • •-•'
40
95
co
0
1'.
44
0
0
03 0
AN
0
P.
0 a-)
).. 0
00
61 .1.1
.c:1 co At
.61 (1)
10 ••••••
01 0 A • • A.) PJ
W
N
•
0.$4
0
al
.6.4 17::
0 • 1.1
iLl • I-I
0 CY CO CO
0.
.0 1.
.. P.•
c0 t)
0 --- •-+
0
..g73.3Nk*Z1.0.4..t.°4tu'
.4gcztt,a7.,7.,
la
.2
1..2 ° VI trcg t '•;,,
► 41
CI $4 7
$, . 6 ..
•
•
a) -4 ag 0
3 3 .f ct & 4:: .
10;1 e. e. g4 A .441 12 c1. 12 a 0 c'.5 g4 :;11
4:
.1
u
a .0 .0 N - CI Zi
`13 3 .4: ti 0 VI
0 4J 4J . 4.1 40 .10 •• 4J
•.1 OD *0 IS 44 a) a) 0 = .-) .-. gal „II - .?2, It .;
• , , . 0, a) tv e+ eo •-■ eu •-■ co
oc a = -a
0
X
o+
A4
w
01
59
4.01 000
110
El W
0 w
•0
.-1
C
4.4
44
A
0.
=
I.
a)
a
0
ac•
0.1
.0 W al
a,
W
l.
0 .0
••
le
44
0
w
co .es i• 0
I. co ••
wtoul.K 00 1:
.0 (1)
CO
IA 14 OD 14 •
P. 0
CD D•• gh r 0.4 ...t 0 0 0
a 1.1
• .4 4J Ili
1.4 0 O..
• so 1..• .0 ,ao ca a
44
O 14 1-1 4. v al o M 14
0 al IA
.4 0 a) so
0: o)
a.) - s., .-1 43 &.,
0 "4
" CO ) 04 (14
.., , 0 "
to s-. 00
A
A
N E.
u •
0 0
v.. ... . ,..
•
4.1
al x u e
0 ao 0 w .co
...) u •,-4
•
:c 4,-14.)=...p.,
a
0 a)
u
0 01
0 11)
•••1 •••4
1./ il
4.) cra
E oo
A.) 0
• ...1
0 5:1
0 0
0 ••0
L.
•
w
0
4.1 ICI
4_,. .
u
0
X
E.
0
F.
0
C c
0
i. E. t.. F. t..
0 CON
O. O.
Mv1 ..
C4
.0 .-.1 ,-.1 .4 ...1
N CD .4 CD ./
0 0, an VD 0
CO,4 •• 4)
I-I CV
N.
ce
x
(11 •r-4.4 v3
/41
OL PC .1.'
C00
N.
Lt-■ ...1 is. 0
IL
•-4 en4 ,11
LI
co
0 0
p,
0 0 00
447 L Y 441
ga. {A. gr. km O. Cu
N.
•..1
Ie 04
co
CO
olcolnoar0
oc
0.r,
0 o X >,
..• •-■
.0 CO
...• cmi
...... ......
O 0
CV
441U 0
01
P.
21
0
CO
iK
CO CO
•A440.1co
C)
in
•-v ,r)
o.) ..
.4 eV
01
Lt.%
O.
0
nt
c0
v) CD
z
Cc)0
CO.
1,4
.- 00
Z Lr)
1.4
Z
CV. r
0
•^
• 4.4
go. w tv.
CA
••4
CV CA
CO
N
o)
ro
4.1
O o3-.
Cu•
CO
CO 40 CO 40
C0000
0 0 0 0
..•
OF
CV•• • ?
LC)
4. •••.. •••••
CO
.
.4 CO
PC 0 X >,
F
C
Uu
44) 0
a. D.
co a
a
V7 CX 0 A
•
-1
0 0, ‘r,
In -0 as
Lc*,r•••
.1' N.N.
C 0
7
...,7.......
-.1' -.0' v-, co
•-41 Li04 44
N.
C•1
CV CVtrt
-..
L. ROSENBLA TT
LI CV
1-1CO0
C 0)U i.)01C.)41
44
D. a. D.
N. CO CO CO
•• C 0 c
0.,
00=
-.
COC CO0 0 0C
O00c.10
F F t•-• CD I.
a.
CO
(J 4.4 441
fp a. a. Pp a. a.
0 40 CO CO
M tin
a .-.1 a co a
C
0 el N. 0 fc)
.-I
-3' CO cm
...7..en.. v,
--.
ro
CO --.
--- •-■
44.
4-1 v")
CV
•4V4
042 1:14=
4.)u tl.,2 O. 00
Dc
CO ) r CV CV v.g
,--, 0 w cn
N. N.
0.1 kr, le
..0 U 0
--, X co 0
a, so
44,
cr Cr CC
CO CO
u u
4. O. 4.
CO
• ••• • •• 0
41•1
cm
. 0 el
U
•14..■ 04 ) tl.
u
wX
cr,
.-4II(1) 0101
IA o3
C-14. 0
•-••I •-•K 0100
CP w
0 0..
co
0
0 PC
Cl') n
N.
0
CD
(I)04 CO •C•4 ,c1•• 1=40
40
en crl
.0
•",)
C.)
0 cn ../
4.) VI 1-1 •••
00 en
clJ0 0
cc
•CM41 CO
C.) • .4
CO
U
Cca0
4-1 LI L
(_)
toco
CA 40
•- .-• ..0
ff)
o C
CO
• •• .
CV VI CV
0 0
40ILZ
in
-4
CM
I
N.
...
O.
V7 VD 0
11,
C) C.,
0 N. CO
-1 .0 e4
ai tp, Pi
a• a• cr
CO CO co
-.1 ei CO en
-* --1 •-,
•
Z
Uw
.40.
Z
,r,
N.
44..
a
..
I
C.)
u)
ce,
co
.4
•.
ILC IL
O
10 co (0
O00 00
O
F 1-, F u
rcl
▪ 1.1 4.1
4.1
to.
LL
O
0
••IC
00 L000CO
tiL 0 "-4 0,
0 •.4 CO
,r)PCZCID
CU 0.1
..-3 ,-,7 .4 a. c
a0
.r10
fo. w to.
CO .0 N. d
CD Co en .4
N. -e
t•-•
u
•..1
co
a.)
-e 0 CD ul
--• 0 .4
0
CO
0 0 Z
N. un C3 7
CT
lc) c•-,
...
La
)
C.)
0••-,44WU =
ice
co
a co
•-4
W0
a, -. 0
=
b4
-., or
0
=
•-00
•CV44 • 44
0)
1.
Cr')
441......„L1
L1
......
.-, 0
N. CV
a)CC
01 0
to
cr a•• o"
co CO co
N. 0 Li'l 0
N.
0 CV
^ .
LI CV
0
Z v-,
- 0
mD
M
.-1
.en
4.4.
441Cc.
4-1C4.
4-1
444
C4=
0
4,-,
-. 0 Cl')
VD
Co
...
...,
o
Z
X
en
...1
cO
O
V)
e
0
.
CO 4-4a,
444AJ IL
0 CO
O030
••■
S
O000 I COi
• ca m 03 CO
O 0CC
0
4.4 • r.) CO
O 0 X P-•
u 41
u
O. VC 0 2
O.
40
C
O.)
I.
03
0
0, D.
CV
C ---0 v.,
CVI
m
0
co
c= -T
0 0
.--1 .. Li-)
CV
LI
-
a,
0
L.J.J
„,„
4.0+1
)
"0CO
0
01 0
6
-.
ww
U 0)c) CO
404)
cu
..g
a 0 44,
3 3, CO
CO
te 0
; «S
•g
O
.. M
1,4 1,
..
--•i •
4., 4.1
1. Pp
-. a a
a,
•-•
7
.
0
•• 0>cc• a., t.
CO
.
o
O
.0 ,...
-c
p,-JD
0 ...,
•,..1 00 ofl 6 ,P, w
C
0 co 0)
.% A%
A' ,t
O.
0
44
D. •-•
04
0. 1.I CI
4,
! CO CO 0 61
0 tiC
00 .-0 Co. 4. cr0 0
g
a..■ cn
CO C.,
•C) 00
44, U4)
0ciW
cl, C al 0
0 0. • -•
7 7 7
CO
CO CO
C 0C
co
al -.... • ..
14
W
) CU
Si a
00
P. 1...
rr: a.
U
C
4., • -•
1. u
U
u
. 81
ar
60
0
•• 0•-■
• • co
ocol.coc
■••• X C.) A4 GO
0.
C...0 2
Illn ,--,
I, 0
0
le
0.,
0
)
Ilt
.4 0..
0) ;
C1
•:
a,
4., al
•0• N
Pi • -, w
a •cc, U
K 0 0 •0
C_)
co
CO
€0
...,,
C
011
....
0
..400 00 0
0
COCO
000
o
4
M..CV•• v1•• .
v.,
0 •••••
•,-I 00 7
-.
7
Cr 7
CO CO C.)
CO0
•• .•-) 41
10 CO N
0)01•e.'7 0>,
••
to -c •-■
01 CU CU
P. 0. 0.
0
C
a•
uuu
U
co
O.
0
0
•17 al tO
••-,
V * 0 10
•
..c a ,-, X
•3 .45 u 0
L 00 ••-• 0) • •-•tI.J a,•.
4..znuo,
• ...■
me
•0.4 C
m •.e
0 •-i
2 01 ce 00
.0 •-I 1.
7
le
a,
0 4,..
le •
Cr r..■
00
0
0
•0
44 ci.
0)
••
a
0o
>,-.
6
C
u
D.
0
CV
CO
M
C-D
iu
+4 ai44 441
444
le
X
0
'0 I.
Cr
0
C.4 IV
14
w
.2 :11 4
4' rO°
4.)
be 3 .'z' 00 18
:► ,.. .0 ..;',' CO;'
t 0 .! ',5 w
u .j
00 ; 0.1
1-' 11
4
41 ll.' •-•
U
C
U L'' .1.; ..t
0V0414)
4J
Z F al V,
...i
g
: a
<0 vC
pi
CI
4'.
Z.', . V' •
O
1
41 e' 'Clj
T'ae+c•Stiiic
.0 .0
V
CO (44
•••4
•1+44.1414
pi
ai
4)
p
i 1:
'i
';', ..L;
A U
to ... r
lO
°
.C 1.04
01t 8• 4Um
LI
LI
I-I
J•A II
•
PO
X
•••?
0
a..
•cC
at
44 44 44 44 4. 44 44 U4
44 44 44 44
o .7
• •
N. .4 N. N- N c) gO CI
O. N. O. O. cr, C4 .. 4D
4..-1
u•N
•
N. cf. W1 In
.. C4 N. ^.
.-4 .4 .4 .4
cc
ca
. c
.
.
.
ca
. 0
a) •
co DI 4) u
•••I 4J •-'41
0 0 •• a.
0 0 El 0
adaL
0
0 0
,
1 C4 CD
.-e .-I .0
.
UOUUUUOU
a) E. w eu a) ao E. w
ea
a. a• a. a.
a.
0.-100u10.-405
00000
0
00 0000rI0
..?
0
....
co
cf)
C-
.1.1 .1.4)
4.1
44 44 4. 44 4.044
CV
N. 0.
4:1
. 0
.0 el •00e•••100 c•I
4 N 4 4 cs• N 0.0
N N N. N.
0 44
<
§ co
in
CO
O
O
• E.
4a
44 44 • 44
U
crt
.4 vn
•
N tr.% ...) 1,1
.-1N14.1.4
crs
•
In
N
X
•
a) a••c U.) ...) ..) 4J 6 .6
44 44 a, 44 44 44 4) 44
0.
P.
M sr) ca PI N. PI CO .0
en 4. 0 en co N. 0 .D
en N 0 .1
Z
en
.
. .
U U U U
CO
0
0
I-•
P.
P.
••
C.)
66
U
4) 0
0 C.) 3
0. 0. •-• .4 al op
W
1. C.
WO
0 OBW
1 .. 0 AD
0 C
0.
0 0
tx ix 0 o
0 0
•-• 34 co .
C1.1 ad
■r%
•••••••so NCC
0) 0 el trl m0 0
.....I •
CV en
W I••• 44
... .. 3)
CO
fo .... .....
CO
01
co al .. .
..., ..) --1 u
U
6 LI
.1.1
4.w 41 44
0
0 ...1• 0 ...1
.4 C4 C N
N
41).
6
4.4 •./ 4J 44
4. 4. 44
6
tri al
a. CT GP VI O.
cacocax 0
u", 0
•0
00 CI • 0
0 0 0 N
N. In ON .04
. .
X X .
-0' •-.1' u
4)
.. ... 0.
4.1 4) 0
C 0 0
C C 0
0 0
0 ,••■
X
•-■
fel
0
4 0
COMM
40 CO CO
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
F f•-• F .
E-.F.I.-.
U
,-.1 " "1 a) ai ...) "I "1
O.0
N CO col ca 0 N CO (.1
Wn en CO 0 0d .4 .0
...1. ....t
Ln 0 N 0
C../)
4., .
44 U
a)
.0 O.
0 CI 0 0.-10
-- --- --.. 4.- X 0
0 0 0 0 ,0 7
•••1
U
N X a)
-4 -4 0.
co
•-• •-• 0
w eu 0
CC
0 0
0 0
0 0
X
-..I
a) •^3 eu w w • .-1 4)
0.
0. a. 0. 0.
0.
41) 0 0 co co 0 0' (I)
0O 0 0 0 00 0
0400000,70
.
c.-1
-
•u
0.1
3
.. C-1 4, lin
4.1 .0 1. N
U
0
1
•-, - co a) 3
...1
CO ad C
w Ca ..-I
.. •0 3
CI CO 0
4
cn
1.4
44
• .
0 0
0 0
0. 0.
• 0
0 c
0 0
----.0,cD
N .1
•
CD U
WW
a. a.
mm
e a
0 0
a.
0.
c..)
01001
4, IJ 0 co
0 0 •-• 0, C") 0
0 0...43
.-.N
-•••• ---..
54 as B 0
le1 In
N. 00 en
N. VI
• • 0 V'.
N. cr, CI
.4 .. .
."
ri 1,1 ..
.4
c:E
/4
N
3
•-•
P.
=
a)
to
cr,
01
3
• .4
W0
CD ••• 1.• 0
P. u tr)
no = al ^
as
a)
14 0 C
0 0 •••1
a) 0 3
c.D •‘) a)
a4
o
0
cio EU :_.
""
C C
0 0 ,,.
Co r•-■
4-1
. ■:. ,t,
6
U
4) CU
Cr Cr Cr 0 0.
a) a) al 0 CO
In
0 0
.0 0 a‘-1
0
er) -4 vn
cps co un
. . ••
et ..r, CV
a)
0.
CO
0
0
C/)
1..1..1
4.4
*
4../
4.) * 0 4, 44 44 . 4.1
44 CA 4. 44 44
04.
cd1 al
CD
o. 0. al
N
.....
.-... W •
4.1 0
4, 1•••
0 4. •7 00 44 On
-. N. o./1
N.
LD
CC
..4
_I
co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E. E. E. E-, 4.. E. I. 1.
.3 .-1 1.3 .3 •-.1 .3 .3 .-3
01 CO CO
A.) ..) 41 0
0 o ^• a-,
0 0 ...4 M
bOa401:1
IC C) CD 0 CD es CD
..t.t cri CO Un 4 1•1 CO O.
0
N. 4D
4.
• •
...
* * * 0
40 In 01 4D
.... •-, 0
..0
0 ••
...■ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,n In WI
• • •
In In In In
.. .4 .4 ..
.0
,...,
.7./1
.4
00)01474040400
.1c 4c ie •le
4.4 4.1 WI A.+
44 44 44 4.
.0 .0 sO VD
C4 C4 CA C.4
.......................
1./ 4.1 4./ 4)
44 44 4. 44
4.1
CC
.. C4
.....
.. ..
- --...
el CD
N. C.)
•4
0
N.
N
el
"l
co
U1 40
•.
w
.7 ..4
0
a.
.4.. •Cl
CO
CO
U
CU c4 3
4-. C.) W0
II CC 1..• 0
I . • U 0
e. 3 CO •
'0
004
43 0 0
41 0 ..
•....-■ 3
01 •••• 4.4
0..
X>
=
0
CD
.
te'l
X 04 01
- C 0.
0 •
e4 0 0
41
7
.61 4J IJ 4)
4. 4. 4. 44
co
0
0
7
4.4
Cr Cr Cr 0 W
co co CO 01 C
x o
.7 0 sta AO 0
u-, N. In r.
■7 .4 vn
- - ....? crl C4
O
LL
co co rj
4.0 4.1 .4 m
0 0 ...4 7,
C 0 B al
••0 0
u u
no
•••• N
...........
0
WI Lr)
In 0 0 0
• • 4 4 N cn
.0 In .
4-. •-• .-.
.-,
'A A A A ; 'A A A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-.1.1-.1.1.1-■ 1-.E..
0.1 I.1 14 .../ "4 "1 " "
.0 CO CO CO
... C•4 ... ...
fel
- . cr, Le+ 0
N
r-1 .0 0
.4 CO CO .00' On el 0
os ••7 CO
en .-..
• •
•■.I
O 0•330c4c0c0 41
O 0000000
NI
t
01
CO
0 4.) ••4 >,
cuolaca
0. 0
"0
4)h40
C 0 cr,
0 cr, 0 .4
U
comeacamoow
0.
00000004)
C
O
00 10 01
0000
•
-• .
0
...
B
14
. /4
U 0)
a)a.
0.
co C-.1
0 -...
7•n
en
a) c„, w N
) Cl) U0
a) M
0 Y C
W Lr) ..t
• el N 3
0 ON .1
•
U
a)
Ct.
co
0
0
44 4. 44 4,
44
Cr Cr Cr
CO a) m0 a)
N.
e") C
r1 0 0 X 0
•-. 0 co 1.1-1 C
en 0 -4 •-•
• • .
1 C4 C4
I
X
N
3
44 ha
4, 0
eu 00
•,-1 0 0
4*
o
0
.0
el
•-• ..• co •
un
co
--..
C
$16,840,000
...• ..o .., ..)
4. 4. M... 44
........
4. 4. 4. 4. 44 44 4. 4.
VI
•
N CO CO N kro■ .4 0, r-.
....t .--, •-• .4 0, IN .4 N.
N. C4 C4 C4
P.
CO
Cr.
.0
•.
1 4)
-4 0,
.14
... W
0
U .0
CO
0
3
•-• Ix a) N.
-•
4./ 441 *I
44 44 14.1 .1.1
44
Cr Cr 0
00004)
In
el C
000%0
0 0 0 cr, C
0 0 O -•
0 0 •
-... -... -,
0 0 C
u
w
0.
co
0
0
-4 -4 0
N
0
c.■
LD
C.r)
...,
_.,
-I
LLJ
1:=1
CO
4./ v
e..) ca
ell 0
4. >,
el) 6
U 01
al •
ca U
..., ---. a.
... co
CO CO
0...
0 0 0
CO O.
•••, 0 0
•. ci)
I. .-. 0 •..1
CZ • .
w ca ...4 • --,
0 0 4.1 17I 7. to 40
O.
.0 al
0 • .4 14
4-1
c ...,
w0
••
.0
3
Ca
14 .0
a
0) CD 4-,
MI
••■•• al
0 a. ob
Ca ,.. 0>
•-• • .4 a. C
QW
0
.-4 0 ..0
'
170. .11: Z 3
4.4 00 ea
.-1
1. 4)
C
0 .... .0 •-• • •• *4 •••■ CO
...%
U
CU
.X CO
Cl
al •-•.
0
._, ,
CV 44
o
B
0
Ew
ow
0...
oa
0 0
0
...
W 4.4
";) a) 01
0 cn
0 • r.I 7...
CO ......
4) 0 0 " *1 a)
a. 1.. Cl 40 03 01
4/1 0
0 •••••• ...
C
••
C
:;''7,:,
CI) 3 ",,•',,t xg 'Z'l co.. 2.2 `,!") .2
0=.
8 f -2 3 w •-7' .7 `4 '4 . I. t `4), - u. ''' 2 ; : g f ° N. -,, w :! m - r."
. . C>
D ;
4
t'07 gu!?-, Q.
'4 ...g0fo'r?•
• A CI) .14<
Q.
MI 0 -.... ca
0 al .0 0 0 t,. It 0.1 -..7 cc
•el 00 00
w 6 ,.... 4.. ". a• ... o cu t=1 • .0 •-• -. co
1. w 3 i
• -4 to 0
a c c x 3 co ca m --. 0.1 ...0 M C.)
0 00 ... W 4, al 0 •. 0
X 0 0 "0
1 3
•A
CI
3 2 3 at E3' t, a ,71'
11.1
...,
X
g e. g ,t 41 Z4
3 w 4) a.
4) .... • 0
• &
!w 1 t g gu6' 44 :g
6.,
0
4/
10
61
41 A
P.
O. =
a)
6.1
a
a, A
4.1
4)
1. 0
"
I. 0
CO
.0 a) I co 10 < 00
00
0
0
.0
al
.0 0
0 1 00 1.
•••1
a.
4) 0
0
4) 0. 10 Sh-1
•.4 0 e. 41
at
Q. a...
0 4-1 .0 .0 c0 ^. A
0 ea
c.) 14 0 0 1.,
0 1. E.
.1003 00
= 4)
0cul.
-$.....411w
3 u 1.0
..)034,43
cl.)•-•
0 C1)41
al.ata.x 4)...)1.
4.004)
as i. no CA X 0 6 .••■ t• . ) •. 0 1.,
0 • e o w u 0, Ca
cn E-■
*0 V Z E. 0 cn c..)
..
V
U
IX
1-4
1.4
CU
3
0
.... . 0, f-, •
"
.c ..=
).)
a
C.) 4)
U
0 0
0 0
••••• ••••1
_y
1.■ In
e.
J.10
m •-■
0 "0
0 0
0 "'
0
•M
../
0
00
NI
Appendix VII
December 6, 1985
UNOLS SPECIAL FACILITIES COMMITTEE
Report of Meeting of December 5, 1985 at the UCAR Walter Orr Boardroom
Present at the meeting were:
Alan Robinson
Ferris Webster
Curt Collins
Dale Haidvogel
Brian Lewis, Chairman
The committee considered non-traditional facilities that are, or will
be, of significant importance to oceanography, and the role UNOLS might
play in their situation, management or coordination.
Three major facilities issues were addressed:
1. Multichannel seismic systems,
2. Satellite data and instrumentation, and
3. Supercomputers.
The following conclusions were reached:
1.
Multichannel seismic systems are being considered by NORPO
under the auspices of JOI and NSF. UNOLS will play a role in
the scheduling of UNOLS ships involved in this work, but no
immediate action is required by UNOLS.
2.
The dissemination and use of satellite data by the
oceanographic community is being considered by the Satellite
ocean data system working group (SODS WOG) chaired by Dr.
Jim Baker under the auspices of JOI, Inc.
This group has
broad membership and it is not necessary for UNOLS to
duplicate its function.
However, it is important that UNOLS
be kept actively advised of SODS WOG activities, preferably
by regular briefings.
It is felt that the oceanographic community also has adequate
participation in the specification of instrumentation to go
in satellites:
UNOLS would help by lobbying for particular
missions.
3.
Supercomputing:
The committee felt that the oceanographic
community is presently poorly represented in terms of
defining access to supercomputers, specification of needs,
and dissemination of information.
It is urgent that
something be done and UNOLS could play an important role to
alleviate these three deficiencies. The committee recommends
that a special UNOLS committee on Oceanographic Access to
Supercomputers be established. The mandate of this committee
should be to: coordinate and disseminate information to the
62
oceanographic community on supercomputers, define
communication links between oceanographic institutions and
supercomputer sites that will meet the needs of oceanographic
scientists, identify hardware/software that will allow these
To facilitate its work, the committee
needs to be met.
should have a full-time scientist/employee (preferably
located at NCAR) who will execute the recommendations of the
If requested, we can suggest members of this
committee.
committee and the scientist/employee.
Appendix VIII
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET SCHEDULE
Prior Law
Action
End of Jan.
President submits budget
CBO rept to Budget Cmtes on fiscal policy
April 1
and economic priorities
Committees submit reports and estimates
March 15
to Budget Committees
Senate Budget Committee reports budget
April 15
resolution to floor
Congress completes action on budget
May 15
resolution
House Appropriations Committee reports
last regular appropriation bill
Congress completes action on reconciliation bill
Sept 25
House completes action on regular appropriation bills
Week after
Labor Day
"Snapshot" of economic indicators, laws
affecting spending and revenues, and
projected deficit taken by CBO & OMB
CBO and OMB report to GAO on deficit
and content of sequester order making
automatic spending cuts to meet deficit
target
GAO forwards report to President
President issues sequester order
Fiscal year begins
Oct 1
CBO and OMB issue revised reports reflecting additional Congressional action
GAO issues revised report to President
Final sequester order becomes effective...
GAO issues compliance report on sequester
order
64
PL99-177
Early Jan.
Feb. 15
Feb. 25
April 1
April 15
June 10
June 15
June 30
Aug 15
Aug 20
Aug 25
Sept 1
Oct 1
Oct 5
Oct 10
Oct 15
Nov 15
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising